An interview with Nick Hayes

Nick, the president and founder of Influencer50, appeared on Webmaster radio last week, covering the basics of Influencer Marketing. It's actually an easy listen, and you can stream the interview podcast here. Or download the mp3 here if you want to miss the commercials!

WOMMA launches Influencer Marketing handbook

The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) has just launched its Influencer Marketing handbook for comment. It’s worth a look.

I’m hugely relieved to see that WOMMA has resisted much of the nonsense that is talked about influencers, especially in the consumer markets. No paid “brand advocates”, no Big Seed Marketing, and no celebrities. Instead, some straightforward advice to get firms thinking about influence, and who might have it.

WOMMA tends to be very consumer-focused, and I’d like to have seen more reference to B2B influence, where the dynamics work differently, but that will come over time. More importantly, it ignores the subject of how to identify and rank influencers, since (I assert) some influencers are more influential than others. My guess is that measuring influence is in the ‘too hard’ tray, certainly as far as proposing a standard that works across all markets and sectors.

In all, the handbook is a useful source for those considering Influencer Marketing, and its bibliography is the most comprehensive I’ve seen. It certainly introduced some blogs that I’d not heard of, so I’ll check these out.

The handbook is available for public comment until Oct 20th.

Influence as vocabulary for integrated marketing

One of Influencer50’s first clients initially thought that Influencer Marketing could unite the disparate silos that existed in the marketing department. Thanks for the confidence, guys!

Much as we’d like to position Influencer Marketing as a panacea for marketing’s ailments, it doesn’t work quite like that. But strangely, and probably because the client’s expectation was set from the beginning, the outcome was closer to their aspiration than we thought possible.

It works like this.

A major issue in marketing is the silo mentality that divides operations into a wide range of disjointed activities. So we have PR, AR, partner marketing, events (from conferences to podcasts), user groups, collateral development, and so on, as well as a host of telesales/telemarketing and mailings.

Now Influencer Marketing doesn’t promise to unite all of these distinct activities. But what it does do is identify where the influence on decision makers lies. It does ask the question: “How does this activity relate to influence on decision makers?” And it does suggest that if and activity cannot demonstrate an impact on influence then you should stop doing it.

Influencer Marketing applies right across the marketing operational domain. It covers press and analysts, and partner organisations, and end-users, and events and other influence categories. So it offers a vocabulary for discussing the widest range of marketing activities, uniting at least the terminology for discussing and managing marketing.

Our client runs marketing operational management meetings, at which all representatives report on their activities. The reports are provided in terms of their impact on the identified influencers relevant to the activity. So PR reports on progress in engaging with the most influential journalists. Events are scheduled to leverage the most influential conferences (a diminishing category), and influencers are solicited to speak at client-arranged seminars. Partnership strategy is oriented around the most influential people in third-party organisations, even if formal partnerships don’t already exist.

Thus influencers have become a way of everybody reporting back using the same terms, and with the same degree of focus on who really carries influential with decision-making prospects.

We, and our client, are smart enough to recognise that this isn’t truly integrated marketing. But it’s a useful start, easy to implement, and aids management. It also helps to present marketing in a more organised and professional light to the rest of the organisation. This is important, especially with a recession looming and the budgetary axe being lifted.

Idea diffusion and influence

I was prompted to think more about Duncan Watts’s ideas by Sarah Fraser’s comment on my post on influencer communities, and by her post on professor Watt’s theories.

In fact, I’ve just finished reading Watts’s Six Degrees, which was excellent and more accessible (I found) than Barabasi’s Linked. So Professor Watts is top of mind right now.

Here’s where I think the key difference between what Watts says and my practical experience. Watts talks about the role of influencers in the diffusion of ideas. As Seth says, use ‘sneezers’ with influence if you want to crack a market. Watts disagrees that you can predict what ideas diffuse, or even whether you can identify influencers that might make diffusion easier or more likely. It’s pretty much random, according to Watts.

I agree. If you’re trying to use influencers to spread ideas and concepts, then good luck but don’t bet the firm.

