This post is by Geoff Livingston
My latest book “Welcome to the Fifth Estate: How to Create and Sustain a Winning Social Media Strategy,” discusses influencer theory in detail, including a section on the history of influencer theory on the social Web. Since drafting that material, leaderboard debate about quantifying influence has dramatically shaped the conversation on influencer theory. This post looks at the state of influencer theory on the social Web specifically for SmartBrief on Social Media readers based on the book and recent developments.
Click for full-sized version.
Successful online word-of-mouth or grass-roots marketing involves an attention phase in which community influencers embrace and spread the message. The dynamics of influence is a highly disputed topic. No one knows what’s going to go “viral.” But talking to the few and the passionate — your influencers, often leaders in the community — is always an ingredient, often at an early stage but certainly at some point during the upward trending curve.
For organizational social media, this means building credible relationships with contacts who have networks of the right people, not necessarily the most people. Leaderboard systems such as Klout and Empire Avenue can quantify individual social media capabilities and strength. Using these gamified leaderboard systems, companies and nonprofits can build lists of high-scoring voices and target them as influencers.
Many would argue that understanding your community’s dynamics and building relationships from within a community as a member of the Fifth Estate is a more reliable strategy than using a leaderboard list. Getting an idea embraced by those who can best spread the word often requires subject-matter expertise and accessibility, stronger grass-roots within a community.
The discussion about influence’s actual being has been ongoing since the social Web first began. As the infographic depicts (special thanks to JESS3 for providing the image), there are several theories influencing the professional conversation. This list of chronological descriptions also includes who generated the theory and some popular examples.
The Tipping Point (2000) by Malcolm Gladwell: Movements are caused by three types of influencers: connectors, mavens (subject-matter experts) and salesmen. Examples: Old Spice Guy, Dell Listens.
Six Degrees/Weak Ties (2003) by Duncan Watts: Data analysis shows influencers rarely start contagious movements; instead, average citizens provide the spark. Examples: Egyptian revolution, Tumblr – Digg events.
One Percenters (2006) by Jackie Huba and Ben McConnell: It is the content creators amongst Internet communities that drive online conversations. Examples: Lady Gaga, Ford Fiesta.
The Magic Middle (2006) by David Sifry: The middle tier of content creators and voices break stories, and discussing that trickles up into widespread contagious events. Examples: 2008 Obama election, Motrin Moms.
The Groundswell (2008) by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff: Movements start within communities, and leaders rise up out of the community and can have many roles including content creator, critic and collector. Examples: Haiti earthquake texting, Pepsi Refresh Project.
Trust Agents (2009) by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith: Influencers are people who build online trust and relationships with communities that look to them for advice and direction. Examples: Gary Vaynerchuk’s Wine Library TV, Republican Party’s #FirePelosi campaign.
Free Agents (2010) by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine: These trusted influencers are independent of traditional command and control organizations and crash into walls of storied culture. Examples: @BPGlobalPR, Robert Scoble at Microsoft’s Channel 8.
Leaderboards (2010-11): Influence can be quantified by online actions taken by a person’s community, including retweets, mentions, comments and more. Examples: Klout, Empire Avenue.
These theories primarily fall into two camps. The Gladwell camp argues for an uber-influencer approach that has a select few types of people who can move networks and organizations toward action. One can argue that the One Percenter, Trust Agent, Free Agent and Leaderboard theories all expand or play off Gladwell’s original Tipping Point theory of three types of critical influencers, though the Free Agent theory has a unique element of independence to it.
The second camp plays off the Six Degrees theory originally offered by Watts, which holds that viral events are the result of individuals within a community, those who rise up at the right moment or on the right topic. Both Sifry’s Magic Middle and Li and Bernoff’s Groundswell theories have similar views of influence. While a much more egalitarian view of influence, it is important to note that all of these theories are based on empirical data of actual social networks.
To be sure, there are other influence theories. For example, some think influencers can be limited to a much smaller group known as Dunbar’s number: about 150 people; the concept was first proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. Dunbar’s theory acknowledges a cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. But in reality, today’s business conversation about influence is dominated by an almost-decade-long debate between the Gladwell and Watts schools of theory about influence.
