The results are in: An experiment in social influence

social influence

As many of you know, I recently asked fans of {grow} to support a charitable cause through a post entitled “The kid who wanted a door for Christmas.”

I’d like to examine the results of this appeal as an example of “social influence” in action. What happens when a blogger asks his audience to do something beyond clicking a “like button?”  What happens when a social media audience actually has to commit to an action and open a wallet?  What can you learn from this example that will help you ignite your own business or charity?

The results from this blog post provide a fascinating lesson and case study:

The business situation

Asking for money on the Internet is a notoriously difficult proposition. In short, it usually doesn’t work.

I document this extensively in my book Return On Influence and point to several examples where even celebrity-level influencers could not move the needle and create real action through tweets to their vast audiences.

The reason for this failure is that most social media connections are very weak relational links. Sure, we might be willing to help somebody out by clicking a “like” button or sending a tweet … but opening our pocketbook? No. It doesn’t happen.

So, going into this project, I knew this was a very risky proposition. Based on my own research and knowledge of the subject, I knew that there was a good chance my appeal would fall flat.  Perhaps I would even be publicly embarrassed. Still, this was a worthy charity in need, so I decided to take a risk and ask for help.

Let’s look at what happened.

The results

So far, my appeal to help the Amachi charity resulted in 92 individual donations totaling $4,352 (excluding the PayPal fees).  I consider this an extraordinary result since this total is not inflated by “friends and family” donations. The total I am reporting represents the new value I created for Amachi by establishing an effective social media presence and creating new connections that did not exist prior to the time I started blogging in 2009.

But we need to take a much closer look at the results to really discover the true nature of social influence.

Here’s an indicator of what we’re up against. My blog post was tweeted 446 times but only 92 people actually made a donation. So the reality is, 354 people encouraged others to donate without donating anything themselves.

Let’s peel the data back a little more by dividing the donors, to the best of my ability, into “strong” connections (people who are known fans of {grow} and regular contributors to the community) and “weak” connections (people I do not recognize from the blog who possibly donated via a tweet about the article or a Facebook post).

Here is the breakdown of strong connection versus weak connection donors:

I am pleasantly surprised that as many as 30 people could have come across the blog via Twitter and donated to the cause. I think the number is actually much lower because I’m sure some of the donors in this category are actual readers of the blog who I don’t recognize. But nevertheless, about one-third of the donors were people who do not have a personal relationship with me, which is pretty cool.

Here’s a second indicator of how the weak connections represented by social media “friends and followers” is not a very actionable group of people.

A couple social media heavyweights with more than 100,000 followers (and even more than 500,000 followers!) heavily tweeted my post to try to help. I estimated they generated more than 3 million Twitter impressions. Here is how many donors this activity generated: ONE.

So the “celebrity influencer” conversion rate on Twitter was 1 out of 3 million possible impressions. Sad, but not surprising.

Digging even deeper, we see that the strong relational connections from the blog community had a powerful impact on both the number of donations and the average amount of the donation:

Conclusions

Content is power

One premise behind Return On Influence is that the ability to create content that moves through the Internet is a legitimate source of power.  In fact, this is the ONLY source of influence I have over most of you. It’s probable that you only know me through my content that is shared over social media platforms and, through time, you have come to trust and like me enough to act on a personal request.

Think of the incredible potential we all have here. From a standing start in 2009, I have been able to create a global community that responded to an appeal in one blog post and contributed $4,352 in 48 hours. It took hard work to get to that point, but you have that opportunity — that power — too.

The real power is in strong connections

Not all social media fans and followers are created equal. As this example suggests, the real power of online influence comes through the strong connections created over time through the personal interactions on a blog or other community. If you want to create personal power on the web, you need to build an engaged and loyal group of advocates, not just a big number of Twitter followers. The numbers don’t matter as much as the relationships.

The critical importance of reciprocity

Another tenet of Return On Influence is the power of reciprocity (re-paying favors). My friend Jay Baer states in the book that reciprocity is the engine that powers the economy of the social web.  As I look at who gave the biggest donations — yes, I’ve done many of them favors along the way. I had built up a bank of “social capital” and my appeal for donations was an opportunity for those folks to return those favors.

