F*ck Influencers (or Influencing Conversations)

I've recently been asked to work on an Influencer strategy.

I have to admit that I had a bit of a negative initial reaction to the task.  So much of what I read online about "influencers" seems to assume that people live to spread messages.  While there is some "status" truth to being the source or the first to report something, this rings naive and hollow as a prime motivator to me.  My personal sense of my own motivations is not that I desire to spread messages, but rather that I want to be part of a larger conversation or participate in something meaningful.

My first thought on how to approach this task was to expand influencers beyond a select group of "key" people.

In today's world everyone is a publisher, everyone has some level of influence, and everyone has a network of influence that is difficult to define let alone measure.  So to focus on just "A listers" or big names is to severely limit the potential for what can be achieved.    That's not to say I don't want "A listers" (if they even exist) to join in the conversation, rather it says that I always prefer to not put all my eggs in one basket.

My next step was to redefine influencers from people to nodes of influence. 

A node can be a major platform or property such as Twitter, Facebook or MTV.  A node can also be a community of interest that has gathered around a topic.  I spent some time defining all the different areas of influence (around the topic at hand) and then narrowing down into the nodes that make up each ecosystem or circle of influence.  These grew into some rather intricate maps that opened up all kinds of new opportunities I had not considered when I first approached this task, and it shifted quickly from finding a handful of influencers to looking at how to reach hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Next I pulled back to revisit the purpose of any influencer strategy, which I am currently defining as "to encourage conversations around the brand that are shared by individuals across their networks of influence."

Key stress is placed on individuals and the fact that each has unique networks but with lots of duplication between these networks. 

All of this thinking led me to some key questions.

Why do people share links or retweet on platforms like Twitter?
What types of things do people share and for what benefit?
How does how people see their networks affect their decisions on what to share?

I don't have any solid answers yet but I was brought to some wonderful resources by some great people within my network.  I look forward to other thoughts on this matter.

Dana Boyd's Analysis of ReTweeting activity on Twitter (h/t to Karen Quinn Fung via Twitter)

Segmenting and Targeting Users by Their Level of Interaction

Behavior First, Design Second (attention, to collect, status and vanity)

Image Source: FAS.research

Comments

[Duane Brown]

Great article Sean. Reminds me of Marks talk at Planners Unite back in April. People follow something they like and not always the popular people. The idea of a node is an interesting idea. Maybe connecting the different level of people you talked about with each node will bring greater value for your client.

I share links that I think are interesting at the end of the day. The people I follow are in Tech, marketing communication or people I've meet in person at different groups. Not everyone is going to like each link but many will at times. Sometimes I even direct @reply someone if I think it'll benefit them the most. At the end of the day I'm myself and that's all I can hope for.

A good example being Friday's tweet about Transformers 2. I loved it and said as much (http://twitter.com/duanebrown/status/2463727113). I got 6 RTs in a matter of 30 minutes for just being myself. That could be viewed as influence to some.

[Mario Vellandi]

Great exercise!
While there are rational theories on influence, their platform is based on network dynamics first(objective and relatively measurable). This is the un-abounded potential with all else equal.

The second order deals with the qualitative aspects of messaging, social dynamics, timing, and random potential. This is where everything is fuzzy & subjective with variables like message affinity, content, form; interpersonal relationship factors (salesperson, connector, maven [from Gladwellian theory], and individual personality); the relationship between content's creation/distribution times; and lastly the unforeseeable potential a message may carry to be further distributed and amplified.

A unique area I find interesting is message mutation/transformation in social dynamics, in addition to the concept of ownership (original creator v. public domain).

With all that said, I believe a cognizance of these multi-variate factors helps in devising a strategy. But all one can do is hope for the best and continue on. Repitition and Analysis remain valuable.

[Account Deleted]

I've been on a bit of the same thought train recently, and this guy has been a great source of insight when it comes to the way content spreads over twitter:

http://danzarrella.com/how-retweets-spread.html

[@michaelqtodd]

@Duane
Exactly. It is all about being yourself.
Conversely you will influence more easily if nothing you say is about you.Share knowledge but focus on the needs and interests of others.
As for online influence a strict strategy is key I believe.Cannot be everything to everyone.Need to decide your niche and use keywords and build relationships with leaders in that niche.Then will be able to assert influence
@michaelqtodd
The Green Internet Guy in Tokyo

[Mike Arauz]

Happy to see you pushing this along, Sean. Re-defining how brands and marketers think of the mythical Influencer, and the idea of influence in general, is an important fight.

