When I saw a Malcolm Gladwell book on our syllabus, I was not excited after reading Gladwell’s other rendition of talking in circles, “Blink,” for pre-orientation my freshman year. Similar to his other white-covered, and simple graphically designed books, Gladwell does a great job establishing his main idea and thesis in the first 10% (Kindle version – no page numbers) of the book through an abstract example, which in this case is the Hush Puppy epidemic.
However, as I kept reading, I was pleasantly surprised by The Tipping Point’s interesting connections between otherwise unrelated events. The epidemic examples reminded me a lot of the book Freakonomics. Similar to Gladwell, economist Stephen D. Levitt weaves together seemingly unrelated events, ranging from decreased in crime in Manhattan to sumo wrestlers, all under the lens of economic theory. Much like Levitt’s everyday examples, I found it easy to relate to Gladwell’s “three rules of epidemics.”
Recently in my Finance Guest Speaker-Lecture series class, a managing director from the investment banking division at Credit Suisse spoke about his company, his department, and day-to-day activities. The speakers’ words rang through my head as I read about “the law of the few.” Investment banking is divided into parts that cooperate together to provide capital for clients. The divisions - sales and trading, research, and investment-banking department, line up perfectly with Gladwell’s examples of “connectors, mavens and salesmen.”
The investment-banking department is responsible for underwriting securities, mergers and acquisitions and financing, or in Gladwell-words, “connectors.” The i-bankers’ role is meet with clients, build relationships and make successful initial public offering (IPO) deals. In order to do this, they must work with the research and sales and trading divisions, who have insight into the marketplace, who are essentially the “mavens.” Sales and trading are responsible for buying and selling securities on financial markets, which the speaker mentioned could be very exciting and fast-paced. Research, as to be expected, follows stocks to create reports for the investment bankers or “connectors” to use with clients to seal deals.
But what about the “salesmen” – where do they fit into this model? They don’t, but they do fit in with private banking and wealth planning, another division at Credit Suisse. Unlike the investment banking division, who manage corporations’ capital, private banking manages the wealth of high net-worth individuals’ personal assets. To acquire a new client, the speaker said it is imperative to approach gain the clients’ trust. This is how I connect private banking to Gladwell’s “salesman.”
The speaker discussed the correct way to build trust and meet new clients requires years of experience in dealing with financial services and high net-worth individuals’ private assets (his clients’ assets range from $10-30 million – WOAH) to have a legitimate reputation. Unlike the Credit Suisse speaker from the investment banking division, the private banking speaker was, as Gladwell would say, charismatic and hooked the audiences’ attention easily. It was almost as if each student in the classroom was a potential client because he presented his material in a persuasive and relatable manner. It’s clear the speaker would be fantastic at persuading clients to work with him if he was able to persuade a room of college students to believe his industry is the most interesting and lucrative.
Is this also where we can see the “stickiness factor” coming into play? It’s been a week since I have learned about private banking, and as a result, I am more engaged in financial news. This is because I can relate to it - the material I learned was entertaining, memorable and educational.
As I relate Gladwell’s terms to my finance presentations, I can’t help but notice all corporations are built around “the law of the few.” Generally speaking, the “connectors” are the management and marketing departments. They need to be social and well connected, and understand “weak ties” to direct people’s attention. The “mavens” are most comparable to the IT, accounting and/or financial departments, responsible for providing the “connectors” and “salesmen” with figures and information to make profits possible. The “salesmen”, obviously, represents the sales department, who need an uncanny ability to negotiate and persuade customers to buy the firms’ product.
Perhaps Gladwell’s theories applied to corporate America are proof-positive epidemics are possible. Just take the financial crisis from 2008 as an example. Given my application of Gladwell’s “law of the few” holds water, all corporations are structured the same way. Therefore, the domino effect of the financial institutions can be interpreted makes sense as an epidemic reaction. There was a “tipping point” with one firm’s failure that spread like a virus, impacting all of corporate America with ease because the corporate structure is the same at every firm.
