A couple of things of interest: firstly, the presentations are available to watch here. Well worth the time, as they feature speakers from Vodafone, Cisco, Google, Deloitte and other market leaders.

Secondly, I was pleasantly surprised by the importance placed by Vodafone and Cisco on influencers as part of the core marketing strategy. Together with Lisa’s contribution, they form a compelling case for the inclusion of influencers in any B2B marketing mix.

Is Influencer Marketing hitting the mainstream?

It was widely anticipated that social media would play a massive role in this year’s election, as it had done for Obama in the US. But while there were some instances where social media (Twitter, mainly) did have an effect (in countering the Clegg ‘Nazi slur’ issue, for example), it was pretty much sidelined by the TV debates.

What’s really interesting, in the cold light of the day after polling, TV didn’t have much influence either. After the televised debate series it was widely expected that Clegg and the LibDems would massively increase their share of the vote, if not seats won, and would be able to exert intense pressure on the two larger parties to implement electoral reform.

It didn’t happen, despite me staying up until 3.30 waiting for the breakthrough to be announced. In the end, voters seem not to be influenced either by social media or the TV and voted pretty much how they’d always voted.

It turns out that voting is much much harder to influence than anyone expected. Good thing too.

(End note: A year or so ago I gave a presentation in which I poo-pooed The Influentials idea that one in ten people tell the other nine how to vote, what to buy, etc. Afterwards, I met fellow speaker Emanuel Rosen, author of The Anatomy of Buzz, who told me that in the US it’s true, and that he pretty much is told how to vote by someone else (he didn’t say who). So maybe there’s a big cultural divide in the influence of voting that is pertinent here.)

Josh Bernoff and Augie Ray have created Peer Influence Analysis, an attempt to measure the extent of influence occurring in the online world. Brave.

They claim that 256 billion influence impressions are created every year. Wow.

Their methodology is thus : “Start by counting every instance in which a person influences another person online about a product or service. (We model this from Forrester’s 10,000 person survey, which asks how frequently they post, in what places, how many followers they have, and what products and services they post about.)”

How do they model influence? They are measuring outputs of people creating opinions and reviews online. But this has no bearing on whether anyone did something different as a result of reading it. In other words, all this output may have had zero influence.

Or, some reviews (and reviewers) may be more important than others? One negative review might have more weight that ten positive reviews. How can you tell? You can’t, based on this method.

The key weakness here is that there is a disconnect between one’s intention to influence and any actual influence created. We all know people who try to influence us but fail: they’re called bores. Social media is full of such people.

Influence is dependent on whether the recipient of content change their decision or behaviour. It is not dependent at all on the creator of that content or their intention to influence.

But surely all of these 256 billion influence impressions must have some impact?

This reminds me of a Hugh Macleod post, which explains why it ain’t necessarily so. One percent impact from 256 billion influence impressions is a lot of influence. But what if you only get one billionth of one percent? Or zero percent?

Measuring influence is really hard. Measuring output is possibly a good indicator of a medium, but it’s too coarse to provide real information. Which of the 256 billion influence impressions are really changing behavior? That’s the real question.

What are the learnings for vendors trying to influence decision-makers? What’s so wrong about paying for lobbyists (other than being found out, of course)? It’s all perfectly legal after all. Aren’t lobbyists professional influencers, and don’t we have other such professionals in our industry (analysts, sourcing advisers, etc)?

There are two main points here.

Firstly, the moment you pay someone their independence is reduced, thus diminishing their influence. I remember, as an analyst, agreeing to speak at the launch of an industry body, for which I (or rather, my employer) was paid a fee. It’s standard practice. But there was a furore when my talk slides were reviewed by the body, as they were less than complementary towards the prospects of the industry (and hence the industry body). The conflict was clear – I wanted to say what I thought, and the body wanted me to say something more positive. Some compromise was reached, but I often think that I should have just declined the opportunity, or done it for free. This kind of conflict always exists in such situations – the usual compromise is for the influencer not to say the whole of what he/she thinks, but some (often self-censored) edited version of it.

The second point is more subtle. It is that once you’ve paid an influencer you set a precedent. They’ll expect that your relationship with them is purely commercial. This substantially affects the ability to build a mutual relationship with an influencer. It’s particularly an issue for those vendors with a deep reliance on channel partners. It’s not unusual to find several partner representatives on a list of top influencers. But most relationships with partners exist on commercial grounds, and it’s often hard to unpick these and build value propositions for influencers based on non-commercial terms.

