Post image for Seven truths about online influence

Seven truths about online influence

With all this talk about influence metrics, here’s my take on what I think you should pay attention to when looking for influencers in your open community.

1. Influence has to do with relationships between people – both online and offline. I may be considered an influencer in the association space, but it’s NOT because I have 13k followers on Twitter. It’s because my friends include many other people who have blogs and followers of their own, as well as people who aren’t much online at all but are engaged in the association community in real life. And by friends, I mean REAL friends. People that would share or click on something if I asked them to. Who would participate in a particular conversation if I requested their input. If you’re an active participant in your community, immersed in listening and responding and building relationships on a daily basis, you will already know who is connected to whom just through your regular interactions with people.

2. There’s no such thing as influence without context. Remember this? It didn’t matter how much I asked for help, I didn’t give my ask enough context to get people to care about it. It’s like when you stick something in both the “strength” and “weakness” boxes in a SWOT exercise – it’s rendered totally meaningless without context.  If you want to give people a reason to act on something for you, you need to explain why it matters – to you, to them, and why now.

3. Influence is a temporary and continuously fluctuating state of being for any individual. Someone’s ability to drive action online, say on Twitter, might fluctuate depending on what time of day it is, what other stuff is going on in their world (or globally), what other things are being shared at that particular time. This might give you a headache, but, again, if you’re living and breathing your community you’ll know when to ask for your influencers to help you and when not to. (Obvious example: asking for tweets in the run up to your Annual Meeting = good. Asking for tweets on the couple of days when everyone just got home and is digging out at the office = bad.)

4. Bribery and perks may work temporarily, but it doesn’t build relationships that lead to future impact. I’ve pointed to this great post by Rich Becker before – “If you really want to distinguish true influencers from the rest, they are generally people who are unencumbered by the banner of influence currently embraced by social media. They tend to focus on something else in entirety, such as imagination, creativity, innovation, and truth. You can’t buy their love. You can’t ingratiate them with praise. You can’t inflate their egos. They don’t care what you think.” They don’t care what you think, but they do care about providing value to their networks and their community and their friends. Is what you’re asking them to do something that will help them provide value?

5. If you must take into account follower numbers, ignore any that fall outside whatever the magic middle is for your community. Basically, people with huge followings (and people with tiny followings) will not help your cause. The ones who might help you are those who already care about what you’re doing and who are connected to a small to medium sized core group of other people who might actually listen to them when they share your stuff.

6. The only Twitter metric that matters (to me) for measuring influence… is Lists. If you’re looking for influencers among your Twitter followers and you’re scanning random profiles, you’re probably already discounting those that have weird follower/following ratios, no avatar or no bio description, that broadcast only, that have no @replies or retweets or other signs of being engaged with others, etc. So the absolute key marker, in my opinion, of someone in the magic middle who might have some influence, is what lists they are on. (Note I did NOT say the “number of lists” – the magic middle works here too.) Lists are created by other people about someone, and can be anything from fun to personal to business-related to automated. I recommend looking at the full range of lists someone is on, which should include some in each of those four categories. I was going to deconstruct some poor unknowing stranger’s lists but instead here are the lists I am on as illustration. This is an instant snapshot of a whole bunch of people who took the extra time to add my profile to a list.  Check out the descriptions of those lists.  Clicking through Twitter lists can also point you to other people who might potentially be influencers for a particular issue, remembering of course that context trumps everything.

7. You must nurture your community before you need it. You have to be in it to win it. You have to build up the trust among those in your community that you will not spam them with asks, that you’ll respect their time, that you’ll figure out what value there is, not just for them personally, but for the people who follow them, in what you’re asking them to share or promote.  Don’t use people for their potential influence or impact.  Don’t “over-ask”, either.  And definitely, absolutely return the favor.

What do you think? How do you find influencers or measure influence?  How do you determine the right context?

For us, of course, this is just one piece of the bigger Social CRM puzzle.

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Thanks for adding my content to such a great post Maddie. The only people who influence me as those I respect, yourself included.

It's also always great to see that we're not alone in wanting to see the game of "influencing" influencers die a quiet whimpering death. Wish I was around when this went live last week. I was vacationing (so to speak) in Tombstone.

All my best,
Rich

I agree that bribery does not work and often times it back fires since generally speaking only existing customers take advantage of it and you do not get the opportunity to build a relationship with a new customer.

Thanks,
Dave

Maddie,

I also look at the number of Twitter lists someone is on as a true indicator of their influence. My takeaway from your excellent post is that trying to game the system is a waste of time -- build influence by being authentic, useful, and engaging, not with some virtual silver bullet. Thanks for sharing your insights!

