Is influence ‘boring’?

I’ve long enjoyed the irony of Richard Holway’s Boring awards. Boring awards are bestowed on those firms that manage 10 or more consecutive years of earnings-per-share growth. The idea that boring is desirable is inspired.

So I was reading a post on super-influencers, such as the speakers at TED. Then I looked at The Telegraph’s list of the most influential people in UK industry which, again, appears as a list of super-influencers, but of little practical value to marketers.

It turns out that real influence, where purchase decisions are informed, scoped, agreed and validated, is wielded not by charismatic CEOs and thought leaders. Instead, decisions are usually influenced at the coal face by ‘normal’ people, senior-to-middle grade professionals and experts, with the real-world experience relevant to the decision at hand.

It’s actually quite boring. Where boring is a desirable attribute.

Facebook: agenda setter or over-hyped?

Here's an interesting juxtaposition. Richard Holway points to Mark Zuckerberg from FaceBook topping silcon's list of agenda setters. Facebook represents the zeitgeist of this decade, towards social networking, with all the implications that has for influence.

Except that The Economist has today published a sceptical article on Facebook, questioning Facebook valuations and its role as a one-size-fits-all social network. There's also an interesting (if brief) examination of whether social networks exhibit network effects of their value increasing with usage (aka Metcalfe's Law). It argues that smaller communities are valued more highly, since they represent members with similar interests.

This contrast in views is relevant to discussions on influence, in two ways. Firstly, it helps inform the debate on how, or whether, Facebook and other social media can enable or enhance influence. Is the value of a social network based on its popularity or its focus? Can we predict which social networks will be populated by most influencers?

The second point on influence is that I'd consider both Richard and Tom Standage at The Economist as influencers on the adoption of technologies. Who's right? Who carries the most weight with technology adopters? Who's opinion will sway valuations? How can you assess the influence of two heavyweights with countering opinions?

Answers on a postcard, please...

HP's Lusher on AR and social media

Carter Lusher, AR head at HP and ex-Gartner analyst, posts on the use of social media by analyst firms (synopsis: not enough) and wonders on the impact of blogging on influence from analysts. Great issues.

The current position, as I see it, is that bloggers have relatively little influence on CIO-level execs and business folk. They do, however, have influence in the more techie arenas. Big generalisations, of course, but it seems to hold for most markets, and makes a reasonable starting hypothesis. Demographics are also an important feature of socila media's reach (but this may be changing: if The Archers are podcasting, anyone can...). Country differences also exist (e.g. France is generally more blog-friendly...).

It's important to recognise that bloggers are often influential because of their "day job" and just happen to blog nowadays. Richard Holway is a good example. Blogging is a means of access, and it allows previously inaccessible people to gain exposure. So you find DBAs and developers emerging as influential bloggers - their influence is expanded out to the web, beyond the confines of their employers.

In researching case studies for the book, I discovered that blogging and other social media need to be dedicated activities, with time and budget allocated. Otherwise it's just dabbling, as Carter points out in IDC's approach.

The key question is always, influential on whom? If analysts are trying to influence CIOs then there is no immediate need to blog, because CIOs generally don't read them. James Governor is successful because he aims at the more techie audience, and is thus more influential on that audience.

The trick, then, is to monitor blog readership closely, and to respond when the sitation changes.

How analysts can increase their influence

It turns out that I’m becoming known for my “analyst bashing” blog posts and other writings. It's not a reputation I've sought. But I've made no secret that I think analyst influence is generally overstated, and that’s with eleven years of inside knowledge at Ovum and IDC. I’ve seen analysts with huge influence and those with very little. The real issue is, how do you tell them apart?

As Richard Holway told me:

Any fool can be an analyst
But very few get to be influencers.

Bill Hopkins’s AR text Influencing the Influencers maps out very clearly why a few analyst firms carry the majority of influence within the analyst community – I commend you to read it. As Bill states in the book, “Some influencers are more vital to you than others.” Though it’s completely obvious if you think about it, many vendors (and AR agencies) don’t think about it, and propagate blanket importance of analysts. PR agencies do the same with journalists.

I think a primary challenge for all analyst firms is to make their analysts more influential. The first question to be asked, as always, is who do they influence? A better way of understanding the relevance of this question is to ask another: who do vendors want to be influenced by analysts? Usually, vendors are trying to influence decision makers, so that they buy products and services. It’s logical, therefore, to want to know which analysts have influence over those decision makers, that can sway a decision in one direction on another. These are what Hopkins calls Deal Makers and Breakers.

Clearly, then, the more analysts are influencing decision makers the more influential they are to vendors. And while it’s risky to categorise all analysts within one firm together, a firm’s business model will point to the likelihood of influence on decision makers. So Gartner, with its end-user research focus and consulting business, is likely to be more influential than, say, IDC, which has a predominantly supply-side viewpoint.

Additionally, the closer an analyst gets to the decision maker, the more influence they will have on that decision. In my experience, this deep level of influence is delivered only through client engagements and consulting. So analysts that directly advise decision makers carry the greatest influence.

There is also an issue of when influence is being applied. Analyst research papers are used by end-users as guidance and pointers, sometimes in the development of shortlists. This occurs early in the decision making process. Consulting, again in my experience, happens later in the process where evaluations and recommendations are being made. At this point the stakes are high, and individual analysts much be sure in their understanding of both the needs of their client and the capabilities of the vendors they are judging.

I think that this is where many analysts, and analyst firms, cop out. They are unwilling, or unable, to help a specific end-user client make a final decision. They may claim that doing so would conflict with their vendor independence. Nonsense. Recommending a specific product to a specific end-user organisation does not conflict with independence, as long the same analyst is just as likely to recommend a different product to another client with different needs.

So I think analyst firms should tell their analysts to get out more. Talk to, engage with, and start influencing end-user decision makers. It’s the only route to real influence.