Three myths of influence

Infoweek has a well-balanced article on the impact of social media on influence. I suggest you read it. While I don’t disagree with the analysis, the article highlights three key misunderstandings about the nature of influence.

The first is that influence on social media is somehow different to influence in the real world. Everybody these days seems to have a Web 2.0 centric view of the world. The hype reminds me of the “New Economy” – and we all know what happened to that. Social media is being overstated, and the influence of those participating in it is also overstated. Remember that only 6% of communication occurs on line – the lion’s share of interaction remains staunchly in the real world with face-to-face conversations.

The second misunderstanding in the article relates to the disappointing results of influencer outreach programmes. All of the activities discussed in the article targeted consumer influencers. But in fact the most important influencers in consumer markets are not consumers – they are retailers and distributors, consultants and professional advisers, lawyers and doctors. You can target these people, because they are easily identified, and you can measure their impact (if you’ve given them some tools of influence).

The final issue with the article is the assumption that links are equal to influence: the more link the greater the influence. Wrong. Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point identified three types of influencer (connectors, mavens and salesmen) – why does everyone want to be (or target) connectors? Connectors are necessary but not sufficient to influencer prospects. Only 3% of people are true connectors – the rest are link gatherers. In fact, we see that salesmen (persuaders) are the most effective influencers on decision makers.

There are several other myths of influence which I’ll be addressing in coming weeks. Unless these myths are challenged they will choke the notion that influencers can be identified and reached.