Archive for December, 2009

Embrace the noise – its where the influence is

A parting post for 2009.

I was recently sent this by  Influencer50, an organisation in the business of influencer marketing.  It makes some interesting points about failures in on-line influencer measurement and the many organisations claiming to have offerings in this area.  However, this report itself fails because it falls into the same trap as many of those approaches it is also criticising – namely the belief that influence is all about “screening out the noise” and finding the “needles in the haystack”.

That was the way influence was organised.  What the social media revolution is doing is shifting influence away from institutions and individuals even, into the processes of connection that are generated within a crowd of individuals.  Far from being screened out, the noise is what we should be looking at because it is where influence is moving towards.   Expertise will no longer remain the preserve of experts – as James Surowieki has shown in his book “The Wisdom of the Crowds” (a book that is not explicitly about social media, but is essential reading if you want to understand social media).

Bad news for Influencer50, obviously, because its business is set-up around identifying a small number of influential individuals and connecting with them off-line.  It’s why, in a recent blog post, one of the report’s authors states that, “Frankly, I think there’s a lot of tosh and assertion on the importance of social media in influence”.  A sutiable epitaph for this organisation’s tombstone I feel, for this is not an organisation that will be around in five or 10 years time.  Of course, social media doesn’t excert influence when you have determined in advance the rules through which influence must be excerted (i.e. through individuals and institutions).  But when you realise that the rules of influence are changing, and when you look at influence as a process not a person, and when you realise that this is being driven by the social media revolution – then the picture starts to look very different.

So an exhortation for 2010 – embrace the noise, celebrate the “Pointlesss Babble”, revel in the “endless narcisism of the blogosphere”.  It’s where the future is.

links for 2009-12-16

  • This is very, very interesting. It is a case study in the future of content – switching from content of mass appeal to content of individual relevance. Its about the switch from buying media (distribution) to making media. Its about cutting production costs to match content value, rather than trying to increase content value to cover production costs. Its about the life time value of content, not its one-off utility. Every organisation should apply the Demand Media approach to their business and start making this type of high volume content to populate their content warehouse and their relevat digital space. If you don’t do it – Demand Media will.

Social media failures – are consultants to blame?

One of the staples of the ‘social media conversation’ is the social-media-consultant-as-snake-oil-salesman thing.  (See this most recent offering from Business Week)  A meme, in fact, is what I think it could be called.  This often goes hand-in-hand with the whole social-media-show-us-your-metrics-or-go-away meme.  The confluence of these two memes is the conclusion that unless a social media consultant can point to campaigns they have done and show you his or her  metrics – they must be snake oil salesmen.  And, by extension, all the social media car crashes out there (Toyota Matrix, Motrin Mums to name the two cited in the Business Week article) are therefore the fault of social media consultants.

Fair enough, there are a lot of people out there spouting nonsense at the moment, but is it really social media consultants who are to blame?  Are social media consultants “leading clients astray” as the Business Week article suggests?  I think not.  Lets see whose fingerprints are actually all over most social media failures. Continue reading ‘Social media failures – are consultants to blame?’

Should you proofread a blog?

I have just had the following comment posted by Jim on my ‘biography‘ entry on this blog.

Please proofread your website.

It doesn’t detract from what you’re saying, but I did find the spelling errors and grammatical mistakes a little annoying.

How to respond?  Obviously, I first checked the comment for typos – no such luck.  Should I delete it?  It is, after all, the only comment on this ‘not-particularly-for commenting-on-page”.  Well that wouldn’t really be in the spirit of social media. Continue reading ‘Should you proofread a blog?’