Why links don't equate to influence

We write about the disconnect between links and influence in the book

But Hugh has a better way of saying the same thing:

I really must learn to draw cartoons...

Hugh and friends discuss influence

Hugh McLeod does a regular podcast with Rabbi Pinny Gniwisch, Johnnie Moore and Mark Earls. This week they talked about influence.

Well, they did for about 10 minutes – for the next 30 it was mainly about success in marketing and creativity. Interesting, nevertheless.

Listening to these intelligent chaps solidified my view that influence is grossly being misunderstood and/or misrepresented. As Johnnie Moore said, there are two views. One is to think of “cool people” that tell the rest of us what to do. Find those influencers and success will follow. The other view is that life is more complex (duh) and success is often just down to luck, or random acts of traction (as Hugh puts it). (Echoes of The Wisdom of Crowds and Fooled by Randomness here.)

This is being played out on the blogs as Malcolm Gladwell versus Duncan Watts.

I think neither of these views is right – this polarisation masks the real complexity of influence, which is that it’s damned hard to pin down in what it is and how it works.

I can’t criticise these guys for saying it how they see it. In fact, I think the biggest culprits are consumer-facing WOM agencies that claim to be able to identify influential consumers or, worse, to position celebrities as influencers.

The podcast does actually acknowledge that influencers do exist, though these may be the people that “show up.” In other words, anyone can be an influencer if they are committed and diligent enough. I think that this is true in large parts.

A couple of their comments jarred with me:

“The Influential model is most often touted by people who would like to be seen as Influentials, or at least, friends of Influentials.” Ouch. In fact, I “tout” Influencer50's approach because I see it working with clients. Some influential people don’t even know that they influence the market, and are surprised on being told such.

The idea that once you find influencers it’s a simple task of pulling the levers and success follows. My experience is that although identifying accurately is complex, it’s actually the easy part in the process. Engaging with influencers is much harder.

It’s also cemented my view that influence in the B2B world is different from B2C, in that B2B lacks a strong sense of peer-to-peer communication. Business people don’t talk to others outside their organisation because of the lack of opportunity, or due to competitive sensitivities. Influencers act as proxies here, acting as go-betweens for firms. This role is critical, and underpins the entire consulting and industry analysis business models.

In B2C, sure, there are influential consumers. But I’ll bet that no agency can identify which fellow consumers are influencing me on my (ongoing) new PC decision. But they could identify which web sites, retailers and magazines I might consult. Fixating on consumers as B2C influencers is missing the primary sources of influence: the supply chain and value-adding influencers.

It’s clear to me that most firms looking for influencers amongst consumers are looking in the wrong place.

Marketing’s image problem

In prepping for the CMO Council talk some weeks ago, I centred on a theme based on marketing’s image problem. It struck me that most non-marketers have a pretty poor regard for marketing, somewhere in the region of estate agents, lawyers and car salesmen.

What also struck me was the irony in the situation. Jeez – if marketers can’t fix their own image problem what chance do their employers/clients have.

When I met Hugh McLeod in 2006 he used this analogy for traditional marketing:

Imagine you're at a party. A man comes up to you, but instead of introducing himself, he yanks your head back, pulls your jaw down and looks at your teeth. "I'M A DENTIST!" he explains.

(I’ve subsequently plagiarised this analogy in a White Paper and the book.)

In a party context, most normal people would rather be offered some peanuts and engaged in polite, if trivial, conversation. Why can't marketing be like this? Why not engage people in a conversation? If you are interesting then they will respond in kind. You can move to a business conversation later, once social niceties are satisfied.

Hugh recently revisited the subject even more succinctly:

(Full post is here.)

The real problem for marketers is the awful image they have within their own firms. At the CMO Council Summit in Berlin, I was amazed at how many of the speakers criticised marketing and marketers (i.e. the audience!) for their lack of ambition and poor perception. “Blowing up the balloons,” was how Malcolm MacDonald termed it.

Marketing should be the second most important thing a firm does, after serving customers. If marketers are blowing up the balloons, then someone else has to do the effective, productive marketing, typically the sales teams and channel partners. Sales people can spend 40% of their time creating marketing collateral – 80% of “official” collateral created by marketers never gets used.

How are you perceived within your organisation? Are you a future board member or strategic thinker? Or do you blow up the balloons?

Handling detractors - What Ovum and IDC illustrate about Influencer Marketing

Last week I posted some thoughts on the current fortunes of my previous employers, Ovum and IDC. Both posts expressed my concern at their present situation and questioned their future direction, though for different reasons. The feedback I got from the firms, and from the wider community, illustrate some interesting aspects of influence. In particular, what should you do when a blogger (in this case, me) creates a negative view of your firm?

I should say at this point that I consider myself as an influencer in neither of the two firms. As a former employee, most recently from IDC, I guess I have some insight into the firms’ inner workings. But I doubt I’m affecting purchase decisions in a big way.

Anyway, this post documents the reaction from Ovum. I have to say I was surprised that Anthony contact li’l ol’ me, but flattered was I that he took the considerable time. Unfortunately his response, which I published in full with Anthony’s consent, was received by the wider community with more negativity, most notably by Richard Holway. Now Richard is an influencer – did Anthony’s response spark an otherwise sleeping discontent amongst Richard and his followers?

In contrast, I’ve heard not a peep out of IDC. Have they read my post? Maybe not. Do they care? Probably not.

There are three strategies to deal with a so-called detractor. You can (1) try to convert them, (2) surround them with other (more positive) influencers, thereby neutralising them, or (3) you can ignore them. Ovum is attempting strategy #1. IDC is practising #3 (by default or design).

Microsoft’s Blue Monster gig with Hugh McLeod is an example of #2, where MS are attempting to engage with its influencer (and wider) community to address the tide of negativity towards it. Smart move, executed creatively.

How would you handle a detractor?

Hugh on marketing

I'm on a roll - third post today and it isn't even noon!

Hugh synopsises The trick to marketing.