This is not something I planned or manufactured. I help people every single day without an expectation of reciprocity because I enjoy doing that. I’m not sure you can have a reciprocity “strategy.” You just have to be kind to people.

Where Klout fails

Klout, Kred and the other social scoring platforms provide an indicator of a person’s relative ability to create content that moves on the web. That’s an extremely important “leading indicator” of power because without that consistent presence you will never influence anybody on the social web.  In other words, you can’t be an online influencer if you can’t move content. That stream of content to your followers creates the consistent, small “provocations” that eventually lead to those critical strong relationships that will take real action.

However, Klout does not dig deep into blog communities and other forums where the strong links are born, and until they do, they cannot really grasp the “actionable connections” powering the web. This is changing, however. For example, the start-up Appinions has patented technology that analyzes data across an incredible 5 million online data sources – including blogs, forums and traditional media – to create a glimpse of content in context.  This represents the real future of social influence measurement and offers mind-blowing opportunities for marketing insight.

Your action plan

If you are an individual, company, university, or non-profit, your ability to create measurable actions across the weak links of social media platforms are negligible.  Remember … I had one conversion over 3 million impressions. In terms of igniting “weak links,” I could have probably had better results taking out a Facebook ad!

This is a glimpse of the limits of “influencer” outreach.  The donations didn’t come from somebody else’s vast community. They came from the strong relationships in my own community, which were built by delivering a lot of helpful content, engagement, and authentic helpfulness over several years.

There is a lot of potential to build awareness, social proof and validation through influencer outreach. But don’t overlook the need to do the hard work and build a real community for your brand.

The role of social media in the marketing mix is to consistently provide provocations through content that lead to that type of genuine, actionable community. Over time, you then have an opportunity to turn that work and “social bank” into loyalty and even passion for your brand or cause.  And only then will the wallets open.

I’ve covered a lot of ground today on a rather controversial topic. What do you think of this example of social influence and my conclusions?

And by the way, if you missed the article and would like to help me support a charity that is turning lives around, you can learn more in my original post.  Thanks again to all who have been so supportive and generous!

 

Update: If you are just stumbling on to this post, the final total raised was $5,900. but if you care to donate, I will leave this Donation button “on” in the original post => Here.

Also, when I delivered our first check to Amachi, Elijah and I visited the Amachi Office with the surprise donation. You can watch the video here: Amachi video.

Illustration courtesy BigStock.com

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

All posts

  • Pingback: The results are in: An experiment in social influence | Social Media, SEO, Mobile, Digital Marketing | Scoop.it()

  • Hana Kazazovi?

    This is the best article about influence I’ve ever read! I couldn’t agree with you more.

  • Pingback: The results are in: An experiment in social influence | Social Media, Social Might | Scoop.it()

  • What a FANTASTIC article! I’ve always had the gut feeling that perhaps our clients’ money spent on celebrities aren’t paying off when it comes to on-ground ROI numbers – and your study more or less proves it. Star-factor may gain retweets and “attention” but at 1 per 3 million, shouldn’t warrant the kind of money clients spend when hoping for increase in out-of-pocket reactions. Good stuff! I’d like to source this for an article, if you don’t mind.

  • Claire Axelrad

    Mark, this is a GREAT post. If
    content is king, you’re truly walking the talk here. So much information, and so much that is thought provoking. I especially love: Not all social media fans and followers are created equal…. If you want to create personal power on the web, you need to build an engaged and loyal group of advocates, not just a big number of Twitter followers. The numbers don’t matter as much as the relationships.

    You’ve boiled it down to two main calls to action: (1) great content; (2)
    being kind.

    The first we all understand. The second? Well, I love the notion that we should simply endeavor to be kind to people. We don’t do this for hope of quid pro quo. We do it because of “The Golden Rule.” And, as it turns out, paying it forward often results in others paying it backwards. It’s nice when things turn out that way.

    Which brings us to your “strong” relationships. One creates these by – lo and behold — providing excellent, relevant content and being kind! One does not do it by riding on someone else’s coattails. Wow! So, now that we know, we can focus on the hard work it takes to be our own best influencers. THANKS.

