Posts tagged return on influence
We create content and content also creates us
May 15th
Recently I was interviewed by my friend Elizabeth Sosnow and she asked me about an observation in Return On Influence: “We create content … but in a way, content is also creating us.”
It had been a long time since I thought about this and I thought it was timely to reflect on this powerful concept. I think my friend Jason Falls put it very well when he stated in the book:
“Before the social web, there was always a ceiling or a velvet rope – a limit to where you could go with your influence unless you were somebody famous. Now anybody can be heard. Social media and the Internet makes it possible for every person to be published, find an audience, and become influential.”
Let’s face it, most of the people making an impact on the social web today would not have been heard from even a few years ago, including me. Yes, I create content. But as you see, content is also creating me.
A few months ago, I was cornered at a conference by a lady who kept telling me, “You’re a rockstar! You’re a rockstar!” I realize that “celebrity” is something that exists in a person’s head and there is nothing I can do about it, but this kind of stuff makes me very uncomfortable. I’m no rockstar, trust me. This is a perception … a creation … manufactured entirely by what I publish.
And while I am occasionally unnerved by both the positive and negative extremes of fandom, I realize how very fortunate I am to live in a time when my voice can be heard and I can truly have an impact on a global audience.
And you know what? You can have an impact, too.
If you’re not using this amazing, historic opportunity to publish, you’re missing out on one of the greatest technological gifts of our generation. Free publishing tools. Access to the world. The ability to connect with people nearly anywhere.
If you’re not a decent writer, try video blogs. If you don’t like video, start a podcast. If you don’t want to commit to podcasts, how about slide presentations on Slideshare, or even photographs on Instagram?
This is Jason’s time because he found blogging and committed to it. This is my time because I have the courage to create conversational content.
If you haven’t become a content creator, what are you waiting for? This is your time too! What are you going to do about it?
Reflections on social media power and influence
Mar 19th
I wrote my first blog post about Klout about two and a half years ago. At that point, it was little more than another obscure social media start-up fighting for attention. Over the ensuing months, I wrote follow-up posts that criticized Klout and its competitors for some of the embarrassing mistakes they made.
But I grew fascinated by this topic of social influence. How DOES a person become powerful and influential on the Internet — an alternate universe that HATES any form of authority, titles, or rules? The more I studied and thought about this, the more interesting it became. I eventually wrote a book about the subject called Return On Influence, which launched exactly one year ago.
I studied this topic of online influence intensely for a year. I read books, academic research, and white papers. I interviewed more than 70 people ranging from brand managers and mommy bloggers to Dr. Robert Cialdini, arguably the leading expert on influence in the world and the author of the seminal work Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. I got to peek inside Klout (at that point virtually the only game in town) and talk to its customers. And here are the three conclusions I made:
1) This is a historically important time where personal power has been enabled through our ability to publish on the web.
2) The nature of power and influence in the online world is vastly different than what we are accustomed to in the offline world. It’s important for businesses and individuals to understand this — your paradigm has to shift.
3) Klout is on to something.
A year later, I’m very proud of the acclaim the book has received from the press, reviewers, and thousands of readers from around the world. I haven’t written on the topic of social influence in awhile and I thought I would reflect on what has happened in the field since the book came out.
The good.
Moving the debate along — It has been great to see meaningful debate emerge from the book as people begin to understand the changing nature of influence. There have been some great blog posts examining the potential for corruption of these scores, the difference between advocates and influencers, and creative new ways these tools are being incorporated into traditional marketing. Almost every marketing conference now has some element of social influence discussion on the agenda. Some of the more interesting topics include:
- What are the differences and relationships between advocates, influencers and fans?
- How do we connect influencer outreach initiatives to measurable business gains?
- How can we integrate influencer data into traditional marketing initiatives?
- Now that we can find these legitimate influencers, what do we do with them?
New technical development — A group of new companies has emerged to challenge Klout, the acknowledged market leader. Some of them have been niche knock-offs, but others, like Appinions, offers breath-taking new opportunities for marketing insight and innovation. Appinions digs deep below the surface of mere social media input, leveraging patented Cornell University technology to cull insight from 5 million online sources. Now this is getting interesting!
Stabilization — Klout and its social influence comrades have the unenviable task of scaling fast and iterating in public. Being publicly scored and evaluated pushed a hot button with a lot of people and a rash of PR gaffes seriously hurt the credibility of the genre to the point that people could not get past the damage to rationally assess the potential of the technology. Thankfully a lot of that drama is in the past. Scores have slowly stabilized, scamming has been addressed, and the focus is on progress instead of PR spin. The debate is generally becoming less emotional and more intellectual, although many people are still rolling old tapes.
