#smwldn–mapping analysis of social media week London

Social media week in London provided an excellent opportunity to analyse influence. Too often when there is a breaking story, I whish I could have turned back the clocks by a few days to see how the story originated and spread whilst focussing on who the key people were in the conversation and what they did to help propagate it.

This blog post will illustrate several key concepts that are unique to TweetLevel and Edelman.

1. Conversation map analysis shouldn’t be conducted post event but through real time metrics allowing you to understand what time of engagement behaviour an influential person has. After all what’s the point of a static map when conversations aren’t the end result but a flow of information over time.
2. The key players in a conversation are not just the most popular but those who start the ideas, spread and curate them. We call these people the new influentials.
3. Timing is critical. This isn’t just about what time of the day they tweet, but when they take part in the conversation. For example many of the idea starters initiated the dialogue a few weeks before #smldn even started. As a marketer if I could know who these people were in advance, then it would have been the perfect opportunity to engage with them.

 

Dynamic conversation map

Red dots: idea starters, Yellow dots: curators, Blue and Green dots: Commentators. Some idea starters are also amplifiers (as shown by the size of the bubble) Source: University of Southampton–Web Science Team (Ramine Tinati) in collaboration with Jonny Bentwood at Edelman

What we can learn from this..

• Idea starters engage early in the conversation (often weeks before the event)
• A good three weeks prior to the event starting the people who would eventually be the thought leaders in social media week has initiated the conversations around the topics they were going to be pushing. Not surprisingly they were doing their own marketing.
• From an objective point of view, they hadn’t managed to engage a large number of other people into this dialogue as they were instead waiting until the event started.
• As a marketer I would if I was aiming to influence people, I would look to see who is engaging early and seek to interact then – if we wait till later then the conversation is too saturated to be heard.

Time jump conversation map

The following slide show takes you from 29 Jan where just a few people were discussing the event to a screen shot every few days up till the end of 17 Feb.

 

What I believe this shows you is that some of the key people in conversations are not the those who normally jump out. Namely, the person who creates the ideas or the person who has the huge audience that helps spread them. It is in fact the “yellow dots” in the above images. These influentials are curators – those who are niche experts and connected to idea starters and amplifiers. This group helps to link and grow conversations even though most tools in the market would ignore them {this is why TweetLevel puts a high focus on how information flows, its origin, connectedness and NOT just popularity]

Taking another example from the WC3 event last year, if you look at the final map you would hardly notice some of the key individuals who make this topic travel so far.

In this instance you may think that Tim Berners-Lee and Google Research were the key folks involved.

 

Instead what you can also find is that early in the dialogue an individual who has relatively few followers is instrumental in making the conversation spread.

Timing is everything

if you also analyse when people tweeted about the event, the amount conversation does closely mirror the actual main conference itself. Nevertheless, the thousand tweets in advance were as we already know populated by who we would know to be the idea starters and leaders of the event.

The second analysis focussed on the time in the day when the tweets were made. These also coincided with keynotes and social gatherings post event.

Quoting a favourite adage of mine, we need to fish where the fish are. If we hope to have any chance of engaging with the people that count, we need to make sure we engage at the right time.

Who is influential – link to top influencers on TweetLevel for #smwldn

What you can clearly see is that this list isn’t biased to the most popular but instead draws its focus on:

• Context
• How important they are to the flow of information
• Timing

What does this mean?

As we continually look to identify and understand influence, we must instead look to understand engagement behaviours. This means looking to engage early in the conversation with the people that count knowing that they will be the idea starters as the milestone continues. We need to also build relationships with the curators, knowing that even though they have a limited audience, their connections are vital to enable a conversation to flow.

originally published on Technobabble 2.0

 

The Influential Is Dead, Long Live The New Influential

It could be said Ed Keller and Jon Berry in writing The Influentials, discovered or at least articulated the importance of word of mouth.  They identified how one of humanity’s first forms of social influence—has become even more important and influential today for people making sense of the world.

The thing about highly influential people is they actively cultivate their influence. They view their influence as an asset and they invest in it and work on it. One of the best ways to get their attention is essentially to curate them and actively magnify their reach. – Michael Troiano

Keller and Berry thesis’ stated that one in every 10 Americans is what they call an “influential.” These people had a tremendous impact on the rest of society because their ideas and opinions are sought out by the friends, family and community members around them. The authors explain that the conversations they hold and the examples they set have the power to shape the community’s behaviours and attitudes.