  • tianakai

    Your findings make sense, but it’s still great that you compiled the social data to be able to share raw numbers. This makes me believe in Klout less tham I already did. It seems as though some Klout scores are high because they were early adopters (just like Pinterest and the amount of followers), but others have a high Klout score becuase they are well connected and know everyone, but this does not necessarily mean that they have power to move everyone. Thanks for sharing!

  • Pingback: The results are in: An experiment in social influence | Social media and Influence in Pharma | Scoop.it()

  • MrTonyDowling

    I love this. Real life example and experimenting on yourself with your own network! Awesome work Mark, I love your approach!
    Just a note that I am sure there are a few other considerations other than just the strength and weakness of the bonds though?
    I would consider myself strongly linked to this blog and its community, yet I haven’t donated. Why?
    Embarrassingly, because I forgot to! (a situation I will shortly put right!)
    But its not just about the influence surely? You can create the need (or at least bring it out) through your influence, but there are then various steps that need to be taken to complete the request, and with so many distractions its a wonder anyone responds!
    If you look at response rates across all media I’d bet your blog conversion percentage as demonstrated here is really strong?
    Is that the measure of influence? Your blogs relative performance against say Facebook ads or even mass media like TV?

    Great post thanks Mark

  • Also, being an active part of a community is worth the effort. The {grow} community is all out amazing. Comments are always interesting to read and a valuable addition to the (guest)posts.

    It just felt good giving something back in a way other than a share or a comment.

  • That was One Amazing Read! – Although i donated with a Tweet and a Facebook Post, but it is YOUR influence on me and my life to do that. Relationships is the most important part of life, i have learnt alot from my personal relationships and applied them in the digital world, and surprisingly they are working on almost same principals.

    The second most important thing – Be Humble and always be a Go-Giver. This strategy leaves a great impression on a person’s mind. And it will always be remembered as a great memory, and whenever you need help with a situation, the person will most probably act instantaneously.

    Thanks alot Sir. Mark Schaefer for reminding us daily that community and relationships is the path to {GROW}. 🙂

  • Very interesting Mark and +1 for doing a real-world experiment. Can I ask, of the strong connections that donated, how many do you know personally and have met face-to-face?

    Thanks,

    Chris Arnold

  • Thank you very much Hana.

  • Sounds like this had quite an impact on you Claire. Thanks for letting me know. I think you summed it up quite nicely.

  • I didn’t say that Klout doesn’t matter, or that it doesn’t measure something important. I do think it can be a useful tool if you really understand what it does (and only what it does). I explain this more here and you might enjoy this: http://www.businessesgrow.com/2011/09/12/why-klout-matters-a-lot/

    Thanks for the thought-provoking comment!

  • Excellent points. Yes, I probably could increased the conversion rate by blogging again and reminding people, but that’s not my style. People trust me to post exceptional content every day, not nag them : ) It was a big leap even blogging ONCE to ask for money.

    I did tweet the post several times — maybe as much as five, which is on the high side for me. And I do realize people forget and get distracted and that is a legitimate hurdle to overcome in any medium.

    So I guess you can consider THIS post your reminder? Thank you for all the ways you help and support me my friend.

  • That means so much to me Rogier. That is really a very lovely comment. I look forward to meeting you in real life soon. I’m looking forward to getting back to your part of the world.

  • Thanks for sharing your wisdom today! I think this is a very keen lesson — we need to treat people online with the same kindness and respect that we would in real life. So often I see people and businesses forgetting that behind every avatar is an amazing person, a person we can learn from, a person who may need out help, perhaps a person who can help us. We need to overcome the view that customers are “targets” or “users” and elevate our humanity to the digital platform!

  • You’re welcome… and when you do come to continental Europe.., let me know…

  • 92 Donations.
    Would we all be better growing a smaller and more intimate connection online then? I think so!
    This is an excellent example of time and effect in the numbers race of social media.
    My question. Could we expect that a smaller and more connected social relationship between people online would have yielded a better result? And if so, does that imply that chasing numbers is a waste of time?
    Sincerely Billy

  • This is really two different questions because through technology, I believe you can know people personally without meeting them face to face. Of the 62 strong connections I have probably met 50 face to face. I make a point of doing this every chance I get. It’s the best part of social media!