Back to today’s discussion on leaderboard quantification of influence: When considering the state of influencer theory, it is important to remember that leaderboards provide only a list and fail to accurately depict influence within a community based on all of the other theories — unless highly qualified by subject matter and the communities surveyed. When used within highly qualified topic areas and social networks, leaderboards help you quantify who are the uber-influencers in a Gladwellian sense. If you subscriber to a more democratized, networked influence model, then leaderboads are going to be of marginal value, instead requiring a deeper intimacy with communities of interest.
The dynamics of social-network technology continue to evolve. Someone’s clout can be taken away or affected by new networks — such Google+ — capabilities and influences. As communicators, we are only beginning to understand how pervasive mobile Web access has become, much less how this burgeoning trend affects our community influence patterns. Empirical scientific studies have only begun. While we try to force finite concepts onto this zeitgeist, we are at the same time evolving the way it works, changing our own information patterns as we seek to understand, evolve and expand this evergreen world.
The lesson? Remain teachable. The ability to adapt keeps us relevant.
Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin
RSS
A good discussion, Geoff. I've saved if for use in class this coming semester.
Perhaps I'm being picky, as I prepare for Fall semester. But, I would be wary of calling these propositions theories. The six degrees proposition was called dots and lines in early 20th century cultural anthropology. Chris Anderson's Long Tail was being discussed in social network writings as far back as 1930. That time period is, by the way, where (in academia) the discussion and study of social networks began. It may go back farther.
What's missing in all these attempts to define social networks and influence? Each of the concepts you've shared above have yet to be verified. They have not been tested, in an heuristic empirical sense. I'm referring to any (if it even has been done by any of the people listed above) experimental testing that can be replicated and then – only then – called a theory.
Frankly, all of the efforts in social media that I have seen aimed at defining influence and influencers are tools that seek to (a) drive sales of a company/interest, (b) try to elevate a company/interest into some form of 'thought leader' or (c) pseudo-research disguised as marketing promotion — maybe even (d) sell a book.
Even today, almost a century after most research into social networks (by anthropologists and communicators), there seems to be little agreement as to a theory that works on a large scale. Small networks may be studied, but their characteristics do not necessarily apply to other networks. Ultimately, there are no absolutes – as is suggested by many (if not all) of those cited above. Further, they are mostly posturing their ideas with anecdotal evidence. You can't build a theory on anecdotal evidence.
Sure, there is some meat to this comment. For example, Anderson's theory of the Long Tail was based off the Pareto principle. Watts, however, did a great deal of data analysis while he was with Yahoo. Also, Groundswell used data that Forrester was amassing, and Sifry used Technorati's data based on trends it was seeing over and over again with blog posts in the mid 2000s. That being said, they have yet to be verified by scientific research as you point out. All three theories are very similar.
The top down theories are pure conjecture , based on observations from though leaders. Anecdotal evidence fuels them. There is some element of sex appeal that makes them popular, and perhaps some threads of truth to them as well; however, while popular, I doubt that they capture the heart of contagious events.
I hope we can get to a point where these theories are empirically tested by independent sources, and proven, validated or modified. Thank you for a thoughtful comment, Robert.
I'd certainly agree that little has been fully proven to be true in this area.
That said, in my fairly limited reading it is Duncan Watts who has based his work on data and gone as far as anyone in trying to prove his theories.
It's also instructive that Duncan Watts theories are the ones that tend to say that influence is hard to pin down, hard to harness and might not even exist in the form other, more tipping-point types like to claim.
Anyway, I can't think of a single form of social science which has conclusively settled on any theory of anything, so I guess there's a way to go in the debate….
I'd have to agree with you, Kevin. Out of all of them, Watts and Sifry make the most sense, and with Sifry, only because I have used the theory in my work, and it seems to hold water.
Great stuff, Geoff. As you point out, new platforms and technology can emerge without warning (often just when we feel comfortable with out own knowledge/breadth). The idea that influence is also stable is bunkum. We need to be innovative enough in our strategies and flexible enough in their execution to move as required.
