I’m a Fast Company fan. I’ve been reading for years, and they have some super smart writers and contributors on their team.
But I really think they missed the mark with The Influence Project, in a big way, and confused the idea of “influence” with ego.
To me, influence isn’t about popularity. Or even reach. It’s about the trust, authority, and presence to drive relevant actions within your community that create something of substance. That last bit is key.
I clicked this morning on a tweet from Tac Anderson, someone I like and respect a great deal. I even uploaded my picture, all that stuff that I was supposed to do, hoping that there was something really interesting that would happen at the end, something I was supposed to do. Spread the word about a charity? Encourage people to contribute thoughtful content around an idea? Something I could sink my teeth into to show how great ideas can spread?
Nope. This is in the confirmation email I got:
1) You can use any means to spread your unique link to your online network. We shortened it for you so you can share on Twitter and Facebook.
2) Your goal is to influence as many people to click on it as possible.
3) You want those people to sign up as well, since they will be spreading your influence along with their own.
4) You can track how your influence has grown, where it’s lead, and where you stand at any time on the site.
5) Your picture is going to be in the November issue of Fast Companymagazine, where we’ll reveal the most influential person online!
Seriously, Fast Company? The goal is to influence clicks to my stupid profile? And I want people to sign up to be my minions so they can “spread my influence along with their own?”
This isn’t influence. This is an ego trap and a popularity contest, pure and simple. There’s no goal other than click pandering. Already, Twitter is full of people shouting “click on my junk!” and flooding my stream and countless others with nothing more than clamoring for…well…validation.
Influence can be quiet, understated, and wielded with grace. Influence is NOT jumping up and down, begging for people to click on stuff so that they, too, can find the gatekey for their own path to feeling important in the online fishbowl.
I’m sad that there wasn’t more to this. I was expecting something different, something meaningful, something that shows that influence isn’t about numbers and eyeballs and fleeting stabs of attention in the maelstrom of 140-character snippets.
I’m disappointed. I’m sorry I clicked, and hoped for something different. And I’m frustrated that, once again, we’re going to have to discuss influence in its proper context, the work that it takes to create a truly influential platform that people can trust, delineate the difference between people who can inspire meaningful action, and those that seek the panflash of popularity in an attention-starved space.
Sigh.
UPDATE: Thanks to Molly Block for pointing out this PDF that was a creative brief/pitch from Mekanism (the agency behind the experiment) to Fast Company. The third concept appears to be what they were attempting with this stunt, and while I agree that it will most certainly attention and eyeballs if that was their aim, I still have a fundamental problem with the way they’re treating the concept of “influence”. There were probably better ways to achieve the same aim without implying that influence was part of the equation. Just call a spade a viral contest stunt spade and be done with it.
What got me was how many people spread the link without giving any context at all. Two people who I would otherwise consider influential (to me) had me click their links without realizing I was clicking through to their profiles, I assumed it was an article or something else. And that's going to make me think twice about clicking their links in the future – thus making them less influential, no?
Ultimately, influence is an entirely personal metric. There are people that influence me heavily but I don't think they'd ever make a top 50 list, even in their field. Other people who are widely considered influential do absolutely nothing for me and I don't click their links (and, as you point out, that's a piss poor measure of influence anyway).
wow…glad I decided not to fill that thing out after I clicked on it.
I think I can already predict whose faces will appear in the magazine.
Lame ego driven gimmick…
sigh indeed.
I decided to create my own competing Influence Tracker. http://bit.ly/9OYCul
Thanks for calling out Fast Company on this one, Amber. I had gotten the DMs and emails the past couple of weeks and assumed it was a cruel joke. And so it seems it is.
Thanks for calling out Fast Company on this one, Amber. I had gotten the DMs and emails the past couple of weeks and assumed it was a cruel joke. And so it seems it is.
The influence discussion is so hard to navigate … who influences whom is determined by things that you cannot measure with metrics and algorithms. There are some very popular Twitter users out there who have countless numbers of followers who will retweet anything and everything that they say, without exception. But is that influence? I don't think so. That might spread tweets round the globe, but influence?
There are numerous people for whom I have enormous respect, yourself included, and whose influence over me is strong. I look to them for their opinions and perspectives on things that actually matter to me, not on how many clicks I can send to some bean (or click) counter over at FastCompany (which is *also* an entity that I respect).
I won't be clicking on anyone's junk. 🙂
That's just it, Joe. Influence is highly subjective, and not a universal constant as we sometimes treat it. This just makes me want to pull my hair out.
I'm very sorry that I did. I really was hoping for something of substance once I signed up, but I should have looked more closely. For that, I own it. But good grief. What a ploy.
From you, sir, I would have expected nothing less. 🙂
I agree this is definitely not about influence. Seems more about having exposure to people willing to click on anything…Lemmings…Kind of sounds like the beginning of a pyramid scheme mashed together with big idea in The Last Star Fighter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/).
Step 1: Run an online contest to identify individuals who top out pyramids of actionable influence (clicks). Step 2 Approach the top 200 Pyramid toppers and ask them to invest $200 to start an influence corporation. Step 3 Instruct the Pyramid toppers to solicit $200 from everyone below them in their pyramid…
That's just what I'm waiting for. The DMs pandering for votes and clicks, just like we get around those dreaded Shorty Awards ever year. MEH.
Amber –
I really enjoy your 'rants'. I didn't even look at the 'opportunity' after reading your assessment because you are spot on. I have become a bit disillusioned with the entire 'industry' of social media and its various forms because there is so little high quality work being done. It's like voting for the All Star Game. It's a cool kids game. Well, most cool kids ended up flopping if you check your high school yearbook. Same will happen here.
Fortunately, yours is a voice of reason and intensity that makes this stuff fun again.
Thanks.
I don't think of myself as an influencer. I think of myself as someone who has a set of things she cares about, and isn't shy about making those things known. If someone wants to care about those things, too, they can — and I'd love to talk to them about it. But I don't think my impact on the world will ever be measured in re-tweets.
Amber,
I think that fact that you've written on this and received this much feedback and generated this much conversation within 10 minutes of posting is a better indicator to me of influence. Nice job.
Rachel Kay
@rachelakay
I think this is just a riff on the proposal they got from Mekanism – it's an ad campaign for them, not a world-changer. (See April article online)
I'm really of the opinion that we shouldn't discuss this as a serious topic. There's no point in being offended (even a little) by it. It's a completely transparent stupid-human trick. By the time I awoke on on the West Coast, the kings and queens had already been crowned. I signed up and posted my links because I found it amusing.
Precisely, my friend. Rather, I'd say you *can* measure parts of it – indicators, maybe, or catalyst points – but they're going to be utterly and completely individual to the person or company and the situation at hand. Some people are influential in moments, not in others.
It all points to me to a shortcut mentality that we can't break free of: we want instant spread, instant fame, instant respect, instant attention. We're just not willing to earn any of those anymore. Companies perpetuate that with their “influencer” outreach hoping to strike gold. And that makes me very sad.
Yeah, it smacks of that kind of thing. Thank heaven the only thing changing hands is link clicks and website traffic, and not dollars or something of meaning.
You nailed it! And, you've provided Fast Company with some concrete examples of actions that could have actually tested influence.
Well, I happen to think there is AMAZING work being done in this space. The trick is that the ones doing the work aren't the types to get out there and pimp it. We'll see it's impact, though, mark my words. Don't lose faith too much. 😉
I'm as passionate as the next person and will share the things I believe in. But I'm not passionate about being recognized for how many clicks I can generate. That goes counter to nearly everything I believe. And the day my success is measured in retweets is the day I quit and go buy a bar in St. Thomas.
Thanks, Rachel. It's more a product of me not being able to keep my mouth shut when I'm irritated.
Ad campaign or no, it's done poorly if you're messing with ideas that have as much potential power as true influence, and diminishing them through popularity contests.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Influencing people to click on a link is such a low bar to clear that it's nearly meaningless. I'll frankly be surprised if FastCompany's actual readership gives a damn about this kind of validation.
Totally up to you, Shannon. I'll look forward to popping over and seeing what else is interesting you today instead.
LOL! Sorry I sounded so 'down'. I hear you loud and clear. There is great work being done. Once you get past the hype there is great opportunity for sure. Keep up the great work.
Well, they could have tested influence relative to the thing they chose. So for instance, if they wanted to try influence mashed up with the quest for a breast cancer cure, some people would have been moved to act based on what they care about. If they'd chosen Haiti or Gulf relief, that would have been a different profile of influence altogether.
My point is that they could have at least shown that *IDEAS* can carry far on the shoulders of people who care, and that influence is created by a swell of those ideas and passion, not just a bunch of clicks to a link.
Amber (and others),
Bob Safian here, the editor of Fast Company. I'm sorry that your initial contact with The Influence Project was disappointing. But I hope you'll be patient. The big-picture goal of this project, editorially, is not a popularity contest. It is part of a real-time experiment in how influence spreads and who spreads it. It isn't perfect, but we believe it can yield useful information–including the kinds of discussions going on here. The project will be supplemented and built upon via reported coverage, both on fastcompany.com and in the November issue of the magazine. The raw-score results of The Influence Project will be just one element.
I hope you'll keep an open mind. Thanks,
Bob
The Wizard of Oz had a lot of influence, too…until. There are a few people I read all the time, but after a sour experience w/one so-called social media expert, I'm a little jaded. Some people are true connectors, some are just “Wizards”. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!
Hi Bob – thanks for chiming in. I'm still not sure how your experiment can equate to determining influence simply via link clicks, because I think that's misguided at its base level. As for the bit about watching the discussions that unfold, that's a good thing. I'll certainly keep an open mind and look forward to seeing what you come up with for the November issue, but I'm skeptical at best. Thanks again for weighing in.
That's exactly what I did. Clicked on someone's link that wasn't what I thought it was then thought I'd sign up to see what it was all about. Your post is really insightful. Plus I'll never win a popularity contest. 😉
Amber – I think you're right on with your assessment. After signing up I was wondering what it was all about and how this influence was actually measured. After I realized it was about getting people to click on my link it hit me that this is more of a “popularity” contest and not a measure of actual influence.
Perhaps it is a good idea poorly implemented?
If that is your aim, you should include this post and how quickly it's been spread and commented on-that's true influence.
Another thing I think they're totally missing is that who influences each of us can and does change. I follow different people for different reasons, and depending on my mood or the information I need, different people have more or less influence. There's no way they can track this.
Remember something, Cindy. All the people, regardless of their trappings, recognition, or titles, are just that: people. They come complete with all of the variations, good and bad, therein. I'm sorry you had a lousy experience with someone. And there is TRUE influence out there, every day, all the time. It may or may not come attached to a recognizable name, but it's alive and well just the same.
Well done Amber. I had received emails in advance about the project launching, and had no idea what it was going to be. Love this:
“…influence isn’t about popularity. Or even reach. It’s about the trust, authority, and presence to drive relevant actions within your community that create something of substance. That last bit is key.”
I see Bob from Fast Company responded. I will be looking forward to seeing what else they have in mind with this project beyond getting people to click on my link so my head can be bigger on the map of folks (which is definitely competitive and ego-centric in a relatively harmless way.) I am not seeing much else to do, other than share the link for personal gain at this point.
Well said, Megan. Sometimes I need help w/a farm question (about pigs, or dairy cows) and I love being able to go to my ag tweeps and ask. However, I don't only think about our small farm. I have many interests, like you said, so there are many different avenues of influence.
It's not influence, it's enticement. If anything, the influence feels negative in this context; if I clicked and ended up with that result, I'd feel duped, and I'd feel even worse if I'd gone on to share that link with my own network before seeing the result.
I think this will add dimension to the influence discussion (i.e., another example of what influence *isn't*), but is it really a matter of true influence? No. It's an experiment in reach and semantics, in how people respond to phrasing and gimmicks. Actual influence is defined outside the confines of the act itself.