  • I don’t chase numbers. A few tweets to promote blog posts is the extent of my self-promotion. I do chase relationships, however, and try to develop meaningful relationships whenever I can. I suppose you can debate whether this was a success or not. I’ve blogged for four years and ignited 92 people. I don’t really have a reference point to consider if that is any good or not. I raised more than $4,000 in two days and I’m happy to be able to help the charity out.
    As Tony points out below, I have a ton of other strong contacts of course, but they simply may not have read the post or forgot to donate, but I’m just not the kind of person to nag. There are many, many obstacles to finally getting that wallet to open!! Thanks Billy.

  • I think this experience simply verifies the research turned up in Return On Influence. Nothing here really surprised me other than maybe that I raised as much money as I did. I think the ROI book can really be your playbook for influencer marketing so I hope you’ll check it out if you are in that space.

    Also, as I said, there are many goals that can be attained through influencer marketing. Depends on your strategy. Thanks for commenting!

  • I admire you for that lack of nag. In fact your lack of “A-list” approaches to everything on this blog, makes you a more compelling person. Your integrity makes your a more trustworthy source on this social stream. Thank You Mark.

  • Having run exactly such an experiment in the past (with the same results from high-follower-count “influencers” as you), here is what I take away from the differential returns: you have a community, and I believe you have that community because you a) write content that actively and overtly encourages comments and b) you answer every comment. That’s a conversation, and that becomes a relationship.

    Also, you note where Klout, Kred et al fail. I think the only thing they fail at is being honest/introspective enough about what it is they actually do. These scores provide a diagnostic measure of the ability to spread content. They have nothing whatsoever to do with how that content is received; nor does the content itself factor into the equation. Which makes me more confident in this model: http://brandsavant.com/what-klout-really-measures/ Ethos alone is not influence. Klout measures ethos.

  • I absolutely love that you shared this data with us, Mark! Everyone’s an influencer to someone about something, and one of the reasons I supported this effort is because you influence me about giving back to the community. You personally give of your time and money to support the causes you champion, including Amachi, and that imbued your request with more urgency. Keep up the great work!

  • Again we prove that the conditions of trust and influence that have been in place for thousands of years remain steadfast. The rules haven’t changed, just the technology.

  • Pingback: The results are in: An experiment in social influence | Surviving Social Chaos | Scoop.it()

  • Thanks Mark. This fits with what I’m ‘discovering’, that influence can be perceived and possibly measured through social media, but influence is applied offline. Looking forward to your next article (I’ve even subscribed now!).

  • LizReusswig

    I’m with @MrTonyDowling:disqus – embarrassed that I forgot! I have corrected that! It’s thrilling that you were able to raise over $4k for a very worthwhile organization! However having an awareness of the breadth & scope of your online tribe, I’m a bit surprised there were not more than 92 donations. I do think it would have been higher had you done a reminder…oh wait – you just did! Merry Christmas to you & Elijah! 🙂

  • Nico Schoonderwoerd

    Hi Mark, great post. I’ve about 150k followers across multiple accounts and have noticed exactly the same when I desired a certain action from my followers.

    I run a Influence Metric tool myself (peerreach.com) and we try to distinguish between Weak Connections and Strong Connections. I think that if people interact with eachother daily, then this is probably a Strong Connection. This interaction then gets a higher value in our algorithm.

  • perilouspauline

    Thanks for sharing the results, Mark. Most interesting. I’m not sure where I fall in your graph–LOL–because I read your blog and tweet it but don’t think I’ve ever commented. I would say what got to me was the power of your story, your personal involvement, and your willingness to match the donations. You had lots of skin in the game, as you guys like to say. Like most people, there are many places to give help, so we pick pretty carefully. What you did have was my trust, because I usually don’t donate without doing more investigation. Hmmm, you’ve made me think early on a Monday morning. Not an easy task. LOL Thanks for letting us know the outcome. While the social media story is interesting, I’m so glad to know the Amachi will get such a nice donation.