My recent post A Cup of Chaos #69: Men, Soften the Fck Up
Thank you, Gavin! How are you?
GL, I'll give you a + for this analysis. Not a +K or a +1. Just a +
.
Your last line says it best: "The lesson? Remain teachable. The ability to adapt keeps us relevant." The extension of that in my mind is two fold. 1) Continue to learn how to teach others. Because that is the hardest and most valuable thing we do as communicators — inform with hopes of inspiring change. 2) Tattoo the word context on your forehead or do whatever you need to so you remember it. I once heard Jason Falls say, when talking about companies working with bloggers, "find out what works for you and your brand." As long as you are being ethical in doing what works, then the best approach for you in the context of you business and industry is what matters.
To me, that is the key. Influence will have a slightly different meaning for every brand. And the best communicators will learn to define influence within the sandbox where they are playing and then teach their peers the value it provides. Cheers. Good stuff.
My recent post Are bloggers and journalists the same?
Influence varies greatly by person, by brand. I definitely agree with that. Each community is unique with disparate views within…
Here is my 2cents on all of them. It's all about the Pee Pee : -)
Twitter: I need to pee pee!
Facebook: I pee peed!
Foursquare: I’m pee peeing here!
Quora: Why am I pee peeing?
Youtube: Watch this pee pee!
LinkedIn: I pee pee well
New myspace: let’s dance while pee peeing!
Google+: Let's all pee pee in a circle http://awesomize.me : HOW AWESOME DO I PEE PEE on Twitter, FB, Foursquare, Quora, youtube, LinkedIn, myspace and Google+
Gee, that's original.
Loved the drawing. It would have been great for you to pull more from the ancient era (ex. Siddhartha) or the more recent historical era (ex. Pareto and Marx). I also think you missed a key player of the modern era, Ed Keller. Lastly I would suggest that Klout is mathematically silly therefore has very little place in a discussion about influencer theory. Klout, and other services of that ilk, only measure the partial digital activity of a person (e-mail anyone?) and it's pretty clear that well over 70% of all influencing goes on face to face.
It was fun seeing the drawing of Ben, Jackie, Josh, Malcom and all of the rest of the peeps. Next stop Amazon where I will order your book.
Geno Church and I have a long running conversation/list on the history, since the founding of Buddhism, of Influencer Marketing practitioners. Glad to read you into the conversation anytime. Here's a small piece of the convo (:59). http://fizzcorp.com/blog/jesus-the-influencer-vid….
Ted
The very word influence has its etymological roots in an ethereal force that affects the character and destiny of people. Consider the early use of the word was what we now use as influenza – BEFORE the day of any understanding of microbiology. In those days, the word referred to that which the users of the word had no way of codifying into a mathematical formula, let alone an image of a microscopic virus! Such is the nature of influence, we can observe and report, but the virus of influence mutates faster than we can observe, codify and finally report in a capsulated form. I suggest it is like the problem of Schrödinger’s Cat – the very act of observation (from the perspective of the observer) CREATES what is observed (sealing the fate and eliminating all other possibilities) thus rendering the process somewhat futile but incessantly fascinating. __It seems that observation, rooted in a humble wiliness to learn, followed by enlightened trial and error will continue to be the answer to a question that mutates faster than we can cogitate. __
Not discussed in the article or comments are trust and strength of relationship. Two factors that are critical to influence and challenging to quantify without soliciting the information.
[...] proposto por Geoff Livingston (e montado por Jess3 e Zoetica), autor de The Fifth State, no artigo The State of Influencer Theory on the social web. É consideravelmente limitado, por trazer referências apenas dos últimos dez anos, mas útil [...]
In those days, the word referred to that which the users of the word had no way of codifying into a mathematical formula, let alone an image of a microscopic virus! Such is the nature of influence, we can observe and report, but the virus of influence mutates faster than we can observe
We're still a year away from the majority of Americans carrying a smartphone, where mobile shopping will become a popular comfort…and 2-3 years away before we give up our analog wallets!
I also consider you missed a key participant of the current era, Ed Lecturer. Finally I would imply that Klout is mathematically slaphappy thence has real small gauge in a communicating around influencer theory
My recent post Happy Christmas