-
Website
http://briansolis.com/ -
Original page
http://www.briansolis.com/2009/11/social-media-influencers-are-not-traditional-influencers/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I consider this the key point in this article. Influence is fragmented into a million little pieces now. As a result, "one to many" influence is not the only kind of influence. And for very small businesses, the people I serve, "one to few" influence is desirable and manageable. When a micro-business owner considers influence, the more targeted and niche that influence is, the better off that target is served. And when that happens well, a very small business has the option of staying very small and continuing to focus on that niche, or using the initial "one to few" influence factors to expand the platform and even add new ones.
Thanks for a great discussion.
Relationships aren't always calculated, sometimes they just happen.
I'm not sure why but, measuring influence via digital means doesn't sound like an accurate means of determining a persons worth or value. I believe everyone has something to offer, the struggle is determining it's value and only you can determine what that offering is worth.
You always write thought provoking articles, sometimes I get a headache : )
Thanks
What that means is that everyone needs to find his/her own tipping point? CAn you give guidelines on how to find this?
also, as lovely as it sounds, your quantity of quality comment rings false...nice try though ;)
One of the best explanations I have seen in this space is from influence experts Onalytica. They make a clear distinction between influence and reach. They use a UK example to highlight the point. Jamie Oliver has a huge reach around the issue of obesity in kids but much smaller influence than for example the UK government. The most influential organisations and people are those that connect directly into the most densely populated influence hubs. Onalytica has a great diagram to explain it which is lost in words.
Also, just want to make sure everyone knows that this is a guest post by Damien Basille.
Nice one Damien. You free 30th Nov, New York? http://bit.ly/1R444b
Sometimes people retweet and link to information simply because it's relevant, interesting or useful to them -- it doesn't matter who posted it. I like to think that I tweet/blog about posts, articles or products I find genuinely interesting and worthy of passing along. If someone I adore tweets something that's not for me, I don't feel compelled to pass it on out of any social obligation and I hope they understand.
The other side of measuring influence has to do with self-reporting. Any good marketer can tell you people are often unaware of what actually influences them. That's why psychology exists.
I also disagree with the notion that connecting just to connect is aimless. Real connections transcend personal agenda and the value of connections is something that can only really be calculated in hindsight.
I think the biggest factor in anyone's real influence is the degree to which they can share passion and inspire trust - that ONLY happens through connecting for the sake of connecting, but maybe I'm missing something...
Understanding how people, content, commerce and networks are all aligned is important, but I'm skeptical that any individual "influencer" is at the center of that equation - huge celebrities bomb at the box office and fail to write best-selling books. I can love YOU, but hate your work, and vice versa. This is true online and offline.
Genetics + lifestyle + environment = risks." I love observing weather, but also forecasting and the meteorological context. Makes me wonder how we voluntarily track each other, not from a human perspective, but from a biological one and what that may tell us.
Appreciate it.
Also, if you extrapolate an online network into an offline network, what you see is that only the size and reach of your network has increased - not the kind of influence you perceive you may have. Its simply a number + reach game, which is obviously not possible in the physical world.
For instance, a politician on stage, speaking to a large crowd that has assembled specifically to hear him speak, may be influenced enough to vote for a party he represents. Can he pull it off online, say, via twitter? Of course. So, what it would simply mean is that the only thing that matters is the kind of image an influencer has built, offline or online.
Guy Kawasaki having 189K followers does not necessarily mean he can sway the opinions of even half of that 189K - he sure can get a retweet or two or even 2 dozen (mere online influence), but to translate that into real life influence (of aiding a real life action), he needs to do a lot more than pulling assorted, interested links from the web, post it on holykaw and then pass it off via alltop or his twitter account. And no, outsourcing his interactions to 3 other humans is not part of that equation.
Or is it the Quality of Quantity? Regardless, I believe you need both to go together. The quantity of really bad stuff coming out of Twitter is endless... Posts like this are great! It's Quality, and we need more of it.
Thanks!
About tools to rank and classify influencers, one part that seems to always be missing when we're envisaging it, is the necessity to analyze these content being shared, retweeted, blogged and discussed. Even an online influencer with a huge following probably won't influence much if he's talking outside of his usual circle of knowledge.
Good tools should not only analyze the tweet itself, but obviously the content at the other end of the link ...