I’m not a know-it-all, but I think the intent of The Tipping Point is to make the reader more aware of how the environment around us inter-connected. Much like the memes we discussed last week, epidemics like the financial crisis or the Hush Puppy craze, spread rapidly in accordance with the 80/20 rule. Going forward with my new found Gladwell knowledge, I’m going to pay more attention to the “how” aspect of new trends. Maybe I’ll find another epidemic.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Missed class on Memes
I missed class discussion this past Thursday on the memes articles, but I've caught wind of the discussion via an emailed update to catch up. Is it ironic I was able to have my own mini "meme" with a classmate about the discussion on memes?
After reading through the articles emailed to us on memes, I was quite intrigued. I didn't realize video clips that "everyone" has seen that catch fire on the Internet had a classified name, and furthermore, specific way of transmitting from one computer to the next. I thought the article that went of the specifics on how the networking and routing of the Internet work was particularly important in relation to how information goes viral.
Annamaria caught me up on the following discussed in class (THANKS!):
-They are a way of organizing ourselves and connecting to others
-we can relate to them
-a type of grouping
-memes are symbols, messages that stand for something larger
-we identify with them
-to understand a meme is to understand a community
I wish I had been in class to join in, but was playing a tennis match vs. UDel instead. I always feel "left behind" on meme videos that "everyone" has seen. I think it's crucial I become more involved and pay more attention to Internet trends. Or perhaps the exact opposite makes more sense - the more I ignore Internet trends, the more I will find reaches me an effective meme.
While reading through the articles, I did not associate memes with a community, much like the ones we've read about in "We the Media" and "Here Comes Everybody." Now that I am putting the memes concept into perspective, it makes a lot of sense - memes really do create communities by uniting the viewership.
I am often the "only person who has no idea who ex) Antoine Dobson" is and feel clearly left out amongst group discussions on these popular YouTube phenom stars. This exemplifies the community build around a meme, such as bed intruder video. I was one of the last people to have seen this video (and the catchy hip-hop remix that accompanied it). I definitely felt left out when all of my friends were singing along about "climbing through your windows" and was more concerned than anything, before I understood the video behind it. However, when I finally watched the video and listened to the song, I too was hooked. I felt apart of the community that laughed at the bed intruder remix ... and popular Halloween costumes that followed it.
I guess at this point I am unsure if it's better to search for a meme or let it hit me in the face, but either way, it's clear they create a following, fans and communities.
After reading through the articles emailed to us on memes, I was quite intrigued. I didn't realize video clips that "everyone" has seen that catch fire on the Internet had a classified name, and furthermore, specific way of transmitting from one computer to the next. I thought the article that went of the specifics on how the networking and routing of the Internet work was particularly important in relation to how information goes viral.
Annamaria caught me up on the following discussed in class (THANKS!):
-They are a way of organizing ourselves and connecting to others
-we can relate to them
-a type of grouping
-memes are symbols, messages that stand for something larger
-we identify with them
-to understand a meme is to understand a community
I wish I had been in class to join in, but was playing a tennis match vs. UDel instead. I always feel "left behind" on meme videos that "everyone" has seen. I think it's crucial I become more involved and pay more attention to Internet trends. Or perhaps the exact opposite makes more sense - the more I ignore Internet trends, the more I will find reaches me an effective meme.
While reading through the articles, I did not associate memes with a community, much like the ones we've read about in "We the Media" and "Here Comes Everybody." Now that I am putting the memes concept into perspective, it makes a lot of sense - memes really do create communities by uniting the viewership.
I am often the "only person who has no idea who ex) Antoine Dobson" is and feel clearly left out amongst group discussions on these popular YouTube phenom stars. This exemplifies the community build around a meme, such as bed intruder video. I was one of the last people to have seen this video (and the catchy hip-hop remix that accompanied it). I definitely felt left out when all of my friends were singing along about "climbing through your windows" and was more concerned than anything, before I understood the video behind it. However, when I finally watched the video and listened to the song, I too was hooked. I felt apart of the community that laughed at the bed intruder remix ... and popular Halloween costumes that followed it.