  • Thanks. My influence has created a measurable action. My job is done here. : )

  • Pingback: The numbers don’t matter as much as the relationships. - My Marketing Compass()

  • Thank you Mark… Bookmarked to read, and comment!

  • Another point, especially at this time of year…There are so many worthwhile causes to contribute to, not just at this time of year, but always…but especially at this time of year. As we look to how we can best support those we admire and respect, and the causes we admire and respect, it comes to making a decision on how, when, how much and in what way we’ll support.

    This was a success Mark, because you know that you raised an amazing amount in a short time. What you don’t know is the reason(s) why some of your loyal/strong contacts (like me) might have chosen to support by sharing, but not by donating. Our donations perhaps went to other equally wonderful causes. And I believe that, when we all donate, pay-it-forward, share and support the cause or causes we select, everyone wins…there are no losers. Cheers! Kaarina

  • I agree with your analysis Mark, but as the Obama campaign has shown (I’ve studied this from the inside) influence can be used in a variety of way unrelated to content. For example, by matching up people with similar backgrounds and interests, the Obama camp was able to get one party to commit to the other to vote on election day. They did this via social media, knocking on doors, and mobile technology.

    I guess you could argue the cause was the content, but I think that’s a stretch.

    A second method I’ve seen work is where people are targeted through multiple influencers on different subjects. Allow me to explain. If I want to sell a new mobile phone I’ve made to a target audience, I can of course find influencers for mobile phones to endorse it. But far more effective, is to find influencers that cover three aspects of my target audiences’ predilections. Let’s say we find out after a ‘voice of customer’ survey that a large cross section of them like sports and cars too. We’d have more impact in our influencer campaigns if we found additional sets of influencers that had influence in sports and car circles.

    So in order to maximize effectiveness:

    1. Find influencers for mobile phones (set A)

    2. Find influencers for sports (Set B)

    3. Find influencers for cars (set C)

    Then use ABC to market the phone in a multi-pronged, coordinated way.

    Those seem to be the most effective campaigns I’ve seen work (from personal trial and error) because the target audience is being hit from multiple influencers that impact them on several different areas that are important to them.

    Great article – great stuff – I am taking the conversation further in a G+ community I created on the subject here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/110433764203967857310

  • Pingback: Five things bosses need to understand social media - Travel Perspective is a digital editorial consultancy offering advice on video, social media and digital presence from an editorial perspective()

  • I completely agree about the value of the community at Grow. I think comments are what holds the community together and @businessesgrow:disqus has done terrific job of nurturing this community.

  • I’m wondering, Mark whether you tried to evaluate how many of the donors you’ve met in the flesh? That would be another interesting data point…

  • Very key point Kaarina. The seasonal timing could have worked for or against me!

  • I loved that blog post Tom but don’t agree with it entirely. I do believe influence shows up differently online. The Greeks didn’t have the ability to create online personas. I hope we have an opportunity to continue this debate soon!

  • Many thanks for your generous support — in so many ways!

  • And we do business with those that we trust and like. Thanks Jay.

  • I realize that I could have driven the total higher if I were more aggressive. There are tons of people in the community who would have donated but probably never saw the post. The two-edged sword of social media. : )

  • First of all, thank you for taking the leap and commenting! Now we can get a “strong” relationship going!

    The power of storytelling is another very important dimension but I was trying to keep the blog post as short as possible and decided not to go in that direction. Certainly the idea of a boy wanting a door for Christmas is compelling. I don;t know how you measure that intangible but it is certainly critical. Many thanks for bring that point out Pauline!

  • Thank you.

  • We could have such an amazing discussion on this. Thanks for starting the G+ thread.

    Here is an important distinction. President Obama (or candidate Obama) has acquired authority through his education, the fact that he was elected to office, that he is seen in TV, etc. These traditional aspects — and how they show up online — are dissected in my book. However, how do you establish authority from scratch on the web, a place that disdains rules, organizations and titles? One answer is content. The candidate was simply leveraging offline influence in the online world (like a TV celebrity) so there is a nuance there.

