2 1/2 Stars 
 Note: I listened to the audiobook. Gladwell reads his own work, and the vocal effect is generally pleasing. 
 Having first read Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, this earlier work of Gladwell's was a bit disappointing. The premise is intriguing, particularly from a sociological and marketing standpoint. Gladwell explores numerous factors that seem to provide compelling explanations as to why certain products or ideas (intentionally or otherwise) become virulent phenomenon, while others simply fade into obscurity. 
 On the one hand, there's no denying this book is dated. The studies mentioned are largely from the early to mid-90's, though he goes back in the epilogue to revise some of his examples (particularly of epidemic youth suicide in Micronesia--which he initially tried to parallel to teen smoking in the U.S., but amended with a far more fitting claim regarding school shootings in the post-Columbine era.) On the other hand...there are a few takeaway concepts that could possibly be considered timeless if properly translated to one's own field/situation: the law of the few, the power of context, and the stickyness factor. But an instructional guide, this book is not. 
 Repetition is overused, at times, to the point of tedium. (While he suggests this principle worked well for certain children's TV shows, it was perhaps not the most effective approach to his target audience.) 
 To this reader, the most fascinating part of the book involves the history of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues, two of the most successful and effectively educational children's TV programs to date. I'd previously had no idea of many studies and tweaking went into the production of these shows. (Although, some information on their long-term effects would have felt a bit more meaningful.) Historically speaking, the story he kept coming back to about Paul Revere's midnight ride was thought-provoking. Even if it did sometimes seem this was being used to force the author's point rather than to point the readers toward their own conclusions. 
 The author makes some interesting observations--some that may very well have some credence. But then, in many instances, he seems to go the unnecessary extra mile of drawing problematic (if not outright faulty) conclusion. One glaring example would be his early-on illustration involving the AIDs virus: In mentioning an anomalous 1950's epidemic among newborns, Gladwell says of the lead scientist, "Goudsmit thinks that this was an early HIV epidemic." This is an interesting bit of speculation. He follows that up with a connect-the-dot's trail of how an AIDs-infected adult could have passed the virus on to a woman who became pregnant, infecting her own baby in-utero, and how the practice of sharing out unsterilized needles could possibly have spread the virus through the maternity ward. 
 The problem isn't Goudsmit's possible-yet-unproven scenario. The problem I have (which many have pointed out before me) is that Gladwell takes this and runs with it, making oddly definite statements like: "They defeated HIV"(in reference to the surviving infants) and "The strains of HIV circulating in the 1950s were a lot different from the HIV circulating today." Those are pretty bold leaps to make without citing any evidence beyond the anecdotal. And unfortunately, because this came so early on in the book, Gladwell's later postulations were then brought into serious question in the mind of this reader.