Malcolm Gladwell Correct!
Oh my God, I think I agree with Malcolm Gladwell? First though we must note that this interview contains a wonderfully telling Gladwell moment. Gladwell says that we need to look at the consequences of social media. Great, can you give me an example, he is asked. And then he pretends to give an example which isn't an example at all, but a vague theory. Okay but that is a quibble! Because then there's this. "If I'm putting together a flash mob, that I want everyone to meet me in half an hour in Times Square, it's really useful to have 100,000 followers on Twitter. If I want everyone to go to my website and buy my new book, it's incredibly useful to have 100,000 followers on Facebook. If I want to start a political movement to overthrow a tyrannical regime, it may be less useful. If you follow me on Twitter, I do not own your heart. I may own your pocketbook momentarily. And I may own your attention for five seconds, but that's it." That's what's funny about the demands for a PLATFORM or a BRAND IDENTITY ONLINE for those who make things, like albums or books or macrame: those "social media relationships" just aren't that deep or durable.
Deep? No, I agree with that. Durable? We'll have to come back to that in a year.
Seriously. Choire, I've been following you and that other one around the Internet since, what? 2004? And if you start selling macrame? IT WILL BE ALL OVER. I WILL DRAPE MY ENTIRE HOME IN MACRAME OBJETS D'ART.
@jolie Exactly. Me too.
It's so Gladwell, this putting of the cart before the horse. When you own the heart of your public, Choire, they will actually write to beg you to sell merchandise for them to buy. They may even implore you to institute subscription fees in the comments pages of your publication.
Whereas M. Gladwell wouldn't own my heart if he managed to haul it out of my chest with the aid of a chainsaw.
Would Jesus tweet??
Future Malcolm Gladwell thesis: you don't have a lifelong fan until they've consumed your work for 1000 hours…
You figure out how to get me to Times Square in a half hour and I'll buy one of your books. In paperback.
But who said they were deep or durable?
Well, definitely book publishers think they're deep enough to get someone to spend $26.95. But I think $26.95 is a BIG COMMITMENT. I mean, I think twice before buying my REAL friends something worth more than $8, and I'm easy with the wallet. Some stranger on Twitter? I ain't buying his book. (Until my friend tells me too!)
Hachette told you they are glad you have a platform, didn't they?
That buzzword is due for demolition by next February's Tools of Change conference. Whatever comes next will be equally annoying.
Agreed. But this seems to be arguing something about which everyone on a social network is already aware. Are publishers and authors in need of reasoning on this obvious-to-everyone-even-children point? Is there a need for Gladwell to weigh in on this? It's like arguing that maybe reality TV shows aren't totally real? No shit.
I'm a fan of briefly agreeing with Malcolm Gladwell.
me too!
"The Quiet Canadian".
they're not NECESSARILY deep and durable, but they can be! i don't think assigning BUILD A PLATFORM OF YOURSELF ONLINE ex tempore or WHATEVER is the answer because, well, *that's* the commitment, not the $26.95. I think you are underestimating people's desire to pay for things by people they Feel Like They Know– I have found it to be pretty fucking deep if that's not a poor choice of words.
Also do you mean to tell me that if firmuhment scanned in an old filet-o-fish wrapper with an amazon link tomorrow you wouldn't tab over and buy his book?!
Gladwell is neither deep nor durable. I bet Charlie Rose finds him endlessly profound. I wish he'd go away, he can live on his book contracts and royalties.
Which is bullshit, if you consider enthusiasts and brand identity. Take for example Porsche owners, BMW motorcycle riders, Airstream owners, Apple Zombies, Colbert Nation, Fulham football supporters, etc. While you will never own my heart, Gladwell, there are actual political leaders who do.
PS: the only tweats I follow are from the Tower Bridge.
Deep and durable? Take it away, Mo Tkacik:
In searching for an anecdote or image with which to convey the ultra-absorbency of Gladwell's book as compared with that of his soggier-sentenced peers, I found myself remembering a story Gladwell wrote in 2001 about the technology of diapers. In this story, Gladwell reported that "those in the trade" refer to the waste that diapers are engineered to retain as "the insult," and this image seems to me as useful as any for thinking about Gladwell's success. His masterful maneuver was to engineer a style that artfully conceals "the insult," honing it in his articles before finally unleashing it in book form with The Tipping Point.
I think we may be fudging the line between "correct" and "insightful" here. You may as well point to the ocean and say "there's poison in there." Correct? Sure. But it's not exactly the whole story, is it? There are also poisonous fish.