The currency in influencer relations is ego. That’s the magic formula. How do you appeal to an ego in a way that you’re adding value without appearing like you’re appealing to that ego? – Joe Chernov

Social media has revolutionised many things but we believe that one biggest impacts has been on the nature of influence and the role of influentials.  Through the process of democratisation of authority the influential has been empowered and grown.  It seems hard to believe that as long ago as 2006 David Brain outlined the impact of this on the marketing world.

“So in communications and in the way brands and companies deport themselves to their customers and to their stakeholders the game is changing fast. The new model citizen who is increasingly participating and demanding a say and respect and, even a relationship, is not the person we used to know. They don’t believe us in the way the way they used to it is fundamental for most companies, brands, PR people and communicators.”

If marketers think social strategies and influencer strategies are the same thing, they are not getting it. Influencer strategies are most like traditional marketing. But social is so much more than just getting influencers and other third parties to carry your message into the marketplace. The whole influential chain is about understanding how the messages percolate and get transferred to multiple people. You need to understand your influencer heat map. Otherwise, you’ll focus on the big targets and miss where influence really takes place. -  Jonathan Yarmis

Essentially authority has seeped from the 10% that previously orchestrated the process of influence to everyone taking part in the conversation.  Today everyone in an online conversation can be a New Influential.  This is not to say that all these New influentials are born equal.  One of the defining features of online conversation is that it is visible – word of mouth made trackable.  This has enabled us to track influence and the interaction between influentials.

Our insight from this was dramatic as we found a small group certainly less than 1% who start new memes within a conversation we called these influentials idea starters.  These influentials had great authority but often relied on a bigger group around 10% of the conversation who we called amplifiers.  These are people who amplify ideas and circulate them within conversational communities.  Amplifiers often had professional or commercial motivations such as journalists, analysts but were also more often than not self created experts and avid sharers of information.  The third group of new influential we called curators these are those who look to put context around the conversation bring strands together and take it in new directions through adaption yet falling short of starting an entirely new meme.  The next group that we identified were commentators those who had a need to comment and add without giving deeply to the conversation often less influential their influence should not be ignored as when negative as in trolls a commentator can serious skew a conversation and opinion.  While we find very often commentators will often intervene to correct inaccuracies or a unfounded negative view.

Social and influencer strategies are two pieces of the same larger whole, which is outreach strategy. Anytime you’re trying to engage someone, you’re trying to accomplish four things. You want to engage them by letting them know you know who they are. You want to inform them of something that is of interest to them. You want to persuade them there’s more where that came from. And then you want to invite them into some kind of action-interaction world relationship. And then you want to lather, rinse, repeat, and replicate in scale. – Michael Dortch

Perhaps the controversial point about New Influentials is that everyone who takes part can everyone be influential.  But today taking part can simply be searching and reading in the conversation this group who we call viewers don’t leave a foot print except through Google.  Indeed it is through Google and the impact of viewers on search results that these other groups become influential and evolve their role within a conversation.  Authority rests with the search patterns of those who simply observe in a democratic world.

All quotes sourced from Ramp Up Your ROI with Strong Influencer Strategies

 

Amplifying the Amplifier–or ‘my, haven’t you GROWN!?’

When you haven’t seen something fast growing for several weeks such as a child or Russian vine the temptation to say, ‘my haven’t you grown!’ is very great.

This urge should be avoided as it annoys those concerned, by patronising kids or rebuking gardeners. Yet returning from a short tweet break this morning I muttered these very words on reading about the fifth anniversary of twitter so breaking this rule of the blindingly obvious.

Yet leaping to my own defence it is not just the speed of growth with twitter that is dramatic. It is the manner of its growth and what it has done to the way internet-based opinion and influence has developed that is very interesting, and weirdly so. A really interesting post on Elise’s Review prompted this thought with the question ‘Is social media becoming more about mass broadcasting than conversation?’

Twitter’s growth has been about amplification of opinions, influence and conversations. At times this has made it appear more like broadcasting and certainly it has made the conversation louder, shorter and less genteel. Yet in interacting with media and blogs I would argue that twitter is amplifying and sharing ideas that often start in long form in other media platforms. This is different from broadcasting although it does make the conversation less sophisticated in many cases. I would describe it as a broader conversation rather than a broadcast.

Indeed as twitter grows its ability to amplify grows too so amplifying the amplifier. Some bloggers who began as highly focused ‘Influentials’ talking to only niche groups have become stars and engaged in very broad conversations. They often start to post less frequently but when they do they reach bigger, much bigger numbers.

