Send to Kindle

Tweet

Share

It's funny. Just yesterday, I got notified by two separate people - one of whom is my colleague Greg Verdino - about an article that criticizes the theory behind Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. One directed me to the Wall Street Journal's The Informed Reader post called "The Cast Against Marketing to 'Influencers'" while the other referred to the recent Fast Company article Is The Tipping Point Toast?

Gladwell's theory (echoed by Ed Kelly and Jon Berry in The Influentials) held that trends are influenced by a select few; word of mouth marketing efforts typically focus on those. But the articles mention that social networks are too complex to function like that, and that the influencer theory is kaput.

The reason it caught my attention is because both articles cite the research of Columbia University research scientist Duncan Watts. This is the same research I actually wrote about 8 months ago, in post called The Accidental Influentials. The concept was that ideas or trends can spread like a forest fire, and that it doesn't matter who applies the match - it's the conditions of the forest that make a difference.

There are two points I'll raise in connection with this.

In Social Media, Timing Is Everything
The first thing that struck me is that I hit upon this back in May of 2007. But the mainstream media is only getting to it now. Why? The topic is clearly in a field I'm interested in, so that might be one factor as to why I covered it early. The other is that I had initially heard about the study on a podcast. Given that new media is still struggling for recognition as a legitimate and viable channel, I'm not surprised it didn't make headlines then.

Watts is Wrong
As someone who works in the field of conversational/word-of-mouth/social media marketing, it should come as no surprise that I think Watts isn't quite correct when he claims that influentials aren't necessarily influential. I think that his research was flawed in that it only focused on email and a virtual setting, whereas now we have a variety of communications methodologies that account for the rapid spread of ideas: IM, video chat, and social networks of all kinds, to name a few. I won't go so far as to say he's 100% wrong - but then again, I don't think that Gladwell was 100% right either.

At crayon, we consult and advise on a variety of conversational marketing strategies that incorporate an element of influencer outreach (or "blogger outreach," as many call it). With the proper amount of time and attention dedicated to research, and using tools like Technorati and Alexa, it's fairly easy to determine who the major influencers are in any given segment. Where it gets difficult is figuring out how to interact with them. You need to know how each one communicates, in which social networks they participate, and on and on.

My Alternate Theory - The Boy Scout Analogy
I propose that a hybrid theory - Watts' and Gladwell's theories combined - makes more sense. We can agree that there will always be influencers, whether you call them A-listers, celebrities, or whatever. People will always look to these leaders and high profile individuals for cues.

At the same time, I think Watts is onto something when he uses the forest fire analogy. Yes, the conditions have to be right for an idea to spread. But he claims "any old match will do" to get it started. I don't think so. Someone might have wet matches or might not know how to strike one properly. It's the combination of finding the right conditions (social networks, communities, etc.) and applying the match (friends, members, followers, commenters, in those socnets & communities).

Once you've got the proper combination of communities and influencers and you understand the intricacies and nuances of how they work together, then you'll have the recipe for success.

As part of their training, the Boy Scouts have to learn how to make fires how to adhere to fire safety. Their official motto is "be prepared." I think the same should be said for marketers consider conversational marketing.

Labels: conversation, crayon, social media, strategy, study, trends, WOM

 Comments

 LINKS TO THIS POST

At 1/25/2008 11:15 AM,  Cam Beck said...

There is a mix of arguments being made by Watts, and it's difficult for me to dismiss the entire case out of rejection of a few minor points.

Concerning Gladwell's argument, it seems a bit circular. You can only tell after the fact if someone is an influencer.

Q: How can you tell if someone is an influencer?
A: If he influences others.

So it's easy to dismiss a tactic or a technique as not being targeted right, because the result determines the reason.

"Well, we didn't target the influencer."

Q: How do you know?
A: Because he didn't influence.

What the FastCompany article has absolutely wrong is that mass marketing is the answer, because mass marketing, in its old form, is impossible. Our attention is too splintered. Therefore, targeting smaller groups is often the only option, or else it is prohibitively expensive.

 

At 1/25/2008 11:27 AM,  Scott said...

Cam, thanks for your comment. I see where you're coming from on the targeting/results reasoning, but I think it's easier to discern that beforehand, as we can see patterns of influence, particularly in online circles. Of course, it stands to reason that not every influencer can be influential on every topic, which leads nicely into your final point that mass marketing is dead.

