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.

FT’s Decision Dynamics – 3

This is the third and final part of a look at the FT’s Decision Dynamics survey (see here for part 1 and part 2. This part looks at the role of social media in decision making.

Frankly, I think there’s a lot of tosh and assertion on the importance of social media in influence. In short, while there’s been a rapid rise in the use of social media there’s little evidence that it’s impact decisions, particularly in the B2B world. We’re all blogging and Twittering and ‘LinkingIn’ to each other but not in the context of decision making. Anyway, back to the FT survey.

This first chart (below) illustrates that rapid rise in use of social media by enterprise decision makers. As the FT notes, “Work-related use of social bookmarking and community sites has exploded in the past year.” It has, but only to the levels seen to date for reading blogs and using professional networking sites.

(Source: Financial Times Annual Decision Dynamics Survey 2009)

The most telling chart, though, is this next one, which shows the usage of various types of social media in a work or leisure context. It’s interesting to see the use of social bookmarking (Dig, Delicious, etc) as a decision making aid. But webcasts and streaming video are also important and more established in the B2B marketing mix.

Most surprising, given the volume of noise on the subject, is the low penetration of Twitter.

(Source: Financial Times Annual Decision Dynamics Survey 2009)

My own take on this is that Twitter:

(a) Is useful if you know who you want to follow, but can’t help identify important people

(b) Is a great echo chamber of followers and followees, but has limited reach outside the Twitterverse, and

(c) Is really only used by people that don’t have a “traditional” job (autonomous, mobile, networked), which may include most of the readership of this blog and most analysts, but not your average CIO.

New research into online influence

On the LinkedIn group for Influencer Marketing I recently posed a question on the relation (if any) between online and offline influence. I also asked if online indicators of influence could act as a proxy for offline influence.

One of the responses pointed me to a new survey being conducted by the Society of New Communication Research (SNCR) called ‘The New Symbiosis of Professional Networks.’ It’s being run in part by Don Bulmer, VP of Influencer Relations at SAP, and it aims to understand how decision makers are using social media and other (offline) networks to inform decisions.

The link to the survey is here. Please take 5 minutes to complete it – all participants will receive a copy of the report (due in the Autumn). The results should be interesting and relevant to everyone involved in influence.

Social real-world engagement

Bit of a continuation from my earlier post on Marketing Obsolescence. It continually bothers me that so much emphasis is being placed on engagement via social media technology, to the exclusion of debate and discussion on engagement in the real world.

Now, there’s no doubt that social media (such as this blog) provide a means to engage to a wide audience, and for some it has made all the difference (Seth, Hugh, James Governor, etc). I like to think that the successful bloggers would have been successful consultants or journalists or artists or whatever. In other words, social media happens to the media of choice for talented people. (It’s also the media of choice for untalented people, which is why the majority of blogs are lousy…)

Successful bloggers are successful because they say intelligent, insightful or sensible things. Their ability to communicate effectively is the core competence. The medium is blogging, but it needn’t be.

I guess I get concerned when social media gets colonised by those seeking shortcuts to a mass audience. Seth blogged on this very subject recently. It’s the very lack of friction that makes email and twitter so usable, and so quick to be colonised by spammers.

Forrester raves about the growth in social media marketing, yet I think marketers are missing a trick by not focusing on social real world engagement in parallel. Often the attraction is scale – you can certainly contact many more people by email than you can talk to face-to-face. But ask any sales person if they’d rather sell by email or by looking in their prospect’s eye, and there’s no competition. Face-to-face contact will always win.

Similarly, professional advisers are most effective (ie most influential) when they deliver their advice face-to-face. Importantly, this means actually looking into the eyes of the adviser, not just seeing their face on stage or a projected screen.

I’m absolutely in favour of social media, as this blog, our email newsletter and the new LinkedIn group testifies. But let’s not let the pendulum swing too far away from real world engagement.

