Cowabunga dudes
What makes someone – or something – influential?
For example, a PR with a client in telecoms is bound to say that the editor of a telecoms trade journal is influential. They’d probably say the same about Stephen Fry. But ask them to prove that influence and I guarantee you’ll get either a blank stare or a conversation about circulation figures, web traffic and – if you’re lucky – followers on Twitter.
If we accept a definition of ‘having influence’ as being: “someone or something whose opinions and actions lead to a change of opinion and/or behaviour in the audiences they engage with or who engage with them,” then surely both the editor and Stephen pass the test?
Not quite. The problem I have is that most of the time we’re not getting an objective measure of influence but a subjective measure of significance, and that’s not good enough.
While the counsel given by PRs on the merit of interacting with different audiences is undoubtedly valued by clients, the massive fragmentation of the communications’ landscape coupled with the after-effects of a global recession have given them a reason to question the relevance of every penny of PR spend.
Clients are forcing the issue of proving influence because they are no longer certain that accepted campaign strategies and tactics will deliver to overall business goals. Telling them a person, or group of people, is influential and that they should be reached by a certain method is no longer enough, it has to be proven.
I’m already having daily conversations with clients who are keen to rip up the rule book of what constitutes a PR programme because they don’t accept that the old ways are working. The sacred cows such as press releases and press tours are being met with the question: “What value is this activity to me?” and I’m finding it massively liberating.
Of course, it’s an evolution rather than a revolution and there are still plenty of companies who require the activities that go to make up a typical PR programme. But the pace of evolution will only quicken as the global trend of influencer engagement starts to replace the one-to-many communication models prevalent in marketing today.
With that in mind, Edelman is on a mission to find and rank the 2,010 (see what we did there?) most influential people in technology using our very own TweetLevel – a sophisticated influencer measurement tool that gives an accurate assessment of a person’s level of influence in the Twittersphere.
True, it’s currently limited to measuring influence within Twitter, but the fact that Twitter is being used by a large percentage of people involved in the technology sector makes it a perfect place to start. Look out for a call to action on how you can put yourself or someone else forward.
In the meantime I’d love to hear your views on influence and its importance in PR. Have I got this right? Is it the single most important factor for us PROs to understand and measure? Will it lead to a rethink around how we do PR or will the old ways always remain?
The Naked Pheasant 
November 26, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Good stuff, you’re on the right track – I see tools like TweetLevel as a very useful starting point for identifying who clients should be engaging with.
Such tools can’t be any more than a starting point, however, for various reasons. Not least among these is that even within ‘technology’ not everybody who has ‘influence’ is on Twitter (and it represents a rather skewed section of society).
Moreover, ‘technology’ is an extremely broad term: companies looking for PR include the makers of cameras, printers, telemetric instruments, semiconductors, Sat Navs (I could go on…) as well as the firms that implement technologies, eg systems integrators and outsourcing companies. And I don’t need to tell you that I’m scratching the surface here.
My point is that when it comes to the crunch, having a list of ‘influential folk’ is all well and good, even useful – it may even result in some back-slapping among the highest scorers, but clients actually need to know who influences their bottom line. So far, the best way I’ve found of doing this involves old-fashioned techniques like picking up the telephone and speaking to people.
November 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Dom I agree but also feel that influence can be observered in terms how influencers connect within digital networks the most influential obviously create clusters and nodes that indicate how relatively influential they are in this world. the question is whether this world can be seen as a proxy for the offline world and the way influence works within it.
November 26, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Back to my point about Twitter representing a rather skewed section of society…
For some companies, that’s a good thing, because it’s a ‘high quality’ network for their specific needs, but for the majority, it’s hardly representative – that will change somewhat over time as it grows in popularity.
[Embarrassing admission: I was going to make the point that the UN Secretary General doesn’t tweet, but then I checked: http://twitter.com/secGen%5D
November 26, 2009 at 5:07 pm
You’re spot on Dom. The best way of proving influence is to ask people what influences them , why and it what ways.
I guess with TweetLevel we’re a) making a start and b) giving people a basis for a more measure conversation around influence, rather than the subjective view of significance which is what we usually give clients.
Underpinning all of this is my fundamental belief that PR has to change. Not to survive but to thrive. I’m no longer convinced that the PR staples are the right course of action any more. Who reads 60 page briefing documents? Is a 200 page 20,000 word response to an RFP really what a new prospect wants to see? Is a *bulging* media contacts book a prerequisite for PR these days? I’m not so sure. I think we can be smarter, more inventive, less reactive and certainly a lot less bloated.
However, to achieve this transition. To have the confidence to work with clients on a new model of PR, one that is far more focused on influencer engagement we need to demonstrate that the audiences we target have the right influence with the right people in order to affect the right end result – be that a product sale or change in opinion towards a company or brand.
November 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Yes – metrics and evaluation of ROI will become increasingly important but we need to be clear about what we’re measuring. Influence and engagement is a grey area as you point out and just saying ‘we’ve engaged with 50 influencers’ won’t cut the mustard. It really boils down to being super clear about a client’s marketing objectives for the campaign. To increase sales? To change a perception? Once that’s clear, it’s easier to research who will do the influencing in this instance and the end result will be measuring the behaviour shift towards these goals over a period of time.