I guess at this point I am unsure if it's better to search for a meme or let it hit me in the face, but either way, it's clear they create a following, fans and communities.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Here Comes Everybody Reflection
Reflection on “Here Comes Everybody”
I found “Here Comes Everybody” informative and compelling, and my favorite book we’ve read thus far. Coincidentally, it corresponds with a book I am reading concurrently in another course, Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” in Poli Sci 329 – “Propaganda, Media, and American Politics.” One of Chomsky’s key points is the big media networks, which are controlled by multinational corporations, dictate the information the audience receives and how it is conveyed. Herman and Chomsky discuss the several “filters” networks use to get rid of information before producing it for the people. Other material we have discussed relates to the media’s ability to control us (Big Brother concept), and whether or not that is democratic or totalitarian. From the perspective of the media, their content is democratic, not totalitarian, because the audience is not forced to watch a specific network and have a variety of sources to draw their news from. However, from the audience perspective, the media acts “totalitarian-like” because they control the content, doctor information through various filters to accommodate an angle they would like the content viewed through.
I bring up the readings from Pols329 because “Here Comes Everybody” addresses potential solutions to Herman and Chomsky’s many problems with the “totalitarian-like” media networks. Chapter four, “Publish, Then Filter” speaks directly to this point. The “many-to-many pattern,” or the ability for the audience to contribute and respond to content, has changed communications by adding a group element to the content produced. This is differs greatly from the “one-to-many pattern” used by the types of broadcasting media networks Chomsky refers to. A response is elicited and almost demanded upon from the audience instead of “I talk, and talk, and talk, and all you can do is choose to listen or tune out.” This new pattern of communication alleviates Herman and Chomsky’s concerns about media filter. The audience controls and alters the information produced by another member of the audience or a network source via “the Web [which] makes interactivity technologically possible.”
The chapter discusses the blur, “between broadcast and communications, which is to say between one-to-many and one-to-one tools, used to be so clear…” Reliability and source credibility are some of the main factors that assist to keep this line blurry. I can relate to this idea. As an avid “tweeter,” I’ve become annoyed with the volume of crap that appears on my feed and began to question the tool itself. Then I realized my problem was not Twitter, but the people I am following. So, I went through my Twitter and Facebook contacts and deleted/unfollowed several who post content I’ve rendered useless, unimportant, or simply annoying. I feel this is where social medias take a huge hit in the eyes of non-users. Twitter is often discredited as an illegitimate source of information and an excuse for public relations and marketing strategies. I disagree. Twitter can be a very legitimate source for news; it all depends on what you are contributing and whom you are following.
Another issue Herman and Chomsky address are costs networks incur and how economic incentives control their actions; “basic economics of publishing puts a cap on the overall volume of content… forces publisher to filter content in advance.” Through the interconnectivity on the Web, transaction costs have been lowered, and “social tools provide a platform for communities of practice.” Chapter ten, “Failure for Free,” speaks to the reduced costs of spreading information afforded by technology. Since the invention of open source software, or “the open source movement,” users have the ability to read and alter material from the original creators. The amazing thing about the open source movement is that it’s “remarkably tolerant of failure… open source doesn’t reduce the likelihood of failure, it reduces the cost of failure; it essentially gets failure for free.” This sort of economic break is not available to television and print publications, which is where conversations on the Internet via blogs, Wiki’s, Twitter etc. win – their failures only elicit more conversation instead of rack up costs.
I think the book makes a great point in this chapter to address “Manufacturing Consent.” I also really like the reference to the open source movement as an “ecosystem” and not an organization. I’ve never thought of the Internet through that lens, but it makes a lot of sense – it’s an ecosystem where everything cooperates together and boundaries are crossed.
While reading chapter ten, I was confused by the computer science – jargon, so I had to look up information online. Of course, my findings hailed from Wikipedia (ironic?) for Linux, C++, and open source software. I was fascinated by what I found and read through material for while. I was also provoked to ask my engineering and computer science friends about these soft wares, which expanded the conversation I found on Wikipedia. Maybe I’ll go back to the sites I was surfing and add my own contribution!
