I go to a bunch of events, and these last few days I was a bit of a lurker at IZEAFest in Orlando. I hadn’t had the pleasure of meeting Ted Murphy before, and I not only enjoyed him and his personality, but the event was full of some fresh faces and great information.
Aaron Brazell did a keynote on Saturday morning that was refreshing. He talked about influence, and true to fashion, Aaron didn’t pull any punches. He pointed out some very compelling bits about the notion of influence, which prompted me to revisit this topic through the lens of what I’ve learned in the last little while.
I have trouble with the idea of influence as it’s often presented. It’s kind of like authority, or trust, or worth. It’s in the eye of the beholder. And when it comes to business, we have to remember that – much like sales – influence is a result of your work, not the strategy itself.
When you’re trying to find someone that’s influential in your industry or in relation to your business, you need to be looking for people that encourage and compel others to listen and take action.
That doesn’t mean that the influencers in your sphere are always the ones with impressive follower or friend counts, or blog stats, or even money or press. If they have only five people paying attention, but those five people are always motivated to act as a result, you’ve found yourself someone that can move things to a new place. Having a platform (i.e. eyeballs) only gives someone potential for distribution. It doesn’t give them the trust, authority, or reputation that makes impressions or inspires others to build something bigger.
Influence also has a dark side. It can be thrown around in terms of threats, or fear, or subterfuge, or using established authority for “bad” things. There are people who are compellingly contrarian and stir up trouble or controversy for a living. There are bullies. There are insecure, angry saboteurs that are skilled in finding an audience but lack the imagination to find something constructive to do. Influence isn’t always something to be used for good, and it behooves businesses to remember that, too.
The other thing that events teach me? And remind me, every time?
Influence on the web is incredibly fragile. The web gives us one set of lenses through which to see things. And depending on if you look through one or several at a time, it can present a wholly different picture of who someone is. Collecting a following does not equate with influence on the web. Influence, to me, implies a consistent ability to empower others over time. True influence has lasting effects long after the influencer has left the center of the spotlight.
And as I watch people around me that I admire, and whose work I believe in, I see how much that notion of “influence” online is made or broken when the in-person, human element comes into play. There are people whose work leaves me invigorated, inspired, and challenged to do something more. There are people with whom I have conversations and I walk away wanting to be better, to CREATE something. And never – NEVER – has that ever been solely proportional to their “ranks” in the fickle popularity contest that is the world of the web.
True influence is not created, nor is it synonomous with popularity or notoriety. Influence is earned, and it only reaches its potential in the hands of those who are inspired by it. The results of influence that matters won’t be evident for months, or even years. And they’ll be present in the collective works of those who have been motivated. Those who have gone and done.
In the wake of Aaron’s presentation, I had someone come up to me and chat for a bit, mentioning that he considered me an “influencer”. I asked him why, and he said it was because he “heard about me” often enough that he figured I must know my stuff.
I asked him to hold that judgment for a few years, and tell me if the evidence of my hard work was still present somewhere without me, long after the fishbowl forgets me. If he could find ways that I’d made an impact on the people and things around me, for the better, and in ways that put them at the center of the brilliance, not me. Things that will last long beyond Twitter, or this blog, or the days when people recognize my curly, crazy hair in a crowd.
Then – and only then – would I believe that I have ever influenced a thing.
What influences you? Think carefully. Think beyond the web, and beyond business. What you discover might surprise you. It has me.
I think what you’re getting at at the end there is that popularity and celebrity are a form of influence that is incredibly fleeting, and based much more on perception than the reality of who you are and what you’ve contributed.
I would not put you in this category. Your influence is based on the awesomeness that is you and your skill and passion for connecting with people. The follower count and conferences and all that is a result of the core you-ness that brought you to this path in the first place.
You’re definitely selling yourself short if you are under the impression that your influence isn’t felt right here and now. You have a big effect on all those who come into contact with you. Not five years from now. Right now. The world could explode tomorrow and that would still be true.
The truth is, we are all influencers and we are all influenced by others, and the traditional definition of ‘key journalists’ or ‘celebrity spokespeople’ is thankfully on the decline, thanks to the work you (and I, and those reading, and those who engage online, and celebrities who ‘get it’) are doing right now.