Thanks for the effective breakdown, Maddie! We had an anomaly cross our desks that you might be interested in: An NFP we're connected with put out a call for help over Twitter. Lo and behold, an influencer (26K followers) who'd been lurking on their feed put out the call to her followership. Within 2 days, she'd raised $16K. And in another drive only a few weeks later, an additional $14K came in. The donations came in $1, $3, $5 at a time. We were stunned, and it certainly helped that there were major reasons to donate (the calls for help centered around the Japan and NZ quakes, and the NFP is a disaster-relief org), but the circumstances broke almost every rule you have listed above--EXCEPT for the first rule of a human connection: The influencer was acquaintances with a volunteer for the org doing the asking.
It's an interesting anecdote, and, we think, one that illustrates the critical idea that you never, ever know who's listening, so you should ask (but not too much, as you point out above), and be aware that you're marketing SOMETHING at every step, especially your capability to be a part of, and interest in, your online community.
Thanks again for the great post! Look forward to more.

Very interesting article. I actually came across it from someone who commented on a Klout blog post (http://klout.com/blog/2011/03/announcing-our-kloutchat-schedule/). I'll be visiting more often.

Love this article. Would even go so far as to say you must nurture your community and hope you Never need it.

I actually disagree with #4. You can care about what someone else thinks and still have influance provided that you don't pander to someone else's expectations. To put it more simply, just be yourself! Be interested in, and talk about the things that you're interested in - if people aren't interested, they will tune you out. When something gets said that DOES interest them, they will see it.

This line of thought raises an interesting question: is it better to have seperate twitter identities for different interests? I know that a lot of purveryers of social-media prominance recommend this, but I would argue against it. Some of your tweets will have currency beyond a single, closed, community; one of your contacts in one activity sphere might tweet something that would be of broader interest; and you are (effectively) hiding part of yourself. I consider those three excellent reasons not to bifurcate, trifuracte, or mutilate your overall twitter identity.

I agree with you about "being yourself", but in the association industry many orgs don't actually know how to show that essentially human face. To the multiple identities question, I think there's no right or wrong answer. We work with all kinds of associations and nonprofits, some of whom have all their Twitter activity under one roof, so to speak, others who have different accounts for growing different audiences. We see it all as an organic open community (hence the book we wrote on the topic) so it's a both/and. Thanks for the comment!

Yep. That about covers it.

Mads, I kid around with you - and you're a good sport about it - but I just realized that next to your kids and your mom... I'm probably your biggest fan.

Kudos and thanks for the best post I've read tackling the subject.

XOJA

This was a great post. You brought home a lot of great points in the world of online influence. As Justin mentioned, there is no ignoring the fact that you pointed out two of arguably the most important trends in online influence right now - influence and context (or relevance as my company, Traackr defines it - http://traackr.com/blog/2010/12/relevance-matters-traackrs-new-diversity-index/) and the magic middle. We've believed and been talking about these notions for a long time, so it's great to see influential people like yourself enforcing the importance of it.

A colleague of mine recently wrote a post about the way influencers should be approached - with experiences, not news. Along the same lines as point #4, thought it might interest you. http://traackr.com/blog/2011/03/influencer-engagement/

Thanks for the links! Will check them out!

I also want to spread this post around a bit. Genuinely like your reflections on both followers and listed. Taking the time to find the sweet spot of both is time well spent. Nicely said.
Cheers,
Jeff

Thanks Jeff! It is about the sweet spot... :)

Hi, Maddie. First-time reader, but I'll be back. I can't help but be a fan of someone who mentions "no influence without context" and the magic middle in the same post. Cheers.

Justin

Sweet! :) Thanks for commenting, really appreciate it, and hope to see you back here soon.

Brilliant, Mads. Simply brilliant. Wouldn't change a thing. And now, excuse me while I circulate the hell out of this!

Happy Monday. Great job. You influencer, you :)))

xo

S.

Well done, Maddie!

I've been touting many of these points for a while. I think the first one has been the main focus for me. While we all try to play well in the "social media sandbox," it's part of a bigger ecosystem - community - environment. This place starts online and, while virtual, makes a presence in the real world by forging relationships with others.

So many people are trying to identify or sell the "magic bullet" for "influence." Who is influential in real-life settings? It's not just a popularity contest with fleeting influence, but those that have relationships with other people based on conversations, activities and other levels of the proverbial engagement platform. Keep it simple - connect with people and see what happens (but just make sure that you're effectively monitoring it).

My key statement for the past two years or so has been that social media really is the Internet/mobile version of word-of-mouth. Now that we're always connected, it has gained an increasing presence and (no pun intended) influence in our lives.

And you're right ... it's just one piece of the puzzle. It will be interesting to see what kind of picture appears when more of the pieces come together in a more holistic manner.

@IanGertler

That's exactly right. In all the influence metrics games, it seems like we're forgetting that relationships between your organization/company and the people in your community, as well as the relationships between those people and others in their networks, are what determine potential influence. Then in terms of actual impact, it's the context that matters. Those things aren't reflected in influence algorithms, IMHO. Thanks for commenting!

Previous post:

Next post: