Over the last couple of days there has been a rash of conversation, discussion and analysis around the concept of "influence" — driven by the publication of Duncan Watts and Peter Dodds article on Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation. David Reich points out that the Fast Company article, Is the Tipping Point Toast, offers a little more context on Duncan Watts and his area of research; and this great post by Noah Brier drills down into the concepts even further.
Basically, Watts and Dodds are challenging the notion that influentials ("a minority of individuals who influence an exceptional number of their peers") are important to the formation of public opinion. This flies in the face of accepted marketing theory and the popularity of The Tipping Point. It also challenges the notion that marketers have of influence — and the way in which this notion of influence makes our lives easier. After all, it helps us target our messaging, our communication and our schmoozing efforts. This is why we dream of influence — it is aspirational. As marketers we like to feel that we have a finger on the pulse of society … but what happens when that pulse flatlines — or simply proves to be a phantom?
Late last year I wrote about the strength of weak ties. This fascinates me. The findings of Mark Granovetter’s research into social networks demonstrated that it is the WEAK ties that lead to action. If this is the case, then influence may only play an important role in the very early stages of branding efforts — to facilitate AWARENESS. But as consumers begin to engage with the brand messaging and various forms of communication, it appears that the power of the social network lies not in the level of influence of any select group but in the susceptibility of the audience to contagion.
Why is this relevant? Because on some level, our role as marketers, strategists or activists is not simply to raise awareness. Our job is to change the way that people think, or act — we want to prompt a change in perception or in behaviour. As marketers then, perhaps our best efforts — and probably our strongest DIGITAL STRATEGY lies in activating the weak links and leaving influence to the mass/traditional media (or to those bloggers who have mass audiences).
It is the democracy of action that drives much of my interest in social media … take a look at what is hot on YouTube or on Technorati. Think about BSP and the way in which a number of people "suddenly" begin writing on a similar topic. It is not the "influentials" who are going to instigate a new trend … they are merely documenting its early rise out of a network of weak links. So while my heart tells me that influencers are important, my head is telling me to go for the gold — and that seems to be quite a turnaround. Now … if only I could model it!
A major component that can lead to marketing success is awareness. Perhaps “influentials” can help expand awareness, but Watts is asking — at what cost to find and reach them? And can that money and effort be better spent going after the masses, or a targeted portion of the masses? Those seem to be the key questions.
Advertising to reach a relatively small number of so-called influentials can be costly. And if Watts is right about the randomness of who the influentials are, then it’s difficult to accurately target them.
Publicity, which is generally less costly than advertising, can do that, to a degree.
I think some combination of mass amd “influentials” could work, but who knows what the magic formula is? It will probably differ in every case.
Unless I’m way off the mark here, and correct me if I am, the only debate here is whether you should spend your marketing dollars targeting your ads at a lower number of influentials or reaching a broader market. This is a debate about cost trade-offs, not the fundamental nature of social networks.
Given that the objective of most marketers is to spread a given idea in the most cost-efficient manner (and it is), given that improvements in technology will make it more cost-efficient to identify and target influentials (and it will), and given that influentials themselves will become more connected via social media tools (and they will), word-of-mouth/ social/ viral marketing practitioners will do well to continue to focus on the tipping point potential of influentials.
I like your notion of “activating the weak ties.” I think its crucial to focus on sparking conversations between individuals in the network, and as that conversation spreads it will make the entire network more susceptible to the trend.
It would look good on you, the modeling : ) This seems the topic that keeps on giving. I would be really interested in some modeling that shows this democratization vs. pitching influentials with massive and increased intensity as some seem to advocate.
David … “And if Watts is right about the randomness of who the influentials are, then it’s difficult to accurately target them” — exactly. This means (to me) that our best efforts could well focus on ENABLING the conversation rather. Hmmm — could be another post coming on 😉
Gaurav … I don’t believe this is a debate about cost tradeoffs. My view is that marketing is not about spreading an idea, it is about changing thinking/behaviour. Hence the need to focus on activating weak links.
Mike … thanks. I had not considered that the dynamics of conversation may make the entire network more susceptible to the trend. That is an interesting idea!
Valeria … LOL. Perhaps Mr Watts could help out 😉
I’m trying like mad to get around to writing about this… but it seems between you, the two Davids, Scott Monty, Guy Kawasaki, et al., that it’s been covered to death. 🙂
Hey Cam … don’t think the equation has been solved as yet.
Even thought there are no hierarchies as we view them anthropomorphically in ecosystems, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a food chain.
I really think we all keep mixing our metaphors to some extent when we lump digital customer experiences in a apples to apples debate with TV advertising, google key words and banner ads which are all about awareness and reach.
Those aren’t going away. However, we cannot solely BUY people’s attention anymore. We have to earn it. That’s the shift. And the problem is we keep applying a linear thought process that is based in mass advertising instead of looking at a networked marketing model that is both embracive of mass as well as interactive media (and pays homage to those differences rather than attempting to utilize the same strategies and tools for each).
The strength of weak ties IMO isn’t contrary to influencer strategies – in fact they can be complimentary. However, the notion in this networked age that we will impact influencers through mass awareness advertising on its own is silly.
We should all go back and reread Geoffrey Moore again because he still remains the guru in this field.
Malcom Gladwell Under Fire: Marketers Miffed
Witnessing the firestorm that erupted as a result of a Fast Company article, I’ve concluded that the quickest way to earn the ire of marketers is to trash Malcom Gladwell and his breakthrough hit book about influence, The Tipping Point.
Malcom Gladwell Under Fire: Marketers Miffed
Witnessing the firestorm that erupted as a result of a Fast Company article, I’ve concluded that the quickest way to earn the ire of marketers is to trash Malcom Gladwell and his breakthrough hit book about influence, The Tipping Point.