The influence of online product reviewers

Rubicon Consulting has written a white paper based on research conducted on US-based web users. Rubicon is run by Nilofer Merchant, with whom I worked in compiling case studies for the book.

There are some important points to pull out from the study. It finds that those people that regularly post reviews and comments are not your average customer, but enthusiasts (or enthusiastic detractors). Some firms may decide that these folk exist at the extreme ends of the customer spectrum, are not typical of general customer, and can therefore be ignored.

This is a mistake: although average customers don’t post reviews they do read them. Importantly, product reviews drive product purchases, so ignoring the review posters is dangerous. As the paper concludes:

“The most frequent contributors are the influencers, and they have a strong influence on purchase decisions because they write most of the online recommendations and reviews.”

This means that firms can’t ignore frequent contributors, but they have to talk to them in a different way to ‘normal’ customers. This is music to my ears, echoing Influencer50’s own mantra of “Don’t pitch to influencers.”

Other findings I picked out include:

• Approaches that work well in one type of community may fail utterly in another. Confirmation of the ‘horses for courses’ guide to influence ecosystems.
• Confirmation of the 90-9-1 rule: 90% of users are lurkers, 9% of users contribute from time to time, and 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions.
• Influence of product reviews varies by category. You’re more likely to use an online review to buy a digital camera than you are to choose a doctor. (I’m relieved to hear this!)
• Online discussion is theatre: “Web discussion is a performance in which a small group of people interact with each other, and with companies, for the benefit, education, and amusement of everyone else.” Understand this and it shapes your entire approach to online communities.

There is a ton of other information on web usage in the US, which makes interesting reading. For example, the research finds that web users are more likely to vote Democratic. That should be an interesting theory to check in the coming week…

‘Influencers possess less clout’

So says Pollara, a Canadian research firm. Nice headline. Except what the research says is that online influencers (bloggers, social media users, etc) have less clout than real world influencers. And that’s in consumer markets.

This is evidence of a vocabulary drift that now equates influencers with bloggers. It’s symptomatic of a lack of thought over what influencers are and how they work. The fact that a blog gets a lot of hits has no bearing on its influence. Why? Because influence is subject-specific. Hugh McLeod may have influence in social media, wine and suits, but none (as far as I know) in cars, scotch and pets.

The biggest issue I have in the influence of bloggers is that most bloggers that have any influence at all do so over other bloggers. The area that bloggers have most influence, as a group, is blogging and social media.

Most claims of the influence of social media are generic. They talk about the influence on “products” or “brands” or “services”. But this is meaningless when trying to understand the influence on purchase decisions in favour of a specific product or brand or service.

Which is what matters to marketers.

“We can’t find out who our influencers are…”

Reuters reports that US PR companies are struggling to identify social media influencers, because they are using criteria out of step with the social networks being influenced. PR companies think quality of content, relevance and search engine rankings are important in influencing social media users. Social media users in fact value participation levels (e.g. number of comments), frequency of posting, and name recognition of the individual.

Two key points here:

Firstly, PR is out of step with its target audience, and the research by Society for New Communications Research is therefore very timely. Importantly, PR firms under-estimate the value of engagement in influencing through social media.

Secondly, I think the study shows that influence itself is a social phenomenon, whether exerted through social media or via more traditional channels. A great way to engage with your target audience is to engage with its influencers, but this has to be done in an appropriate social context.

That’s why establishing communities of influencers works well. We say often at Influencer50 that influencers love to influence, but they also love to interact with other influencers – that how they get much of their influence in the first place. Firms that facilitate this interaction are much valued – like the CMO Council.

HP’s Lusher on AR and social media

Carter Lusher, AR head at HP and ex-Gartner analyst, posts on the use of social media by analyst firms (synopsis: not enough) and wonders on the impact of blogging on influence from analysts. Great issues.

