Life's complicated, so we better get used to it. That's my remote contribution to the Monitoring Social Media conference, Boston 2010. In other words, your marketing and PR campaign does not pivot around finding and persuading 10, 20 or 50 so-called influentials.
We should de-emphasise the application of social Web analytics (aka social media analytics, listening platforms, social monitoring) to finding the influentials. Rather, we should employ these amazing tools and services to actively listen, to learn from the conversation and to facilitate the workflow aspects of joining in the conversation.
Life is complicated. Influence is complex. And it appears that we're influenced more by our respective 150 nearest and dearest family and friends more often than the other 6 billion combined! I discuss the evidence for this assertion in my video here:
References
- David Armano at TEDxPennQuarter 2010, 8 minutes 10 seconds in
- Fluent: The Razorfish Social Influence Marketing Report, Razorfish, 2009
- Consumers Pushing Companies into Social Media, Invoke Solutions, August 2010
- Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Tweets, Harris Interactive, 3rd June 2010, Table 5
- Paul Adams, Google, Bridging the gap between our online and offline social network, slides 131-140
Sheldrake says:
Hello #msm10. Pursuing the "influentials" is a fallacy. My video contribution to your day: https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #150 #monitoringsocialmedia
5 October 2010 — 4:34 pm
wadds says:
RT @Sheldrake: Hello #msm10. Pursuing the "influentials" is a fallacy. My video contribution to your day: https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #150 #mon ...
5 October 2010 — 4:59 pm
Lexlacey says:
RT @Sheldrake: Hello #msm10. Pursuing the "influentials" is a fallacy. My video contribution to your day: https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #150 #mon ...
5 October 2010 — 5:06 pm
Sheldrake says:
@Lexlacey tx for the RT. Hope you're diddlin' well.
5 October 2010 — 5:09 pm
lbrynleyjones says:
RT @Sheldrake: Hello #msm10. Pursuing the "influentials" is a fallacy. My video contribution to your day: https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #150 #mon ...
5 October 2010 — 7:18 pm
Sheldrake says:
Love to know what you think @webmetricsguru @kdpaine @carolleaman @lbrynleyjones @MurrayNewlands https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #150 #msm10
5 October 2010 — 4:38 pm
CarolLeaman says:
@Sheldrake awesome audience and speakers at #msm10! Great content so far.
5 October 2010 — 4:47 pm
brandjack says:
RT @Sheldrake: Love to know what you think @webmetricsguru @kdpaine @carolleaman @lbrynleyjones @MurrayNewlands https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #15 ...
5 October 2010 — 4:55 pm
Sheldrake says:
@SchneiderBen Influencer activation: you know how to press my button Ben! This video post is relevant: https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/2010/10/t... #150 #iprmeasure
7 October 2010 — 1:31 pm
IPRmeasure says:
RT @Sheldrake: @SchneiderBen Influencer activation: you know how to press my button Ben! This video post is relevant: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/spo... ...
7 October 2010 — 1:32 pm
Shonali Burke says:
That was really interesting, Philip. What do you make of influence ratings such as Klout, which seems to be making significant inroads in partnering with organizations on marketing campaigns (Virgin America, Fox/Lonestar, etc.)? I mean, they're really selling their ability to identify "influencers," aren't they?
14 October 2010 — 8:29 pm
Philip says:
Thanks Shonali, and thanks again for joining the CIPR social measurement group as a special adviser... will be getting you up to speed on that front shortly.
Klout is doing some interesting network science, and I have definitely moderated my language since my March 2010 presentation to Monitoring Social Media London! But I still have big problems with the metrics they're peddling.
They simply can't be the "standard for influence" as they claim. Firstly, online influence ignores offline. Secondly, online influence can be exerted in many domains, one of which is Twitter. Thirdly, which Twitter-only metrics are definitively to do with one's influence (actually changing others' behaviour) rather than one's popularity? You can be popular. You can also be knowledgeable. But if people don't think differently or do differently, you are just popular and/or knowledgeable, not influential.
This sounds quite negative but I'm not. I think what Klout is doing is interesting, I just don't like how they're marketing it.
14 October 2010 — 9:09 pm
Joanna Wall says:
[...] The fallacy of the influentials, by Philip [...]
24 December 2010 — 1:32 am
Young Gardner says:
RT @Sheldrake: @SchneiderBen Influencer activation: you know how to press my button Ben! This video post is relevant: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/spo... ...
24 December 2010 — 5:53 am