The post pointed out that now more people get news from the Internet than traditional newspapers. This too is a part of the amplification process with e-zines merging with communities and a more dialogue driven view of the news.  The key dynamic here is the way twitter helps ideas and stories leapfrog between niche communities.  Again this seems to be of the great strengths of twitter it takes news from niches and can make them part of a broad community.

As it grows this does not mean twitter is all about these broader conversations. Clearly there a niche areas such as middle aged cycling that have drawn together quite large but discrete groups who don’t make it as trending topics. But even these conversations have become broader. So back to the blindingly obvious not always being easy to adopt I quote one point in the Elise’s Review below:

If Your Blog Doesn’t Have A “Tweet This” Or “Like This” Button On It, It Means That You Are Not Cool.

And yes – we know ours doesn’t. yet.

@Naked_Pheasant

 

The Fire Hose, Ideas, and ‘Topology of Influence’

Ideas and the Fire Hose

Today the connected citizen is drinking from a fire hose of information which is an experience of our own making. In our eagerness to engage online we created more new data in 2009 than had been generated in history to date. But where do all these new ideas and conversations come from to create such a torrent?

Begin at the beginning

Here is my question, if conversations are markets then who starts them? Who starts the idea that starts the conversation? Who said that yellow stuff looks really nice – why don’t we give it a certain prestige in our culture and make it important to own? Even in today’s internet world a small group of people need to hit on the idea to get the ball rolling.

Today using new tools and approaches we can see who starts these conversations quite clearly. Furthermore we can also engage with these online citizens in conversations that build and strengthen ideas, and ultimately aid the dispersion of ideas to wider audiences who have purchasing power, authority or influence.

Defining online conversations and engagement

From our experience in working with HP and other technology businesses we see that people actively participating in conversations within the digital ecosystem can be identified as having certain qualities and characteristics based on their style of online engagement, level of contribution and informed discussions.

These communication characteristics can be divided and define five main categories that form the digital conversation model and its participants. The categories are termed: ‘idea starters’, ‘amplifiers’, ‘adapters’, ‘commentators’ and ‘viewers’. The characteristics of each group are diverse but that is not to suggest that one person cannot occupy more than one role at anytime. We can further understand the digital conversation model, culture and etiquette through the ‘Topology of Influence’ diagram below.

 

By analysing the online conversation culture and engagement etiquette of idea starters, it is apparent that these individuals often form less than one percent of those engaged within an online conversation. Even amplifiers will only usually form between five to ten percent of the online crowd. These two groups are often referred to as ‘influencers’. However, this term is misleading as both engagement etiquettes are driven less by the need to ‘influence’ than the desire to share, educate, inform and entertain within a conversation. The traditional notion of seeking to set an objective and influence the world implied by the term ‘influencer’ misses the point of successful engagement – it renders images of one-way brashness, shouting and persuasion, not the two-way, open dialogue engagement should be. We therefore prefer to see these groups as ‘influentials’ within the process of engagement. This is exactly why understanding the culture and etiquette of individuals participating in online conversations is valuable so we can clearly identify the individual’s role within a conversation and quickly determine their intention, purpose and potential.

‘Adapters and commentators’ are a very important ingredient in the online engagement model as they bring a broader context, scope and refinement to the conversation. Adapters are usually people who read what is going on outside of their traditional sphere of knowledge and take the opinions of others and reform them so that they are tailored to their niche group. Commentators do not usually create new content but instead read the views and opinions of others and take part in the conversation by adding comments. Each forms between 10-20 percent of those engaged online. Although as conversations get bigger and evolve, it is usually the adapters who hold a larger proportion of the conversation.

The final group are the ‘viewers’ who are the majority group with 40 percent and over. These individuals do not create any online content but tend to be a vociferous consumer of information of which they read, learn and share with their peers in the offline world. Although they do not have the same reach as the amplifier, their views are trusted and they are able to promote these ideas in an alternative method. Viewers are not completely passive online; they participate in search engine and Google activity but essentially they do not declare themselves in this type. This characteristic is behavioural as a reader will often remain silent even in an online conversation where they could be an adapter or even an idea starter. A large proportion of viewers are accidentals who Google into a conversation by accident, irregularly or take note and leave. Viewers are often harder to identify as they do not necessarily leave a digital footprint but they are nevertheless important.

Who are idea starters?