The current position, as I see it, is that bloggers have relatively little influence on CIO-level execs and business folk. They do, however, have influence in the more techie arenas. Big generalisations, of course, but it seems to hold for most markets, and makes a reasonable starting hypothesis. Demographics are also an important feature of socila media’s reach (but this may be changing: if The Archers are podcasting, anyone can…). Country differences also exist (e.g. France is generally more blog-friendly…).

It’s important to recognise that bloggers are often influential because of their “day job” and just happen to blog nowadays. Richard Holway is a good example. Blogging is a means of access, and it allows previously inaccessible people to gain exposure. So you find DBAs and developers emerging as influential bloggers – their influence is expanded out to the web, beyond the confines of their employers.

In researching case studies for the book, I discovered that blogging and other social media need to be dedicated activities, with time and budget allocated. Otherwise it’s just dabbling, as Carter points out in IDC’s approach.

The key question is always, influential on whom? If analysts are trying to influence CIOs then there is no immediate need to blog, because CIOs generally don’t read them. James Governor is successful because he aims at the more techie audience, and is thus more influential on that audience.

The trick, then, is to monitor blog readership closely, and to respond when the sitation changes.

Evolving social media

I’m getting into the evolution of social media and its influence, driven partly by research for the book, and partly through trying to understand what (if any) social media I should be using to engage Influencer50’s market.

Following on from emerging measurement criteria, Eric Kintz points us to Peter Kim at Forrester, who has suggested a model of personas that we adopt when using various social media. I don’t think the model s complete or static but it’s a good start to understanding how folk use social media, now and in the future.

What’s interesting is that much of the debate seems to exist in a post-LinkedIn world. Am I right in sensing that the social media gurus see LinkedIn as passe? Is FaceBook its successor?

It’s always refreshing to talk to “real” people doing what I’d call proper jobs. Selling stuff, making stuff, marketing stuff*, etc. They use LinkedIn all the time, and will continue to use it because of the investment they put into it. They are not nearly as fashion-conscious when it comes to social media as social media commentators are. As always, the “gurus” have to show the way, but the majority is just fine with the status quo.

*Disclaimer: describing marketing as a proper job is highly subjective. Read this to see whether your marketing career qualifies as “proper” (registration required).

Measuring the influence of social media users

You may have detected from this blog that I’m less than convinced by the hype over Web 2.o and it’s impact on influence. Certainly, from our research work for clients, blogs rarely feature as a key influencer.

Part of my problem is that the degree of influence is asserted, measured by the number of links or some other dubious metric. So I’m intrigued by an emerging method of determining the influence of blogs and other social media such as FaceBook and LinkedIn. Hat tip to James Governor who linked to David Brain’s sixtysecondview blog. David runs Edelman PR in the UK, but otherwise seems a good chap…

David’s idea is to measure not only the links that one gets on a blog, but also the links on LinkedIn, friends in FaceBook, Twitter friends, Flickr photo uploads, Diggs and other social media activities. The concept is premised on the trend for people to have more than one social tool in use. Sheesh – I can barely keep up with blogging.

I can’t help thinking that for all its diligence in tracking the various media it’s still measuring links, and links don’t necessarily imply influence. My beef with the links=influence assertion is that it’s easy to fake links, and that links are only a measure of one dimension of influence – connectedness. There are other dimensions, such as expertise, that are much harder to measure. And what about the value of particular connections? Connections are not equal – I know who matters more to me in my LinkedIn network.

But David’s composite score does help because it evens out some of the biases that would be present in just one social tool. By measuring half a dozen or so, an average score emerges.

What I find worrying is that in order to demonstrate and exert influence through social media one has to use multiple formats. I could spend all my time doing just that, but I have a proper job as well. Those that have time to keep up with the social media demands of influence run the risk of ignoring the other dimensions of influence. Plus the most important risk of all, which is forgetting who, why and how they are trying to influence in the first place.

Today’s state-of-the-art influence modus operanda is one-to-one communication, by meeting people face-to-face, telephone conversations and email. In that order. Social media is a distant fourth at the moment.