Jeremy, you said:
“I think what you’re getting at at the end there is that popularity and celebrity are a form of influence that is incredibly fleeting, and based much more on perception than the reality of who you are and what you’ve contributed.”
But isn’t that trivializing what even evanescent celebrity can achieve? For instance, an endorsement from a celebrity (even a short-lived one) can jump-start a non-profit’s mission – and create LASTING impact.
While the celebrity and popularity vanish, the impact (or “influence”) remain – in the form of the work it sparked off.
And that fits in nicely with the quote of yours that I completely endorse and agree with:
“The truth is, we are all influencers and we are all influenced by others”
It’s just that, sometimes, we don’t know that – or how deep it runs! 🙂
All success
Dr.Mani
An interesting point, Dr. Mani. It’s valuable to be able to separate celebrity influence on its own from the people behind the ‘celebrity’ and their actions and motivations and passions.
It’s not whether you’re famous or not, it’s what you do with the time you have.
I think what you’re getting at at the end there is that popularity and celebrity are a form of influence that is incredibly fleeting, and based much more on perception than the reality of who you are and what you’ve contributed.
I would not put you in this category. Your influence is based on the awesomeness that is you and your skill and passion for connecting with people. The follower count and conferences and all that is a result of the core you-ness that brought you to this path in the first place.
You’re definitely selling yourself short if you are under the impression that your influence isn’t felt right here and now. You have a big effect on all those who come into contact with you. Not five years from now. Right now. The world could explode tomorrow and that would still be true.
The truth is, we are all influencers and we are all influenced by others, and the traditional definition of ‘key journalists’ or ‘celebrity spokespeople’ is thankfully on the decline, thanks to the work you (and I, and those reading, and those who engage online, and celebrities who ‘get it’) are doing right now.
Jeremy, you said:
“I think what you’re getting at at the end there is that popularity and celebrity are a form of influence that is incredibly fleeting, and based much more on perception than the reality of who you are and what you’ve contributed.”
But isn’t that trivializing what even evanescent celebrity can achieve? For instance, an endorsement from a celebrity (even a short-lived one) can jump-start a non-profit’s mission – and create LASTING impact.
While the celebrity and popularity vanish, the impact (or “influence”) remain – in the form of the work it sparked off.
And that fits in nicely with the quote of yours that I completely endorse and agree with:
“The truth is, we are all influencers and we are all influenced by others”
It’s just that, sometimes, we don’t know that – or how deep it runs! 🙂
All success
Dr.Mani
An interesting point, Dr. Mani. It’s valuable to be able to separate celebrity influence on its own from the people behind the ‘celebrity’ and their actions and motivations and passions.
It’s not whether you’re famous or not, it’s what you do with the time you have.
I’d agree with Jeremy. I think you’re confusing influence and popularity, confusing leverage with social proof. Influence as popularity and social proof is fleeting, fragile, and deserves to shatter. Influence as leverage, as power, as the ability to accomplish, endures.
The best analogy I can think of is the forge and anvil. Crappy iron and good iron are difficult to tell apart in ore form, or even when melted. Call this democratization of digital media. Everything appears equal.
When you put the iron under the hammer, crappy iron crumbles and shatters. When you put good iron under the hammer, it strengthens, shapes, and becomes an instrument of your will.
The same is true of influence. Fleeting popularity-based influence crumbles under strain, but influence born of power, ability, and strength only gets stronger under the hammer.
…and combined we have like 20,000 followers, so what we say must be true!
I’d agree with Jeremy. I think you’re confusing influence and popularity, confusing leverage with social proof. Influence as popularity and social proof is fleeting, fragile, and deserves to shatter. Influence as leverage, as power, as the ability to accomplish, endures.
The best analogy I can think of is the forge and anvil. Crappy iron and good iron are difficult to tell apart in ore form, or even when melted. Call this democratization of digital media. Everything appears equal.
When you put the iron under the hammer, crappy iron crumbles and shatters. When you put good iron under the hammer, it strengthens, shapes, and becomes an instrument of your will.
The same is true of influence. Fleeting popularity-based influence crumbles under strain, but influence born of power, ability, and strength only gets stronger under the hammer.
No, I’m not confusing them. That’s exactly what I’m trying to say, perhaps badly. I don’t have them confused, but I think lots of others do.