My own view is that influencers can be identified, and can assist greatly, in the decision-making process. That is, not whether an idea is spread or not, but whether an idea is adopted in the end. Idea diffusion is part of the process, but it’s just the start. A decision-making process is often a long and time-consuming activity. In the B2B world especially, a decision may take years to emerge. Idea diffusion is necessary, but not sufficient.

I explored this relationship between influence and the decision-making process in the book, and also posted on it (in summary form) here. Idea planting (as I called it) is right at the start of the process, but is relatively low down in the awareness of senior decision makers. Thus idea diffusers (connectors, sneezers, etc) may not be that influential in affecting the ultimate decision. There are a whole bunch of other influencers that intervene after ideas are sown.

Idea diffusion is also important in the process of deciding whether to do something. Do I adopt SOA? Do I need a Web2.0 strategy? Do I need a new car? But it plays less of a role in the subsequent decision of what to buy. Different influencers are in play at this more practical stage, like product reviewers or case studies or implementers.

The only problem I have with Professor Watts’s arguments is that when he doubts the role of influencers in any aspect of life, it doesn’t fit with real world experience and intuition. My guess is that we can all think of people who are influential in certain areas of life. Fitting this experience and intuition into a practical marketing approach is what Influencer Marketing is all about.

Evolving PR towards influencers

Seth reminds me that PR is a diminishing activity, in terms of its importance. The more enlightened PR firms accept that their business has been commoditised, with minimal opportunities for differentiation and fierce price competition. The question is, what do you do about it?

As ever, it’s a mindset change that’s required. Most start-up firms I know begin their marketing activities by recruiting a PR agency. Why? Because that’s what everyone else does.

Why not try to engage with the 50 most important people in your target market? Sure, some of these will be journalists, and you should definitely reach out to them. But you’ll probably find there are only a relative handful of them, which means you can treat them differently. Find out what they want to hear, what they’d find useful, what they’re interested in. Concentrate on being a resource for these most important journalists.

It means you don’t have to go chasing after the hundred other hacks that cover your space. Then use the time saved to focus on other influencer types, such as analysts, academics, consultants, bloggers, standards bodies and regulators.

The catch? It’s hard to determine which of the hundred journalists are really influential, by which I mean influential on decision makers. And it’s even harder to determine who else is influential, beyond journalists. But just because it’s hard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, or can’t, do it

From Analyst Relations to Influencer Relations

Duncan Chapple posts an interesting comment on the expansion of analyst relations (AR) departments to a wider Influencer Relations approach. He notes that in starting from an AR perspective firms may miss out key groups of influencers, or gather them together as “left-overs”, and subsequently treat them inappropriately. I agree.

I think AR (or PR for that matter) can be a good starting point to adopt an influencer model. AR is a defined function within most firms, and (importantly) has a line-item budget allocation. There is also an established body of good practice and plenty of discussion to keep AR fresh and top-of-mind.

If you’re coming at influencer from an AR starting point, then SAP’s model is a great archetype to follow. Don knows that his model will evolve over time, as indeed it has done already, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Redefining AR as a sub-division of Influencer Relations is a start, if for no other reason than it identifies the gaps to fill.

I do think, however, that the ‘Relations’ model (AR, PR, media relations, investor relations, influencer relations) is often seen as an end in itself. At a practical level, in most IT organisations there is little coherency between relations and any marketing or sales activity. Sure, an analyst may be wheeled out at a lead generation event, or quoted on a product website. But it’s hardly integrated marketing.

AR and PR firms complain that they’ve been pushing an influencer model for several years, but firms lack the budget or insight to implement such a shift.

Not true – firms are deploying influencer models, but they are mostly not starting from within the AR and PR functions. They are typically emerging from operational marketing functions. Why is this? It’s simply because marketing is increasingly ineffective through the use of traditional models. It’s hard to differentiate a message, even harder to get that message heard, and even if it is heard, you’re unlikely to be believed. Why? Because it’s you that’s delivering the message. Get an influencer to deliver the same message, and it’s more likely to be trusted.