That's not to say that we'll see television and print curl up and die - they'll always be a part of the mix - but that we need to understand where, how and why people get information about products they'd like to buy.

In the B2B world, it's pretty clear that peer influence is high on the scale of the factors in the sales cycle. It's up to each industry to understand how its customers think about its products & services and to act accordingly.

 

At 1/25/2008 11:41 AM,  Cam Beck said...

"Of course, it stands to reason that not every influencer can be influential on every topic"

Dang. I had this point typed in the text field but deleted it in order to focus on a single issue.

But it's dead-right. Who cares what burger Paris Hilton wants me to eat?

 

At 1/25/2008 11:54 AM,  Derrick Kwa said...

I haven't finished the Tipping Point yet - only read part of it so far - but I've heard and read about it enough that I think I more or less have the gist of it. And I agree with you that I don't think either Gladwell or Watts are 100% correct, but for a different reason.

Yes, I do think that there are certain people who are perhaps more influential. But I don't think it's necessarily because of their ability to influence or anything like that. It's more their willingness and passion to take the story/idea and run with it.

I'd like to throw in something Seth Godin talks about, and I think I agree more with Seth. It's less about the "influentials" than it is about the "early adopters". The people who are passionate enough about your product and idea that they will take it and spread it.

To revert to the forest fire analogy, I think the analogy is slightly flawed in itself. A fire (most of the time) doesn't start by itself. Yes, there are exceptions if the conditions are really specific (really dry, etc), but most of the time, you need a spark, a lighted match, something that starts it. And someone to light that match.

Similarly, I think most ideas don't necessarily spread by themselves. I'd think that the analogy would be better suited with the idea as the match. You need someone to light the match. And that's who marketers should be targeting, in my opinion.

Just my two cents, I'm not a marketer or anything so yeah. =). Feel free to disagree.

 

At 1/25/2008 11:59 AM,  Scott said...

Hey Derrick - thanks for your comment. Everyone's welcome here, marketers and non-marketers alike!

You raise a good point - one I tried to make in the post, but didn't quite do it as eloquently as you. The spark or the match is essential. To take it one step further, it's part of the marketer's job to find a match that's not in the middle of an ocean or a rainforest, but in a tinder-dry setting where the flame can be ignited.

Perfect case in point: Twitter. It caught on like wildfire at the 2007 SXSW conference and look where it is now. You had early adopters (some of whom admittedly were influential) in the right place at the right time. Voila!

 

At 1/25/2008 12:51 PM,  Cam Beck said...

Derrick - I think your analysis is right on. You can't necessarily identify who will be an early adopter, but you may be able to identify people who are likely to be passionate about a topic that is in line with your strategy.

Ideally, once you find them you can nurture them and excite them by overdelivering.

But since you don't know beforehand if they really are the right people to take and spread your message, you're left to overdelivering to everyone, or in Seth's words, being remarkable.

 

At 1/25/2008 12:53 PM,  Derrick Kwa said...

Yep. Twitter hasn't really picked up as much here in Singapore, but I've more or less seen how it's picked up in America, and I agree with you, it's a great example.

And I guess that's the best mix, isn't it? Getting the right early adopters (preferably influential ones), in the right place, at the right time.

The next question would be...how? But I think that's a question for a different post altogether, isn't it? ;)

 

At 1/25/2008 5:52 PM,  Kin Lane said...

Joining the conversation is key to success. If you aren't in there is no way to influence anyone.

Seems like the naysayers are seeing things as too black and white which many traditional marketers do.

Many of us fall into this trap in everday life.

Join the conversation, listen, join in occasionally and in time more metrics will become apparent for us social media marketers to use.

It is tough to say it works or doesn't without clear metrics.

 

At 1/26/2008 6:20 PM,  Scott said...

Kin - sounds like someone's been reading a certain book. :-)

 

At 1/28/2008 7:57 AM,  Joe Pulizzi said...

Scott...very interesting post.

I guess what I keep coming back to is that, no matter which side is more correct, it always comes down to the content or communication. The conditions could be absolutely perfect, and you have the ear of influencers, but I believe most businesses are trying to figure out the "what and how do I communicate this issue" as the most prevalent.