Can't wait to see the results and subsequent story to go along with this experiment. Influence isn't dictated by popularity online alone. Your ability to share what you know and the fact the others want to know about it is what what influence is all about. Regardless, Fast Company just got the attention of the entire Social Media world today so their level of influence just spiked off the charts.
I think it's an idea that had potential, and failed to meet it. There are so many directions they could have taken to help draw a picture of what influence really entails, but they took the easy and obvious route, so that frustrates me.
Preeeeecisely. You nailed it.
Thanks, Amber. I investigated further into this person's past. They seem to be more opportunist than influencer. I don't think those people last. We shall see.
Maybe the people at Fast Company should have attended this year's PRSMS and listened to your talk about “Community”…seems like they maybe would have learned something and been able to make this better.
Thank you for insightful posts and not being afriad to speak up. I learn alot from your tweets and blogs and that is more influential than anything!
Harmless, yeah. Except that this is the kind of thing that companies are paying attention to when they try to figure out how to find their “influencers”. They're trusting pubs like FC to “get it” and show them how it's done, and while I know it's a silly thing, I'm convinced that some misguided PR departments are now going to start chasing the heads on the grid instead of determining what influence means in context of their own organization.
I wish you'd used the opportunity to measure the impact of influence beyond a clicks and RTs metric, and for a purpose greater than driving traffic back to your site.
Why not have people compete to spread the message of a cause, or compete to fundraise for an organization they believe in? Why not create a survey about the meaning of “influence”, to gauge what people really *mean* when they describe someone as influential? Why not look at how ideas morph as they spread via influence channels (like a big game of telephone)? Why not examine how social media platforms have enabled people to speed up the process of developing a reputation and influence?
There are so many more interesting ways to explore the idea than a competition — but I guess exploring wasn't really the point.
I hope the article covers more than, “Here are the popular people! Here's how many people made them popular! Here's why you're totally not surprised by the information here because you already know who has thousands of followers on Twitter! Here are the people who complained about our process! Here's why we're doing it again in 2011!”
What I meant by my comment was that this project must be a joke and I haven't taken it seriously. (It's very worthy of discussion, however.) I immediately reacted to it as a gimmick, but then Bob Safian just came in looking all serious. Studying the reactions to the project are probably more interesting than studying how a link gets passed around.
AH! Gotcha. yeah, not a joke. Unfortunately.
Let me be serious for a moment.
Twitter and Facebook and Google and Bit.Ly can already “know” this, because they have enough of the link traffic to piece together the Link Epidemiology. The rest of us are shut out, because we don't have access to the raw pipes.
If such a project were done in a manner that opened the relationships – like a Barium Drip – that would be most useful. But it has to be done without the conscious pimping. When it becomes a conscious activity, then everything is colored by the varying degrees to which people want to outshine someone else (or even give up when they realize they've come in so late to the game they can't catch up.)
For this to work and be of value, there would have to be ways to reach large segments of the internet WITHOUT going through sleazy SEO-aware entities, and it would have to be revealed later that the links were tracked as part of an experiment.
Always keep an open mind of course.
Like Amber, I am still skeptical of the value of this project. The ability to get people to click this link and sign up is not a determinant of influence in my opinion. This is why is comes across as a gimmick, and a popularity contest.
Perhaps if you shared a bit more information on how you plan to use the information and its relevance, we'd have a better idea of the purpose of the experiment.
I even tried to go in and delete my profile and couldn't. Actual influence is totally amorphous and changing, and trying to cram it into a little tiny box based on stuff like this is…well…deflating.
Rochelle, no. Their *attention* just spiked off the charts, not their influence. That's exactly my point. Being able to inspire behavior and action that's substantive? That's influence to me. What they did is grab a bunch of eyeballs, and for me, lose some credibility in the process. But that's not influence.
Thanks much for that. 🙂 Ask anyone who knows me, and you'll find that self-editing is not my strength. In any case, glad you enjoyed the PRSMS talk. Thanks for commenting.
If they had said “marketing influence” I'd be less ticked about it. I mean, some people really do have persuasive power, and the ability to lead others to perform a click is good marketing influence.
However, just using the overall term “influence” and measuring it with clicks is seriously flawed, imho. I'm more of a soft sell kind of guy, so I don't worry about RTs, clicks, or even follower counts. My circle of influence grows regardless, so long as I'm genuine and keep interacting with others, both online and off.
I still think that the link click-spread-click formula is one piece of the much larger equation. And you've got a point, for sure, about the psychology of the pimping. I'd much rather see an experiment where reach is part of the value, but that IMPACT is something that they're paying a great deal more attention to.
I'm a little disappointed in Fast Company. They — of all people — should understand the difference between real influence and people begging for clicks.
Ah, but the reformed marketer in me even takes offense to the notion that being a good marketer equates to getting people to click a link. I know people who haven't a shred of marketing experience or insight that can be loud enough to get people to click stuff, so I take issue with that definition, too. It's one element, perhaps, but only one.
As for the rest, I'm with you. 🙂
Bob – As you explain it here, influence would be an end in itself. That couldn't be less true. Influence is a tool to be (carefully) wielded to shape action and spread ideas. Learning how it spreads and who spreads it is kinda interesting but, to me, peripheral. It seems like a missed opportunity here. If the article simply matches the data of the most linked/”influential” against their bios, that's hardly experimental nor useful.
Amber – I hope you'll follow this project along to see where exactly it goes.
I am with you.
I totally agree… I didn't mean that getting someone to perform an action makes one a good marketer, but that ability is definitely an aspect of marketing influence.
I agree. It seems that a lot of people click on links to check it out, and signed up…only to be a little disenfranchised with the execution (me included). I think probably had good intentions but wasn't fully thought out.
If a celebrity were to join, they almost certainly would be vaulted to the top of the list. And I can tell you this much…I'm not influenced by celebrities. Seems that those with scale would be the ones with the highest level of influence here…not those with actual influence.
Curious though. If it were positioned as a game, would that make any difference in perception? Or would it still simply be a “please click me” stigma?
I am glad someone said this. I was disconcerted when I clicked on the link of someone I followed (not mentioning names to protect the guilty) and found out I was looking at a way to affect someone's click numbers. I didn't bother with setting my own up because I'm not into social media as a way to be popular but as a way to assist others. I was flabbergasted to wind up on a page that I felt was a useless clammoring for nothing.
Methinks that it's actually Fast Company that's trying to build it's own influence (considering where all the traffic will go…)
Great post. Really got me thinking.
I'm with you Amber. I thought it would be something more like Klout or Twitalyzer – no idea it was a “tell all of your friends and you'll be famous in November” scheme.
Hmmmm, wonder what kind of “attention” the folks who make it to the Fast Company pages for this will get?
Google follows the same problem when trying to rank important/influential tweets.
It pays to have your own Twitter shortening service, 😉
Ike, that's HYSTERICAL! 😀
I'm disappointed too. We'll have to see how the rest follows…
Ouch. I totally missed that element. I thought it was something to get everyone to contribute to the project, not an ego stroking contest. God knows we have enough of those in social media without the structure of a project like this. I feel icky – I think I need to take a shower.
I think a game would be even worse. I loathe contests and things like the Shorty Awards for the same reason. Lighthearted in intention, sure, but all rooted in actions that are utterly misaligned with the billing. Unless you're talking about just a contest that fully says “let's see who can get the most clicks for grins”, but I pity the fool that tries that one.
Hey I was guilty, too. I fully admit that I tweeted it based on presumptions (bad Amber), and I regret it. But after I dug a little deeper, I was frustrated. Hence the post. 🙂
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I say over and over that in everything (including social media) quality > quantity. I'd rather see my college have 100 really engaged fans than 10,000 completely detached ones. It's the difference between living in a small town where everyone knows, converses with and looks out for one another as opposed to a city where no one talks. Too often people go straight for the raw numbers, and number of clicks as “influencers” isn't an apt metric.
Honestly, if there's someone on Twitter who has only 10 followers, and engages all those followers in some meaningful and beneficial action, that tweep is far superior to anything I do.
I'm with you Shannon – this is an experiment pure and simple. Who can get the most people to follow them in a limited amount of time. If that's not your definition of influence, or if it's not your cup of tea, that's fine.
Like Amber – I would have liked to see this tied to something relevant. But this isn't my sandbox, it's Fast Company's. I do find it an interesting experiment though. Let's see where it is when it all wraps up and then we can judge it.
And for the record – http://fcinf.com/v/b4m5
Yeah but again, that's not influence. That's just traffic. And temporary, at that.
Woohoo. Quite the discussion going on here. Fast Company, if you want to see real influence, look no further.
Amber, thanks for NOT keeping your mouth shut… and articulating the real issue so perfectly in your post and in your replies.
The heart of the matter is this: Don't mistake “getting attention” with “creating appeal”. As in real life, so it is in media. We all know at least one drama queen who can walk into a gathering and make the rest of us stop for a moment. But will she be invited back? That's the difference.
Glad for that! Thanks for stopping by.
I'm not even really thrilled with tools like that, because I think you're still trying to give a qualitative definition with quantitative metrics. But they're an improvement, I guess.
Good question, Kami. I'm certainly going to be paying attention to who “wins”, and do a bit of poking around to see what they did to get there. Might just prove a point.
Because like I said to Sharon, they're trying to use quantitative analysis to define a subjective and qualitative thing. Not that easy.
Great article. Glad I read this. I just saw someone promoting their tweet about being “influencer” and I clicked and was kinda disappointed that it was just a”sign up” and forget about it site. No interaction or anything. I felt they were collecting info.
I thought that, too. I was waiting for…something. For them to tell me they had a goal. That my mission was to use whatever voice I had to do something of value, I guess. I dunno. And for the record, I love the word “icky”. Not sure why. It's so evocative.
…but at least it's going to a non-canonical URL, which is not their main site. So NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Here's the thing, influence is just that, influence. The question isn't whether you have influence, it's whether you have the *right* kind of influence for a particular objective. If you're objective is to get a bunch of links clicked on, and I can make that happen for you, then I'm the right kind of influencer. If it's to convert those clicks into sales, or have someone take a meaningful action, well, maybe I'm not.
There are “popularity” influencers who are great at getting brand recognition for mainstream products (Britney, Ellen, Ashton, etc.) yet have been shown to carry very little actual “influence” at a relative level when it comes to marketing (call to action). But let's not diminish the value of brand recognition, if that's my goal then those influencers will serve me just fine.
There are niche influencers which would never make any “master list” of influencers yet as a marketer I would aggressively seek out since they carry so much relative weight in a particular sector I'm targeting.
In the end the Fast Company project is sort of like a misguided SEO expert. They might see their objective as traffic and rankings, so why not optimize your site for pornography keywords? Harry Potter Sex Tape!! That'll generate a lot of traffic. Never mind the fact that none of it will convert to anything meaningful.
That's my unsolicited .02 cents (on sale today only for .01 )
P.S. – You're welcome for all the future Harry Potter pervert traffic
Cheers,
Matt Ridings – @techguerilla
Nothing draws attention whores like free attention. 😉
I would tweet out the link to this post, but since Fast Company has identified me as a non-influential person, what's the f#@&ing point?
Hmmm… it certainly seems to have more in common with Multi-Level Marketing than true measurement of influence. True influence is something achieved by building trust, through giving others the benefits of your knowledge and experience. In that sense, there is an ego component – you have to believe in the first place that your knowledge and experience will be of value to others – but your real level of influence is determined by what value others actually derive from the things you share, not by how many people you can suck into clicking a link.
I'm glad I followed the link to this post that was retweeted by a couple of people I trust, rather than any of the links back to influencer profiles.
