Choice Words/Phrases
Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses. They are like epidemics. This is the concept of the tipping point.
The three characteristics of an epidemic:
1. Contagiousness
2. Little changes causing dramatic effects
3. Change happens not gradually, but suddenly
Supporting stats:
In 1992, there were 2154 murders in NYC and 626,182 serious crimes, with the epicentre at Brownsville and East NY. But then, it tipped and it tipped suddenly at some point. Within five years, murders had dropped 64.3 % to 770 and total crimes by about 50% to 355,893.
Now, why is it that some ideas or behaviors or products start epidemics and others don’t???
The three agents of change according to Gladwell
1. Law of the Few
2. Stickiness Factor
3. Power of Context
Most of us know the 80/20 rule. This becomes even more extreme for epidemics. Something like 90/10 or maybe higher.
Law of the Few: Social epidemics of most kinds require some special rare people with rare skillsets to trigger off. This is the law of the few. The few that trigger a social epidemic.
There are three kinds of these rare people : The connectors ( These are the people that connect us to the world. They can just introduce any two people, they know a lot of them. They could just intro you to your prospective boss etc), The mavens ( Data banks. These are the people that know too much about the products in the market. They are walking reviews or databases. They can with authority suggest you products) and the Salesmen( The likable convincing friendly neighbour, rational, coherent and one that can convince you to go for something)
Stickiness Factor:
This refers to the stickiness of the message. Stickiness is about how sticky it is, how long it can stick in people’s mind, how much of the mindspace can it occupy and how long. The message’s stickiness can be enhanced in a variety of ways ( Repetition, Innovation, Catchy, Humor, Sentiment, Attention span etc). An advertiser better understands this. For the message to spread like an epidemic, it needs the stickiness.
Power of Context
What really matter is the little things. Small things can bring in a different context. E.g. there’s a theory that predicts the behavior among humans based on their order of birth. The older sibling happens to be domineering and conservative, while the younger ones creative and rebellious. The context changes if, these kids are away from home. The older siblings are no more likely to be conservative or domineering while the younger ones no longer rebellious or creative.
Another interesting example is the “broken window theory”. If a town has a broken window which is unattended to, there sets in a sense that no one cares and no one dares or that no one is in charge). This will result in more broken windows, which in turn will return the anarchy to roads etc sending a signal that anything goes. This in due time will build up to more serious crime in the town.
The rule of 150: Another big-league concept is the group concept and how groups can trigger an epidemic. Groups influence us in big ways. We try to remain in the groups and our behavior is governed by the rules of the group. The Rule of 150 which is seemingly an optimum group size that can achieve sublime results in spreading epidemics. So next time you want to spread a social epidemic, forget not to have a close group with a size of about 150. If you conside the neo-cortex ratio(don’t ask me what) in humans, its about 147.8 approx 150 which indicates the max people with whom we can have a genuinely good social relationship.
The rule of 150 can be extended to office team size or your social group size. A group of size larger than 150 can be too large for close ties among its members.
The three characteristics of an epidemic:
1. Contagiousness
2. Little changes causing dramatic effects
3. Change happens not gradually, but suddenly
Supporting stats:
In 1992, there were 2154 murders in NYC and 626,182 serious crimes, with the epicentre at Brownsville and East NY. But then, it tipped and it tipped suddenly at some point. Within five years, murders had dropped 64.3 % to 770 and total crimes by about 50% to 355,893.
Now, why is it that some ideas or behaviors or products start epidemics and others don’t???
The three agents of change according to Gladwell
1. Law of the Few
2. Stickiness Factor
3. Power of Context
Most of us know the 80/20 rule. This becomes even more extreme for epidemics. Something like 90/10 or maybe higher.
Law of the Few: Social epidemics of most kinds require some special rare people with rare skillsets to trigger off. This is the law of the few. The few that trigger a social epidemic.
There are three kinds of these rare people : The connectors ( These are the people that connect us to the world. They can just introduce any two people, they know a lot of them. They could just intro you to your prospective boss etc), The mavens ( Data banks. These are the people that know too much about the products in the market. They are walking reviews or databases. They can with authority suggest you products) and the Salesmen( The likable convincing friendly neighbour, rational, coherent and one that can convince you to go for something)
Stickiness Factor:
This refers to the stickiness of the message. Stickiness is about how sticky it is, how long it can stick in people’s mind, how much of the mindspace can it occupy and how long. The message’s stickiness can be enhanced in a variety of ways ( Repetition, Innovation, Catchy, Humor, Sentiment, Attention span etc). An advertiser better understands this. For the message to spread like an epidemic, it needs the stickiness.
Power of Context
What really matter is the little things. Small things can bring in a different context. E.g. there’s a theory that predicts the behavior among humans based on their order of birth. The older sibling happens to be domineering and conservative, while the younger ones creative and rebellious. The context changes if, these kids are away from home. The older siblings are no more likely to be conservative or domineering while the younger ones no longer rebellious or creative.
Another interesting example is the “broken window theory”. If a town has a broken window which is unattended to, there sets in a sense that no one cares and no one dares or that no one is in charge). This will result in more broken windows, which in turn will return the anarchy to roads etc sending a signal that anything goes. This in due time will build up to more serious crime in the town.
The rule of 150: Another big-league concept is the group concept and how groups can trigger an epidemic. Groups influence us in big ways. We try to remain in the groups and our behavior is governed by the rules of the group. The Rule of 150 which is seemingly an optimum group size that can achieve sublime results in spreading epidemics. So next time you want to spread a social epidemic, forget not to have a close group with a size of about 150. If you conside the neo-cortex ratio(don’t ask me what) in humans, its about 147.8 approx 150 which indicates the max people with whom we can have a genuinely good social relationship.
The rule of 150 can be extended to office team size or your social group size. A group of size larger than 150 can be too large for close ties among its members.
So dear readers, beware the small Big things in life, a small push at the right point can tip off any big thing.
