Influencer Marketing Primer 3 - Measuring influence

Robert Cialdini, in his excellent book Influence: Science and Practice, doesn’t actually define what influence is: the only omission in an otherwise worthy read. But for our purposes – understanding influence in the world of B2B marketing – Cialdini offers an interesting two-dimensional measure of influence:

• Is this individual truly an expert? Does the person have the credentials that make them an authoritative voice on the specific subject in question, and
• How truthful can we expect the individual to be? Does the person have some interest in the decision they are commenting on, or are they completely independent?

The first input distinguishes between influencers that have deep expertise in the subject domain, and those that have much less so. Expertise is, of course, relative and specific to the subject. I’d like to think I have some expertise in Single Malt Scotch Whisky, relative to the average person, and would be happy to exert some influence over Whisky purchases by friends and colleagues. But I’m no match for the professional palates of blenders, nor would I advise following my notions when investing in barrels of spirit maturing in casks. And I’m a complete ignoramus about wine, brandy and other tipples.

The second dimension cuts to the heart of a key issue in the advisory business – independence. When I worked at Ovum, we published an independence charter, to state clearly our practices when working with clients. We wouldn’t write commissioned white papers, nor were we allowed to own shares in companies we followed as analysts. At IDC, we also had strong principles of independence, but they resulted in quite different outcomes in practice from those at Ovum. It’s importance to determine what a firm means by independence – it may not be what you think it means.

The above criteria are useful, but not sufficient, when it comes to considering influence in a B2B context. They are, collectively, a measure of the quality of influence being exerted. Quality counts for little if the message is not heard. We require a measure of the frequency with which the individual applies their influence: the more an individual provides input to the market the more they are likely to be heard. This is straightforward to detect when the influencer communicates directly with the market (analysts or journalists, for example) but much harder when communications are made indirectly, via the media, conferences, private meetings, and so on. Nobody says measuring influence is easy!

It is also important to measure the accessibility of the influence’s opinion to the market: if the individual’s message is being ignored or disregarded then they are less likely to exert influence. Journalists, authors and analysts score highly here. Independent consultants, academics and purchasing groups are typically less accessible (with the usual caveat for exceptions).

Blogging is an excellent example of this measure at work. Frequency of posts is an early indicator of influence, but the number of links to a blogger over time is a more reliable measure.

Perhaps the most important criterion in measuring influence is the proximity of the influencer to the decision process. After all, we are measuring the degree of influence over B2B decision makers. Does the influencer have the ear of decision makers, either directly (as in the case of consultants) or via other indirect channels?

Influencer50 has defined four criteria that map to the measures discussed above:

• Market Reach – the number of people an individual has the ability to connect with. This it measures accessibility of the influencer.
• Quality of Impact – the esteem in which an individual’s view and opinions are held. This measure incorporates both credibility and independence of the influencer.
• Frequency of Impact – the number of opportunities an individual has to influence buying decisions.
• Closeness to Decision – how near an individual is to the decision-maker. This does not necessarily mean physical proximity – it can be online or indirect via some other channel. Whatever, great advice or insight has little influence if it is not heard by a decision-maker.

At Influencer50 we score each measure as a percentage, and we provide results in an unweighted manner. Our clients can apply their own weightings, as we provide results in an Excel format (as well as a written report and workshop presentation).

Measuring influence is an inexact science, and it requires experience and judgement. Results are always subjective to some degree, which is why we deliver scores that are relative. There are no absolutes in influence.

We’re continuing to review our criteria, based on changes in the market. For example, what impact does the Marketing 2.0 agenda have? How is blogging changing influence?

I’ll post any changes to our criteria as we release them. Meantime, I’m interested to receive any feedback on our current criteria.