Rather Than Target “A-Listers” Talk To “The Usual Susceptibles”
Several thoughtful bloggers (including Seth Godin Himself) have made note of the controversial Clive Thomspon article in Fast Company that pits Malcom Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” ideas (in which our tastes are the pawns of select Influentials) against Duncan Watt’s suggestion that the Influentials (while important, and pretty cool) have less impact than has been attributed to them.
Jason Falls paraphrases the Fast Company article nicely: “Watts says companies should harness the pass-along power of everyday people, not just the well-connected, and do so by continuing to rely on some mass media methods.” He goes on to enthuse (rightfully) about the “pass-along passion” of everyday people who have been enthralled by a product, brand or idea.
But in the article, Watts hits on another concept that is worth exploration. Assuming that an Influential wields “40 times the reach of a normal person,” Watts found through his computer models that the Influentials were not infallible; they couldn’t “kick-start a trend every time.” From the article:
“Watts believes this is because a trend’s success depends not on the person who starts it, but on how susceptible the society is overall to the trend.”
This rings true for me. I might revere a guy like … well, like Guy. But if Guy Kawasaki told me that I simply must read the latest bodice-ripping romance novel, I’d completely ignore him. I am not “susceptible” to that type of entreaty, regardless of my respect for Mr. Kawasaki.
As Thompson noted, this conundrum represents a pain-in-the-rear to the Marketing industry, including (especially) Public Relations. It’s not enough to get an Arrington or Scoble or Malik hit and call it a day. That’s a Nice To Have, sure, but the Need To Have successes will increasingly come from harnassing Social Media (not just Mainstream Media) to discover, engage and empower our clients’ passionate users. They’ll tell the friends on their list whom they know are “susceptible” to our client’s message; they’ll target their own A-list, the friends that they think might be helped by the product/service.
And they’ll tell two friends. And so on, and so on, and so on …
UPDATED: More awesome posts on this concept at Scott Monty’s blog, at Logic + Emotion and (irony of ironies) at Guy Kawasaki’s spot.
Posted on: January 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm By Todd Defren
Subscribe by Email
When you think about it, it’s only logical. Which will be easier – lighting a fire with a single, solitary match or a blowtorch?
Well, it depends on the environment.
A single solitary match in a rainstorm is doomed. Prospects for the blowtorch aren’t great, either.
A blowtorch will get things started very fast in a bone-dry forest – but so will the match.
Where the torch (influencer) may make a difference is if the forest isn’t bone dry, just dry. It may get a fire going that the match can’t. But if you want your product or service to sizzle, look for the bone dry forest to start the fire in no matter what.
I think this a great argument for listening to customers to know whether what you recommend will have an impact with them.
I found the article fascinating, as is the discussion on Guy’s blog which I’ve been following. I tend to think of the “A” List bloggers as good for some quick reach and credibility, but just as a lot of press attention can kill a bad product more quickly, the same is true of the A-Listers. I agree with Watts, you and Scott that the ripenss of the market for just the right product is a much more important piece of the trend puzzle.
What I didn’t like about Thompson’s article was how it portrayed marketers as slick admen uninterested in data and results. Nor did I like the way it insinuated that marketing is all about trying to set fire to the next big trend. That’s the holy grail for some products (particularly in the consumer realm), but the bread and butter of marketing is in measurably ratcheting up sales. A-List bloggers are in that broad “market influencers” category that analysts and trade journalists fall into. A good marketer certainly can’t ignore them and still be doing his/her job well.
I also agree with you that customer/product enthusiasts are the key place to try and light that spark since they certainly may be your best bet for a WOM home run. In addition, if you take care of them they will defend you when you need it, give your sales reps needed references (in an organizational sale) and be your most profitable customers for upgrades, renewals and new product adoptions.
Well said Todd -
It’s nice to see people speaking in a balanced manner about the strengths of both “social media” philosophies and “mass market” traditional advertising. New ideas don’t replace old ones, and many of the typical pundits shouting out the virtues of 2.0/Twitter/WOM as the only new alternative are ignoring the ongoing mass and inertia of mass media and traditional brand messaging, it hasn’t gone away. You really can have both!
They certainly do interact and impact each other – I’ve posted a few times about WOM really pushing transparency and truthful branding in marketing further along than it’s been in the past.
Thanks as always for an enjoyable and thoughtful post to read.
Cheers
Harry
http://www.harrybishop.ca
A spot-on post. Repeatedly, we see the studies that say individuals trust recommendations from “someone like me.”
Sure, I like Oprah’s “favorite things” recommendations, but I’d still value my mom’s or best friend’s opinion about a product or a service more–and, since they know me, they are more likely to pass on information that is truly relevant to me. They wouldn’t spend any time talking to me about the HDTV Fridge she featured, because they know I’m not only not in the market for a fridge, but that I think having a TV in the fridge door is a very silly idea.
My guess is that marketing and PR types aren’t wild about this because it’s almost impossible to measure. If you find an Oprah or equivalent, the show airs, and sales skyrocket, it’s fairly simple to prove that the influential had an impact.
As an alternate example, I recently purchased a Flip camera after sitting with Sarah Wurrey and Susan Getgood at a table at a PRSA/SMC-Boston event, and watching them use theirs. No way to track that, other than my self-reporting–and this likely happens thousands of times a day with other products. Since it’s so dispersed, you can assume that good WOM is driving sales, but it’s almost impossible to quantify. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it…
And, more food for thought…how many people see something on a blog and then talk about it in the break room, at dinner with friends, etc.? No way to track that either…a blog’s reach can go way beyond links/trackbacks, etc.
Jen
Great point, Todd. And thanks for the cap tip. In a round-about way, the point of what you highlight really is “content is king.” If the idea is right, it will catch fire, regardless of who lights the spark. Our clients are in search of the mechanism to tell their story. Sometimes, however, their story isn’t compelling.
I completely agree. I actually hit upon this, believe it or not, last May: http://www.scottmonty.com/2007/05/accidential-influentials.html
The analogy used was that of a forest fire: the size of it has little to do with the size of the spark that started it, and lots to do with the state of the forest.
But it’s a combination of knowing where to engage the “sparks,” how to interact with them in their communities, and which ones will have the likelihood of helping spread the message. I revisited this in a post titled “Keep the Tip(ping Point)” http://www.scottmonty.com/2008/01/keep-tipping-point.html
But any marketer or PR practitioner needs to go into this exercise with eyes wide open. Past results do not necessarily guarantee future performance, and most importantly: reach does not necessarily equate with action.