More importantly, by understanding why customers don’t buy from you, and then mapping influencer-led messages onto those objections, you can create a portfolio of counter-arguments based on what influencers are saying. That’s Influencer Marketing.

Unsurprising, then, that most firms truly engaged in an Influencer model are coming less from an AR or PR start, and more from a marketing start.

Influencer Marketing, as we define it, is precisely aimed at growing sales. It does this through a process of influencer identification and engagement, leading to an embedding of influencer-led messages that support and enable sales.

Influencer relations may get you on a shortlist. Influencer Marketing will make sure you get the purchase order.

Influencer marketing in a nutshell

I sometimes get asked what Influencer Marketing is, in 30 seconds or less. Try this for starters.

In fact, replace "analyst" with "influencer" and you're very close. If you also replace "customer" with "influencer" you're there.

(Credit where it's due - the whole, original, post is here)

Influencing the competition

I met up with one of Influencer50’s competitors yesterday. It’s always an interesting experience discussing the market and client needs with a rival. Give and take is the broad rule.

Competitors are a primary source of influence for your market. Remember, the important thing about influence is who you’re trying to influence. I’m trying to influence my customers and prospects, and so are my competitors.

Traditional marketing dictates that competitors should be regard as hostile enemy, to be dissed at every opportunity. But that approach doesn’t work anymore – your customers are way too smart for that nonsense.

We show our clients how to engage with influencers, to enlist them in marketing activities. But if competitors are influencers how can you influence them in your favour. Isn’t this an oxymoron?

There are many types of influencer that you can’t expect to be overt advocates. Analysts (the good ones, anyway) for instance. So it is for competitors – they are unlikely to be your advocates. But you can make sure that you are on their radar screen. You can make sure that, when a prospect mentions your firm, your competitor knows who you are and has something other than hearsay to respond with. In fact, competitors appear well-connected with the market place if they understand the strengths and weaknesses of their competition (that is, you).

So meet your competitors. Discuss broad market issues. Discuss other non-present competitors (mine enemy’s enemy, and all that). Show them that you’re human, not an ogre. It also turns out that competitors are just as keen on meeting you as you are on them. There is quid pro quo at play, and it should benefit you both.

More on Net Promoter adoption

Interesting post on NPS here.

At Influencer50 we've rolled out our NIPS service - NIPS = Net Influencer Promoter Score. It's based on the premise that influencer promoter scores should predict a customer-orientated NPS.

NIPS is a combination of NPS and the Delphi method to consensus-based forcasting. Basically, it's ascientific approach to prove what all good consultants know - that if you talk to enough knowledgeable people eventually you become knowledgeable yourself (and can then sell that expertise).

The trick is knowing which people are the ones to talk to...

Influencer marketing in a nutshell

Try this.

It's what influencer marketing is all about.

Forrester reports on “Hidden Influencers”

I’ve just received a copy of Forrester’s new report on influencers. Written by Michael Speyer, it’s called Identifying IT Buyers’ Hidden Influencers. The report is available here (free for Forrester clients; available for purchase by non-clients).

You should read this report, if you’re at all interested in influencers. While you track down your Forrester password or fumble for your credit card, let me give a quick overview of the report’s findings:

• The key recommendation is that Influencer Management begins with knowing who the influencers are. No news here except that, as the report title suggest, many influencers are hidden. Most firms just examine their sales channels, and tack on press and analysts.
• According to the report, SIs and VARs have the biggest impact on sales. Again, this may seem obvious, but I’ve had a battle in the past with (a few) folks that position analysts as the most important influencers. Not so, according Forrester, the analyst firm. In fact, Speyer states that “While they (analysts) are easily identified and reached, the impact of their advice and perceived value is highly variable.”
• Ranking of influencers is critical. The report says that ranking “will allow vendors to understand the value of any given influencer to a buyer, which can be used to prioritize influencer management spending.” I agree. Speyer proposes several dimensions for ranking purposes, which is pretty close to Influencer50’s.

There are other important points in the report, which is in all an excellent summary of the subject.

