The best-selling books The Influentials and The Tipping Point have contributed to the development of the "Theory of Influentials" which dictates that there are select individuals that posses certain characteristics, skills, or personalities, making them innovative trendsetters who have tremendous influence over others; Win over the "influentials" and you win over the world. When you read the text, the theory makes sense, and advertisers spend millions of dollars a year trying to reach these highly-connected individuals, but the theory is not without its detractors.
Recent research by both Harris Interactive and network-theory scientist, Duncan Watts, suggest that word-of-mouth marketing and trends don't originate from special individuals. But this could be because the average individual is much more connected than they were even just 5 years ago. With the advent of Web 2.0, and the proliferation of user generated content, practically anyone with a computer can gain expertise in any field and network with like-minded peers.
The case may be that the Theory of Influentials isn't invalid, but that the social dynamics have changed.
The views of Harris Interactive and Watts do share a common thread: the degree to which trends/messages spread is determined more by the circumstances in which they are shared, not by who shares them. Communication has to be shared in an emotionally engaging manner, in the right context, to others who are already primed to be receptive to the message. This means that anyone can function as an "influential" when interacting with their like-minded peers online or elsewhere.
Successful personalized, multi-channel marketing campaigns leverage this concept; personalization contributes to the relevance and personal significance of the communication and the multi-channel elements play off of each other, priming the customer to receive a direct mail piece with an email, or vice versa, for example. The principle also contributes to why social networks are so valuable. People visit particular social networks already in a primed mindset, looking to learn or share information about a particular subject with their peers.
One argument made by Harris interactive is that people aren’t likely to be universal influentials, but that they each have expertise in certain subjects, so that a person's level of influence isn't absolute. Social networks mitigate this variation, however, by creating a forum where the focus generally revolves around a particular topic or theme. With so many data-rich interactions happening online, this is where innovative marketing technology solutions play a major role and will continue to do so in the future.
The future of marketing technology needs to be able to capture and integrate Web 2.0’s wealth of social network data. Watts attests that there aren't particular individuals who function as absolute influentials, but that often trends originate from "accidental influentials" that happen to be at the right place at the right time. Nevertheless, it still makes sense for marketers with access to social networks to take notice of who their most active brand advocates are. Chances are that they have a broader reach so even if they themselves aren’t the catalyst for a particular trend, their message may reach that right person at the right time.
More on this topic later for companies that want to leverage social network theory, but don’t have a social network platform:
- who to target
- why to target these particular individuals
- best and worst industries in which to leverage social network marketing