You're right that everyone has influence over certain other people. The significance depends on the subject and the nature of the connections.

Knowing what that shared interest is, around which a network has already gathered, is the first step.

Next, is understanding the underlying motivations of why we share. This takes me back to Henry Jenkins and the great work he's been doing on Spreadable Media - http://www.henryjenkins.org/2009/02/if_it_doesnt_spread_its_dead_p.html

[Sean Howard]

Hey Duane,

Thanks for starting the commenting action! We've been having some interesting conversations around nodes in the office today. Leigh Himel was talking about how it's no longer "what's cool" but rather, "What's that?" and I loved it. Very in line with the Herdmeister's take on influence which helped spark this line of thinking for me.

I find the edge limits in sharing behavior VERY interesting. Like where I will actually retweet something BEFORE I click on the link to see if it's really cool or worth it. Speaks volumes about the r/ship I have with the individual who tweeted such an item.

And I don't hold it against you that you liked Transformers 2. ;) ;)

[Sean Howard]

Well said, Mario.

I also find the transformation of messages to be a valuable peek into some of the forces at play.

There are SO many variables at play, as you so succinctly demonstrate. Which is why I find it so bizarre that this area is painted as such a black and white, easy to execute space.

And if I judge the market simply on the volume of emails I get from PR firms happy to inform me of an AMAZING event/product/service/offer/pieceofshit for me to blog about, then it would suggest we are heading in the wrong direction.

But I agree. It's repetition and analysis that we must return to. Continuing to find ways to create value and support value creation by individuals.

[Sean Howard]

Good thing you are confident in your sexuality, Mike because I think I want to marry you. ;) ;)

Loving the Henry Jenkins. Thanks so much.

[endurci celibataire]

I totally agree to what you said that nowadays everyone is a publisher and everyone has some level of influence. I can only think of all the bloggers who can publish their ideas on the internet. That alone is huge!

[Sean Howard]

I checked it out. Thanks David. I liked the social slant that Danah Boyd did in her analysis but it's awesome to see any and all research on how and why people are sharing using these tools.

[Sean Howard]

Thanks Endurci,

There's an interesting shift afoot as well. I'm finding my blog to be less and less of what drives my influence. Twitter and Facebook (shudder) are becoming far better reflections of my reach and network. Crazy, eh?

Sean

[gianandrea facchini]

I strongly believe that so called influencers are the online version of the top dogs of offline journalism. When they pick up a news, most of the time the news itself had already travelled a lot among active audience and they spread it across passive audience.
I think that relevance is purely qualitative and not quantitative.
I like, too, the idea of nodes but when you get across various platforms, limiting or not to community of interestes, you most likely find the same people leading the pack of the conversation.

[Subbu]

There are no 'influencers' waiting to spread the word.In some categories I might be an influencer and in some others part of the 'late majority'.The influencer gene in me is triggered by actions of the marketer. For companies other than an Apple or Nike (over 95% of them), they have to really work hard at triggering this gene. It could be the product/service, the message or something totally unexpected.

Nice post, Sean. Triggered my dormant gray cells to do some work for a change.

[Gavin Heaton]

I think that influencers are vastly over-rated in social media. They are great at spreading or amplifying a message but very poor at triggering action or a change in behaviour. So, it really comes down to WHY you are reaching out to influencers and what you are hoping to achieve.

Of course, I could be wrong ;)

If you haven't seen it, I have written about the importance of storytelling in the building of social judgement here:
http://www.servantofchaos.com/2009/03/social-judgement-the-auchterlonie-effect.html

[paulmcenany]

20 days...

[Sean Howard]

Hey Subbu!

I love that you call out Apple and Nike as exceptions. Too many clients get wrapped up in what these extreme brands are able to accomplish. So much is based on the years of effort, dollars and commitment they have made to become iconoclastic brands.