To your point, knowing who the influencers are in a particular market is relatively easy...knowing how to talk with them is a different thing altogether. I think we need to help businesses focus more on the what and how.

Great stuff
Joe

 

At 2/23/2008 6:21 AM,  Anonymous said...

There are many social networking services operated like Orkut.com, MySpace, Facebook, etc. Orkut.com is being operated by Google. MySpace is an online community that lets you meet your friends' friends. These are popular sites especially among youths. Here people come into contact with each other and build up relations whether personal or business. There is a provision of creating a private community on MySpace and share photos, journals and interests with your growing network of mutual friends. We can judge the popularity of these sites by seeing their ranking in Alexa. Orkut has been steadily rising on the Alexa charts but MySpace is still significantly bigger than Orkut.com.

MySpace is for everyone:
1) Friends who want to talk Online
2) Single people who want to meet other Singles
3) Matchmakers who want to connect their friends with other friends
4) Families who want to keep in touch--map your Family Tree
5) Business people and co-workers interested in networking
6) Classmates and study partners

Anyone looking for long lost friends

 

Keep the Tip(ping Point)

It's funny. Just yesterday, I got notified by two separate people - one of whom is my colleague Greg Verdino - about an article that criticizes the theory behind Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. One directed me to the Wall Street Journal's The Informed Reader post called "The Cast Against Marketing to 'Influencers'" while the other referred to the recent Fast Company article Is The Tipping Point Toast?

Gladwell's theory (echoed by Ed Kelly and Jon Berry in The Influentials) held that trends are influenced by a select few; word of mouth marketing efforts typically focus on those. But the articles mention that social networks are too complex to function like that, and that the influencer theory is kaput.

The reason it caught my attention is because both articles cite the research of Columbia University research scientist Duncan Watts. This is the same research I actually wrote about 8 months ago, in post called The Accidental Influentials. The concept was that ideas or trends can spread like a forest fire, and that it doesn't matter who applies the match - it's the conditions of the forest that make a difference.

There are two points I'll raise in connection with this.

In Social Media, Timing Is Everything
The first thing that struck me is that I hit upon this back in May of 2007. But the mainstream media is only getting to it now. Why? The topic is clearly in a field I'm interested in, so that might be one factor as to why I covered it early. The other is that I had initially heard about the study on a podcast. Given that new media is still struggling for recognition as a legitimate and viable channel, I'm not surprised it didn't make headlines then.

Watts is Wrong
As someone who works in the field of conversational/word-of-mouth/social media marketing, it should come as no surprise that I think Watts isn't quite correct when he claims that influentials aren't necessarily influential. I think that his research was flawed in that it only focused on email and a virtual setting, whereas now we have a variety of communications methodologies that account for the rapid spread of ideas: IM, video chat, and social networks of all kinds, to name a few. I won't go so far as to say he's 100% wrong - but then again, I don't think that Gladwell was 100% right either.

At crayon, we consult and advise on a variety of conversational marketing strategies that incorporate an element of influencer outreach (or "blogger outreach," as many call it). With the proper amount of time and attention dedicated to research, and using tools like Technorati and Alexa, it's fairly easy to determine who the major influencers are in any given segment. Where it gets difficult is figuring out how to interact with them. You need to know how each one communicates, in which social networks they participate, and on and on.

My Alternate Theory - The Boy Scout Analogy
I propose that a hybrid theory - Watts' and Gladwell's theories combined - makes more sense. We can agree that there will always be influencers, whether you call them A-listers, celebrities, or whatever. People will always look to these leaders and high profile individuals for cues.

At the same time, I think Watts is onto something when he uses the forest fire analogy. Yes, the conditions have to be right for an idea to spread. But he claims "any old match will do" to get it started. I don't think so. Someone might have wet matches or might not know how to strike one properly. It's the combination of finding the right conditions (social networks, communities, etc.) and applying the match (friends, members, followers, commenters, in those socnets & communities).

Once you've got the proper combination of communities and influencers and you understand the intricacies and nuances of how they work together, then you'll have the recipe for success.

As part of their training, the Boy Scouts have to learn how to make fires how to adhere to fire safety. Their official motto is "be prepared." I think the same should be said for marketers consider conversational marketing.

Labels: conversation, crayon, social media, strategy, study, trends, WOM

blog comments powered by Disqus

Home