Archives for posts with tag: influentials

371298e362d5b61c0a26d8927d91f424e9388716_m

There was a time when influence was pretty much fixed and set in stone. Beyond our little family/friend tribe, we just had interactions with poorly connected individuals and groups. The connections were so poor that we often forgot about them, any move or change in lifestyle made connections disappear for good. (I moved almost 20 times in my life and my old stomping grounds are littered with lost connections.) Influence used to be characterized by repeated interactions with the same poorly connected individuals.

Influence is fluid now

Influence has nothing to do with popularity or fame. It’s also not equal to the nature or form in which we are connected to each other. Influence is about adopting an idea or behavior amongst the people around us and the others around them. Influentials don’t do anything to others, it’s the response of the influenced that counts.

Influence is not important when it comes to life-or-death decisions. When I dislocate my shoulder, I won’t ask my social graph if I should go to the hospital or not. But I will ask my connections if I should buy an Apple or Dell monitor. Or if that certain movie is worth watching. Influence comes down to move the needle between equally good and fundamentally indistinguishable options. And we feel comfortable to ask for advice from fleeting, indirect connections to millions of others and their groups and their connections. These groups and connections change for any decision I’m making. They are not fixed or determined by the number of Twitter followers or Facebook connections.

That’s one of the fallacies of the whole Klout debate: There’s no fixed score of influence. Everything is fluid.

7e4f4ca7458bd47ba6e2b4c01ef1be6b46a1f06c_m

Tom Webster posted on his blog an interesting experience with a highly personal “Influencer Outreach Program“. In short: He tried to give the quake victims in New Zealand moral support by asking his social graph and tapping into the sphere of influencers to record a short message of support. He asked people like Chris Brogan and Oliver Blanchard to spread the word for him, extending his reach dramatically. (So far, so good. Solid outreach program.)

As he writes:

“You see, how this story is supposed to end is this: hundreds of thousands of people heard my plea for help, and overwhelmed my server with messages of hope. The number of messages and the outpouring of passion and love for this cause brought the Interwebs to its knees. The people of New Zealand clung to those messages of hope – and another social media legend was born.”

Well, the results were abysmal (read his post for more details):

  • 410,00+ impressions
  • 389 clicks
  • CTR of below 0.01%
  • 10 submissions (0.0025 action rate)

And you thought your display ad performance blows.

A few thoughts:

First and foremost, I would like to commend Tom for posting these results. I love the honesty of bare numbers and his lack of trying to explain it away. We need more of this.
His experiment doesn’t mean an Influencer Outreach Program on Twitter makes no sense. However it tells us that an Influencer Outreach program on Twitter based on reach will most likely fail.
As Matt Ridings points out, the effort wasn’t designed well enough. “Instead, he notes that “people need to a) see that the influencer took the action (the influencer truly believes) b) be presented with an action simple enough for them to easily participate and allow competition to take hold (“I can make a better audio clip than you did,”) and c) see results made public to allow a & b to occur in such a way that they believe the influencer will actually see that they did it for *them* vs. the cause, thus garnering attention for themselves.”
I would add to this: People are lazy. Tom asked too much from them. Audio message, downloading, sending. When people are asked to do anything more than to click a link, you’ll have problems converting them. That’s the genius of Foursquare: You have nothing to do, waiting for your drink, standing around and you push 2 buttons. Done. The Haiti mobile giving campaign of $10 worked so well because it took me no effort to do it.
People are trained in certain behavior. We do click on links when on Twitter but do we want to take real action? I would argue not. An idea like this might spread better on Facebook where people are used to do more than just click.
While some people rely on Oliver Blanchard to get his take on Social Media ROI and Chris Brogan to get insights into Social Media, their influence out of their field of expertise is very limited. They might be able to shill a suitcase or a book that is closely associated to their expertise but how many people would buy pants because Chris Brogan wears them? Or record a call? I know, this was for a good cause – still.
It clearly shows that you need to connect with the small pools of influencers that create behavior change. It’s more important to have avid fans than amass fans. Think Howard Stern. He’s the ultimate influencer.
Last but not least: Asking people for favors on social platforms is the new spam: Put this in your status. Copy that. Color your avatar green. RT this. Share that. Help here. Donate there. It’s tough to break through that clutter and get meaningful responses.