Couldn't agree more. This is popularity contest at its most banal. With a few hundred bucks, I could set up a mechanical turk routine on Amazon and guarantee anyone a top 5 finish. What's the point? I am frankly shocked at how many social media brand names are flocking to this. Maybe they are pissed that they were left out of the equally pointless “America's Tweethearts” piece in Vanity Fair? Look, I look publicity as much as the next person (probably more). But I am not going to ask the relationships that I have cultivated with meaningful content to participate in something devoid of meaning.
Having your own link-shortener does have benefits. Thanks for re-tweeting it.
Apparently, I have more influence from my circular joke than I do from Fast Company's circle jerk.
I've always opted for the smaller, more connected group when I've got a goal to achieve. I love the wide open feelings of my personal networks, but when I want to accomplish something, I'll take those 50 devoted people any day over the 5,000 who are ambivalent at best.
Thanks, Kat. I don't know about perfection, but this one raised my hackles. And you said it right: getting attention isn't the same as creating appeal, or creating anything of value for that matter. Attention is fleeting. Influence, in its truest form, can create a legacy long after the “influencer” has become invisible.
Yeah, it wasn't executed well. Seemed to disappoint a lot of people.
There are just so many reasons to love you, Matt.
Here's the thing. Perhaps this is semantics, but an objective to collect clicks and traffic to me doesn't require influence, just attention. How many people click on links that seem interesting to them regardless of who's supplying them? That's a matter of awareness and reach: putting something out there to be seen.
Influence to me is far more nuanced and complex. Influence is much more tied to the person doing the asking – and their level of trust, authority, whatever. I can get brand attention for a product by pushing awareness, but have I influenced buying behavior because someone will take my word for that product being worthwhile? I do think there's a difference. And perhaps my battle with Fast Company is in the billing. Calling it influence when they're really testing reach and spread.
Thanks so much for calling nonsense like this out! When I discovered it, I quickly realized that its just another company creating something artificial in hopes for greater visibility for themselves (as if FC needs it). Disappointing coming from them.
Thank you for an excellent post. It's really a shame that influence is thought of as a popularity game for this project. I did sign up for an account, but like you said, was hoping that there was something more to it than just clicks. Numbers do not mean everything in social media, unless it includes an action. Thanks again.
What you said. It's actually a fascinating glimpse into the values of some of those folks, in my mind, and a lackluster play for traffic on the part of FC. And for the record, I was pissed about being left out of the Tweethearts. I mean, really. I'm nothing but cuddly and I'd dry cleaned my french maid outfit and everything.
There's an ego component to just about anything that doesn't involve living in a cave. We all operate in our own best interests sometimes, like Tamsen wrote here on the blog a few days back. But the *effects* of true influence can be felt long after the influential has left the building, and sometimes, it can feel as if they were never there at all.
Thanks, Amber! I try to coach Product Managers all the time about the importance of influence inside the role and this is a perfect example and set of discussions to use. Too often influence is misunderstood as popularity instead of good ol' relationship management. What real influence exists for these people if Twitter and FB go away tomorrow? Will we really try to find them again? Remember MySpace?
I'm not one with significant influence but I have some level of influence and I follow people on Twitter that I trust (you included!). I consider many of you like the pied piper and if you put a link, I'll click. Not because I'm a lemming but because you've never led me astray and what you link to has been vetted by you and your expertise. Maybe it's not always relevant to me, but I can almost always gain some kernel of helpful information.
So here we have The Influence Project. I'm not sure what definition of 'influence' Fast Company was going for but I have a hunch it wasn't this: corrupt interference with authority for personal gain
Who is the authority? True Social Media influencers and authorities.
Personal Gain? Well, Fast Company gets lots of clicks and tons of somewhat personal information and possible resources w/o having to work for it
Corrupt Interference? Morally debased is a good way to put it. This is a legitimate publication that is ego stroking. Plain and simple.
You want influence via clicking a link, then Lady GaGa with her 10 million FB 'likes' is the winner.
You want influence via the work they do to give those touched by Cancer a voice and a community, then we're looking at Lance Armstrong.
You want Social Media Influence, pop up the TED site and see who has the most clicks.
And seriously, is Fast Company so out of the loop on Twitter and bots not to consider that clicks can be made by bots based on key words. And if I type Social Media Muffin Top Bacon that I'll get clicks. Is that influence?
What is influence? If you have 10,000 followers and 1,000 click through then you've convinced 10% to do what you asked. But if I get 90% of my 600 followers to click through do I have more influence? What's the measure? Pure numbers or percent?
Thanks for calling out Fast Company for what this is – a High School popularity contest for Prom King and Queen!
I think they might have had better intentions than we're giving them credit for, but it was lousy execution, that's for sure. Left a bad taste in my mouth.
Numbers don't mean a thing by themselves. They're just numbers. What we DO with the numbers is what helps outline our character, for better or worse.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a person trying to sell me a twitter auto-follow program. If you have 20,000 followers and no one reads your tweet did it ever happen. Having a lot of facebook friends who don't know you or twitter followers who don't read your tweets is not influence. Marshall Sylver has an interesting definition of influence, “Influence is having people do what you want and think it is their idea.”
That's a great litmus test, Barbara. If all of your online connections evaporated, for whom would you actually exert effort to track down?
Saying it again: I think trying to measure influence solely based on quantitative metrics like numbers, percentage, clicks, traffic, etc. missses some of the root elements – the inexact ones – that really comprise it.
I don't understand this need to assign a value to people's social network. Each of these tools gets some initial attention because people are curious. Once the initial inquisitiveness passes it dies off without every providing any real long term value for its users. These tools succeed in doing one of two things: (1) providing more ego boost for those who DO have influence (as if they need it) and (2) providing a reminder to those who are working hard to gain trust and be influential, that they don't. Even worse, they often provide no tips or guidance on what people can do to improve their standing. I've been a Fast Company reader for almost 10 years now and find it extremely disappointing they couldn't do better than this. Or even better, not done anything at all.
Yes, it was pretty disappointing. Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but give we the mob a little credit on this one. We're not That vain. 🙂
Awesome post, awesome comments. Not a lot to add here, except Fast Company, in an effort to get on the social media influence bandwagon, totally botched this up. I've actually been planning a blogpost in my mind for a while about the danger of contests. Contests now masquerade as all types of things: job interviews, votes for SXSW panels. These popularity contests have nothing to do with adding value or creating buzzworthy content, or getting people to move the needle on anything worthwhile. What these contests do have in common is that they are essentially PR stunts, using the naivete of “social media sheep” to click on stuff, forward stuff along, to create more “buzz” around the contest, in exchange for a chance at the glittery social media stardom.
That's not influence. That's a free PR machine.
But how many people read, clicked, shared – that's still not influence – that's reach. And yes, reach is important to measure also, but it doesn't equal influence – it doesn't even always translate to people listening, let alone responding. Just read Anil Dash's blogpost (from last year I think) about life on the “suggested twitter list”: reach – yes, quality of reach that will engage with you – dubious. (I like Klout's measure of True Reach btw, over plain regular reach).
Klout has done the best job so far or quantifying influence, but it's not perfect, and so much of it can't and shouldn't be quantified. What I do think sets smth like Klout apart is that it understands the context of influence – if I'm influential in smartphones, I'm not necessarily influential in diapers.
Cheers!
@themaria
p.s. As someone mentioned before, the fact that a bunch of folks came here to comment is a stronger measure of influence than any number of clicks.
I had the same reaction you did when i saw his tweet this morning (and no disrpect to Tac) — so, i clicked through looking for substance. A long time reader of Fast Company and admirer of how they continually faciliate great dialogue around ideas I was left feeling very disappointed in what they were doing here, and of how many had joined in. I wished they would have used this project and their own role as influencer to motivate more people to be thought leaders, rather than simply self promotion. I think we all agree that the number of followers, clicks on links, and profile views are not the only measurement of influence Thank you for your insightful post and for motivating an important dialogue; Especially appreciate you 'walking the talk' about what an influencer could/should be.
Tomorrow is another day…remain optimistic!
I like that definition very much, actually. The idea of influence being sometimes quiet and more or less invisible intrigues me. That can be powerful stuff.
Becky in a business context, we just want to assign value to everything to justify our time spent on it. In a personal context, it's validation and reassurance that we matter somehow, even if that validation is fundamentally flawed (just like fake boobs and veneers).
But you raise a really valid point about so many discussions leaving the “un-influencers” (hope Scott Stratten doesn't poke me) out in the cold, and not sharing more about what it takes to get there. I think part of that is because simply suggesting that others CAN and SHOULD raise their influence can cause cocked eyebrows and suspicion. But put in proper context, I think it can be an incredibly useful and helpful set of skills.
Oh, I dunno. I see plenty of tweets in my stream still asking for clicks…
I completely agree with your reply. Influence is much more complex than people seem to think – or want. Everyone is trying to find a way of measuring influence so they can justify the expense of social media. I work for a marketing company so, believe me, I understand that. But we can't take influence and wrap it up in a neat little package and tie it with a pretty bow. It just doesn't work that way.
Just because I click on a link doesn't mean that person has any influence on me. It just means they were able to write a smart tweet/headline. It's what I do AFTER I click that's key to who has influence on me: do I buy a product or service, do I share the message with my friends/family/coworkers, do I recommend that person/product/service as a resource for other people, do I seek out that person's perspective in the future, etc. I retweet all the time but there are very few people that I would consider influencers.
Great comments, Maria. Thanks. I think the “moving the needle for something worthwhile” is what gets stuck in my craw. And the chance for stardom is something that so many claim to want, but fewer yet understand. You couldn't pay me enough to be Britney Spears. Gah.
Thanks for your comment and the kind words. I felt the same way you did about FC and their usual ability to spark good discussion and movement around bigger ideas. I can't help but feel they really missed an opportunity here.
Always the eternal optimist. 🙂
Spot on, Amber. I clicked through to the project based on a link from someone I respect and admire and was severely disappointed to find it nothing more than the social media's version of American Idol–without the pretend “talent” competition. I'm honestly shocked that people are willingly lending their names and ACTUAL influence (as in respect, community, trust, relationships and meaningful content and idea sharing) to this low-rent popularity contest. The saddest part is that Fast Company had an opportunity to do something truly meaningful and influential in the space and completely missed the mark.
Amber I had just laid fingers to keyboard to post a rather vocal item of my own on this, when I noted a link to your post … with your permission, I'd love to repost your piece in its entirety. You hit the nail squarely on the head and with very little exception the comment thread here clearly reflects the nerve that's been hit. I appreciate that Bob from Fast Company chimed in, but his response shows an utterly ignorant view of social media and the what influence *actually* means.
I had thought this was perhaps a sales/marketing effort from Fast Company and thus the error in judgment. After all, of all the publications I read (and have read over the years) this is one where editorial integrity has always been prominent. Imagine my horror to find out it actually came from the editorial side. Disgraceful.
You and me both, heh. I'd hate to be famous just to be famous. I don't even want to be famous. I want to do good work and hopefully add a teensie weensie sliver of value to folks in the community. And if people find and share it, great! If not, then it wasn't that valuable anyway.
It pains me to see how many people in social media do it without a purpose and just to become popular (why? perhaps they got picked on in gym class, and now the web is “the great equalizer” perhaps). We have the opportunity to really make a difference, because we can spread worthwhile ideas, bring awareness to certain things, and mobilize the greater community behind what needs to be acted on. I feel like that's lost on most, because the “ego” appeal of social media is so strong. Look, I have a microphone! And as a community we seem to pander to these egos with more and more half-baked influencer programs that miss the point of influence altogether. I think this post is an important part of speaking out against this. I'm working on one too.
Like you, I am really surprised to see this come from Fast Co.- a publication I'd call respectable.
Cheers!
@themaria
It's an interesting experiment, and not all bad (the mechanism works: You have to influence your network to DO something, so their mapping scheme isn't without merit), but yeah, I see what you mean: It boils down to a popularity contest. Ashton or Oprah could in one fell swoop “win” this thing.