The only slight beef I have is that the report refers to influencers in the context of SMBs. I assume that this is because Speyer usually researches the SMB market. But the report conclusions are equally applicable to enterprise-level buyers too. Indeed much of the research input and explanatory text refer to both enterprise and SMB buyers. I hope this point isn't lost on the readership.

Disclaimer: I was interviewed by Michael for the report and Influencer50 is listed as a source, along with Cisco Systems/Linksys, Citrix Systems, EMC, IBM, Microsoft and Symantec.

Influencers are people, not groups

At Influencer50 we always (with one exception) talk about influencers as individuals, not firms or groups. To me this is intuitive, but clearly not to others. I’ve now come across several clients and prospects of ours that think of influencers as groups, usually trade bodies or user groups, but also firms as a whole. Surely Gartner is an influencer, they say.

I’ve found two arguments to support the influencers-as-groups idea. The first is that scale businesses (those trading in volume products) need “scale” influencers. Trade bodies, such as the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry in the UK, are membership organisations. If we build a relationship with them, we can use their influence to establish a relationship with their members. Thus these groups are a shortcut route to market.

The second argument is that some groups or firms hold such influence in the market that we have to include them in an influencer programme. Quote something (anything) from McKinsey or Gartner and see the heads nod in agreement.

There is some truth in each of these arguments, and in general I guess I agree with the theory. The practice, however, is different. Influencer Marketing is about building relationships with people. You can’t build a relationship with a firm or a group or firms, or a membership organisation. You end up floundering around, influencing no-one, or (worse) trying to influence the wrong person.

Importantly, the influence of a group of firm is determined not by its membership or its client base, but by the individuals within the executive of the group or firm.

The mindset of marketers trying to influence a group determines the types of activities that are most likely to be pursued. Because you haven’t identified the key person or people with real influence, you are limited to buying your way into the consciousness of the group as a whole. Inevitably, activity becomes centred on sponsorship and events.

Unfortunately, buyers are rarely influenced by events, and even less by sponsorships.
When you try to influence a group or a firm you end up building a relationship with the events director, or the PR manager, or a sales rep at that group or firm. I know plenty of vendors that have a great relationship with their account manager at IDC, but who have a lousy relationship with the influential analyst covering their space. The events manager at Gartner is really well-known to vendors, but influential she is not.

The pursuit of scale is your enemy. I know a firm who is targeting the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICAEW), in order to influence the finance director community. Fair enough - lots of FDs belong to the ICAEW. Except that the ICA is only one of three professional bodies to which FDs may belong – CIMA and ACCA are the others. By focusing on the ICA this firm is missing out on two thirds of the potential influential associations in the influencer ecosystem.

Attempting to influence a group consumes a lot of resources. Instead, why not identify the one or two key people in each group, and focus on them? By identifying and targeting the key people you focus your resources narrowly for maximum effect. Why put your eggs in one basket?

The essence of Influencer Marketing is that you market to influencers with the intended outcome that they then influence your prospects. In other words, it’s not enough to identify an organisation that might have influence, and pay them to host an event for you. You have to identify the people within that organisation that carry the majority of influence, and market to that person specifically. In that way, you can manage the outcomes in a direction that will influence your market. A word in the ear of a prospect by an influencer is worth 1000 event attendees.

The other flaw in the “groups” theory is that not all people in that group are influential. This may seem obvious, except that the tech industry is full of sweeping generalisations about the influence of Gartner (and, increasingly, Forrester). Firstly, not all Gartner analysts are influential – it depends hugely on their levels of interactions with end-user organisations. I know this because I’ve seen it first hand at IDC and Ovum. Secondly, not all influential Gartner analysts are influential in the same degree. We know markets where three of the top ten influencers are Gartner people. We also know of markets where the top-ranked Gartner chap is 25th on the list, with four non-Gartners ahead of him. Influencers are specific to a market segment, and you need to know who’s influential in your segment.

Group influencers are usually a cop-out – they’re for the lazy. It’s easy to say Accenture is an influencer on IT architecture and design. It’s much harder to identify the partner within the UK that has the real influence on your customers.

