Comments on: Under the Influence http://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/ web 2.0, blogs and social media Mon, 30 May 2011 20:58:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Mike Chapmanhttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-12728 Mike Chapman Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:47:47 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-12728 You get it. Social media is a great addition to a rich and full life. It's not necessarily a good replacement for one. Great post. You get it. Social media is a great addition to a rich and full life. It’s not necessarily a good replacement for one. Great post.

]]> By: MorganLighterhttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11308 MorganLighter Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:26:19 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11308 David - Provocative article. Too bad it's become a popularity contest rather than a content competition. There are hundreds of sites/writers that don't get the play they deserve - and this trend has become ubiquitous in other venues as well. How sad - it's the tail wagging the dog. David — Provocative article. Too bad it’s become a popularity contest rather than a content competition. There are hundreds of sites/writers that don’t get the play they deserve — and this trend has become ubiquitous in other venues as well. How sad — it’s the tail wagging the dog.

]]> By: Will McInneshttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11307 Will McInnes Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:24:20 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11307 Heather - a superb and insightful point. Yes, we (me?) do instinctively look for the big shots, the big influencers, which is a dated and very Mainstream Media way of looking at the new world. It's true that we've gone from a Pareto's split of influence of 80:20 to more of a 50:50, with the sea of situational, personal influencers rising up. So you're right, it is so much more nuanced than simple models will describe. Heather — a superb and insightful point. Yes, we (me?) do instinctively look for the big shots, the big influencers, which is a dated and very Mainstream Media way of looking at the new world. It’s true that we’ve gone from a Pareto’s split of influence of 80:20 to more of a 50:50, with the sea of situational, personal influencers rising up. So you’re right, it is so much more nuanced than simple models will describe.

]]> By: Heather Yaxleyhttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11306 Heather Yaxley Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:30:42 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11306 I agree that Flemming Madsen's distinction between influence and popularity is important - and his analysis based on attributions adds another dimension. There is still a question about the macro versus micro here - are we in PR still looking for the "golden influencer" who has large scale credibility and respect? Surely one of the real considerations of online is that influence works increasingly at a micro level - its is situational and personal. I agree that Flemming Madsen’s distinction between influence and popularity is important — and his analysis based on attributions adds another dimension.

There is still a question about the macro versus micro here — are we in PR still looking for the “golden influencer” who has large scale credibility and respect? Surely one of the real considerations of online is that influence works increasingly at a micro level — its is situational and personal.

]]> By: Will McInneshttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11304 Will McInnes Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:19:44 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11304 Great post on a theme I'm big into at the moment. But only because Flemming Madsen from Onalytica put it there... Flemming can show you fascinating insights into the differences between *influence* and *popularity*, which are often confused both online and in the real world, and which you discuss here. Send him an email - he's got some incredible technology, some lovely reports and a great way of explaining things. The key is getting away from a raw measurement that simple counts 'things' e.g. friends on facebook. There is nothing qualitative there, it's a shallow measurement and as you both agree, therefore deeply flawed. It's *who* those 'friends' are that matters. Measurements or tools that don't get to the crux of this won't last long I'm afraid. However, I do see this as a burgeoning and huge business opportunity, and think the guys have had a great stab at it. The challenge continues... Great post on a theme I’m big into at the moment. But only because Flemming Madsen from Onalytica put it there… Flemming can show you fascinating insights into the differences between *influence* and *popularity*, which are often confused both online and in the real world, and which you discuss here. Send him an email — he’s got some incredible technology, some lovely reports and a great way of explaining things.

The key is getting away from a raw measurement that simple counts ‘things’ e.g. friends on facebook. There is nothing qualitative there, it’s a shallow measurement and as you both agree, therefore deeply flawed. It’s *who* those ‘friends’ are that matters. Measurements or tools that don’t get to the crux of this won’t last long I’m afraid.

However, I do see this as a burgeoning and huge business opportunity, and think the guys have had a great stab at it. The challenge continues…

]]> By: Heather Yaxleyhttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11297 Heather Yaxley Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:04:35 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11297 I particularly like the point about those who are influential because their thoughts are rare but significant. As David indicates, this has started a useful debate around the idea of influence if nothing else. I particularly like the point about those who are influential because their thoughts are rare but significant.

As David indicates, this has started a useful debate around the idea of influence if nothing else.

]]> By: Ian Delaneyhttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11296 Ian Delaney Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:03:58 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11296 Thanks, David. Maybe 'Group' membership might be a better guide than friend numbers? A lot of organisations have created groups (apart from NMK, but I've been mulling it for months now). Their ability to get people to join their group might provide an indication of their real influence, since joining a group indicates, to some extent, alliance and advocacy. Network membership is even better as an indication of alliance, though because that costs a fair bit of money (as I understand), it would disclude a lot of grass-roots, popular figures. Thanks, David. Maybe ‘Group’ membership might be a better guide than friend numbers? A lot of organisations have created groups (apart from NMK, but I’ve been mulling it for months now). Their ability to get people to join their group might provide an indication of their real influence, since joining a group indicates, to some extent, alliance and advocacy. Network membership is even better as an indication of alliance, though because that costs a fair bit of money (as I understand), it would disclude a lot of grass-roots, popular figures.

]]> By: David Brainhttp://twopointouch.com/2007/blogs/under-the-influence/#comment-11295 David Brain Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:40:21 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2007/08/03/under-the-influence/#comment-11295 Bang on with all of those points. We're still not sure what to do about the "friends" count as the way of measuring influence on Facebook. What's become apparent from many of the commenst (and indeed yours) is that we really are mixing apples and oranges in terms of reach vs influence. this is nto because we want to, but because for platforms like Facebook it's difficult to see what else you can measure. Steve Rubel in a curry house , sniffing a 'lady's' perfume whilst tipping gee gees. Now there's a vision. Bang on with all of those points. We’re still not sure what to do about the “friends” count as the way of measuring influence on Facebook. What’s become apparent from many of the commenst (and indeed yours) is that we really are mixing apples and oranges in terms of reach vs influence. this is nto because we want to, but because for platforms like Facebook it’s difficult to see what else you can measure. Steve Rubel in a curry house , sniffing a ‘lady’s’ perfume whilst tipping gee gees. Now there’s a vision.

]]>