I suppose if we’re talking about me, I believe that I influence people for the better. But I earned that over time. It wasn’t instant, and it was a result of work, and if it’s true, it’ll be there aside from the web or anything resembling it. That goes for my personal life, too. I don’t just influence people by being. I influence people because I can and do accomplish things, and hopefully empower them to do so too.
And I believe that there IS such a thing as influence in a strong, positive, constructive way. I find people in my life that way all the time. You, for example.
So I agree, even if I didn’t articulate it well. The truest test of influence is in how it stands up outside all of the trappings of popularity. The two are completely different. Thank goodness.
Yes, your accomplishments and empowering of others are examples of your influence, but so is your kindness, generosity, humor and the love and gratitude you display for those in your life. Those are things that make you personally influential that has nothing to do with Radian6 or speaking at panels or running stellar campaigns. They are core to your being.
…and combined we have like 20,000 followers, so what we say must be true!
Yes, your accomplishments and empowering of others are examples of your influence, but so is your kindness, generosity, humor and the love and gratitude you display for those in your life. Those are things that make you personally influential that has nothing to do with Radian6 or speaking at panels or running stellar campaigns. They are core to your being.
Awesome, really awesome post that takes some thinking to really ‘get’ in a deep sense.
What you call “influence” in this post is what I’d term “impact”. But the essence is the same – you need to leave a lasting message in the arena you play in, your “footprint on the sands of time”, and be the shoulder on which others who follow will stand to do greater things.
That, to my mind too, is real and lasting influence. The rest is vapor-ware!
All success
Dr.Mani
Awesome, really awesome post that takes some thinking to really ‘get’ in a deep sense.
What you call “influence” in this post is what I’d term “impact”. But the essence is the same – you need to leave a lasting message in the arena you play in, your “footprint on the sands of time”, and be the shoulder on which others who follow will stand to do greater things.
That, to my mind too, is real and lasting influence. The rest is vapor-ware!
All success
Dr.Mani
Correct me if I’m wrong but I never saw this post as you talking about YOUR influence, haha. You just used that moment from IZEAFEST as an example of how people perceive influence in the online sphere — “I’ve heard that person’s name 50 times so they must know what’s up.”
Call it your technological 15 minutes of fame, if you will. We ALL leave a mark — that’s what’s called “History”. But, it’s up to you realize and use your power to move others into action. I think that’s what I see influence as: igniting movement and spurring action.
The problem is we get very hung up in believing the title of Influencer is more important than the work put in to become one. Personally, I don’t really appreciate the marketing approach that taps influencers instead of enthusiasts. If an enthusiast happens to be an influencer, rock on. But, your enthusiasts are the ones moved to act, no matter how many or few there are. THEY are the ones who will move your name/brand/product/efforts/message forward, not the influencers.
What influences me? Passion. Those who are passionate influence me because they see through the titles and popularity and just do what they love because they see the potential in it. I trust passion. I don’t trust titles.
Great post, Amber.
I agree that there is confusion between ‘influencers’ and ‘enthusiasts’. I’m wondering whether there is as much of a difference as you claim.
Do influencers become influencers because of their enthusiasm? is there a tipping point where we ‘graduate’ from enthusiast to influencer? Can you be one without the other?
I think you can be an enthusiast and never become an Influencer in the big capital-I sense of the word, but I do believe influencers have to start out as an enthusiast of some sort. It’s all passion-based, right? If you talk about what you love and you invest blood, sweat and tears into that brand/organization/product, you’re bound to come up with thoughts and ideas about it that others will appreciate and see as valuable. That enthusiasm will grow and influence, yes.
I think there is a point, though, where influencers become so big that they have to draw a line for themselves. Take, for example, pitches to bloggers. I wonder how many pitches someone like Chris Brogan gets each day to review a book or try a product that he or she has never heard of, or not an enthusiast of. Wouldn’t it be better to approach the true enthusiasts of your brand, no matter how big they are, because they have actual interest invested in your company and product? And that enthusiasm is likely more contagious and effective from a true loyal fan than it is from a person who hardly knows your product and was pitched to.
If you remain passionate and focused long enough you probably do become an influencer in the larger sense of the word, but, like I said, we all leave a mark somewhere. So, maybe we really can’t be one without the other.