An idea starter tends to be an individual who is highly engaged with digital and social media. They use social media as a platform to gather ideas and consume vast amounts of data. As a result they have an intricate network of online relationships but this is not necessarily a mass communications platform; the quality of relationships is at least, if not more important than the individual’s quantity of relationships. An idea starter is not necessarily the individual who has the ‘bright idea’ but they are the one who starts a conversational meme within the online topics of discussion. Just like planting a seed in the best possible environment, the meme experiences germination and growth within the community which reacts through engagement. Increasingly this happens around formalised but not walled communities. The idea is generally started via a blog, ezine or contribution to a forum.

In Jeremiah Owyang’s Dow Jones White Paper on ‘Tracking the Influence of Conversation’, a meme was defined as: “an idea or discussion that grows and spreads from individual to individual into a lengthy commentary.”

The idea starter (Who? When? Where? Why? How?)

This person is typically creative, forms opinions and articulates them well. They get inspiration for ideas from the information they consume from reading, observing conversations, and their own inner tensions. Crucially they have the ability to state a view at the right time and have a profound level of engagement within a community that will interact and respond to their idea. Some of the most engaged idea starters work both as individuals or part of a close team when initiating conversations. This requires a high level of transparency around who and what contributed to a new thought and the traditional respect for the important influences and data sources that were involved in forming the concept.

A good example of a popular idea starter is American blogger and television personality, Perez Hilton (@PerezHilton). Famous for turning his blogging passion into a career and creating a niche for single-handedly making and breaking celebrities in all types of media, Perez Hilton is an ultimate idea starter.

The nature of this engagement is important to the community which tends to see an idea starter as being very authentic on the subject area. This is more than adhering to transparency or having the right qualifications, but it instead relates to their role within the broader conversation topic and whether they have a paid or vested interest. Are they authentic enough to avoid received wisdom? How do they deal with platitudes? How deep is their topic expertise and experience? This is different from traditional journalist objectivity. Many idea starters are typically consultants or advisers within the area of conversation and are often not journalists or analysts. A key characteristic of an idea starter is their willingness to be transparent and contextualise their subjective influences. Their readership is not necessarily large but readers view the individual as trustworthy.

This is where Mashable’s Pete Cashmore (@Mashable) scores high on Edelman’s Tweet Level list, especially when it comes to ‘Trust’. With an average score of 93.6, @Mashable is viewed as a credible authority and a reliable source of information when it comes to getting the latest information on social media news. Mashable has a much lower level of engagement with big communities who follow its conversational topics which highlights just how well received and trusted the site is.

A key source of this authenticity is that idea starters often know how to do something as well as think or comment on it. They are in many ways true innovators sitting at the cross road of tacit and explicit knowledge – this is what gives them their edge and explains the depth of their engagement.

How do they change?

Idea starters who are very successful face certain challenges as technology evolves and new platforms begin to present complex obstacles. The fact that they become famous means they spend less time creating content, and more time communicating and managing relationships. Additionally they often grow beyond their initial subject expertise and this can erode their authenticity within their community. Furthermore new platforms and popularity encourage greater broadcasting of communication. At this stage idea starters tend to become more reminiscent of amplifiers.

Therefore, the lifecycle of an idea starter is not static. It is a phase that evolves over time in accordance to the demand and engagement of its listeners. It can be short lived but the position, power and status can be regained. It requires control, breadth and depth of thinking, specific expertise, and the ability to position ideas with the right audience at the right time.

Amplifiers (Who? How fast? How long? Where? Why? How?)

Amplifiers are people who thrive by sharing opinions and like nothing better than being the first to do so. They are trusted within their communities and have a large following and readership. They are a hosepipe of knowledge and data. Generally they do not synthesize data or generate new hypotheses for a conversational meme other than to collate and aggregate established thoughts (they create a lot of lists).

Often amplifiers are journalists and analysts as well as celebrities who have strong communication skills and an online presence. Industry commentators and specialists are just as prevalent and are often the most influential amplifiers (see Tweet Level list).

The level of engagement can vary enormously between amplifiers. Web based amplifiers such as Guy Malachi use digital platforms to solicit ideas from their communities and engage in micro conversations for instance. Again, as they grow more popular time becomes a challenge to maintain this level of engagement although many people show a remarkable capacity to keep to personalised communications.

This leads to a rare constituency of online conversations where people can act as both genuine idea starters and amplifiers. This group acts as a bridge between level of engagement where ideas start and the amplification of them into broader internet and real world conversations.

The Special Ones: Idea starters who amplify?