    Your other point about combining influence topics is superb. There are two case studies in the book — Audi and TBS — that do just that and had amazing results.

    Thank you so very much for commenting Mark. An honor!

  • MariaSwanson

    Thank you for sharing your results. And Jay Baer nailed it with his comment – just the technology.

  • Mark, you just sold me on buying your book. I look forward to reading it. Oh and Dino Dogan says Hi.

  • Like Pauline below I am a regular consumer and curator of your content but was stimulated to make a brief comment by this really interesting and relevant (i am par way through ROI) post. As a relative newby to Social Media what is becoming increasingly clear to me, as I commence my journey, is that any on-line influence that I muster will be based on building STRONG relationships “by delivering a lot of helpful content, engagement, and authentic helpfulness”. There are no quick wins here, as it has always been.

    BTW, just checked out Appions – very exciting tech! (but unfortunately north of my budget)

  • Pingback: Marketing Day: December 10, 2012()

  • Fascinating stuff Mark. You’ve nailed it with this subject. The first post melted hearts and raised a lot of money for a great cause. You’ve demonstrated your own integrity with your approach. You’ve made a lot of people (your strong connections) proud to be part of such a warm community. And now you’ve shared some amazing insights from a real life example.

    The insights don’t entirely surprise me and my main comment on them would be that they again point to the power of the network, and by that I mean the immediate, relevant network, not the size of the wider, potentially irrelevant network. Klout measures noise or as @twitter-755294:disqus says “the ability to spread content”, missing the power of the “strong connections” in the community.

  • I mentioned below that i think I have met about 50 out of the 62. Best part of social media! : )

  • Thanks for commenting Maria.

  • Think you have a good understanding of this Mark. Thanks for reading my blog and for commenting. Hope you’ll make it a habit! : )

  • Yes, exactly. I think that kind of measurement will be coming at some point. Good to hear from you Hugh. Look forward to seeing you in June.

  • I often wonder if the studies that look at influence are controlling for all the necessary variables. For example, in this case, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if you repeated the experiment in the future, but did it at a different time of year (as Kaarina pointed out), with a different charity, etc.

    Also, I wonder if retweeting a post is really enough. If some of the people with a lot of followers wrote a blog post of their own supporting the charity with a link to your post, would that have helped your effort more? I guess what I am getting at is that it would show their community that they really cared about the cause, too, and that could have been more effective at getting their community to donate. (You might not be influential in their community and a retweet might not be enough of an endorsement to show that the person retweeting your post really cared deeply about the cause themselves.)

    Either way, it is an interesting case study and $4,352 is a nice donation.

    Also, I have your book on my reading list for next year. I look forward to reading it.

    Great post.

  • Thanks Adballah.., and you’re right about Mark.

  • True power in social media is measured by who responds to a call to action. That is my motto and I am sticking with it. Course it would be better if it translated into a million bucks, but who is counting. 😉

  • Pingback: Šta je u stvari uticaj na društvenim mrežama? Da li se i kako može izmjeriti? | Cyber Bosanka - Hana Kazazovi?()

  • These are all relevant points and i don’t think I was really aiming as much for a scientifically-controlled experiment as a demonstration that people generally have unrealistic expectations of large groups of followers. It does not equate to influence. Thanks for the spot-on comment Chad and I hope you enjoy the book!

  • An interesting nuance Jack. I’ve found that if it doesn’t happen in 48 hours, it doesn’t happen. : )

  • perilouspauline

    Thanks, Mark. It is oddly scary to comment on such an active blog! I always learn something, so glad for a chance to say thank you. 😉

  • Interesting perspective. I try to make people feel welcome here although I am occasionally cranky (because I’m normal!). Please come back. There are a lot of cool people here who want to get to know you!

  • johndodds

    “My blog post was tweeted 446 times but only 92 people actually made a
    donation.” is the line that gives the lie to Klout, Kred et al. It
    would be interesting to know if you can isolate how many page views
    resulted from those reweets – from ojter anecdotal evidence, I’d expect
    it to be low since likes and retweets are all about the liker/retweeter
    making a statement about themselves and very little to do with anything
    else.

