Influence measurement is recipient-led, not creator-led
There’s nothing like a bit of nonsense to jolt me back into blogging action. The specific nonsense comes from, surprisingly, Forrester, for whom I usually have high regard.
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.
Influence, politicians and payment
The headline this morning is that senior politicians and former ministers were prepared to take money to lobby on government policy. Watch the Dispatches Channel4 programme here.
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.
Engaging with influencers – lessons from Influencer events
Last Wednesday Influencer50 hosted an influencer event with IBM at The Ivy. Aimed at influencers in the midmarket, we were lucky enough to have Lord Norman Lamont and Julie Meyer as speakers. Influencer50 doesn’t run many events but they’re useful ‘punctuation marks’ for our clients to meets lots of their influencers in one go.
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…
Influence Pyramids Part 2 – why B2B is different from B2C
In a recent post, I was somewhat disparaging towards the idea of influence as a pyramid shaped hierarchy of cascading wisdom. Influence doesn’t work like that – it’s more a bidirectional conversation between influential people.
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…
How should AR pros use online channels to increase influence on their target prospects?
[This article was originally posted on the IIAR blog a few weeks back]
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:
- 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.
- 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.
Personal versus ‘Firm’ influence
Does a person’s influence come from their own expertise and authority, or does it come from the credibility of the firm they work for? Actually it’s a bit of both, and I was intrigued to read via Augie Ray that Forrester is banning its analysts from blogging outside the ‘official’ Forrester blog platform.
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…
Influence isn’t pyramid shaped
I was directed to this video of a model for influence by a member of the Influencer Marketing LinkedIn group. Have a look.
It is, of course, utter nonsense:
Influence is not unidirectional – it flows in all directions. You are as likely to influence as you are to be influenced.
Influence does not cascade down from ‘super-influencers’, despite what advertising executives might want you to believe.
Influencers are not always obvious and high-profile. You are more likely to be influenced by a Tesco’s wine buyers than any wine connoisseur.
Influence models need to be holistic in order to be effective. The decision maker needs to hear the same message from a wide array of influencers, so you need to identify and engage different types of influencer. Where are the health influencers in this pyramid model? Ethical sourcing and Fairtrade influencers? Retail supply chain?
There is danger in simplifying complex ideas like influence – communicating the wrong framework just stores up trouble later on.
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:
About
As European Managing Director at Influencer50, Duncan Brown brings first hand knowledge and proven expertise on influencer marketing more »
Recent Comments