New commercial development — Nearly all the major social influence programs are finding footing with customers. Klout announced new partnerships with Microsoft and ESPN. Kred has introduced a dizzying array of features that slice and dice scores a dozen different ways. PeerIndex has evolved to become a UK-focused discount shopping site. Appinions is gaining ground with a subscription model. Almost every PR, advertising, and marketing firm is trying figure out how these useful new tools can be integrated into marketing campaigns, or even coming up with versions of their own. The idea of “social influence marketing” is moving into mainstream marketing budgets.
The bad.
The social influence feeding frenzy — In the past 12 months there has been a feeding frenzy of misguided PR and marketing people trying to hook up with “influencers,” in a desperate attempt to ride the wave. As somebody typically on the receiving end of this behavior, I can say that 99% of the activity is crap. I especially feel sorry for the most popular mommy bloggers who are deluged with offers and incentives. Everybody wants a piece of an influencer but most are clueless on how to do it well. It’s still about relationships, folks.
The Klout Addicts — There is an underground network of folks supporting each other’s Klout addictions. They are obsessed with elevating their scores and doing whatever it takes to grab more valuable loot. Swag-grabbing is harmless good fun, but I’m not sure what a connection with these folks really does for creating business results. I’m guessing the brands are starting to figure this out? This is one of the potential dangers I pointed out in the book and it seems to be coming true.
The Klout Echo Chamber – There are still a number of folks out there regurgitating the same tired, out-dated, and irrelevant criticisms of social scoring companies. As they repeat their rants among themselves, they have simply created their own Echo Chamber. The biggest problem is that these folks are stuck in an “offline” framework of power and influence or haven’t bothered to look beyond their emotions to understand the theory and psychology behind the scores. Some of the wearisome rants include:
- “Klout is just stupid and doesn’t measure anything.”
- “Justin Bieber has a higher score than Warren Buffet so that proves that Klout is meaningless.”
- “Klout says I’m influential about grapes so that proves that it is worthless.”
These were perhaps valid commentaries at one time but today it is simply running old tapes. Here is what a Klout/Kred/PeerIndex score provides: An indicator of a person’s relative ability to create content that elicits online sharing and reactions. A company like Appinions further applies these scores in the context of topics, themes, and sentiment.
No more, no less.
Like credit scores, social influence scores are imperfect and not necessarily an indicator of future behavior. And yet, both of these indicators are useful. How many careers today are dependent on a person’s ability to effectively move content on the web?
How am I influencing you right now?
It’s likely that you know little (or nothing) about me as a person. I’m not an “influencer” in a traditional sense in that I have any power over you through a title, an elected position, or an organizational chart. And although I can’t tell you what to do, you may actually take some action after reading this post. Will you tweet it? Forward it to a colleague? Save it for later? Will you spend your precious time to comment on it? Have I even changed your view or attitude? Made you angry? Made you interested enough in the subject to explore the book?
My source of power on the web comes from essentially one place: Having an ability to create or aggregate content that is shared and creates a reaction. Without having the ability to create and move content, most influential bloggers you admire today would probably be toiling in a cubicle someplace instead of speaking on a global stage.
In this limited context, does a social scoring number like a Klout score make sense? Can Brian Solis create and move content better than me? Yes. Can I do this better than many of my students? Yes. Social scoring is far from perfect, but over time, this is the valuation that is beginning to be refined – a relative ability to move content. And that is very limited, but also very useful to many companies and brands who want to find people who can create buzz on a topic or product.
In conclusion …
Thank you for supporting (or debating) these new ideas over the past year. I hope there are two main lessons you took away from the book:
First, this is an amazing time for everyone to find their own online power, their return on influence. It doesn’t matter what college you attended, the color of your skin, or how much money you have. You can publish on the web and you can find your own power. Now, what are you going to do about it?
Second, I encourage you to be a critical thinker and cut through the emotionality of a company that purports to measure your influence. Yes, that might seem distasteful. It’s icky to me too. But as a business professional, we must move beyond the noise of the debate and look for the signal. Take a clear-headed look at the real dynamics of online influence and the implications for you, your brand, and your business, and make an informed decision.
