The Tipping Point

CB003752

I just finished reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s a good book. I recommend it. It’s sort of in that genre of books that are both informative, entertaining and easy to read, sort of along the same lines as Steven Levitt’s Freakonomics.

The title presents us with the books stickiest idea – that small things can cause an epidemic. When enough little things add up, they build and build until at some point, they reach the “tipping point.” Gladwell does a phenomenal job of making his point with lots of interesting examples. His examples are the strength of his writing.

If you find time to read the book, you’ll learn about the culture behind Goretex, crime fighting theories, what made Hush Puppies and Airwalk so popular, why people smoke, whether Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues serve a purpose (and why they work). You’ll learn about suicide, Paul Revere’s midnight ride, and how to promote your restaurant. More than anything, The Tipping Point is about people. It’s about how people think. How they work together to accomplish their goals, and how different types of people create a synergy that makes some things tip instead of others.

After reading the book, I was convinced of Gladwell’s thesis – little things matter. People matter. He does a good job of making a compelling case. He builds his story around lots of vibrant and fascinating examples. That being said, I do have a few criticisms.

1. I didn’t read this book in a day. I didn’t even read it in a week. I don’t know exactly how long it took me to read this book, but I sort of read it over the course of time. In telling his story, Gladwell attempts to present the reader with very sticky concepts (and he does this well). One of his approaches was branding (naming) different things. For example, people are Connectors, Mavens, Salespeople, etc. He also names a slew of other things. There’s the Rule of a Few, The Power of Context, The Stickiness Factor, The Rule of 150, etc.

All those names were difficult for me to keep track of, and I have a pretty decent memory. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs with that complaint. I don’t have a suggestion as to how to make it better. He would throw the rules in much later, saying something like – remember, it all comes back to the Rule of a Few – and I would scratch my head and start flipping back to see what the Rule of a Few was. Maybe you’re smarter than I am, and this won’t be a problem;)

2. My main criticism is that I think Gladwell manipulated the data in some places in order to align them with his goals. There are several example of this in the book. One that stood out to me, in particular, is his use of the Broken Windows theory to explain why the crime rate fell in the 90s. The Broken Windows theory basically is the theory that keeping things in order leads to less crime. If I’m a criminal and I see that a neighborhood is very run down, I might assume that no one is in charge, and that it’s alright to commit crimes because no one cares about this particular neighborhood. The theory is compelling because we like it. It makes sense to us. We think about how clean places feel safer and often are safer. The problem is, by most in depth accounts on the subject, the theory has a minimal impact.

If you’ve read Freakonomics (or Levitt’s paper the chapter on crime was based on), you’re familiar with not only the Broken Windows Theory, but with a slew of other theories that he puts forth. Any or all of them likely contributed to the fall in crime. To me, Levitt puts forth more data and presents it in a more compelling and believable way. The Broken Windows theory, of course, goes straight to the theme Gladwell is attempting to perpetuate – that small things matter. I don’t think the presentation is wrong. He tells you what the theory is, what they did, and then how much the crime rate dropped. His book isn’t about crime. I think it’s wrong not to at least mention the other theories. This isn’t the only place this happens in the book. I’m not going to spend a lot of time picking apart a book I enjoyed, though. I’m simply saying that you should be on guard. Be a filter.

The main idea remains excellent. It’s an interesting topic, isn’t it. How things spread by word of mouth and how it affects what we buy, wear, eat and do. Like Outliers and Freakonomics, reading this book will make you feel like you’re one of the people that gets it. (Interestingly enough, bloggers help things tip all the time nowadays – if this book weren’t already a bestseller, I’d be giving it a little help) Thanks for reading.