Perhaps it would have been more interesting to actually map all this out to show influencer clusters and layers rather than to push towards a “winner.”
They are trying to “map” it by showing the web of who clicked on your profile. (I think you're talking about overlaying some of the nodes and such, but that's not what they're doing it seems). But again, I'm back to the idea of attention vs. influence. You're not “influencing” your network so much as you're putting a link to them to click. Perhaps there's a small transaction of trust involved here, but as evidenced in these comments, many people felt duped.
Influence and attention are not on the same level, in my mind. Influence is much more… substantive. And it's based in something greater than the thing itself. The mechanism they're employing is old as dirt. Would you call a chain letter influential?
Cathy, by all means. All my stuff is Creative Commons licensed, so you're free to share with attribution and not altering the substance of the original content. Other than that, have at!
Sigh, indeed.
I first saw this “experiment” when it was posted by a well-respected connection. I was sorely disappointed to find that it appeared to be a popularity contest – “I can get more people to click than you can. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!” And, then to see that those with the most “influence” will get their photos printed in the article seemed to draw people in for all the wrong reasons. They lost me at “click here.”
Kind of ironic that some of the most influential people online will not be participating in the Fast Company Influence Project, but actively discussing it on other sites. That, in and of itself, skews the results.
Don't sign up for something if you don't know what it is.
My profile is stalled pending finding an 800 x 800 image of myself I can live with forever, but I was hoping that the “project” part was a study into how connections happen, how ideas spread and where content best converted into action. That was a leap of faith on my part. When I got my invite, I mentioned that I hoped it was more than “MafiaWars for the LinkedIn set.” The response was “guess we'll find out.” I still hope we will.
People who have true influence don't have time to hound people to click their link. They're too busy actually doing things and influencing others by doing said aforementioned things. Guaranteed this little Fast Company experiment will be dominated by social media gurumavenexperts. Even the people who are traditionally influential in social networks most likely won't be setting up a profile for themselves.
Quite a shame. Another false metric of Twitter “authority”. I guess there is still a gaping divide between true social media value and popularity.
hmmm I can kind of see where they were going, influence someone to click a link. But thats such a stupid test, and really has no merit. Influence is all about psychology, and getting people to your side of thinking not about having them make a 1-2 second decision to click a link only to hit the page, and not even read it. Thats not influence, thats subterfuge! Not only that but its your profile page that they generated, and any opportunity you had to design the page to perhaps pull them in was lost.
I thought I was the only one. I woke up to seeing one of my friends being apart of this and thought that there was something more. But as was mentioned in the article, it's about getting more people to click for you thus helping others that are also in your influential network to appear in the magazine. I'm not saying that this is bad but I wish it had been made a little more clear. I was left with a “now what”. It definitely could have gone in other directions if it had been thought out.
This is just a Mekanism campaign done to prove a point that they can make anything go “viral.”
Read this: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/145/repeat-…
Good read and I think they won their wager.
Amber, you know…you HAVE TO KNOW that you're one of my favorite bloggers on the face of the planet. Keep it real, girl. I love it. And I just happened to post this quote on my FB page today:
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” John Quincy Adams
You inspire by your actions. You teach naturally. You are in this group. Keep it up!
Is there a way to delete the profile after making one? Sorry if it has been mentioned. I didn't really see how the 'influencer' came into play but it was intriguing at first to play along with it….and then it was pointless immediately after! …strange.
Amber I'm sorry if you feel bait and switched by my tweet.
Please note that my tweet: “No surprise that I see a lot of you on Fast Companies Influencer Project” was not their recommended tweet “Fast Company is searching for 2010’s Most Influential Person Online. You are more influential than you think” Like you I was drawn in to the effort not knowing what it was exactly and not surprised when I saw the “usual suspects” with larger pictures (aka bigger heads) than the regular people. Next time I will append my sarcastic tweets with #sarcasm.
I owe you a hug at the next conference 🙂
Oh not at all! Totally don't blame you. Should have made that clear in my post. I was hoping for something on their part, and your tweet wasn't the root issue here, at all.
I'll take the hug anyway though. 🙂
Clicks for the sake of clicks. So sad we have devolved to this.
It's spam. And I spammed my users. Plain and simple. The way it was presented to me made me think it could be a valuable tool, so I signed up and sent out their spam. Of course once I saw what it did I shook my head. I really think this is a horrible way to try and track influence, despite desperate attempts to qualify what it is we do.
Sigh.
At the very least you should go to your Facebook application setting (if you use FB Connect) and remove the Fast Company app. I did, I didn't find a way to delete my profile after been “duped”.
When they first reached out to me to join as one of the seeders in the program, to be featured, I told the program manager that this was a high school popularity contest and I wouldn't be participating. I love Fast Company and I am disappointed that they have had to stoop to this level to get people talking about them. I will be writing more on this once I have time to breathe from other projects.
What does it mean that I didn't even know there was an American Tweethearts puff piece?
I am going to lose my membership in the Social Media Douchebag Society.
who are these well known people participating in the program?
Maybe this is a trick.
Fast Company will reveal that the real name of the article is “Shameless Self-Promoters of the Internet.”
well said.
score one for the critical thinkers and humans
Well said.
Quantifying influence in terms of – let's be blunt – who has the biggest ego, is sad.
The most influential person in my life doesn't even know how to spell influence. Her name is Ana Louisa and she is my 4 year old daughter.
As Blaise Pascal eloquently stated, “The least movement is of importance to all nature. The entire ocean is affected by a pebble.”
Thank you for pulling me back into perspective. I am ashamed of myself for jumping in and getting all caught up in the initial frenzy…I should know better by now. The most powerful influence need not be trumpeted to the world. Thanks again, Amber!
I was impressed with the shiny, fast-load, site. I totally fell for it as well. It was because I trusted the Fast Company brand without question. I totally agree with you on this post. I expected more from them. I had to apologize to my feed. More brand damage with this project than anything else now… because I will question fast company links from here on out.
Thank you for pulling me back into perspective! I am ashamed of myself for jumping in and getting all caught up in the initial frenzy…I should know better by now. The most powerful influence need not be trumpeted to the world. Thanks again, Amber!
Thank you for pulling me back into perspective! I am ashamed of myself for jumping in and getting all caught up in the initial frenzy…I should know better by now. The most powerful influence need not be trumpeted to the world. Thanks again, Amber!
High-five me, sister, because this post is spot-on. We can't let the conversation die: Influence can't be the end-goal. Count me in on the efforts to keep the discussion alive!
High-five me, sister, because this post is spot-on. We can't let the conversation die: Influence can't be the end-goal. Count me in on the efforts to keep the discussion alive!
You said it all for me. I saw it in someone else's stream and came *this* close to signing up. But there was this little pang in my stomach (and not the one that says, “you need a snack”) that required more information. After digging through the IP site and checking out some posts, yours included, I'm glad that I was not a social media lemming and resisted the urge to jump on board without the facts. Too bad Fast Company has turned to link baiting to determine influence. As you know, there is much more to it than that. By the way, I can get you 100,000 followers on Twitter, click here to find out how! (Tongue firmly in cheek.)
I can't agree more! I too was sorry I was entrapped to click. Isn't influence borne from engaging and sharing content? This ersatz “project” reeks of high school idiocy.
American Idol is about talent? Wait… just kidding. Low rent is a good way to describe it. And I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people like me that looked at it, hoped for the best, and were disappointed.
I wonder if they'll be paying attention to the conversation AROUND their experiment, and taking that into consideration. Bob says they will. I'll reserve judgment until I see it.
That's good advice, Aaron. With a respected brand like Fast Company, however, I think a lot of people trusted the intent, and thought that there might be something of substance on the other side.
That's what a lot of us were hoping, I think. It's too bad, really. It's obvious that they can capture attention for a moment. I'd love to see them channel that into something truly awesome.
Wouldn't THAT be awesome?
I think there always will be, Jon. We're wired for quantity over quantity. We just are. We do this again and again, in so many facets of our lives, it's disconcerting.
Subterfuge is a good word for what I'm feeling. And again, that's not influence. That's just attention-getting. Big, big difference.
I think it's bad. Popularity contests do nothing. Absolutely nothing. And if we keep confusing the business world by showing THIS as an example of what constitutes “influence”, we're going to find ourselves in a world full of crappy scams like this one for a very long time.
Chris, if they had to reach out to people to seed it, then they must already know who the influencers are. And THAT is the sad part of the game.
They may very well have won a wager, based on the lemming behavior of the large proportion of consumer behavior online. I'm taking issue with their use of the term “influence” to equate to popularity. And it smacks of arrogance and a ploy that requires the backs of their readers to prove out. Which, to me, is rather insulting.
Sadly, there were many of us who didn't have this post to draw upon, and felt the need to complete the process if only to see if there was a “there” there.
You didn't miss anything.
The Shorty Awards … ugh. They appeal to the same people trying to game Twitter to get more followers. I was appalled at people saying, “I'll nominate you if you'll nominate me” — and they had no prior relationship. Just Twitter newbies trying to gain influence the wrong way. This Fast Company situation is indeed disappointing.
You really nailed it. I had the same experience I received the link via email through someone I trusted. I respect Fast Company as a brand so I followed the instructions. I'm starting to get sick of SM in general because of the narcissism it breads. And I know at times I've been guilty of feeding into it. I just wish we'd all start putting some real purpose behind this stuff and using our influence to create meaningful change vs feeding our egos. Thanks for speaking up.
You're kind, Lindsay. Thanks for saying so. I happen to love that quote and am going to borrow that. 🙂
Not that I could find. I tried.
Or, if you read George's link above, clicks for the sake of proving the “might” of some interactive company with questionable aims.
The hardest part for me is that I don't mind being used or tapped to spread information if I find value in it, or purpose, or…something. I DO mind being mechanized when I feel like it was a dupe. And I feel like it was.
I didn't use oAuth or any other integration. Just signed up. Didn't connect it to apps, thankfully.
Interesting that they reached out to “influencers” to seed this project. But I'm glad that you stood up for what you thought, Chris. Good for you.
Thanks, Curtis. Some really great comments here, too, to add to the discussion.
Thanks. 🙂
And what disturbs me even more is that if they really ARE trying to simply prove virality of this on the back of all of us, we're just stooges, apparently.
My daughter's influence in my life is ALL that matters right now. Isn't that the very best? 🙂
Ah, shame is too much for something silly on the interwebs. 🙂 Frustrating, sure. Disappointed, yeah. But no shame spirals allowed.
High-five. *smack*
Hahaha, that is awesome.
I need a snack. Thanks for the reminder. 🙂
Kidding. I'm still wondering if FC has a point they're trying to prove here, or if they really just botched it this badly. Though at this point, proving something will make just about anyone involved feel like some sort of patsy. And that's no fun.
Exactly. Gives a whole new meaning to “pimping.”
It does, doesn't it? (And bonus point for the word ersatz.) It was tweaky to me from moment one, and I should have just walked away. But I kept hoping that THEY had something better, something bigger at the end of the road. Dammit. 🙂
We all want instant. Instant coffee, instant checkout, instant notoriety and fame. Even if FC is boiling up some stupid viral stunt, they're feeding into the same “gimme gimme now” crap that really chaps me about the internet world. That bar in the islands looks tempting some days. 🙂
There isn't much to be said that hasn't already been said in the comments. Great post and unfortunately another example of “the rich get richer”. This does nothing to help trustworthy people with smaller audiences.
I read about half of the comment discussion on this page, and I think it's very, very good. Amber, thanks for opening it up. After reading this I felt like I've been too naive about the whole thing. I NEVER partake in all the standard popularity contest-type stuff. Even when people ask if they can nominate and vote on the ItStartsWith.Us project for things like the Pepsi Refresh project, I decline . . . because I believe in the value of what we're doing as a team without attaching a lot of spammy marketing stuff to it. (Don't get me wrong, I like the RefreshEverything project – I just don't like the million “vote for me” requests I get. And now look, I've accidentally gone and done the same thing.)