Influencer marketing is about reaching out to the holistic influencer ecosystem, and spreading your engagement activities across many influencers (and many types of influencer). You want to get to a point where you’re so interesting and useful to the influencer community that they’ll talk about you anyway, whether you pay them or not.

As Hugh says, “The Trick to Marketing is to have something so cool, you’d want to talk about it EVEN if you weren’t in the business”.

The trick to influencer marketing is to get your influencers talking about you, even though you haven’t paid them to say so.

I met many influential people last night, several for the first time, and so was reminded of some home truths about how influencers work. The dinner was conducted under the Chatham House rule, but I can share my generic thoughts (especially as most of them are in the book already).

1. Influencers don’t necessarily know they’re influencers. They just do what they do. They’re unlike ‘professional’ influencers that influence for a living (analysts are an example). Many influencers are flattered, bemused, intrigued and (occasionally) annoyed at being identified as such. Lesson: be prepared to explain to an influencer why you think they are influential.

2. Influencers don’t care about you. To quote an influencer from the event “I don’t give a stuff about IBM. I give my honest advice to my clients.” Influencers are not customers or prospects – they don’t buy from you. Lesson: don’t pitch to influencers. It’ll only annoy them.

3. The value to influencers in engaging with IBM (or any vendor) is often in the networking that is facilitated. “Hi – we met at the IBM event” are the words we want repeated. Lots of business cards were exchanged last night. Lesson: It was networking the old fashioned way. It still works.

4. An event like this is the start, not the culmination, of an influencer program. Lesson: The hard work starts here. But it’s a good start, momentum exists and influencers are expectant. Don’t disappoint.

We’re hoping to launch a blog shortly to support the influencer community – watch this space…

I was reminded of this by Dom Pannell in his guest post on the IIAR blog:  “an analyst only knows what she has been told”. With my influence hat on, this translates into the following “Influencers gain their influence from other influencers.” Influencers network and exchange views, and confirm or challenge their opinions.

So I was at first surprised to see that Forrester has jumped on the pyramid idea with its Online Peer Influence Pyramid.

Forrester in ‘Dodgy Analysis’ shock? But not so fast, Duncan.

Firstly, the pyramid represents number of people in each level, not a hierarchy of influence. Fair enough.

Secondly, it relates to online influence, which is part of but not synonymous with, the totality of influence in any market.*

And thirdly, it seems to refer to B2C terminology, rather than B2B cases, and indeed the research piece falls into the following categories: “Retail, Consumer Retail & CPG, Retail Marketing, Consumer Packaged Goods, Consumer Packaged Goods Marketing, Consumer Technology, Consumer Portals & Search, Consumer Software, Consumer Industries” (from the Forrester website).

It struck me that consumers buy, and are influenced, in different ways than B2B buyers. Consumers can buy spontaneously, they buy frequently, and they exchange views more frequently (on- and off-line). There’s no competitive pressure in a consumer buying a specific stereo or TV (other than temporary bragging rights).

It’s different for B2B buyers. Decisions take a long time – years, possibly. They don’t buy frequently (unless buying commodity items). And they generally don’t talk about what they’re thinking of buying, as this may disclose a competitive advantage (or some other commercial confidence).

That’s why B2B buyers go to trade shows and conferences – it’s one of the few places they can exchange information on potential purchases.

It’s also why they depend on third parties (influencers) to act as information sources and opinion validators – there’s little open discussion to engage in.

* See my recent posts on online influence, and the back catalogue of rants on a similar theme…

This is the third and final post in a series of thought pieces on the role of online channels in influence. The first two articles are here and here.

There’s little doubt that online channels are important. I don’t believe that they are the whole story in measuring influence, but they are essential in reaching influencers.

There are two primary uses of online channels in an influencer relations programme:

1. Tracking what influencers do: online media don’t help identify influencers (I assert), but they are useful in post-identification analysis. What are influencers blogging on, are they Twittering, what webcasts and podcasts are they involved in, and so on. You can use online tools to track what influencers are doing and saying, even what they’re saying about you.
2. Engaging with influencers. If influencers are blogging and Tweeting, then that’s where you need to be too. If they’re on Facebook and LinkedIn then connect to them there. Comment on their blogs, request guest blog posts, follow them on Twitter. Be where they are.

Of course, if influencers are not online, then there’s no point in you trying to find them and interact with them there. Some influencers eschew online channels for communication, because of the time it diverts from other activities. (Seth Godin claims that he’d lose 6 hours per day if he Tweeted.)

