briansolis - Latest Comments in Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

philgo20 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:59:56 -0000

Great post, really.

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 ...

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

diseoweb — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:40:23 -0000

Totally in agreement without purpose there is no course and this is similar to the failure

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

DamienBasile — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:32:12 -0000

I'll definitely check out Onalytica David. Thank you!

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

DamienBasile — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:29:25 -0000

I live in NY so I'll be around. I'd love to add my view on this topic to Influence Scorecard.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Mark Peesel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:14:43 -0000

"My answer to that is that it’s quantity of quality."

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!

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

rachh — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:53:22 -0000

Social media online influencers are more significant compared to traditional influencers. Products consumers purchase are now from Amazon reviews and what their friends say about them online. People are now more influential now than ever before due to social networking websites. People create buzz when they frequently update their Facebook statuses or Tweet. They influence the friends who follow them on these web sites because it is posted on their mini-feeds. I am more likely to believe what my friend says about a product via Facebook or Twitter before visiting a product's web site. Social media networking is moving rapidly that these web sites now have niche advertisements. From this movement, future marketing for products will be more personalized and narrow due to people influences on social networking web sites.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Paul Philp — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:41:49 -0000

owengreaves, I don't think agena is the right word. I think it more as an intent. Many relationships are intentional - I want to know you because you provide possible access and capacity. In order to have that relationship, I have to create value for you - so I align my intents with your intents. Not all relationships are intentional but many are. The art of intentional relationship is being authentic and intentional. If you aren't authenic, you come accross as pushy/sleazy or at least self-centered.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Karthik — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:46:20 -0000

Connecting with anyone based on 'some' agenda sounds like an abuse of any connection. A connection could be beneficial for both parties on some basis, but that is not necessarily a must-have.

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.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Sam Lammie — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:49 -0000

Interesting read. One comment especially drew my attention that "Where they are will accurately reflect where and who you are." Not that you are explicitly focusing on the spatial, but...For me I jump start this with a quote from Davenhall (from ESRI) at TED MED about understanding personal health and that "...the basic formula for good health is:
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.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

richard — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0000

I find it just amazing how much information you can get out of the social graph!

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

briansolis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:24:47 -0000

Thanks Philip...

Also, just want to make sure everyone knows that this is a guest post by Damien Basille.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

david hargreaves — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:35:25 -0000

It is an interestinbig point that you make the difference between physical and online influence. The biggest challenge though I think is ascertaining someone's online influence. As you say lots of followers doesn't mean they have a big online influence.

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.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Zachary Adam Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:43:23 -0000

PJ, what do you call it when someone does something online that has offline results...online influence!

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

thatpj — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:39:28 -0000

There is no such thing as "online influence." However you rate yourself online doesn't mean anything unless there are real world results.

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Zachary Adam Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:37:09 -0000

Damien, Great piece. Couple of comments: It seems as though there is a duality emerging with online and offline influencers each staking out territories. It's true that many offline influencers have designed things so that they don't have to be online in the way that online influencers do, and still be effective. It's really a bifurcated reality in that sense. But the offline influencers are losing that influence every day, the publishers, PR types, journalists, Old media essentially...They still command things, can get books published, magazine pieces penned, deals signed, but more and more we'll see online infuencers be able to do that too.

also, as lovely as it sounds, your quantity of quality comment rings false...nice try though ;)

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

yinka olaito — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:25:02 -0000

Brian I like the point you make here."Every influential person with large follower numbers interacting online in social media spaces are not doing so in the same way. Some of them aren’t even influential. But for the ones who are influential even they have different nuances in what they focus on. Programs can’t ever capture tactics, strategies, interactions and general feel of someone’s value. While someone may be 80% mass influencer and 20% executive influencer, grading programs can’t capture the secret conversations (IMs, DMs, emails, Facebooks mail, LinkedInmails etc) that make up the core of someone’s worth.'
What that means is that everyone needs to find his/her own tipping point? CAn you give guidelines on how to find this?

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

owengreaves — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:08:25 -0000

So are you suggesting that every relationship you have to have an agenda? What's in it for me attitude? That seems kind of shallow to me if that is the message you are trying to send. If you're speaking in the strict sense of business hours, your time is valuable, you only have so much you can afford to give, then sure you have to pick & choose who you connect with.

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

Re: Social Media Influencers are not Traditional Influencers

Donna Maria — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:28:24 -0000

"What these people know is that while it’s important to have a large network to spread a message as wide as possible it’s even more important to have a smaller more concentrated network to make things happen. It’s the age old axiom of quality versus quantity. My answer to that is that it’s quantity of quality."

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.