(The exception to the “influencers are individuals” rule are events (conferences, trade shows, etc) that are influential by virtue of the quality of the speakers and the decision-making profile of the audience/attendees. Suffice it to say that very few events are influential these days – decision-makers don’t often attend events. As an order of magnitude, if you have one influential event in your market you’re lucky. If you’re sponsoring more than two I pretty much guarantee you’re wasting money.)

Top 50 Influencers in VoIP – Not!

There are two ways to identify influencers. You can guess, or you can conduct a thorough market research exercise. No prizes for spotting the one with credibility and accuracy.

The trouble with market research is that everyone thinks they can do it. There’s scant attention paid to sample sizes and confidence intervals. (There’s a funny example of this on The World’s Leading… ). But it’s better than guessing.

The result of guessing will look something like that which VoIP-News has developed – there’s a copy here.

Some fundamental mistakes are made – I thought use VoIP-News as an example to explain why guessing misses the mark.

There is no sense of how the ranking has been arrived at. In fact, it’s not really a ranking at all. Instead, groups of influencer types are listed, with important (but obvious) firms or individuals within each grouping. So if you wanted to prioritise an influencer outreach program, where would you start? This list gives you no clues.

The list contains firms and people that influence the VoIP industry. It is a supply-side list. So what? The people that influence a market most are buyers – they fund everything else. Where is the buyer orientation in the list? It’s completely absent. There are no end-user firms represented, or user groups.

What’s the subject of the study, anyway? Is it enterprise-strength VoIP or consumer focused? They are two different markets, with different technologies and different customers. Cisco would blanch at being compared with Skype.

Who would buyers buy from? Big companies buy direct, but most buyers buy through channel – which are not represented in the list. Channel players are often huge influencers in technology markets.

There are no independent trusted advisers. Where are the analyst firms? Where are the management consulting firms and niche consultants?

There’s no representation from academia – I’d have thought VoIP would be under study, to research its productivity and low-cost claims.

When the list reaches number 40, desperation creeps in. Wikipedia as an influencer? Oh please.

Finally, there are no surprises. Research usually springs a couple of outlyers that are counter-intuitive (at least on first analysis). VoIP-News's list is predictable, which means it's incomplete.

This kind of list can be positioned as a bit of fun – fair enough. Or it could be used to inform a marketing and channel strategy, in which case it’s dangerous.

Is this true for your organisation?

A key part of Influencer Marketing (hint: it should be part of all marketing) is the connection with sales. This is typically manifested in marketing collateral, and I’ve enforced the mantra at Influencer50 that Influencer Marketing should be, first and foremost, a sales enabler.

Marketing and sales and so often disconnected. But how bad is the divide? It turns out, very bad. Two figures emerged from a discussion I had with a team of sales consultants:

• 40% of a sales person’s time is spent developing their own marketing messages and collateral. Sales people don’t use the marketing department’s output.
• 90% of marketing collateral never gets used by sales.

Remember we’re talking about collateral that is designed (allegedly) to support sales. It’s criminal.

Does it happen in your organisation? How do you know? What can you do to improve marketing’s usefulness to the sales team?

We’ve recently introduced a new standard component to our client engagements, called a sales perception audit. We survey the sale team’s view of marketing effectiveness, and then survey it again after our client has implemented an Influencer Marketing programme. The idea is to prove that sales is getting something more from marketing than before.

It doesn’t (yet) measure actual sales uplift, but we’re hoping to demonstrate a correlation between happy sales people (with useful collateral) and sales performance. Sounds a reasonable hypothesis.

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.

Influencer Marketing – The Book

We’re delighted to announce that Butterworth-Heinemann has commissioned Nick Hayes and me to write a book on Influencer Marketing. BH has a strong reputation in titles on marketing, both for the academic world and general commerce. In particular it published the popular Connected Marketing in 2005.

The proposed date for publication is November 2007, so lots of hard work to do before then. Specifically, we’ll be including case studies of Influencer Marketing in practice from around the world, across as many sectors as we can. This is not a technology market only undertaking, nor is it an Influencer50 brochure. We are collaborating with Influencer Marketing providers and practitioners, to create a useful resource for marketers seeking to identify and capitalise on influencers.