I know some markets (web development, for example) where 100% of the influencer community blogs and uses discussion forums. I also know of tech markets where nearly 0% of influencers use online channels: they live in a face-to-face world. Most tech markets, but not all, have a spread of online- and offline-oriented influencers (and many influencers, of course, are both).

Make sure you know where your influencers are.

This second post on online influence looks at how one might measure influence using online metrics. It follows on from last week’s post which posed a lot of questions, but few answers. Fair cop.

But first, I think there are a couple of principles of influence to consider:

1. People buy people. Therefore influence measures need to identify individuals. It’s not sufficient to conclude that Gartner (for example) is influential – duh. Vendors need to know (a) who within Gartner is influential, (b) what’s their influence relative to other analyst influencers, and (c) what’s their influence relative to other non-analyst influencers. Influence isn’t distributed equally, either within organisations or throughout the market.

2. Influence is multi-dimensional. Some influencers are subject gurus, some command statutory authority, some are thought leaders and idea planters, some structure the financial elements of procurement, and so on. It’s important to understand why someone is influential, as much as the fact that they are influential.

So. Let’s look at some of the ways influence claims to be measured online:

- Citations – this measures the number of times a source refers back to an originating source. Google PageRank works this way: it rates pages highly if other people link back to it. It’s also how academic research works: a recent paper will refer to previous papers, and the more references a paper gets the more influential it is considered to be. Its strength is its weakness – it will persist in referring back to previously cited sources, even if they become superceded. It also build in something called the Matthew effect, where longevity is favoured over originality.

- Connections – how many outbound links a source has. LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter (following) and other social networks work this way. Count the connections to determine how well connected the person is. It’s also easy to fake, by link swaps, indiscriminate “friending” and so on.

- Subscriptions and readership – Technorati works this way, measuring the number of readers a blog has, and Twitter also publishes this information as followers.

- Noise – references to subjects and/or individual firms. Radian 6, Techrigy, and a bunch of other providers do this, measuring the number of times your firm is mentioned. Some also claim to measure the sentiment of the mention, usually using natural language processing tech.

All of these measures are indicators of online activity, and you can see the usefulness of them, as far as they go. They are, in my view, the equivalent of PR clippings services.

However, none of them measure whether the critical community, decision makers, are remotely influenced by online channels. It’s always necessary to ask: Influence on whom? Do any of these measures accurately assess the impact on real decision makers? In other words, do they measure the likely impact on behaviour of a buyer? Because if they don’t, if they measure a vague notion of industry activity or sentiment, then do they really reflect the ecosystem of influencers that impacts decisions?

More critically, can vendors construct marketing programmes around these measures to improve knowledge, lead generation and useful sales collateral? Because if they can’t, what are these measures useful for?

Tssk – more questions.That last one was rhetorical.

Next week’s post will probably pose more questions about how AR can use online channels to increase influence on their firms’ prospective customers.

The policy reads: “analysts with personally-branded research blogs must take the blog down or redirect readers to a Forrester-branded role-based blogs” (Source: Sagecircle).

I wonder if this is in any way related to the rise of Charlene Li and her groundswell blog and book, which positioned her as a leading social media analyst, only for her to scamper away and set up Altimeter, personal influence and credibility intact.

It’s a tough one for firms in the influence game. Do you, like McKinsey, hide the identities and personalities behind an anonymous company byline? Does your company brand immediately convey authority? Or do you promote your top staff as stars, in the hope that their individual reputation rubs off on the rest of the firm, and subsequent sales?

There are two things a company can do. Firstly it can recognise where company influence is most effective. This is in market reach and independence. Market reach, it turns out is influenced by both company reach and personal reach. Few have both, many benefit from just company reach, and personal reach is (obviously) the most transferable. But many an influencer has underestimated the balance between the two, having left their prestigious employers and struggle to make it on their personal brand alone. Gary Barnett at The Bathwick Group (and ex-Ovum colleague of mine) calls the critical degree of personal reach the ‘personal escape velocity’, which neatly explains the idea. Does an individual have enough ‘velocity’ to escape the ‘gravitational pull’ of the company?

A company’s stance also determines precisely the extent of independence of an individual. One may be an acknowledged expert in an area, but if the person also works for a vendor then their overall influence is qualified by this, and diluted accordingly. A non-vendor company can increase the influence of its staff by having a clear position on independence. Most analyst firms get this now, but the journey was fraught with conflicts and there remain some ‘analyst-for-hire’* firms. Other types of firm can also benefit from a stance on independence, including consulting firms, channel partners, services firms, and so on.

