Since Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, it has become almost a given in marketing, and to some degree in communications, that if you want to influence some audience or target group, you only need to influence the influencers, that small group of ‘connectors,” “mavens,” and “salesmen” who will in turn influence everyone else. Seems compelling, and makes sense. But is it true?

Not according to Duncan Watts, a sociologist and expert in social networks. Writing a brief note in the Harvard Business Review, Watts alludes to research he has done that suggests greater complexity in process of social influence. In fact, he goes as far as saying that:

“I have found that influentials [read connectors, mavens and salesmen] have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required at all.”

The key to success, according to Watts, lies as much with the context and audience as with the influencer. For Watts, no matter how many connectors, mavens or salesmen you have working with you, if the group you’re trying to influence and persuade doesn’t have “a critical mass of easily influenced people,” forget it. Success is independent of the influencers, “…just as the size of a forest fire has little to do with the spark that started it and lots to do with the state of the forest.”

Does this suggest abandoning the search for and work with influencers? Not at all. But it does suggest that like all persuasive communications, understanding the audience and context is a necessity for success, no matter how many influencers you can bring to bear.