Your comment also highlights that there's always the opportunity for a company to get viral reach via shock and the unexpected. This has perhaps led to a misrepresentation of understanding of just what influence is and how to leverage it... food for though...

[Sean Howard]

The movie? ??? ;) ;)

[paulmcenany]

Excuse me, 21 days... :)

[Sean Howard]

Hey Gavin,

What if "Influencers" don't even exist?

Instead, what if we have confused celebrities in this WoM induced hysteria around Influencers? It's almost like the holy grail of marketing - we've been forever searching for this viral spread opportunity and perhaps jumped to some errant conclusions around online celebrities???

What if each of us lives within many circles of influence online and offline? What if there was a way to identify overlap between brands and communities and then link this to activities that work to build real relationships?

I'm hard at work with a brilliant group of folks on such an approach. I hope it's possible! ;)

I missed the article you referenced and am reading it now. It's causing some ideas around how social capital is accrued and spent. I'll comment over there now. Thanks Gav!!!

[Subbu]

I agree on the viral effect of shock. But then as experts like Faris say, Viral is something that happens.....

After Nike & Apple, Viral is the biggest 'viral' in marketing circles :)

[Daniel]

Dan Zarrella is always a good read.

[Pierre-Loic Assayag]

Very interesting conversation I'm just catching up with. Online influencers are very real and by that I mean people exerting an influence on a specific group/community.

They would NEVER call themselves "influencers" though and they surely don't wait by the phone (or email box) to spread the word on the latest press releases they receive.

They care about developing these nodes you refer to (though I'd argue the nodes are across sites not by site).

The bad rep given to "influencers" has very much been driven by PR firms and brands that have not grasped what these influential individuals care about and still use their bag of old tricks to get a story covered. The good news is that this approach doesn't work, thus will be going away.

[Derek]

Great conversation. I don't think the problem of finding/measuring influence is a new problem. Companies and agencies have been working at this for years -- finding the most powerful celebrity endorsements, chasing the right journalists, etc. This was all about INFLUENCE.

I agree with you Sean -- what is different now is that the nodes of influence are smaller. They are tighter. They are covert. And it's unclear whether or not "wielding" their influence is a goal or even an interest among those doing the influencing. This makes it very challenging for PR and communication pros to engage with these people and achieve "success" (as defined by a PR campaign). The fact that these nodes are smaller makes it hard for traditional clients to wrap their heads around the value of an influencer campaign (huh, blog coverage?!?! that blog only has X Thousands of readers....do your job and get me in Time which has X Millions of readers!!). It also makes the process less efficient for the PR folks -- more people to engage, more people to track, etc.

The good news in all of this is that, in the digital world, there are all kinds of fun metrics that can be used to derive "influence" -- not just amplification, but actual influence (although we believe that ability to amplify is a measure of influence). We work hard doing just this at Traackr and have seen good results.

Ultimately, an "influencer" needs to drive action (as Gavin mentioned). Online, there are ways to measure that action now and link it directly to activity of influencers. We're in a very early stage in all of this, but it's important to understand that we are here. Influencers do exist online (Sean -- you are probably one of them). Engaging with them will become ever more important with each passing day...

Thanks for the great conversation, Sean (and the great title to this post).

[Sean Howard]

Hi Gianandrea,

I am so sorry I never replied to your comment. I'm not sure what happened. I remember contemplating my response but life must have then caught up to me (again). ;)

I guess I am calling into question this whole idea of an "Influencer." Do they really exist or are they like our view of the perfect family or a soccer mom? Are they more shared illusion vs. real personas?

Totally agreed on the relevance front. It's a real challenge explaining to a client why we removed a "node". It's a bit of a call as to whether we believe we can join the conversation without spamming the group/person/platform.

As to your final statement, I've been finding the opposite. The same people are not leading the conversations. In fact, we're finding ourselves in new waters. A focus on teens quickly expands to music, life issues, sexuality, and even drugs. I found an amazing facebook group about teens who had gotten their life back together and had banded together to say they were clean. At first it seemed risky, but it turned into a really neat opportunity to engage with a group of people we had not seen or found anywhere else...

[Sean Howard]

Dude! I totally posted!!! ;)