Likewise – I don’t think the on-line / off-line distinction is really relevant. The separation of information from distribution (i.e. the social media revolution) is changing the nature of influence – full stop. It is therefore making an approach that focuses on fixed points, places or people of influence less relevant.

You are right – noise is not the same as influence – but influence can lie within the noise – and as the changes in the nature of influence roll-out, much more of it will be found in the noise than in the signal.

Lastly, congratulations on your growth, but don’t forget that the growth of one organisation is not necessarily reflective of the sector in which it sits. It is possible to achive growth within a sector that is in decline (up to a point of course). Advertising has been in decline for years – but there are still (a few) growing ad agencies.

I guess I’d make three points: firstly, we don’t say anywhere that influence is only offline. But neither is it online only – it’s a mix, and marketers are in danger of emphasising one over the other. It’s about balance, and we think the balance is markedly skewed.

Secondly, our focus (of Influencer50 and of the paper) is mainly on B2B decisions. I can guarantee that here the majority of influence is still exerted (a) by individuals and (b) offline. However, it’s true that online channels have increased the accessibility of some influencers to their advantage.

Finally, noise is not the same as influence. Even Surowiecki agrees here, and cites very specific conditions that apply for the wisdom of crowds to be wisdom indeed.

As for our epitaph, in fact our firm is growing fast so your prediction of our imminent demise, while amusing, is unlikely to transpire.

Best regards,

Duncan Brown