SO, when I read The Tipping Point, my mind automatically went to the places of
social media, and many of the principles I am semi-obsessed with that concern
the forming of online communities and the voices/power that those communities
hold. I particularly think that The Three Rules of Epidemics apply to the
social world. But more importantly, I think that there are many comparable
ideas in the theory of Human 1.0, which explains that modern business practices
force humans to act in inherently unnatural ways, and that the Internet has
allowed consumers in the present day to form tribes, just as our ancestors did.
Subsequently, business practices have changed, and managers, not only of for
profit companies, but also of non-profits, would be wise to take note.
Understanding some of the following
comparable principles will help the next generation of arts managers (and
current generation, if they’re smart) to understand their constituents,
communicate in a reciprocal manner with them, and use communities to their
advantage in terms of spreading the word and “marketing” (whatever that word
means these days).
|
The Tipping Point
|
Human 1.0
|
|
Connectors: People who have lots
of in lots of places. They can make connections happen that might never have
happened without their existence in multiple realms. (The CEO who is a closet
artist and only drinks in dive bars).
|
Communication is now many-to-many,
not one-to-one. Instead of being the sole purveyor of information, we can
identify people like connectors, develop relationships with them, and
disseminate information to their various tribes.
|
|
Mavens: People who like to help
other people by making them informed. (That’s me. I get this great joy from
leaving restaurant reviews on Urban Spoon. ALL THE TIME. I’m always honest.)
|
Tribes are based on social
contracts. So the maven in the tribe will not endorse any sort of product,
show, whatever, within the tribe if it’s sub-par. However, if the show is
super, she’ll be SURE to spread the word, and to spread it with her crew
FIRST, or else she’s breaking the contract.
|
|
Salesmen: People that are
persuasive.
|
This is the chief. Duh. But also
influencers. Influencers not only have a lot of connections, they have GOOD
connections. They talk and people listen. You want to be friends with these
people.
|
I’ve broken these things down into
extremely simplistic terms, but I think that understanding the most basic
social interactions of these tribes is [part of] the future of marketing. Identifying
who the connectors, mavens, and salesmen are, and figuring out how they can
communicate with their tribes, crews, flocks, whatevs is really important. Your
own constituents can be one of your greatest tools.
People no longer listen to organizations
who declare that you want and need
their product. The likes of Nestle and Domino’s have been brought down off
their pedestals by The Man, and are now focused on interacting with customers
in a more bottom-up manner.
I hope I make sense here. I get all
excited about this stuff, and information just starts spewing out of me unintelligibly.
I don’t have any specific questions, but please do share your thoughts. Agree,
disagree, respond away.
I personally believe that the complexity of human relationships cannot be simplified in more than a stereotypical sense, yet the trends that Gladwell sees are semi-legitimate because we can connect them to examples in our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteThe Tipping Point lacks a road map in 2013 culture of how to utilize these social personas to increase market share of a product like a play or museum exhibition. (I didn’t actually expect it to provide such useful information though) This is an opportunity for this generation of leaders to make an impact.
Personally, I am pessimistic in seeing how this information can help marketing campaigns, and the “bottom-up” approach Elyssa spoke of is most effective in smaller organizations not larger companies.
An interesting counter-point to Gladwell is Jonah Berger and his book Contagious. Read a whole article about him from this March here:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/174/jonah-berger-versus-malcolm-gladwell
I am not convinced that the three rules of epidemics are any more relevant in the online social media sphere than they are in real life, and I think they might be less relevant. In this many-to-many communication model, are the roles of connectors and mavens more or less relevant than they are in a traditional communication model? I also share Stephanie's skepticism about the utility of these ideas in the world of corporate marketing. I think that Gladwell's ideas are very compelling, and I quite like thinking about them, but I agree that an application of his theory for the arts marketer is not immediately apparent (except that he reinforces the need to network and pay attention to what the cool kids are doing).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kate on this one. I think for Gladwell's ideas to apply to an arts marketer, he or she must view their potential market, or community at large, is through an anthropological/sociological lens. I am still skeptical of how Gladwell's theories can apply in the real world, though, probably because I've never met a marketer who thinks the way he does (and maybe that's a bad thing).
DeleteI also agree with Kate about the application of these theories for a marketer not being immediately apparent. It is interesting to think about how 168 people from 4 neighborhoods frequenting the same 6 bars could spread an epidemic in Colorado Springs, but Gladwell does not show you how to identify and leverage the people that matter more than the rest. I doubt we can ask everyone that tweets at us how many last names they are familiar with from a random list pulled from the phone book.
DeleteThis is an interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the article Stephanie shared. From the article, Berger says "By focusing so much on the messenger, we've neglected a much more obvious driver of sharing: the message”, which I completely agree. As we talk about changing roles of principles, we’re not focusing on contents we would like to deliver. It would be more relevant to analyze characteristics in terms of different roles of contents created.
ReplyDeleteI can see Elyssa's point and Stephanie's point andddd Sara's point for that matter. But I think all frameworks only work if we use them as a tool for each different "tribe". And we really can't think broadly as the "tribe" as Human 1.0 does or as simplistically as Gladwell does. That is not to say that each framework doesn't make a lot of sense for the most part, broadly speaking. As arts marketers we have to put parts of "Human 1.0", "The Tipping Point", and "Contagious" into our own society, time period, social media content, age group etc. in order to really make the most of each one.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I think that Berger's is most relevant for today's society.
I agree with Rebecca here, if arts organizations plan to use social media sites as the primary tool to engage with audiences and learn more about them, we must take an individualized approach of analyzing these audiences.
DeleteI think the generalized frameworks are a great starting point, but then we should look at followers as individuals surrounded by existing contexts to fully understand their involvement and contributions to the organization through online mediums.
Also, here's a link to a great research article of a national survey of Arts Organizations and how the use online mediums including social media.
Deletehttp://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_ArtsandTechnology_PDF.pdf
Okay I'm getting flashback from Fall mini ODI. Remember that class... Organizational Design Implementation, where we study how people utilize power to influence others within their networks... is that just me? Prof. Krackhardt, Gladwell, Berger, Human 1.0--- it's all sounding very similar to me. hmm...
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the roles people play in "networks" or "tribes" is important to then leverage influence (promote your product, etc.) Got it.. good. But Sara's right.. how do you identify these people? Is there a behavioral attribute that can be measured in social media? And if so, how accurate is it? I mean, you can't really tell how good of a connector or influencer someone is based on the number of friends they have...