Research of WOM and influence - a warning

Guy Kawasaki points to an important article published in the December issue of the Journal of Advertising Research (JAR). The article is entitled Reconsidering Models of Influence: The Relationship between Consumer Social Networks and Word-of-Mouth Effectiveness. It looks at how influence works in wom, and whether common preconceptions of influence are valid.

Spookily, I gave a talk at the London WOM Forum yesterday, which was organised by WARC, the publisher of JAR. Copies of the journal containing the article were handed out to delegates.

The research suggests that a pyramidal model of influence, where the majority of influence is concentrated amongst relatively few, highly connected people, is incorrect. Instead, the paper says that "it is the moderately connected majority, not the much smaller number of highly connected people, who hold the greatest potential for influence.

It also says that, "contrary to conventional wisdom that points to ... blogging as indicators of influence," more altruistic behaviour, like product rating, carries more weight. The research concludes that influence is not an exclusive, top-down model. Instead influence is something we all share.

This article is important because it identifies some key assumptions being made in the market about influence and the way it works. Some of these assumptions are identified and challenged by the article: others are not.

Here are the assumptions I detected in the article, and thus probably quite common in the market. My list may not be exhaustive…

Assumption 1. We know what an influencer is. The paper cites ' influence' (or derivatives) 52 times but nowhere does it define it. This is really important, as the scope of influence frames all further discussion. It’s difficult to recognise or measure influence if you don’t know what you’re looking for. At Influencer50 we restrict influence to those effects that impact on a purchase decision.

Assumption 2. Influence is concentrated amongst an elite highly connect few. In fact there is a non sequeter here - that connectedness is somehow related to influence. The article challenges the view that influence is restricted to a small group, but it reinforces the view that influence is somehow correlated with connectedness. This is unproven (and I have big doubts, based on Influencer50 research).

Assumption 3. Influence is unidirectional. In fact, influence flows in all directions. You can observe this the next time you have a conversation, debate or argument.

Assumption 4. Influence online is a proxy for influence in the real world. The article is based on research sources from web site users.

Assumption 5. WOM happens just between consumers. It clearly doesn't - wom, and influence, occur throughout the supply chain, and outside it too. This has huge implications for the structure and measurement of word of mouth campaigns. It’s much easier (and more effective) if such campaigns are grounded within the supply chain.

We have never thought that influence lies with a few people. But it does cluster and there are certainly those with more influence than others. But who are those people? The only way I know is to research the market thoroughly and with a rigorous methodology and rationale - anything else is just guessing.

Guy Kawasaki seems to equate 'elite' with celebrity. In the book we say that celebrity is very unlikely to influence buying decisions, and there’s plenty of research to back this up. In the markets Influencer50 tracks – predominantly B2B markets – the closest we come to including celebrities is when notable management gurus or authors exert influence on purchase decision-makers. People like Geoffrey Moore or (ironically) Guy Kawasaki.

It’s good that influence is being researched, but we do need to be careful about exactly what we’re researching.

Paying for endorsements is an oxymoron

Last Wednesday I ran a webinar on Influencer Marketing. During the Q&A one attendee asked me if he could "enhance" the positive effect of influencers by paying them to say nice things. My answer was unequivocal - Don't do it!

There are many reasons why you shouldn't pay for influence, but I think the best one is common sense. If you pay an influencer to say something, their influence diminishes immediately because they are no longer independent.

It turns out that synchronicity was at work, because the FTC in the US just ruled that word-of-mouth marketers must reveal if they've paid an endorser (as reported in The Washington Post).

It's important to distinguish between paying an Influencer to say something (invalid), and paying them to state their opinion (valid). Otherwise the business models for consulting, industry analysis and many other activities would fall apart.

Unfortunately, there are those firms and individuals that do take money specifically to present vendors in a positive light. But these tend to be the less influential players in the market.

Better to try to influence influencers through relationship building and persuasion, rather than by paying to put words in their mouth.

Word of mouth marketing needs influencers

Influencer Marketing and word-of-mouth marketing (WOMM) are inter-related. I’m a big fan of WOMM, Influencer50 is a member of WOMMA, and I’ve just read Andy Sernowitz’s book on WOM. Andy is the CEO of WOMMA.

But WOMM by itself lacks a key ingredient. As Seth Godin says in Purple Cow, it is useless to advertise to anyone except sneezers (i.e. talkers) with influence. I’d go further by extending advertising to all forms of marketing. People rarely buy just because they experience marketing. The marketing message is corroborated, enhanced and personalised through WOMM. And WOMM needs sneezers with influence.

In a B2C context, WOMM happens primarily at a peer level. That is, consumers talk to other consumers, and the message spreads.

In the B2B environment, things work differently. There are good reasons for this. There are competitive issues: if we are in the same field, passing on recommendations may erode the competitive advantage my firm has over yours. There are community issues: companies tend to be insular and don’t often communicate with other firms.

Instead, WOMM is mediated (often informally) by influencers. Recommendations, experiences, gossip and stories from the field are all related by various influencer types. Some of this communication is overt, published in analyst reports, journalistic articles and blogs. But much of it, up to 80% we estimate, happens in closed circles. These can be private meetings, invitation-only events, on the golf course, in lifts, over lunch, and so on.

Influencers are influencers because they have expertise and because they like to influence. So they are more than willing to pass on messages that reinforce their influence.

The crux of Influencer Marketing is to communicate your messages to influencers, such that those messages are then communicated by influencers to your customers and prospects.

Remember, though, that your product or service will only be talked about if it is worth being talked about.