November 26, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Think we should always accept a degree of subjectivity & avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach – after all that’s what makes this job exciting & explains mysterious facts such as why anyone would support West Brom. Agree with Dom to an extent around the audience, but Twitter is allowing companies to do something very different. We’ve all been guilty of push communications for years. Twitter et al allows companies to observe the real conversations that are happening. The fundamental issue facing all IT vendors today is growth and where it is going come from. In mature markets and the current economic climate finding that growth is even harder, because the sales guys have to understand how to talk differently to their existing customers & justify being part of a conversation with in greenfield markets. Being able to observe the current conversations – & more importantly who is influencing those conversations – is critical market intelligence.
November 27, 2009 at 3:15 am
[…] your importance on Twitter So you can measure someones influence with TweetLevel. Click here to read […]
November 27, 2009 at 9:54 am
Agreed that while TweetLevel is a good tool it is a (n admirable) starting point for determining and charting influence rather than ultimately measuring value. Influence is a means to an end: if you’re highly influential but everything thinks your product is shit or you’re a schister and so don’t spend money with you, influence looks a little sheepish.
Ultimately the only way to really measure the impact of influence is to go and ask all the audience whether they were/are influenced and what they did about it. We’re still some big steps away from that and primary research might seem the only answer but the cost would far outweigh the benefit.
Digital isn’t the game-changer here though. We’ve been looking for better evaluation for years. But if we pursue influence metrics alone it’ll be like blokes comparing cock sizes without admitting they need to ask the recipients about the experience and the outcome in order to gauge success.
As for the death of the press tour, I’d love to attend the funeral.
November 27, 2009 at 11:10 am
Thanks Steve we will be wary of the comparison pitfall you mention
November 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Steve, shall we’ll go half on Press Tour’s flowers!
Couldn’t agree more that digital isn’t the game-changer. Digital has opened our eyes to the massive changes that have happened to the media environment, but you’re dead right, we need to look at the entire media landscape. I’m arguing for a total reassessment of what we used to class as Tech PR across all channels.
I’m also not advocating killing stuff off totally either. We’ll always issue announcements to media, take CEOs to meet journos etc. but we seem to have gone on autopilot when we undertake these activities and haven’t evolved or progressed them to make sure they remain relevant and work as hard as possible for the fee the client is coughing up.
Take press releases for example. Their most useful function these days – I’d argue – is SEO but how many agencies are having those conversations with clients about that? Few, they’re still obsessed with burning fee on 27 revisions and building meaningless bloated press lists.
Likewise for “press tours” journos on the whole don’t want product related meetings. You can do that anytime. They want intelligent industry discussions with senior people. And guess what? CTOs and the like DON’T need 60 page briefing documents or a PR sitting mute on calls or awkwardly in meetings. These are intelligent, smart people. Our fee should be better spent on telling their story to the right people through the right channels. We should be starting conversations not monitoring them.
I really think PR needs to grow up. We’re smart people working with smart people. A lot of the time I don’t think our day job reflects that.
November 28, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Agree with your thrust towards understanding the deep instability of influence these days.
The first starting point is to stop looking at ‘audiences’ and old, sterile demographics. Communications people who do this fail to understand that influence can now come from anyone, anywhere – and indeed spread in any direction.
Real people can be influencers. Bloggers can supplant print articles; a stream of tweets can usurp the blogger. All we can know for certain is that influence is chaotic and constantly unstable.
November 30, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I think the quote marks around audiences are the key. I do beleive in technology and consumer space we cannot talk of audiences any more our customers participate, energise and criticise our products and ideas. It is an ugly word but they are stakeholders in the product. If anyone can suggest a better word for this new relationship I would be thankful.
November 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The ideallist in me says that citizens is the right word – in Citizen Renaissance we talk about the emergence a new tripartite contract between business, governements and citizenship.
It may be, however, that we just need to recognise citizens as influencers – the challenge then becomes how to assess and measure the depth and spread of the influence they perpetrate.
November 30, 2009 at 2:54 am
Paul, I totally agree. This discussion reminds me of the time I was on a panel and we had a nice thought provoking discussion — me and the other panelists. At the end of the discussion, we allowed the audience to ask questions. After a few, one gentleman, a local blogger/writer, asked me what I did and I told him. He looked at me and said, “hmm…you seem to be too smart to be in PR.”
A clear example of folks not understanding or appreciating what we do.
I think we are very smart about connecting the dots — figuring out who influences whom. I think our shortcomings focus on how we then go about affecting those influencers in a positive way for our clients.
One group of influencers from the b-to-b/enterprise tech world we often over look is a firm’s customers. Probably some of the most influencial from a business standpoint and a group often given no credit or not valued.
November 30, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Thanks Robert and thank you Randy
There are some common themes emerging here. That influencers can be anyone (and therefore our recommendations and tactics need to change to reflect that) and what we are advocating now as an agency and industry is going beyond what a lot of people commonly think of as PR.
I find this massively exciting from both this agency and an industry standpoint. Clients need to be brave to change their internal processes and beliefs, but the ones that recognise and buy into this vision will be able to say that PR is making a real difference to their business, not just making the coffee table in reception look pretty.
November 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm
To the point on Citizens or influencers. I am not sure everyone is an influencer we know that 40% of those engaged in online conversations don’t comment so can they be influential? Are you influential just by being engaged or do you have to contirbute to overall story?