The second thing forms can do to increase the influence of its staff is to get them closer to decision makers. Normally the people that get to talk to decision makers are sales people, which are exactly the wrong type of people to position as influencers. Now despite the warm and cuddly reputation that sales people have, they unfortunately possess a fatal flaw, in that they want to sell something. It’s the hardest thing to influence someone while trying to sell them something**, because you have a clear, unambiguous and pressing interest in the outcome. Additionally, most sales people lack sufficient expertise and other influence attributes.

But there are other people in an organisation that are more suited to be positioned as influencers. The best influencers often come from the technical department, product development and design areas. They have a deep expertise, enthusiasm and energy, and a surprising lack of interest in making a sale. These people can be employed as influencers on specific deals, but they become much more influential at a market level if given the scope and support. Many adopt blogs as a medium to increase their reach and frequency of impact, which is why blogs are a useful influence enabler, but other avenues of outreach should also be used (conferences, seminars, press, etc).

Consultants, analysts and any other adviser types have the best chance at influencing decision makers, because (often) that is precisely what they are employed to do. They advise decision makers on what decisions to make, and in that sense they are professional influencers.

Companies trying to position staff as influencers must make their employees at least as effects as the professional influencers for them to have measureable impact on decision makers.

*This term was coined by Bill Hopkins at KCG.

**In a B2B world, that is. The influence of sales in B2C seems to be much easier…

Determining the impact of the growth in online channels such as social media is one of the things that taxes most of us. I’m forever seeing new ‘influencer tracker’ services pop up, and in the world of analyst relations there’s continual discussion on whether and how to engage in online options like blogs, podcasts and social networking.

In response to the explosion of online influencer tracker services – there are over 100 nowadays, and counting – Nick Hayes and I wrote a paper* on how we think they are misleading marketers. The paper led to an invitation to post on the IIAR blog, to hopefully spark some discussion – thanks for the invite, Ludovic.

This first post focuses on whether influence as a concept has changed with the use of online channels. The second will look at how influence can be measured using online metrics. And the third will discuss the implications of online channels for AR and Influencer Relations professionals.

There’s an important context to any debate on influence, online or otherwise. It is that ecosystems of influencers are highly fragmented these days. Most decision makers are influenced by the traditional journalists and analysts, but also by consultants, academics, regulators, financiers, sourcing advisors, procurement professionals and other specialists, as well as peer end users.

Much of the influence exerted by this group has been enabled, in large part, by online channels. This has been an ongoing process for a decade. The web and search engines make it easier for anyone to reach the market, and easier for buyers to find what they’re looking for. Blogs and podcasts increase the reach of anyone inclined to use them. Social media is just the next step in this evolution – there’s no social media revolution going on.

But social media has provided a new channel for those people with the potential to influence, making communication between those people frictionless. To reach a group of like-minded adopters of a technology you used to have to organise a meeting in a mutually inconvenient location. Nowadays, you organise an unconference or participate in an online forum. It used to take months to organise an event, now it can take hours.

But has the nature of influence changed? Are decision makers influenced in different ways through online channels? You’d think so, given the hype, but as Nate Elliott at Forrester observed, “the huge majority of users influence each other face to face rather than through social online channels.”

It makes sense to understand the attributes of influence – the ability to discuss and persuade, knowledge and experience, willingness to express an opinion, the authority and gravitas with which to communicate that opinion, the opportunity to convey that opinion to the right audience at the right time. And so on.

Some of these attributes are facilitated by online channels, for sure. Others are removed from online impact completely. There’s no doubt that some of the smaller analyst firms, for example, are benefitting from their online presence, in terms of reaching their potential audience through blogging and other social media technologies. But these channels are not creating expertise or authority – simply the means to communicate them.

Can social media create a new kind of influence, by collating the collective wisdom of a connected crowd? After all, there is safety in numbers in doing what the crowd does. We used to have a version of that in the IT industry – no-one ever got fired for buying IBM. Imagine the power of that kind of statement, communicated instantly over the blogosphere. Or would it be immediately challenged and rejected by real users’ experience?

So, are analysts influencing via online channels? How is influence really conveyed by analysts to decision makers? Has it moved mainly to online or is it still by telephone enquiries and face-to-face advice?

*Free registration required, or email me at duncan.brown(at)influencer50.com.