On the other hand, I LOVE thinking about how we are all digitally connected, and when Fast Company came out with this, I immediately thought, “Oh, here's an organization I respect doing something with their brains and reach that could lead to some very cool insights into how all this stuff works.” So because I trusted the brand, I did the thing (and I told Danny Brown earlier that, even though I don't usually do stuff like this, I'll take a couple pot shots at it in the beginning and see how it goes).
I agree with most of you that it seems frivolous on the surface, and if this is all it is, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. But I'm also willing to give FC the benefit of the doubt for now and see where this all ends up. I think that breaking out the torches and pitchforks at this stage of the game is a tad premature.
p.s. The commenters are very right about one thing – I spent all of ten minutes last night (my entire budget for this FC project) mentioning this in a few places, and today I'm already seeing some things I don't like from friends of my project, talking about promoting my stuff through this. Not what I wanted . . . at least in that connotation. I've been ultra-careful about this kind of stuff for a year, and now I guess I just learned to be even more careful.
Thanks for the great dialog here. 🙂
Maybe the “names” did the same thing as Amber and clicked through because they thought it was a genuine attempt at trying to decipher how online connections work. Especially given the publication and the premise?
Not sure if the initial interest has anything to do with “values”, as Amber mentions, and more to do with curiosity to see if a well-respected publication could offer answers to something most folks are talking about every day.
Of course, you could always be straight up and advise of the “influence link”, and offer a normal link to the project instead. Takes way that pesky ego… 😉
I think that's the key separator here, Nate – Fast Company is such a respected publication, you assume they have something really cool and interesting planned. Perhaps they do; this is the first steps so maybe there's something we don't know about the project yet?
Taking it with a pinch of healthy salt until proven otherwise.
Influence is the ability to inspire action. Fast Company is measuring influence, but I think what's important to you is how someone uses their influence. I agree. What' sad is that The Influence Project isn't innovative. It's a snapshot of what already is. 8th grade all over again.
Thank for saying what so many of us were thinking. I was duped into clicking and felt dirty. You words helped wash away the grunge.
Oh and BTW – Amber just listening in on #influencer (in which I also participated) and smiled when I heard your contribution … spot on … just like this post. 🙂
What are the chances you're free next Tuesday between 10a – 11a Pacific to be a guest on a radio show to talk about this debacle?
Amber,
Thanks for writing this. I clicked on the links of three friends last night who had tweeted the Fast Company info. The first one I clicked, I landed on the Influence Project page and I wondered what they heck all that was about. Once I clicked the second and third to see if the info was the same, I felt a bit mislead. I would happily do anything for my Twitter connections, but to click on a link that looked like an article and then realize I was “voting” for someone felt a bit unethical.
I completely agree with you that influence cannot be measured by numbers alone. I know several people with respectable follower numbers, but little influence. Thanks for calling this what it is, yet another popularity contest. I, too, avoid the Shorty Awards for just that reason.
Once I graduated from high school, my days of voting for Prom Queen and Prom King ended. I have no desire to bring that mentality to my social media efforts.
Fast Company missed the mark on this one.
egad!
As a PR stunt to spread Fast Company's name it's a success. Beyond that, it's hard to even call it an experiment because it isn't proving anything besides the fact that curious people will participate. I received the DM and then an email and signed up thinking what you did Amber. It's a let down, mostly because it's reinforcing 2008 social media 101 perceptions about what influence is.
Ike, that is hysterical! I clicked about three times…that's about as good as your influence over me gets. I would have clicked a fourth time, but then I thought “nah, what's he done for me lately…” I kid, I kid… 😉
Amber, as I said to Brent Pohlman, it's a “who's popular” game (which is, like, *so* social media 2008! Okay, putting the Valley Girl away now.) 😉
That's how they got so many people of the early adopters to sign up. We all have a curiosity to see if something is the next big thing. I honestly don't think that those who signed up really wanted to determine how influential they are, or to even have their picture in Fast Company. I think it was more to see if there was a useful tool or experience that people could take away with them.
Nail on the head here, Amber. I'm opting out.
Nail on the head, Amber. I'm totally opting out myself.
Great post Amber, saw this last night and have kept seeing posts about it all day. After reading your post, I can help but think the “winner” of the contest may end up being a big loser and something no one wants to claim.
See my comment to Ike, below. My gut says that FC had honest intentions of running a cool experiment and did not seek to misuse the trust they've gained in the industry.
The problem is, their methodology is flawed. And, because we trust Fast Company and hold them to a certain like-minded standard, when they ask us for faith in something, we're likely to give it. But, in discovering that the exercise is flawed and knowing that individual reputations have been effected as a result of simply participating, people will end up feeling duped and angry.
It's too bad for Fast Company that they've burned quite a few reputation points amongst a certain crowd. Others, though, won't even notice that there's a problem and the perpetuation of hollow link baiting as a measure of influence will continue. To me, that's worst of all.
I'm wondering if Fast Company fell prey to the quick hit that so many other companies do in this space… “think about how many magazines we can sell with all of those faces on the cover.”
It's a dressed up version of that age old lame attempt at “engagement”… “RT this to win a free such and such.”
Don't sweat it, none of us would have expected that from Fast Company. WHY didn't they go with “WTF Man?”
Great assessment. But then have come to expect some spot-on thinking from you. Thanks.
Fun to check out the Mekanism pitch doc too.
I'm embarrassed. I clickedthrough to see what it was about. If I had seen the confirmation email BEFORE clicking, then I would've Ctrl+F4 (closed tab). I tend to ignore conversations around this because they spread the wrong message and influence meaningless actions/behavior.
I just want to have meaningful and intelligent conversations with y'all and get to know you and your stories (journey). If we end up helping each other out — that's a bonus (short-term destination).
Amber, I love what you've written here.
I was one of the, uhm, hand-picked “influencers” that Fast Company (Mekanism) reached out to for early notification of this project.
Call me naïve. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. Maybe I see what I want to see. But I thought this project was really, really cool. A chance for everyone and anyone to have their picture in the print and online versions of a respected magazine. I thought it was an *inclusive* project. I though it was similar to what Seth Godin has done with his inside jacket book covers.
It didn't occur to me there would be this mad frenzy of people vying for clicks on their own links. Yet, I fell right into the “trap,” so to speak. (I'm cool with my choices as I made them in good faith.)
It wasn't 'til a couple of fellow social media devotees poked a few holes in the initiative this morning after I'd already promoted the project. It was a d'oh moment: this could be likened to a human pyramid scheme?? Yikes!
Even as I read your post here, I'm reminded of times I've been added to lists describing influence whereby people are ranked depending on how good they are at SEO, frankly. And that just does not sit well with me at all. I never refer to those lists/rankings. They are not a true indicator of influence. So, yes, this Fast Company project is, in essence, similarly biased.
The concept (and interface!) certainly seem worthy on first pass. But, I must admit, in back of my mind I was thinking: You know, all it will take is for an Ashton Kutcher – or similar big celeb with monumental following – to promote the heck out of the Influence Project and voila he/she's the winner. And then that just doesn't prove anything.
In any case, thanks for shedding your perspective on this and I also appreciate the input of the other few folks who are seeing a different angle.
At the end of the day, I believe everyone has a degree of influence on the community around them, regardless of the size of that community. And we don't need a nifty new interface to tell us so.
Amber, I love what you've written here.
I was one of the, uhm, hand-picked “influencers” that Fast Company (Mekanism) reached out to for early notification of this project.
Call me naïve. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. Maybe I see what I want to see. But I thought this project was really, really cool. A chance for everyone and anyone to have their picture in the print and online versions of a respected magazine. I thought it was an *inclusive* project. I though it was similar to what Seth Godin has done with his inside jacket book covers.
It didn't occur to me there would be this mad frenzy of people vying for clicks on their own links. Yet, I fell right into the “trap,” so to speak. (I'm cool with my choices as I made them in good faith.)
It wasn't 'til a couple of fellow social media devotees poked a few holes in the initiative this morning after I'd already promoted the project. It was a d'oh moment: this could be likened to a human pyramid scheme?? Yikes!
Even as I read your post here, I'm reminded of times I've been added to lists describing influence whereby people are ranked depending on how good they are at SEO, frankly. And that just does not sit well with me at all. I never refer to those lists/rankings. They are not a true indicator of influence. So, yes, this Fast Company project is, in essence, similarly biased.
The concept (and interface!) certainly seem worthy on first pass. But, I must admit, in back of my mind I was thinking: You know, all it will take is for an Ashton Kutcher – or similar big celeb with monumental following – to promote the heck out of the Influence Project and voila he/she's the winner. And then that just doesn't prove anything.
In any case, thanks for shedding your perspective on this and I also appreciate the input of the other few folks who are seeing a different angle.
At the end of the day, I believe everyone has a degree of influence on the community around them, regardless of the size of that community. And we don't need a nifty new interface to tell us so.
I bit and sent mine out there. Because I'm a shameless egotist LOL. But if they seeded with handpicked influencers first, don't those people have a big advantage in the voting? I would think that screws it up.
IMHO this reminds me of what made zombie movies so great, because that is where I would go to watch this form of fawning influence “mashination”. I do think that it is important to raise a personal objection against any form of egocentric pedestal pushing fan creating celebrity dross kind of thinking because it goes to the heart of what personal brand should not be but sadly can easily deteriorate into.
There is always going to be room in this world for professionally minded brands that are the best in class and that deliver the underlying promise of a trust mark. Turning influence into a personality contest only makes the dilution of brand that much more of a social weakness, and this is where I have always had a thing about turning brand into trivialized or personalized conceptions rather than as an authentic reality.
I like separating process from people and over the years I have enjoyed seeing intelligent writers coming through Fast Company and doing their best and there has been good work. I don't much care for superficiality or faddish publicity, or whatever one deems to call any descent into superficial promotions, IMHO it takes away from the strengths that have always been there, which are the same strengths that people like Alan Webber brought to the magazine in the early days in the dotcom heyday. This is a process issue here not a people issue, and as I have said, the writers and the creative talent that has walked through their doors has been superb in comparison, to do justice to those writers don't descend into click pandering.
Groupthink is one of those things I don't care for and to treat influence this means we should take some care in rescuing what the word “influence” should mean. I would be appalled if groupthink becomes the low watermark of superficial influence. That kind of pop culture should have gone out with the 80's boy bands, but it continues to be pretty strong and I blame superficial branding the promotion of branding superficiality. Let's return the idea of “influence” to a higher standard and in turn it is time to rescue the diminishment of branding itself, so that branding represents the best of a trustmark or a promise rather than the worst of blind trust and fad promotion.
When I write this response, it is about my standards and not free consulting for a media organization or for the promotion of significance. I was reading “Power and Innocence” by Rollo May and it is amazing how much thought of great writers hasn't permeated its way into global consciousness and that we seem to fall into the rinse and repeat world of reacting rather than learning. I think it is important to recognize how complicit we can be in that which we may raise a voice against, and some of those behavioral things have not changed despite years since Rollo May made his observations about the human condition.
I think we are always going to be watching zombie movies, there is always going to be a place for “Shaun of the Dead”, we are all fully capable of engaging in superficial process. It is however important to recognize that superficiality, because it is in that recognition where we gain the win-win of understanding. What did I learn from this? If I don't know that, then I am merely a rubberneck participant. What I learned from this is that influence (the kind that Robert Cialdini describes) is the only kind of “influence” I want to focus on. (And I will).
[Em]
IMHO this reminds me of what made zombie movies so great, because that is where I would go to watch this form of fawning influence “mashination”. I do think that it is important to raise a personal objection against any form of egocentric pedestal pushing fan creating celebrity dross kind of thinking because it goes to the heart of what personal brand should not be but sadly can easily deteriorate into.
