In our first post in the series on What is Influence, I presented three views from three influential people. Comments suggested each are saying the same thing, and yet, the pathway to defining influence is rocky (just like that journey to define public relations, if you recall). This week, I’m running a series of ponderences (I coin words) from a variety of Tweeps, and I thank each of you who has lent thought, time and writing to contribute.
Rachel Minihan is owner of Purple Phone PR, and I love how she writes her thought process in plain speak for us all to nod and ponder and agree (or not):
Well, I guess the thing is that the definition already exists, right? According to Websters, it means “the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command.” Let’s skip right on through the last part of that definition, because that’s essentially what social media IS – you throw your idea out there and see what comes of it. You don’t FORCE people to hear or experience it, right?
That leaves the phrase “producing an effect.” Yesterday, I was certain that this meant an action had to result. Now, I wonder…does an effect have to be an action? Can it just implant an idea or a feeling? Is one (action, thought, feeling) of greater importance than another?
This made me decide that I really didn’t know what the word “effect” meant (despite having used it a billion times in my life!). Looked that up. It actually means that it CHANGES the person or thing in some way. Ahh…so to influence something you have to actually change it!
Back to social media–How do we figure out if someone was influenced? How could we measure if they had been changed in some way?
The first thing that comes to mind is sentiment. “They” already measure positive, neutral, negative sentiment. Honing that a bit more could help; for instance, if I RT something without comment, that would be one thing: it simply shows that I found it useful enough for others to have it, but not something that really resulted in me being changed. But, if I added “this made my day” or “gosh, I needed a kick in the pants!” or “Wow, I never thought of that,”– it would indicate the tweet had changed my perspective.
What’s tricky are the “who you know” metrics, right? Because on one hand, if you know more people, the POTENTIAL for offering greater influence exists. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are influential.
****************
Following Rachel’s personal-brainstorm banter is Brian Ellis. He provides a nice counterpoint to Rachel – she of the esoteric-ness of influence, and he of the analytical measurement (remember when I said there are two camps?).
Brian Ellis is with Anocial Social Media:
Social media influence is the ability to inspire people to take action. We see this in simple forms with people like @GuyKawasaki and @mayhemstudios. They have a certain amount of influence shown in the sheer number of RTs they receive; that pertains to Twitter alone.
With Klout, I think that they are taking too much into consideration. They are trying to average out a score based on the “big two,” Facebook and Twitter. I feel like those are two separate entities. Tracking measurement for either is very much the same, but they are very different platforms with very different demographics. I think each platform should be measured separately and then can be put side by side to give you an overall feel.
That’s what all this really is anyway; it’s all about the feel. No matter what the numbers tell you, and as long as you are progressing, it really is about how it “feels” to you and to those you are putting your message out to.
I think that effectively measuring your influence must start with a decision as to where on the web you want to hold influence. Listen to which people are talking about you, and what they are saying; basic ROI will give you plenty of insight into your level of influence. Look at the simple things, like how many people have subscribed to your RSS, and it will show you in simple terms how influential you have become.
Brian – like your thoughts on this. The notion of a “real world” view – measuring for yourself against your own goals – really is what it’s all about in the end.
Rachel wrote, “if you know more people, the POTENTIAL for offering greater influence exists. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are influential.” That’s it exactly, and where a lot of people miss out on how it really works. Yes more contacts yield greater potential, but it’s all about how you connect with those contacts. Awesome viewpoint, Rachel.
I think Rachel is on it, as well with those last two lines, and Brian is absolutely on it with how to measure your TRUE clout. Remember, no matter how much we exist online, we exist offline more.
Real-life clout is what makes up the Klout of many celebrities of different arenas almost instantaneously. And that brings up the other factor: is there such a thing as “good” clout and “bad” clout? In an ideal world, people with a notorious influence or reputation would have fewer followers and less engagement, but we don’t live in one, and they have the same crowd appeal as a train wreck.
Something else to take into account before putting a number out there or accepting the one provided, for that matter.
Bad clout is so much more “sexy,” isn’t it? Bad boys/girls sell and all that jazz — Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, etc. There’s never been an opportunity to showcase clout before; social media provides it. I like what you’ve suggested here, Shakirah. Peoples’ clout will be a dead giveaway because it begins in real life before it heads to the ether.
Love the post, Jayme, and love the comments…does that mean I’ve been influenced?;)
I really like the concept of “potential” influence, juxtapositioned against the inside-out job of measuring that which is meaningful: to you, your business, your intention and your intended outcomes.
I like the idea of looking at the “simple things”, and using the tools that are most appropriate to measure what you want to measure.
I guess I’ve been influenced:)
Indeed! Thanks for stopping in to lend support for these fine contributors, Kaarina.
My pleasure Jayme:)
Let’s say I’m a marketer and I influence someone into tweeting about my product – but they don’t buy my product. Do I care? Do I then rate myself as less influential?
I like Rachel’s approach and I’d say YES, using the pure definition of influence, it definitely counts that you got me to think or feel differently. I think quite a lot of that is unmeasurable both online or offline.
But to marketers -for some reason I am thinking of marketing tonight, not sure why – do I care if it doesn’t mean my bottom line was influenced?
You kind of bring in some other questions Jenn. Who’s to say that one of the people seeing the RT does buy? Or maybe one of them also RTs the RT and three or four steps down the line someone does buy your product. Aside from showing a certain amount of influence, RTs can also be construed as positive sentiment. From a marketing standpoint a simple RT does not affect my bottom line but it has the potential to reach someone outside of your field of view, and influence that person to buy. So yes, I am happy with any and all RTs I get.
Not disagreeing with you Brian – just want to push on one thing a little: does a CFO care about positive sentiment?
Haha! My optimism and the fact that I work with very small businesses is showing through. No, you are very right, CFOs don’t give a whack about retweets 🙂
Agreeing with Jenn, sentiment only goes so far. I mean people may say they like this newscaster but do the ratings really show that? Everyone may talk kindly about how much they love the Old Spice ads, but unless they are buying and keep buying, not sure of the influence.. other than I talk and share more about Old Spice ads than ever. (Sentiment for the ad agency too.)
Thanks for coming…and, please come back tomorrow. Just queued you up with two others for another post in the series.
Liked the discussion here and of course, loved Brian’s point about Twitter and Facebook often being totally different networks with different audiences and goals. I just so totally agree.