Ooo, I argued myself full circle.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I never saw this post as you talking about YOUR influence, haha. You just used that moment from IZEAFEST as an example of how people perceive influence in the online sphere — “I’ve heard that person’s name 50 times so they must know what’s up.”
Call it your technological 15 minutes of fame, if you will. We ALL leave a mark — that’s what’s called “History”. But, it’s up to you realize and use your power to move others into action. I think that’s what I see influence as: igniting movement and spurring action.
The problem is we get very hung up in believing the title of Influencer is more important than the work put in to become one. Personally, I don’t really appreciate the marketing approach that taps influencers instead of enthusiasts. If an enthusiast happens to be an influencer, rock on. But, your enthusiasts are the ones moved to act, no matter how many or few there are. THEY are the ones who will move your name/brand/product/efforts/message forward, not the influencers.
What influences me? Passion. Those who are passionate influence me because they see through the titles and popularity and just do what they love because they see the potential in it. I trust passion. I don’t trust titles.
Great post, Amber.
I agree that there is confusion between ‘influencers’ and ‘enthusiasts’. I’m wondering whether there is as much of a difference as you claim.
Do influencers become influencers because of their enthusiasm? is there a tipping point where we ‘graduate’ from enthusiast to influencer? Can you be one without the other?
I think you can be an enthusiast and never become an Influencer in the big capital-I sense of the word, but I do believe influencers have to start out as an enthusiast of some sort. It’s all passion-based, right? If you talk about what you love and you invest blood, sweat and tears into that brand/organization/product, you’re bound to come up with thoughts and ideas about it that others will appreciate and see as valuable. That enthusiasm will grow and influence, yes.
I think there is a point, though, where influencers become so big that they have to draw a line for themselves. Take, for example, pitches to bloggers. I wonder how many pitches someone like Chris Brogan gets each day to review a book or try a product that he or she has never heard of, or not an enthusiast of. Wouldn’t it be better to approach the true enthusiasts of your brand, no matter how big they are, because they have actual interest invested in your company and product? And that enthusiasm is likely more contagious and effective from a true loyal fan than it is from a person who hardly knows your product and was pitched to.
If you remain passionate and focused long enough you probably do become an influencer in the larger sense of the word, but, like I said, we all leave a mark somewhere. So, maybe we really can’t be one without the other.
Ooo, I argued myself full circle.
Interesting thought. You explain influence as, ‘encourage and compel others to listen and take action’. Does that mean, for instance, if Pogue says that the new camera is great – people both listen to it and also make a purchase? Can influence be so conclusive?
I believe the ‘compel others to listen’ is definitely possible and all of us with some reasonable amount of network have that sway – people like Scoble may have this sway over a large group of people. Normal folks will have a small group listening.
But isn’t the ‘take action’ part lot more complex than just a result of someone I admire saying so? I mean, it depends on so many other factors like the ease of performing that action, the cost associated and the the relevance with the target audience? Is it fair to just add the ‘action’ part sweepingly as a result of influence?
Interesting thought. You explain influence as, ‘encourage and compel others to listen and take action’. Does that mean, for instance, if Pogue says that the new camera is great – people both listen to it and also make a purchase? Can influence be so conclusive?
I believe the ‘compel others to listen’ is definitely possible and all of us with some reasonable amount of network have that sway – people like Scoble may have this sway over a large group of people. Normal folks will have a small group listening.
But isn’t the ‘take action’ part lot more complex than just a result of someone I admire saying so? I mean, it depends on so many other factors like the ease of performing that action, the cost associated and the the relevance with the target audience? Is it fair to just add the ‘action’ part sweepingly as a result of influence?
Amber,
I love the way you write and crystallize what so many of us are thinking. We have a scoreboard mentality- # of followers, popularity, etc instead of focusing on actually strengthening the relationships we’ve initially developed.
Great leaders don’t worry about how many people are following. They’re too busy leading to notice.
Amber,
I love the way you write and crystallize what so many of us are thinking. We have a scoreboard mentality- # of followers, popularity, etc instead of focusing on actually strengthening the relationships we’ve initially developed.
Great leaders don’t worry about how many people are following. They’re too busy leading to notice.