There is always going to be room in this world for professionally minded brands that are the best in class and that deliver the underlying promise of a trust mark. Turning influence into a personality contest only makes the dilution of brand that much more of a social weakness, and this is where I have always had a thing about turning brand into trivialized or personalized conceptions rather than as an authentic reality.
I like separating process from people and over the years I have enjoyed seeing intelligent writers coming through Fast Company and doing their best and there has been good work. I don't much care for superficiality or faddish publicity, or whatever one deems to call any descent into superficial promotions, IMHO it takes away from the strengths that have always been there, which are the same strengths that people like Alan Webber brought to the magazine in the early days in the dotcom heyday. This is a process issue here not a people issue, and as I have said, the writers and the creative talent that has walked through their doors has been superb in comparison, to do justice to those writers don't descend into click pandering.
Groupthink is one of those things I don't care for and to treat influence this means we should take some care in rescuing what the word “influence” should mean. I would be appalled if groupthink becomes the low watermark of superficial influence. That kind of pop culture should have gone out with the 80's boy bands, but it continues to be pretty strong and I blame superficial branding the promotion of branding superficiality. Let's return the idea of “influence” to a higher standard and in turn it is time to rescue the diminishment of branding itself, so that branding represents the best of a trustmark or a promise rather than the worst of blind trust and fad promotion.
When I write this response, it is about my standards and not free consulting for a media organization or for the promotion of significance. I was reading “Power and Innocence” by Rollo May and it is amazing how much thought of great writers hasn't permeated its way into global consciousness and that we seem to fall into the rinse and repeat world of reacting rather than learning. I think it is important to recognize how complicit we can be in that which we may raise a voice against, and some of those behavioral things have not changed despite years since Rollo May made his observations about the human condition.
I think we are always going to be watching zombie movies, there is always going to be a place for “Shaun of the Dead”, we are all fully capable of engaging in superficial process. It is however important to recognize that superficiality, because it is in that recognition where we gain the win-win of understanding. What did I learn from this? If I don't know that, then I am merely a rubberneck participant. What I learned from this is that influence (the kind that Robert Cialdini describes) is the only kind of “influence” I want to focus on. (And I will).
[Em]
Amber, you are spot on. I have to admit, it is a fun app they are running if for no other reason than to run into others out there on this massive map. I dont know you, however, I am now going to subscribe to what you have to say, cause I get your realness and respect it. Authenticity, transparency, honesty….
I have to admit, I was drawn into it too. I was getting around to reading your article and after I signed up I agree that I expected to see something more. I agree that the term “influence” may not be appropriate. Maybe the “Twitterfly Effect”? I was curious to see where my tweets go and how many people find them useful. Guess I'll have to find/develop it myself.
At least they make perfectly clear one prominent model of social media influence: influence as a Ponzi scheme. I'm with you, I much prefer people following me because I have something unique and interesting to say. Does this mean that there is an inverse proportion between creative content and mindless follow campaigns?
Thanks for talking about IMPACT Amber. I'm more commonly called a “power-user” (don't like that term) and love social media for the ability to connect with and create community (both online and offline). As far as I'm concerned we're still at the stage of norming the social media community (as if there is only one).
I want to create “real” demonstrable action in the communities I'm part of, whether that be donations to the food bank, surveys completed, people at events, dollars raised, connections made.
I respect the two people who posted about the Influence Project and like you, signed up and now wish I hadn't.
So – I'll go back to doing what I do best – working – hard!, towards the goals and outcomes that are important to me. It'll take more than a few random clicks….
@ambercadabra RE: @fastcompany's #influencerproject Were you able to opt out? And if so, did you?
This is such a great discussion – thank you for launching it, Amber. I was one of those people who got sucked in and even retweeted it. I wish I hadn't! I am not about a popularity contest. I am about authenticity, real connections and excellent content. Lesson learned. No more bright shiny objects for me!
THAT would be genius.
I've seen far too many fake gurus get press at Fast Company to take that part of their operation very seriously. That said, I was optimistic about the project at first glance.
I signed in and looked around, but didn't need to pass around my 'influence' link to see what it really was, and where it is going.
If it were only that easy to find out how we're all interconnected & influence each other 😉
Amber,
You nailed it completely. I was turned off by the lack of information and transparency with this clear “promotion.”. I can hear the back room discussions right now, “Just think what people will be willing to do to get their picture in our magazine (drool).” [emphasis added]
Didn't you hear it was all just a late april fools joke 🙂
Great article Amber! Your argument is sound and I agree with it to a sense. But I think the “project” itself is a project. Although some will use it for popularity, I think that's merely a result from the project. Think of this as a high school science experiment were you put something in the petri dish. In essence, the whole online world – and even offline communication – are the petri dish and the project itself is the element inside the dish. I think Fast Company is quite aware of what they're doing.
The real question here is do you want to be part of this science experience? The annoyance factor does exist. Along with the deception of the personal links being mistaken for actual links. I figure you can either enjoy this and have some fun or you can be opposed to it. What will be interesting is the results that will come out of this. Results that all of us – pro, against and neutral – will use, tweet and examine.
Quite frankly, there are a lot of sophisticated undertones here. Some that might not even be apparent to Fast Company themselves. Participating in this can't be any worse than Twitter, Facebook and all other social networking platforms that in themselves the post's argument can be applied to. So yes, I can see your point Amber. But, curiosity wants me to see where this will go.
The cynic in me thinks there's another possible goal for the project. To test how easy it is in the current web climate to “influence” people to take an essentially worthless action.
No, I'm not kidding – think about it. It's a great way to test the general web population's willingness to engage in an action that offers no up-front explanation for participating nor what, if any, “benefit” might accrue from the action.
What if the project's actual purpose is to test how willing we are to be sheep?
Paul
Amber, I am really sorry that it wasn't what you expected today. Just thought you might like to know that from a listener perspective, I heard a lot of great things. Some of them I have heard before, but to have 1 great tip after another, was really valuable for me. Insight, from those who are respected…there was some plugging of people's books, blogs, websites, etc. but I think that was ok too – kind of the price of a “free” webinar.
One of the things I heard at SME10 (from @natanyap) was that it isn't what you want to say, it's what people want/need to hear from you. I got that from you today. The thing you said that resonated with me was: “Online influence is organically grown over time. Give more than you get!” You did that today, just like you do every day since I started following you (and I suspect the days before I followed you, too- SALB). Just thought you might like to know.
So weird I hate the farm ville and mafia games on Facebook and the contests where you need to click on people's links in Twitter. Then I click on a link of someone that I admire and influences me. Luckily there are people out there that also influence me and make me think again (like Amber, Liz, Chris).
There is this part in me that get's enthusiastic too fast sometimes. This is probably one of those moments. This post actually makes me rethink the 2 Awards we are handing out on our Social Media Event. Is it about the Awards or the clicks? Mmm. We started it because we wanted to find the experts in their fields, the influencers. Or did it become a clicking game to get traffic to our site? And yes it generates traffic, but is the traffic valuable not so sure. Note, there is also a jury looking at all the nominees and vote for the winners.
This FC games is more Influence versus the abbility to promote the contest fast and good. It is like the old chain letter schemes, the ones that start the initiative end up getting the best deal.
Another thing, this action is not transparant at all. When you invite influencers (well respected people with lots of following) to promote your contest these people should reveal this. Have not seen that.
Thank you Amber for making me rethink, Ike for the joke and Chris for not participating.
Hey Chris, I got a total of three emails inviting me to participate via @SocialMedia411. When I saw the details in the final email this morning I realized this wasn't an experiment in influence, but (as Amber correctly points out) a popularity/persuasion contest. I'm embarrassed for Fast Company signed – it makes them look out of touch on the entire category.
Amber, I think you're confusing the “shortest marketing conference ever” with fast company's project. They unfortunately share a similar name. But I was very happy to be part of the conference along with some other great folks. Different project. 🙂
I am thinking that being called a whore large scale could be less-than-desirable attention. But I know many who thank any publicity is good publicity. They then can go on to say were named most influential by Fast Company, instead of most like to have a viral disease (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Yes, yes and yes. It is the ACTION step that counts. And good luck getting that without convincing people you have something they want/need. If you squander what influence you have getting people to click on something like the Fast Company article, with no value, than you reduce the possibility they will click again.
Picture Twitter babes in nothing but overcoats. More of a Playboy light IMHO.
I'm with Amber on this one: from you, sir, I would have expected nothing less. ; )
I'm STILL trying to get my private URL shortener, http://www.TP4.me to work…
Amy, I don't think influence is as simple as that. Inspiring action is part of it, sure. And motivating someone to click a link is a demonstration of some measure of influence, I suppose, at a really superficial level. But for all the work we're doing to try and communicate how intricate and nuanced (and contextual) influence is, I think this misses a key piece. By the “inspire action” logic alone, you can call an infomercial influential. What *I'm* positing is that influence has to also come with some measure of lasting impact, not just impulse.
I don't know that it's really all that filthy – I'm still thinking there was some kind of good intent here, or I hope so anyway. But you're clearly not alone in feeling let down and a bit puzzled at the whole thing.
Thanks, Cathy! Unfortunately I'm on the road next week. But thanks for the invitation!
I think if Fast Company had just called it what it was – a contest to get on the cover based on votes or something – I would have just tossed it aside and not paid much attention. But I guess I feel pretty passionately about the entire influencer discussion and what the true nature of influence is, and I felt like they were bastardizing a term just to get the attention of those desperate to be labeled as same. Maybe that was precisely their point. I dunno. But it just doesn't sit well with me.
Is it just me, or does the term “stunt” have negative connotations? As if it's a deliberate attempt to dupe the masses into something that almost makes them look silly for falling for it?
I wish I could find a way to pull my profile. Alas, not an option.
yeah, but here's the reality. If it's one of the online nerderati, there might be finger pointing. But we live in a small little fishbowl here in social media, and the rest of the world loves popularity contests. Look at the success of all the reality shows. I've taken issue with this, but I guarantee that there are hundreds if not thousands of people perfectly willing to be labeled as a top influencer based on how many clicks they could wheedle.
Real influence drives substantive outcomes defined by consensus, detraction, evolving the thought, whatever. These popularity contests continue to dilute what influence can truly evolve. I've done extensive work in peer influence mapping in the pharmaceutical world. These influencers earn their stripes with unfettered commitment to advancing academic and bench research, or measurably improving the lives of patients as practicing clinicians. In most cases their influence on next generation therapies or prescribing peers impacts quality of life decisions. The analogy here serves any industry well. Influence is earned through heavy lifting and commitment. Not the result of a clickapalooza.
HA! WTF Man. I'm quite sure that, like many things, it was at least in part a publicity stunt. Doesn't make me any more excited about how they've rather abused the idea of what constitutes influence.
Thanks, Steve. I'm wrong plenty, and FC could certainly still make me eat crow on this one. We'll find out.
It WAS worth a first pass, and there's no harm in having investigated. I did, too. I just can't help but think there were so many places they could have gone with this that would have highlighted influential people in specific industries based on their authority and credibility (not visibility), spread great ideas or content, raised awareness for startup companies or charities… I dunno. I'm just left wanting more, and wanting some intellectual ideas around what influence is. Maybe that's still coming and the November issue will surprise us all. I'm not holding my breath.
Interesting take on the transparency part. Anyone know if the “early” influencers disclosed that they were such?
We're a pretty superficial species. Taking a look at the stuff that's popular on TV, movies, books, and even YouTube bears that out pretty clearly. So I'm disappointed, but not surprised that thoughts like mine and others around the influence discussion aren't really going to make much of a dent in this.
It's a fun app, sure. But think of all the ways they could have used that app toward some kind of valuable end?