This special combination of engagement is crucial as they accelerate and build conversations with great momentum and they also link the clusters of idea starters to the more aggressive amplifiers. Idea starters tend to enjoy discrete conversations and authenticity above all else. As a result their conversations often live within micro communities and that is where their ideas can stay. When idea starters with the ability to amplify pick up on a meme it can break out of the micro channels to the macro conversations main stream media and word of mouth.

British actor, journalist and blogger, Stephen Fry (@StephenFry), is a good example of an idea starter who likes to amplify. His ability to amplify has grown alongside his fame and his ability to influence a mass audience.

These idea starters who amplify often have similar personal and professional interests and have a thirst for knowledge as well as a desire to pre-empt or be kept in the loop about the next big thing. By driving micro conversations with a wide range of online communities and keeping abreast of potential industry related issues on a personal level, this can help keep them informed and enable them to feed thoughts into professionally related ideas that can help initiate business, drive opportunities or get a real world perspective.

How do they morph over time?

All roles have the potential to morph over time for a number of reasons:

• • The challenge of time and the impact it has on engagement
• • Dedication to an idea starter’s area of expertise. Whether they remain up-to-date and informed about industry changes and have the passion and enthusiasm to remain in the know
• • Encountering new technologies and how engagement continues to evolve over time
• • Maintaining a strong and familiar level of engagement
• • Continuing to engage with relevant people or communities
• • How effectively you find the right people to add to your network

What is the relationship between an idea starter and amplifier?

There is a relationship of reliance between idea starters and amplifiers. One would almost be meaningless without the other. Idea starters would get lost in the noise and amplifiers would not have the thought provoking ideas and content which they so like to share.

Both are renowned for their level of insight, engagement, timing and contacts which gives them a certain level of prestige and influence within their communities. They like recognition and being sought after or being in demand, and therefore feed off each other to make this happen.

This makes these groups the ‘influentials’ in the conversation but they are not the only groups as we shall see but before looking at these next groups a word of caution. Are we getting carried away with this idea of conversation and authenticity? Are we just kidding ourselves that it is not just about influencing after all – by seeking out idea starters are we not looking to further an objective?

We love this quote that highlights John C. Dvorak in PC Magazine view that ‘Cluetrain’ may be cultish. For example,

". . . the apparent faith in this odd vision of an idealistic human-oriented internetworked new world/new economy marches forward. I imagine all these folks holding hands in a large circle, rolling back and forth, with some in the middle of the circle, spinning and chanting and hugging, all naked. I’m betting that most of these folks go to Burning Man and all of them write blogs about it and how cool it was. They link to each others’ blogs and read what they say about each other—all highly complimentary."

It is exactly this notion of authenticity which so annoys Dvorak that makes idea starters so powerful in conversation. In part this means a level of naivety is necessary as Dame Gillian Beer observes, “babies are having new ideas all day long.” To respect this view of worId, to listen with intelligence and bring this understanding from idea starters into our own view of the conversation means that anyone can become an influential. This is what is so exciting for individuals, organisations, companies and governments – they can change their behaviour and become more successful.

Where do new ideas come from?

• New ideas can emerge very slowly. It can be a gradual, ongoing process where new ways of thinking surface.
• Ideas can come via a form of rupture through long walks, chance associations, baths, dreams, inner tensions, irrational situations
• Past ideas can be reformulated in the present. A person may have already thought about an idea and then forgotten it, or they may have written it down. The same ideas can then come to them at a later date where they consider it to be a ‘new’ idea. A person “comes to attention” which is when the idea is ready.
• Education and social surroundings can influence new ideas. You need to leave behind what you have learnt and redefine the way you think to get new ideas. New ideas jostle commonsense and question what you know.
• Imagining a world not like your own world brings about new ideas caused by such paradigm shifts. Ideas do not exist until they are received by an audience. They need to be debated, attacked and rethought

The way ideas start, develop, grow and spread stems within an online community. Understanding the community who starts and amplifies the ideas is key. In building deeper relationships it is important to understand the idea starter and amplifier landscape. Here is a list of the top  idea starter influencers within the general technology conversation on Twitter. As is clear this typology is a new landscape which media (beyond a few high profile examples such as Mashable) hardly represent, while experts such as Chris Brogan dominate and even companies like Google are a major source of ideas. The challenge for the future is to build authentic ideas that allow deeper relationships with these extremely diverse communities.

Tweet Level’s top idea starter influencers within the general technology conversation