I found “Here Comes Everybody” informative and compelling, and my favorite book we’ve read thus far. Coincidentally, it corresponds with a book I am reading concurrently in another course, Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” in Poli Sci 329 – “Propaganda, Media, and American Politics.” One of Chomsky’s key points is the big media networks, which are controlled by multinational corporations, dictate the information the audience receives and how it is conveyed. Herman and Chomsky discuss the several “filters” networks use to get rid of information before producing it for the people. Other material we have discussed relates to the media’s ability to control us (Big Brother concept), and whether or not that is democratic or totalitarian. From the perspective of the media, their content is democratic, not totalitarian, because the audience is not forced to watch a specific network and have a variety of sources to draw their news from. However, from the audience perspective, the media acts “totalitarian-like” because they control the content, doctor information through various filters to accommodate an angle they would like the content viewed through.
I bring up the readings from Pols329 because “Here Comes Everybody” addresses potential solutions to Herman and Chomsky’s many problems with the “totalitarian-like” media networks. Chapter four, “Publish, Then Filter” speaks directly to this point. The “many-to-many pattern,” or the ability for the audience to contribute and respond to content, has changed communications by adding a group element to the content produced. This is differs greatly from the “one-to-many pattern” used by the types of broadcasting media networks Chomsky refers to. A response is elicited and almost demanded upon from the audience instead of “I talk, and talk, and talk, and all you can do is choose to listen or tune out.” This new pattern of communication alleviates Herman and Chomsky’s concerns about media filter. The audience controls and alters the information produced by another member of the audience or a network source via “the Web [which] makes interactivity technologically possible.”
The chapter discusses the blur, “between broadcast and communications, which is to say between one-to-many and one-to-one tools, used to be so clear…” Reliability and source credibility are some of the main factors that assist to keep this line blurry. I can relate to this idea. As an avid “tweeter,” I’ve become annoyed with the volume of crap that appears on my feed and began to question the tool itself. Then I realized my problem was not Twitter, but the people I am following. So, I went through my Twitter and Facebook contacts and deleted/unfollowed several who post content I’ve rendered useless, unimportant, or simply annoying. I feel this is where social medias take a huge hit in the eyes of non-users. Twitter is often discredited as an illegitimate source of information and an excuse for public relations and marketing strategies. I disagree. Twitter can be a very legitimate source for news; it all depends on what you are contributing and whom you are following.
Another issue Herman and Chomsky address are costs networks incur and how economic incentives control their actions; “basic economics of publishing puts a cap on the overall volume of content… forces publisher to filter content in advance.” Through the interconnectivity on the Web, transaction costs have been lowered, and “social tools provide a platform for communities of practice.” Chapter ten, “Failure for Free,” speaks to the reduced costs of spreading information afforded by technology. Since the invention of open source software, or “the open source movement,” users have the ability to read and alter material from the original creators. The amazing thing about the open source movement is that it’s “remarkably tolerant of failure… open source doesn’t reduce the likelihood of failure, it reduces the cost of failure; it essentially gets failure for free.” This sort of economic break is not available to television and print publications, which is where conversations on the Internet via blogs, Wiki’s, Twitter etc. win – their failures only elicit more conversation instead of rack up costs.
I think the book makes a great point in this chapter to address “Manufacturing Consent.” I also really like the reference to the open source movement as an “ecosystem” and not an organization. I’ve never thought of the Internet through that lens, but it makes a lot of sense – it’s an ecosystem where everything cooperates together and boundaries are crossed.
While reading chapter ten, I was confused by the computer science – jargon, so I had to look up information online. Of course, my findings hailed from Wikipedia (ironic?) for Linux, C++, and open source software. I was fascinated by what I found and read through material for while. I was also provoked to ask my engineering and computer science friends about these soft wares, which expanded the conversation I found on Wikipedia. Maybe I’ll go back to the sites I was surfing and add my own contribution!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)