  • I’m going to disagree with you. This is a nuanced point but “influence” can be about more than giving somebody money. Let’s say another goal for my post was to increase awareness for this charity and I wanted as many people to read this article as possible. If I can create content that people organically share and a reputation that will encourage people to click on the link. Isn’t that influence too? Getting somebody to share a post or click a link may not be as sexy as contributing money but it is still a discreet, measurable action and an indicator of influence (if i can do this better than you, for example). This is the type of activity Klout measures and it does mean something. This case study does not discredit Klout, but it puts it in the proper perspective. At least that what is what I tried to do. : ) Thanks for your thought-provoking comment John.

  • johndodds

    I clearly didn’t make my point as lucidly as I’d wished. I agree with you entirely about reputation and the return on sharing – if that sharing leads somewhere. And I agree that doesn’t have to be action in the sense of a donation – but the reality is that all too often the sharing is incomplete, it’s offered but not recceived.

    Unless the sahared link is opened, the link might as well have not been offered and increasingly we are realising that people don’t open links as much as people believe. To simply count retweets is to grossly overestimate influence. And that’s before you get into the highly nuanced area of network theory.

  • I cover all of this in my book. It sounds like you would probably enjoy it John.

  • Thanks NIco.

  • Henley Wing

    Man, give John his due. he made a very great point, irregardless of whether you cover it in your book, Mark.

  • This is a large and complicated subject to get into in a blog comment which is why I deferred to a better source. The primary issue is that people are thinking that influence in the online world and offline world are the same. They’re not. There are vast differences. Klout and other companies become an easy target if we only consider the online world. We have to shift our paradigm. People too easily dismiss the power of a “share” or clicking a link yet these are measurable actions that come from influencers and influential content. Influence is not only demonstrated by getting somebody to buy something. We need to change the paradigm.

  • AzlanHussain

    I would think the best way to increase conversion is to identify the right visitors (target audience) and present them with right conversion technique. For instance traffic from Facebook is to be prominently shown offers to donate and download ebook titled “viral Facebook technique”. That way you will not only attract audience that has high sense of responsibility in donating but also audience that needs return in what ever they spent. It may sounds unethical to some but that is the reality of life. Different people look at things differently.

    Different target audience has different way of getting them to convert. Not presenting to everyone the same way. That will not only reduce conversion, in fact to some extend it may irritates some of your audience.

  • Good point, but I’d submit to you that the 48 hour clock starts when each individual is exposed to the content. I read your post for the first time today and contributed a small amount. I try to read your blog regularly but must confess that I don’t read everything I’d like to. I love the shelf life of blogs though that wait patiently for me to get to them…!

  • Pingback: Why are influencers influential? - Integrated Alliances — Integrated Alliances()

  • Glen Wilson

    Loved reading that article and truly highlights, at the end of the day, if you have strong content, provide value, your true following will come.

  • Raymond Morin

    Thanks Mark. Such a great piece of content. The most complete and wide portrait of the real power of social influence I ever read, described in a real and good cause case study. It demonstrate, in a brilliant way and analysis, that it’s always depends on the quality of the relationship.

  • Pingback: Is Generation C the Key to Understanding Social Media Influence?()

  • Pingback: Link Building in 1986: How We Connected Before the Web - SERPs Blog()

  • Pingback: A Listless: Misguided Brands Must Stop Sponsoring Schmucks - Millennial CEO | Millennial CEO()

  • Pingback: Brands: A Much Needed Shift For Influence Marketing - Broadsuite | Broadsuite()

  • Pingback: A Listless: Misguided Brands Must Stop Sponsoring Schmucks()

  • Pingback: Win With Content Part 4: Sell To Your Community, Not Strangers - Emprende.us()

The Marketing Companion Podcast

Why not tune into the world’s most entertaining marketing podcast that I co-host with Tom Webster.

View details

Let's plot a strategy together

Want to solve big marketing problems for a little bit of money? Sign up for an hour of Mark’s time and put your business on the fast-track.

View details

Close