Giving Substance To Online Influence

GIVING SUBSTANCE TO

ONLINE INFLUENCE

EXCERPTED FROM TALK AT BLOGWORLD L.A. 2011

MATT RIDINGS - @TECHGUERILLA

Giving Substance To Online Influence. From BlogWorld L.A. 2011. I should mention that I put this talk together the day of the speech as I worked through the concept. My hope was to incite discussion around the topic and have the audience look at influence from a different angle than we’ve taken to date. So you’ll have to excuse the fact that it’s not as polished and refined as I’d like.

WE NO LONGER

SURF THE WEB

@TECHGUERILLA

Let’s start with the concept that we no longer surf the web.

WE

SHAPE THE WEB

@TECHGUERILLA

We now shape the web. We are shifting more and more to a curated economy of ideas. Instead of roaming the internet via search engine results we now increasingly let our tweetstreams and facebook updates guide what we experience on the internet and how. This curation is driven, and filtered by the influence of those around us.

THEPREMISE

@TECHGUERILLAAs we look at the way ‘influence marketing’ is being done in the marketplace, we’re treating it like it’s one ‘thing’ when in fact, like most activities, it has multiple purposes.

AWARENESSV

ACTION

@TECHGUERILLATwo of those big buckets of intent are ‘awareness’ vs. ‘action’.

ADVERTISINGV

MARKETING

@TECHGUERILLAThis is similar to the distinction of activities between advertising and marketing. I’ve always described Advertising as being about the *creation* of potential whereas Marketing is about the *realization* of that potential.

WHERE CONVERSIONS ARE CONCERNED

@TECHGUERILLAAs we look at these two different buckets two things become pretty clear. Where conversions are concerned....

WE’RE DOING IT

WRONG

@TECHGUERILLAwe’re doing it wrong.

LOGIC

TREE

IF-> THEN->ELSEAs I thought how to try and present what is a very nuanced concept, that is going to be difficult to accept, I thought a logic tree approach would be appropriate. So join me on this ride, open your mind a bit, and on the items that you disagree with we’ll attack those in Q&A so bear with me.

1WE ARE

EQUALS(Watts and Dodds, JCR, 2007)@TECHGUERILLA

First, and the most difficult item to accept at face value, is that where the ability to influence the spread of content is concerned, we are all equals. The guy with the Klout score of 20 is just as able to trigger a cascade of information as the one with a Klout score of 70. Tough to believe, and this may seem counter-intuitive at first glance.

1MORE ACCURATELY WE REPRESENT THE SAME

POTENTIAL

@TECHGUERILLAPerhaps it’s easier to accept if framed as “we all represent the same *potential* to be influential”

2CONTEXT IS

RELATIVE@TECHGUERILLASecondly, and if you’re still with me, we need to talk about the nature and importance of context. First off, context is *relative*. The meaning and importance of what is being said, and how it is received is completely dependent upon the context of the environment. For example....

2SAYING “I’M SORRY”AND SAYING “I APOLOGIZE”MEAN THE SAME THING...

~DEMETRI MARTIN@TECHGUERILLASaying “I’m sorry and I apologize mean the same thing”....

2SAYING “I’M SORRY”AND SAYING “I APOLOGIZE”MEAN THE SAME THING...

UNLESS YOU’RE AT A FUNERAL

~DEMETRI MARTIN@TECHGUERILLAUnless you’re at a funeral

2CONTEXT IS

FLUID@TECHGUERILLAAlso, contextual relevance of influence is *fluid*. What is influential one day, may not be the next depending upon the context.

2JOE THE PLUMBER

FLUID@TECHGUERILLAIf your sink is clogged then that plumber you know all of a sudden has a great deal of influence.

2CONTEXT

CONVERTS@TECHGUERILLALastly, Contextual relevance converts. Being at the immediate point of need, with a solution to that need creates alignment that converts.

2CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE

•RELATIVE•FLUID•CONVERTS

@TECHGUERILLASo, if context is relative, fluid, and converts. Then...

2CONTEXT IS

KING@TECHGUERILLAContext is king. Great content, delivered at the wrong time and environment, is useless.

3A C A M PA I G N BY D E F I N I T I O N I S P L A N N E D I NADVANCE

@TECHGUERILLANow. A campaign by definition has to be planned in advance. You need a list of people to market to. You have to define and filter who you want to target and the message that you want to deliver to them.

3BUT..IF CONTEXT ISRELATIVE & FLUID

@TECHGUERILLABut, if context is relative and fluid then true contextual relevanceis necessarily ‘real-time’.

3AND INFLUENCE S C O R E S A R ET R A I L I N GI N D I C A T O R S

@TECHGUERILLAKlout and other influence scores on the other hand are static snapshots of the past. Klout is like ROI in that it is a trailing indicator. It tells me something about yesterday, but not necessarily predictive about tomorrow (because as we’ve established, being predictive about what is fluid and changing in real-time is nigh impossible). This will improve over time as the topical influence indicators of Klout, et al improve to a more granular level but will still never reach that ideal state of identifying at the point of need.

3PROACTIVE

+ T R A I L I N G

=I N E F F E C T I V E

@TECHGUERILLAThe desire to be proactive (campaigns) is in direct conflict with influence measures because influence measures are not (currently) predictive enough.

4N E E D NEWAPPROACH

@TECHGUERILLASo we need a new mindset, a new approach.

FOCUSON THE

INFLUENCED@TECHGUERILLAWe need to focus on the *influenced*, not the influencer.

ADVOCATES

N O TI N F L U E N C E R S

@TECHGUERILLAWe need advocates, not influencers. Why? Why do it this way?

FINDE A S Y

TO

@TECHGUERILLAThe influenced are easy to find because you can listen and find them at the point of need.

ENGAGEE A S Y

TO

@TECHGUERILLAThey are easy to engage because that point of need opens a door, and because they were being influenced by someone else there is implied trust that we are borrowing upon. We are not having to gain trust in advance, we are simply leveraging existing trust.

BUILDE A S Y

TO

@TECHGUERILLAThey are easy to grow, incent, and motivate to a mutually beneficial relationshiop....a true advocate

SHIFTMENTAL

@TECHGUERILLAThis is less about the *activities* that we undertake than it is the mental outlook on the customer. We are still focused on ‘influencers’ it’s just that a focus on advocate development carries with it a focus on the long term relationship, which we are currently failing at pretty badly.

BUILDRELATIONSHIPS

DON’T BUILD LISTS

@TECHGUERILLAYou don’t build lists, you build relationships.

THINK EVOLUTION

DON’T THINK CAMPAIGNS

@TECHGUERILLAYou don’t think campaigns, which are short term efforts with end dates. You think evolution. How can I evolve this relationship over the entire customer lifecycle.

CREATEADVOCATES

DON’T LEVERAGE

INFLUENCERS

@TECHGUERILLAYou don’t ‘leverage’ influencers (which is push), you create advocates out of the ‘influenced’ (which is pull) and scales more easily over time.

YOUTHANK

@TECHGUERILLASome really great Q&A took place in the post discussion. One of the primary concerns of the agencies in the room was that the long term approach is great, but they may not be involved with the client for the long term so this presents some resourcing and engagement model challenges. My response to this is pretty simple, if not satisfactory to some. I believe you always focus on what’s the *best* thing to do for the customer first and then structure your business and the engagement *around* that to monetize it. Trying to avoid the most effective thing for your customer just because your business doesn’t currently do it that way is a recipe for going out of business in my opinion because someone *will*, and your clients as they evolve and become more educated will *demand* it. You can choose to lead your customer or have them lead you (or leave you).