Disclosure on companies mentioned in this post: I have never received a gift or “Perk” from any social scoring company. I accepted a dinner from the president of Kred in 2012. Both Klout and PeerIndex provided Return On Influence as a premium to their customers in 2012 as part of a promotional deal with my publisher McGraw Hill. I have indirectly provided paid counsel to Appinions as an adviser to one of their outside marketing agencies. I provided unpaid marketing counsel to Dr. Cialdini’s company. Links to books are affiliate links.
Do you have to cheat to be successful on the social web?
Mar 6th
I spent a great part of my career in B2B marketing positions and the part I loved most was traipsing around the factory floor. I loved watching things work and being with people who were actually “making stuff.”
There was one manufacturing manager I knew who seemed to be a wizard. The guy always led the pack and found a way to hit his production numbers no matter what was thrown at him. He seemed too good to be true.
That’s because he was. He was a cheat.
Turns out, he would invest to improve his plant’s productivity and then purposely understate the manufacturing capacity of his equipment. So he was always holding back — in essence, lying and cheating the company so he could “make his numbers” and get that big bonus check. Of course he was fired.
He moved on to another Fortune 100 company, did the same thing, and was fired again.
You see, it’s not just about making your numbers. HOW you make the numbers matters too.
It’s all about cheating
This has been one of those weeks when I get really disgusted about the questionable games people play in business. For example, there has been a significant debate about the number of well-known authors who allegedly hire specialized companies to buy bulk copies of their books to nudge them on to the New York Times bestseller list.
I understand why people do this. They cheat, bump themselves on to The New York Times list for a day, and then claim that badge of social proof for their career forever. But it’s kind of like calling yourself an “award-winning author” for that third-place trophy you received in high school for the Kiwanis Club essay contest. What did you really accomplish?
The publishing companies apparently approve of this because it moves books. Even the New York Times seems to condone cheating. This blows my mind. I mean, it’s the New York freaking Times, the most respected newspaper in America. And they’re allowing the editorial section of their paper to be gamed? The fact is, it is possible — maybe necessary — to buy your way on to this prestigious list.
An addiction to social proof
I’ve written extensively about this idea of “social proof.” An indicator like “New York Times bestseller” is a short-cut indicator of quality when we are overwhelmed in a decision process. But this is a two-edged sword. It is undoubtedly a powerful indicator of influence, but it is also increasingly meaningless because nearly every “badge” can be faked.
Today, anyone can manufacture their own image of personal power. In Return On Influence, I wrote about a colleague who admitted to me that his entire social media presence had been faked. He bought his massive Twitter audience. He had somebody ghost-writing his blogs. He made up his client list. And people bought into it.
Another person I know created their own social media award and presented it to themselves so they had something to display on their blog. Nearly every day I get requests from people to vote for them for some crazy, made-up award. What the heck does winning a “Shorty Award” mean? Are you really the “best” of something?
The sad reality is, what you do may be less important than how you appear on the Internet. In a social media world that barks “Authenticity! Authenticity!” … there is precious little of that, in reality.
There was a time I was too concerned with social proof. I didn’t cheat, but I spent too much time comparing my “numbers” with other people. It was driving the wrong behavior for me and my business because instead of just doing good work, I was thinking about doing work that increased these meaningless metrics. The social proof on my blog included badges about the awards I had won, Ad Age Power 150, etc. I took them all down about a year ago (which means I am not even following my own advice about the importance of social proof!), but it was the right decision for me because today I am concentrating on business metrics that make a difference.
Leaving success on the table?
I do wonder if the world will pass me by if I don’t cheat. Will I ever have a bestseller? Will my publishers even support me any more if I’m not willing to pay a third party to buy my own books? Is it more important to write a great book or have the financial resources to make it look like a great book?
Will my blog readers eventually be more attracted to bloggers who display their awards and badges like a a five-star general?
Will clients hire speakers for conferences and workshops based on the number of Twitter followers or Facebook Likes they manufacture?
Does it matter that I don’t make “best of” lists or win social media awards because I don’t lobby my friends for votes?
Despite the business realities of social proof, life is too short to compromise myself to make a book list or fake my way to stardom. I feel like I am in a shrinking minority, but I still believe the lesson I learned on the factory floor so many years ago — How you make the numbers is important too. Even if other people can’t tell what is real, I know what is real.
Thanks for reading my post today. I would love to hear your thoughts on cheating and social proof in the comment section!
The results are in: An experiment in social influence
Dec 9th
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













You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark Schaefer