We're curious people, so we're drawn in by things we think might be interesting. I was intrigued at first, even thought it looked cool. My disappointment hit when they told me my goal was simply to pimp my personal link and get others to sign up.
That's interesting, Anne. Not sure. Creative and valuable content is subjective too, no?
Nope, wasn't able to, so didn't. I would have, though.
Shiny objects have their place, and I'm not vilifying anyone for participating or being curious, because that would be utterly hypocritical. I'm more left with a feeling of wanting more, and confused if FC really thinks that *this* is a measure of influential behavior. I'm going to be really interested in the other stuff Bob implied above that might round it out, but I'm skeptical at best.
I think that's what drew so many of us in. Influence IS a really fascinating topic. What's it comprised of? Who can inspire action, and how? How does that huge social map overlap and intersect? Trouble is, we're not going to get there this way, especially when gaming the system is so much a part of “winning”. The prize is almost what spoils the effort.
Man. The cynic in me is inclined to believe you're right. I'm trying really really really hard to reserve the rest of my judgment until November. But “turned off” is a good phrase for it. I just have a fundamental issue with the companies that will look at this from a publication that they trust to help guide their business, then we'll see all kinds of “influencer outreach” based on shoddy methodology like this. Even if FC comes up with substance later to surround this, I fear that many companies and individuals won't get past the “ah, I see, so to be influential online, I just need to get a lot of people to pimp my crap.”
Wouldn't that be rich? Well, if that's the case, I'll gladly eat crow when the time comes.
I don't mind the fun. I don't even mind the fundamental idea of having a contest based on votes (annoying to me, but fine for everyone else). What I object to is cladding a vote-getting scheme inside an inflated notion of “influence”. I'm curious too but, so far, not in a good way.
Clickapalooza. I like that one. And thanks for sharing your real world experience around influencer research. It's an area that fascinates me at its sociological roots, so perhaps that's why I take such issue with how it's being used in this context. Influence to me has existed long before the rise of social media and the web, but the online ease of information spread and “look at me!” syndrome online has really taken that idea and stripped out much of the substance. That's what I'm grinding at, I think.
I looked at the messages and email I received (one person) and I could not find it.
It is also weird that you can not delete your profile and/or change it. I have registered via Facebook and I am unable to add some informatie or change the photo.
It's almost insulting to a community… “they'll do it, I just KNOW they will!” *evil laughter*
I was totally sold on WTF Man. Apparently I'm a sucker for a poorly photoshopped picture of Zack Galifiniakas.
You nailed it Amber! Nice job!
Considering I read a fair number of “influential” blogs written both by people and organizations, and your post above is the first about this subject, it's worth commenting that neither Fast Company nor any of its “minions” have sought me out to participate. Now that I've read your thoughts, I know what I'll do if I get an email to respond.
Ego drives alot in social networking, FastCompany's influence project is leveraging the end users ego. But for how many eyeballs see it. I don't see the benefit for me or the use for my time or anyone's valuable time.
As you well know ego is an illusion and as a result the only influences or noises that will be made is for the benefit of Fast Company. Good for them! However, the end result is throwing a profile link about doesn't really get the essence of the individual and any contribution they may offer.
I see fast growing but faster burnout maybe worse off than the Wave. Certainly not as big but at least wave allowed you to author your contribution and the value of that was from you efforts.
Though, lets not forget, the Wave was ego hyped, too.. 🙂
It makes a difference in your life and that is important. There are people who state that they are going to change the world and yet don't even know their next door neighbor. The more we know our own voice, the less dents we need to make, for then the dent we then make is provident. If I look at change as our ripple then the collective overlap of ripples is crucial, not the zero sum of dents made in water.
[v.o.M.]
So, if the purpose of the click would have been to raise funds to cure cancer, would that have been a measure of influence? Do you think I would raise more money than Guy Kawasaki? Popular people inspire others. You clicked on the link and followed it blindly because you trust and respect Tac Anderson. Would you have clicked on the link if I sent it? That is what FC is measuring. The time that Tac has put in to making you trust him up until this point and his lingering influence over you to do something, anything. Could they have used their power for good over ego? Yes. You make a damn good suggestion. They could have used this as an opportunity to make a difference in people's lives. But just because this exercise isn't meaningful doesn't mean that they aren't measuring influence.
All I can add is that this is going to make a great discussion in my class on Social Media at NYU this fall. Hope I can get you to join via Skype (or in person if you'll be in NYC, Amber) and maybe get someone from FC or Mekanism. By October/Nov the issue will be put to bed and we'll see what really happened here.
OH, and Disclosure: I write for Inc, sister publication to Fast Company, but I have no “influence” on this or any other article in FC.
I signed up too (based on a heads up from a trusted source.
Now, I regret it. You're right. You can “game” the system. It's not real influence, it's ego and/or celebrity.
Apparently, they didn't read Seth Godin's post today.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/07…
I saw someone's tweet on it and checked it out. But there was no explanation of what it was trying to accomplish, so I didn't register.
Appreciate the response. This is one of those situations that will have multiple perceptions and personal answers. And one of those situations where we will unfortunately have to wait for their response to see what their perception was behind the whole idea.
Totally agree. I think we change the terms of the project to be about real influence. So, we connect, and create a project out of the connection that makes a difference, that is truly about influence. In essence use their platform for making a contribution. They have a blog, where some of this could be addressed.
Have been retweeting this and sharing it all over since you wrote it. I am pissed off we all have to have the “definition of influence vs ego” talk online yet again, truly. However, it is a proven fact that often folks will go for easy fame/money/etc and pseudo influence rather than real heft and connection. We've just got to keep fighting the good fight and trying to share what we know with folks.
Guess it was only a matter of time before someone worked up a MLM plan for ego boosting. I agree with your sentiment – I too, expect more from FastCompany.
but gives them a huge edge in getting people who might think it is ok…
The weird part is it doesn't even look like they are using it for lead generation for the site or magazine or business in general.
Nice pick Amber!
I guess clicking through is a matter of basic curiosity, beside… it is Fast Company, I wouldn't have expected them to miss the boat like this, not on this topic. More troublesome is how many others spread the link just because it had a nice ring to it you know!
I for one plan to link, spread, snail mail, morse code, print and staple, and YES fax this post to as many people as possible. This is a huge topic and the fact that a Company like Fast missed it, gives you and idea of how misunderstood and misused the concept of Influence still is in the Social space.
Thank you!
Why does everything have to be a “popularity contest”? To speak at a conference, you have to hammer your network for votes. To get listed in a magazine for the good work you're doing, you have to hammer your network for votes. To get a donation for your favorite cause, you have to hammer your network for votes.
I realize that those votes bring in eyeballs, which look good on a spreadsheet for advertisers, but they are having ripple effects beyond that. Currently, there is a lot of drama happening between two organizations I support. One is in line to win money from the latest Chase Giving program, but the “national foundation” is upset that it's not them. Even though they are way down on the list with no hopes of winning any money, they are guilt-tripping those voting for the other organization. The money is going to support research, but it's all a mess.
All some of this voting proves is that some people are willing to pimp out their networks to get ahead and some aren't.
Wow Amber, I'm wondering if your smart post isn't getting FC more notice than their virtual circus act. For me, Fast Company has stood for presenting innovation & new ideas. I too was drawn in by the promise of what is meant by “influence” in the digital world. It was a huge disappointment to find that the brand promise was not delivered.
Maybe they believe that bad PR is still PR. Any way you slice it,as you mention, it's lame and will leave many of to spread bad word of mouth for Fast Company.
Well said. I definitely thought this when I went to the site (not to mention I had terrible problems with even getting the site to load) and left it for dead. A big fail on Fast Company's part and one that I hope they didn't pay too much for!
Yeah, I'm not sure why they designed it that way. But I guess it doesn't matter much if I'm not putting my link out there.
Thanks, Jeff. Glad you enjoyed.
Sorry, Ari, not quite catching what you're getting at re: them not contacting you. They didn't contact me, either. Sounds like they had a predetermined list they reached out to, if you're referring to the “pre” coverage/outreach. Is that what you mean?
The other aspect that rubbed me wrong was that Fast Company provided a pre-written tweet for people to send. The templated verbiage made it sound as though I was clicking on an article. When I realized it wasn't, I felt misled. The whole thing left me feeling used.
So glad you've had success with this post. Fast Company needed to be called out.
We need to be objective enough to step back and look at how the rest of the world uses and measures success using these applications. You are telling me that Twitter IS NOT a big popularity contest? I have read a lot of qualitative comments about the value of twitter, social communication, etc. but I just can't buy that. It does not mean anything outside of the choir.
Right on as usual Amber. and thanks Molly for the link to the PDF, that was interesting. I'm afraid neither company is going to get what they wanted from this. I'm disappointed in a brand I trusted.
Why is this a failure again? We are all here discussing it, yea?
Wouldn't that mean that it's a success ( if penetration into the social sphere was the success metric, then its a win )?
Im not sure I get why people are upset about this ( unless they are H8TRZZ )
Clicking on shortened links went out of style about a year ago. I don't click on anything that doesn't directly indicate where I'm pointing my browser.
This isn't because of deliberate situations like this, but because that's exactly the format used when people's accounts are compromised and robots send links to everyone on their contact lists.
Hey Amber, I'm late to the party here and I've read Fast Company from the very first issues, back before the Internet, and I remember rolling my eyes when I saw this and thinking, really, this seems beneath them,
But (because I feel like being the lone voice of disagreement) one of the things that's lost from your post and some of comments here is that getting someone to decide to take an action is influence – even if it's clicking on a goofy link.
I'm not participating (partly because I fear I might fall short in my influence) but let's not be so quick to dismiss those that do as not having influence just because it's not what some define as such. Doing so is to be equally guilty of what's being charged here.
Getting people to click on a link is hard work, no matter the means and what people learn along the way in doing so will be valuable if only to themselves.
So, who's to say what constitutes influence – just don't spread the link or call it a best practice if you don't like, but nobody should claim to know what influence is and isn't and what the rules for wielding it are and are not. That's a relationship between two people and they are the only ones that get to decide.
I'm not really disagreeing with anything said here, only cautioning that the reaction is just as dangerous.
Sorry, the hashtag for the “shortest marketing conference ever” was #influencer so I was confused. Hmmm…maybe I'll stay that way LOL. I was really glad you were a part of that conference. It is always nice when people are participating that I have met IRL 🙂
Problem with reading your posts from my phone in my inbox – sometimes I forget to come *post* the comment.
But since it's just a “Hell yeah! What she said!” comment, I probably could've skipped it. Still. Hell yeah!! What she said!!
THIS actually made me Laugh Out Loud. And reply to let you know THAT was funny ;-)))
Anyone who took this seriously should be banned from the internet.
Anyone who took this seriously should be banned from the internet.
'Gaming the system' is reality for just about everything, but the problem is not in the gaming. The problem is in the (over) value we put on the metrics.
Some use science/math to explain social interaction using retweets and clicks as variables, but we're far more unpredictable and emotionally-driven than we'd like to admit.
Ducttape John makes a good point here: http://www.brasstackthinking.com/2010/07/how-fa…
Influence both online and off can be a bit of a joke. Last year BP was one of the most influencial firms on the planet. Today it's executive board perhaps could get an entry job with Al Quieda. Same with Enron, MCI and the list goes on. The people who influence me are not online, they are in my life. The people I influence are usually the same ones who influence me (real life). Social networking is interesting fun, stressful, competitive, silly, high-schoolish, a learning experience, and much more, but mainly it is a place where I share what I do and find others of similar interests doing the same.
Nice post. This post is different from what I read on most blog. And it have so many valuable things to learn. Thank you for your sharing!
Agree wholeheartedly. This whole project is a joke. With no punchline!
