Have online channels changed the nature of influence?

[This article was originally posted on the IIAR blog last month]

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.

…and I’m back

We’re currently changing our web site, hosting platform, blog platform and other techie stuff. In the midst of this change the blog got ‘lost.’ Sorry.

There was an time that this would be really interesting for me, but nowadays it’s just a drag.

Anyway, I think the technical term is “growing pains.” That, or “incompetence on my part.”

Normal service has now resumed. Thanks for waiting.

An interview with Nick Hayes

Nick, the president and founder of Influencer50, appeared on Webmaster radio last week, covering the basics of Influencer Marketing. It’s actually an easy listen, and you can stream the interview podcast here. Or download the mp3 here if you want to miss the commercials!

Welcome Barbara French

A belated welcome is due to Barbara French, who joined Influencer50’s San Francisco office in August. Barbara is well-known in Analyst Relations circles through her Tekrati service and blog. She’s already contributing a ton of brain power to our US operation, and is sharing this publicly via her new blog, Sway.

Please welcome Barbara to the fold, and check out her blog for new insights into the world of influence.

Why fifty influencers?

You’d be amazed how often I get asked, “So, why Influencer Fifty?” Easy answer: because we identify a minimum of fifty influencers for our clients as a kick-start to their influencer community programs.

But why fifty? What if we only want 25? Or what if we want 100?

It turns out that, for most B2B markets, fifty is the optimal number of people to reach out to, to manage appropriately, and to draw some conclusions from. Too few influencers, and you risk identifying just the obvious influencers: analysts and journalists. Too many, and you’ll get swamped: few organisations can appropriately manage more than fifty influential individuals.

Often, our clients will know some of the influencers we identify (though they usually don’t know their relative ranking). So we typically provide the top 75 or 80 influencers, so that they still have 50 or so individuals that are new to them.

In four years we’ve never had a client that has known more than half their influencer community. Usually it’s 10-15% – that’s between 5 and 8 influencers known to a vendor organisation.

Why you can’t guess your influencers

We often play a game with our clients. Write down the names of the top ten influencers on your market (or segment). If you guess correctly you don’t pay us.

It’s a safe bet – we’ve never encountered a close guess. But why?

I think there are two possible reasons. Firstly, most people have never thought about the question before. Although intuitively they know that their prospects are being influenced by a range of individuals, they’ve never considered who these people might be.

The second reason is that when considering influence, they use one, or maybe two, dimensions to measure influence. The most common ones used are frequency and market reach/awareness. Sometime they’ll use connectedness, especially if they’re considering the influence of bloggers.

The problem is that influence is multi-dimensional. Currently we use four dimensions of influence, and are piloting a further four (from which we expect two to be practical and consistently measurable).

It also explains why Bill Gates and Steve Jobs rarely turn up on our influencer rankings, along with the other obvious CEO of top companies. These individuals may influence industry trends and directions, but they rarely affect real decisions at the coal face.

CMO Council Summit talk

I suppose these days I should refer to this as a “gig.” But I just can’t shake the image of rock stars in leather trousers. I digress.

I’m invited to address the CMO Council’s Summit next week in Berlin – I’m in the after-dinner slot. It’s a great opportunity to meet lots of Marketing chiefs in one place – should be a good event.

If you’re going, let me know – perhaps we can hook up.

More on Net Promoter adoption

Interesting post on NPS here.

At Influencer50 we’ve rolled out our NIPS service – NIPS = Net Influencer Promoter Score. It’s based on the premise that influencer promoter scores should predict a customer-orientated NPS.

NIPS is a combination of NPS and the Delphi method to consensus-based forcasting. Basically, it’s ascientific approach to prove what all good consultants know – that if you talk to enough knowledgeable people eventually you become knowledgeable yourself (and can then sell that expertise).

The trick is knowing which people are the ones to talk to…

More case studies – and an update on the book

Further to my initial announcement on case studies for the forthcoming book, I can reveal two more case study subjects. These are Wipro and Yahoo!, thus adding to Adobe and Palm (and more coming soon).

What is interesting about both Wipro and Yahoo (without giving too much away) is that they have established Influencer Relations departments or functions within their marketing operations. This trend is growing.

The book is complete in draft proof format, and is out for review by a select group of experts – I hope they like it. We also have a natty cover design. The book web site is under construction and should be up and running shortly. It’s all coming together (finally).

Announcing our first case studies

Our book, Influencer Marketing: influencing business decision-maker ecosystems, will feature a dozen state-of-the-art influencer marketing case studies. We’re proud and excited about these, since (a) there aren’t many around and (b) we worked bloody hard to find them all.

I’m delighted to reveal that Adobe and Palm will be case studies in the book, courtesy of our friends at Rubicon Consulting (thanks Nilofer).

More announcements coming soon. The book is due out in November.