If you’re interested in supplying a case study then please let me know at duncan.brown@influencer50.com. We have several lined up already but can always do with more.

Many thanks.

Influencing school dinners

I had a curious email from an MBA student a couple of days ago. Asking for some direction in the academic study of influencers (answer: not much), he explained his interest. The much-discussed school dinner healthy eating debate can be distilled into one simple issue: kids don’t want to eat healthy food.

So my correspondent has identified the critical factor in getting kids to want to eat healthily – find the influencers and get them to promote the idea. His thesis is that the headteachers, dinner ladies and other people in the school community are key to encouraging kids to eat well.

It occurred to me that Wayne Rooney might have a more powerful effect on kids’ eating behaviour. Pictures of Wayne eating salad might influence kids more than the headteacher…

But it’s interesting that the concept of influence extends beyond business and consumer purchasing to other aspects of life, and that we can improve our social environment through appropriate use of influencers.

Article in The Marketer

I’ve written an article on Influencer Marketing for the Chartered Institute of Marketing’s monthly publication, The Marketer. Though we’ll be making more of this later this month in the next version of our newsletter, I thought I’d give a heads-up to blog readers.

So the article is here. You’ll have to submit your details as usual (but we’re shortly to introduce a one-time registration for all our content, so bear with us).

Blogger Relations as an extension of PR

It had to happen. PR blog The World’s Leading reports that Prompt Communications has launched a Blogger Relations practice, alongside its traditional PR activities. I doubt they’ll be the last.

Blogging is causing headaches in the worlds of PR and AR, not necessarily because they threaten the status quo, but because neither knows how to handle them. In many ways, blogging just highlights the debate between PR and specialist AR functions. There are important and fundamental differences between PR and AR. Now Blogger Relations (BR?!) seems to create another set of tensions. Some bloggers are analysts, some are journalists, some are, well, just folk.

There are a couple of ways BR may evolve.

We may see the emergence of what ARmageddon called Influencer Relations (InfR), where all influencers are managed under a cohesive programme. BR just becomes subsumed into InfR.

My main problem with the idea of InfR is that it stops at “relations”. I prefer the holistic concept of Influencer Marketing, because it makes tangible acknowledge of, and contribution to, the bottom line. AR and PR have always struggled to measure their value in hard cash.

The other evolution path for BR is for us to realise that blogging is just a medium. True, the medium allows huge reach for previously unknown people, but same applied to ecommerce web sites 10 years ago. In our categorisation of influencer types we use the term “blogger” only in rare cases and as a last resort. Charlene Li blogs, but she’s a Forrester analyst. Seth Godin blogs, but he’s an author and speaker. Heather Green blogs, but she’s a journalist. And so on.

One final thing: on-line dialogue, including blogging, accounts for only 6% of communication. Face-to-face accounts for 77%. So before we swoon over the power of blogs, shouldn’t we be setting up practices that deal with Face-to-Face Relations?

I know some people that would benefit from such knowledge ;-)

On Influencers in consumer markets

Good article here, written by Nilofer Merchant, CEO of Rubicon Consulting. She’s just been inspired by The Influentials, as I was when I read it.

Nilofer makes some interesting points which, despite seemingly focused on consumer markets, apply equally to the B2B market. Specifically:

• Influencers are not (necessarily) journalists and traditional PR targets. In the B2B world we’ve identified more than 20 influencer types.
• Influencers are specific to the market under examination. Just as school advice wouldn’t come from the BBQ expert, so security software influencers don’t normally come from the printer industry. We see that market specialisation also applies to geography and company size (SMBs are different in their influences than enterprises).
• It takes hard work to identify true influencers. Our experience shows that an intuitive guess is no better than 20% correct. Research is the only answer.
• Influencers love to influence. They’ll want to influence you – let them.

A couple of reminders:

1. In B2B markets, influencers are usually not customers or prospects. Which means that you can’t try to sell to them. Find out what they do want, then supply it.
2. You can’t rely on on-line channels to communicate with influencers. Research shows that, at best, 10% of communication is on-line, with the rest being telephone or face-to-face.