Reading the Mekanism brief makes it seem a bit more coherent but still a lame stunt. Wish they'd have stuck with the idea to have the message read, “I'm going to be on the cover of Fast Company.” Positioned that way, there'd be less of a let down following the click.
So AMber, you were influenced by Tac Anderson to click on a link, even sign up. Certainly it would have been more fulfilling or valuable had the exercise been attached to some great fount of information or a charity, but the fact is that Tac influenced you, for better or for worse. He asked you to do something, and you did it. That's called “influence”. Did FastCompany use the egos of the social media savvy to influence them to spread this, absolutely. As you said, “Influence can be quiet, understated, and wielded with grace”, but you're a fool if you don't think influence can be asinine, aggressive, goofy, loud, obnoxious., redundant, derivative, etc.
Look at TV commercials that target kids: they're loud, flashy, and sell the idea of fun or cool to kids that can't afford to buy their stuff but will get those kids to beg their parents to buy it. It may be distasteful but it's still influence.
If you think that influence isn't tied to popularity, you need to think again. Who has more influence in politics, the candidate with the most votes or the candidate with the least? Who has more influence on Twitter, the user with the most Followers or the fewest. According to Dictionary.com “influence” is:
“the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others”
The person with the most influence would be the person with the most capacity to effect behavior (clicking on a link for example) through the force of their message and the amount of people they can effect.
The biggest problem I see is that this exercise is clearly targeting social media folks who never accept the actual definition of terms like “influence”, “marketing”, “promotion” and who like to think that because they are involved professionally in social media for their companies, clients. or themselves that they are somehow better than professionals that write copy for print ads, design web sites, direct TV spots, or design cereal boxes.
Everyone of those, including those leveraging social media for pay are involved in the process of using their skills and expertise to influence consumers to buy something. It's becoming really annoying to see “social media strategists” elevating themselves above traditional advertisers. Talk about ego!
Couple of notes here. I don't disagree with your definition of influence, in fact I just wrote an article on that referencing this blog post which essentially stated just that, and then led to a long discussion with Amber. In the end, it's clear that what Amber was trying to get across is what she'd like influence to be, not what it is explicitly defined as.
In that vein, I couldn't agree more that there are deeper, more meaningful types of influence that are rarely measured effectively. Is it idealistic to suggest that we, as a species, should place more value on quality vs. quantity? I suppose, but then again if we only accept something “as the way it is” instead of pushing to make something better what change could we ever hope to affect?
But mostly, I'd like to say that someone who obviously has a strong point of view like yourself and has valid points to make, may want to consider not wrapping those points in such vitriolic spewage that it makes it difficult to want to listen to what you're trying to say.
Hi Amber!
I'm wondering if this isn't as simple as folks mistaking the verb for the noun. In a society conditioned to act without thinking, it isn't all that surprising to see confusion between action and perceived result. Influence and being influential are not the same thing. So refreshing to browse your post and the comments raised and see that people get that!
Okay, that would be scary. I see what you mean.
Your post made me think about how marketers mis/use advertising. You can buy fame. You can be famous for absolutely ridiculous things (helloooo reality television). But, as you say, influence is quieter, more graceful. There is a sophistication to influence. Influence is not equal to bull-in-a-china-shop (a.k.a. flash ads with dancing people). Influence takes patience, and wisdom. Most of all, it takes self-awareness. It is no wonder people get it wrong all the time.
Matt, I wasn't offering “vitriolic spewage” but thanks for the insult. Was it vitriolic to assert that it is foolish to think that influence is ONLY subtle? Amber clearly states: “Influence is NOT jumping up and down, begging for people to click on stuff”. Well, I'm sure any of us can offer hundreds if not thousands of examples where influence has been exactly that. Some may argue that Madonna has been one of the greatest fashion, music, dance, and video influencers of all time. Did she do it with quiet, understated grace? No, she did it by wearing a sleazy bridal gown and writhing around on the stage.
My point is that so many people involved in social media, are trying to elevate what they do by changing the very definitions of what they're doing so they can feel better about themselves. Anyone NOT working for a non-profit that is involved in marketing, promotions, pr, design, social media, is using their expertise to influence others to buy. it may be to buy into brand awareness, or to buy a warranty, but it all boils down to driving sales. In the same context, the power of your influence is directly related to how and how many you can influence. The “how” may have to do with your personality or perceived value (as was the case in the interaction between Amber and Tac) and the “how many” has to do with popularity. Would anyone argue that Chris Brogan has more influence in social media circles than I do? Part of that has to do with value, no doubt, but a major part has to do with his popularity (142 thousand to my 3 thousand followers). Why is Mark Zuckerberg a more sought after speaker than Jonathan Abrams or Cris Emmanuel. Could it be that Facebook is more popular and therefore more influential than Friendster?
All that being said, I agree that we should continue to strive toward an ideal and should be placing more value on quality than quantity. I also agree that we should NOT accept things the way they are. However, I do believe we should be honest in our evaluation of they way things are in order to find ways to improve them. Simply denying the facts about what is offers no way to evolve.
Yes, when you use language such as “foolish”, “you're a fool”, “you need to think again”, “social media folks who never accept”, “who like to think that..”, “think that they are somehow better than”, etc. that is vitriolic. For someone who has such a grasp of the definition of the word “influence” you appear to not understand vitriol.
I'm all for a rant, god knows I give plenty of them. My point was simply that I agree with virtually everything you said about influence yet came away wanting to not like you for needlessly attacking the author and commenters at a level I think uncalled for. When you generalize to such a degree you catch a whole lot of folks in your net, myself included. Many of us are those “fools” you are referencing. If your objective was to incite emotion, then kudos, well done. If it was to convince and “influence” others through a solid point, then I found the rest unnecessary and distracting. Just my opinion, take it or leave it.
My take was that Amber, and I as well, was disappointed that this “project” didn't rise above the simplest form of influence. It's the “hey, do me a favor” version of influence, and that doesn't seem to need a “project,” and certainly not one branded with FastCo's name. We get that some people are more popular than others. We got that in kindergarten. We want to know what FastCo can teach us about influence that we don't know already. So far this is an opportunity missed, and we that are only popular in context are left once again knowing our place in the world versus movie stars and basketball players. Our hopes that some forms of influence demonstrably create more value for everyone will continue to be simple hopes until someone can prove otherwise.
Hey Erno – I sent a broadcast the night Fast Company messaged me to say the project was live. As I commented above, I acted in complete good faith. It just didn't occur to me that the FC initiative would be about ego, pimping links, etc. It saddened me to hear this perspective the next morning. If the project had been about *one* person getting their picture in the magazine, I would've viewed it differently. It would be more self-serving for sure. But the idea that everyone would be represented in the magazine felt to me more inclusive. And in today's social world we are all about the face/avatar so I saw this as a great opportunity for everyone to create more visibility for themselves. If I were to rewrite my email, I could certainly make it more clear how the link-clicking system works… and give my subscribers the option to click on mine or click the raw link to the project. 😉
I can see that Mary (good faith), you had so much influence on me that I registered 🙂 or was it my ego that wants to be pictured in FC? I did the same thing, spread my link in good faith. Reading Amber's post made me realize that there is another angle to this story. I have learned a great deal from this post and the replies.
Looking back at the invitations that were in my inbox for this contest I could not find a disclosure that these people were hand picked by FC to promote this contest. It also puts these influencers at the top of the chain letter. And I know whom has the most ROI of a chain letter.
Weird thing is also that there is no way to correct it, to change your profile or remove it.
Did you see this post http://www.briansolis.com/2010/07/the-problem-w… by Damien Basil?
I feel so insecure now. Knowing already that I don't have enough 'influence' to be visible in that issue of FC… Was I influenced by this part 'You are more influential than you think.' probably. I already know that you influence a lot of people and me, so do Chris Heuer, Liz Strauss, Amber and others. And I am happy to share the knowledge of the people that influence me with some more people.
Hi John, agree it is influence when people click a link and register. I was influenced by the person that send me a link and made me click. It also has to do with trust and ego. I trust the person that sent me the link and after reading the invite I clicked it. My ego made me believe I could be in that FC issue, clearly I wasn't thinking 🙂
So we could also measure Trust with this sort of contest? Or measure Ego?
Hi Amber –
Now that we are a couple of days out, would you care to post an update comment? Other posts in other places were very harsh using headlines like “Incredibly Stupid” (Estaban Kolsky) and “Pyramid Scheme” (TechCrunch) for what turns out to be, when you read Mark's further comments and a poorly designed experiment to answer some really interesting questions. Given all of the vitriol spewed out in other places, are smart people going to be less inclined to put forth experiments to probe this idea of what is an Influencer and how valuable are they? These are just a couple of interesting questions that Fast Company seemed to be exploring with their hackneyed attempt.
As someone who has been working with Influencers for that last ten years, I think Fast Company asked great questions. Let's not all beat the crap out of them just because their first attempt to answer their questions sucked. Experiments are about trial and error not trial and anger.
Thanks,
Ted Wright
http://www.fizzcorp.com
You guys all play into Fast Company's linkbait – they win this round 🙂
Hi Amber, Thanks so much for making this point which so many are trying to get across with blogs on the limits to value of mass followers on Twitter, for example. I'd guess FC was influenced by seeing Huffington Post's similar attempt to drive user engagement — all in all, a creative 'marketing' effort, but you're so right, no exercise in real influence.
I still think it's a neat way to keep track who's really listening to you (and actually click on your links) and act on what you just said.
exactly.
Hi Amber.
Late to the party, as usual. (^:=
Agree with your position, and I'm afraid I totally got reeled in in the same manner.
From a measurement perspective, this type of thing always fascinates me: popularity vs. influence. I had a tweet exchange with Guy Kawasaki about this over a year and a half ago (http://j.mp/d1Z2dc) and really, it's not too meaningful.
I'll buy the print issue of this Fast Company anyway, just to find out what the heck they were thinking.
John
I'm also late to the party but interestingly enough I wish I'd read your blog post today before trying it out thanks to a friend who suggested it. Like everyone below I too expected much more from it, I really wanted to know who was in my community and sphere of influence that I could reach out to and form a valuable connection with.
They had a lot of potential to do something great here. This is not about a popularity contest.
When I received a note from someone about the Influence Project, I at first took a look and tried to weigh it's potential worth. As a co-founder and Exec Dir of a non-profit, I know the importance of spreading the word around and getting your work known but I confess that I've grown to hate all these popularity contests which quite frankly take me away from what I set out to do more than 3-years ago…provide quality, inclusive services to kids and teens with special needs. The contests that involve receiving funding irritate me even more because they don't necessarily weigh the real worth of the program rather the amount of people you can get to vote for you.
Hi Natalie,
I agree – they did have a lot of potential to do something great. But maybe they have. What if WE thought of The Influence Project as a platform?
It is a limited platform for expression, but it is something that I think could be affected externally.
This is an experiment – but it seems those that aren't happy are disengaging from the experiment – what if they engaged in a different way? Could they make it mean something?
More on my thoughts: http://onlinefriendly.biz/social-media/influenc…
I definitely see your point and the definition of “influence” is grey area with this project… obviously, EVERYONE has their own opinion on things and I'm not saying any one is wrong. However, from my experience (yes I created a profile at the beggining of this thing) I feel it's all in the way you look at it. It's actually been a fun way to get know people and see what they do!
For instance, if I saw a pic that caught my eye, I would click on it, read their profile and visit their website. Some of them I even subscribed their newsletters or blogs.
I totally agree that it's turned more into a “popularity” contest as I see thousands of profiles of little teens, no bio's and quote/unquote “average Joe's”, but that's kind of what comes to anything along these lines. Everyone wants their 15 mins of fame and they think this might be it. Sad it came to this, but I'm still kind of intrigued as to what Fast Company is going to do at the end of this project!
Great article. I learn it from Mitch Joel about influence, now I learn it from you as well. Thanks Amber.