• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
womma
ordofMouthMarketingAssociation
MEASURING
WORDOF
MOUTH
{a*rsffi*Y*Tmq*?##trxffiesemr{hnd $Vteas*.f;refiffi*mtf
W*rd*ffu?*sx*hfimrke*xrreg
Edited y:Walter .Carl, hDDepartmentf CommunicationtudiesNortheasternniversity
\r1r:t11y111,i
[],lzaarvoileLllGlese,ir.lrL:)zzAc,lentL-oLt-r-i';i,t.r t-iit ,
''lllrll'"'l'
Dot;bieClic,l..(rcrlinl'"1,rrti:
l<-;5ti51i-';1,
lntorrnatirrtrlackMiortor,,VorlciwidcJol.r -ir,rpki,s n \ronit,,,Kttlleriay.i,0rrlrN4atr-hsic-1.ri',1eiserLluzzit4etic:, Nortlrtasttr1.rri';etrsitv!rnrnion-..Varket i:searchlrire,rr-rltonr:s'PlrclesIN5MerJranteliiqenre/(m1cri;,LJrlrra
t/altL,'i.ri
Wqv$u*nrynm,&u*turrln{}ffi"f$ffi's
 
Qwomma
ord of MouthMarketing Association
ChallengingheInfluentialsHypothesis
Duncan.Watts,ColumbiaUniversityAbstract
Whetherheyarealledopinioneaders"KatzndLazarsfeld955;azarsfeld,erelsonndGaudet1968),influentials"Merton1968;Weimann994;Keller ndBerry003),influencers"Ran2004),e-fluentials"Burson-Marsteller0Oi),hubs"Rosen2000),mavens"GladwellO0O)orbysomethername,hedeahata small umberfspecial"individualsavenmportantffect n heopinions,beliefs,nd onsumptionabitsfa arge umberof"ordinary"ndividualsasecomeonventionalwisdomnheword-of-moutharketingommunity.Inhisaperchallengehis dea, hichabelhe"influentialsypothesis"oth nerms fheavailableempiricalvidence,ndalson ermsftsheoreticalunderpinnings,ndarguehat t hasever eenadequatelyemonstrated,revenreciselypecified.Ialsoiscussowbiasesnherento
Measuring ordofMouth,Volume
 
MeasuringWordof Mouth
anecdotal vidence aveenabled he hypothesiso remainopularn spiteof itsserious hortcomings,nd ar-guehatnfluentialsdentified etrospectivelyreaccidentalroductsf circumstancehatareunlikely orepeat.Finally,conclude y sketchingut somealternativepproachesoaccommodatingnfluencerocessesnmar-ketingcampaigns.
Introduction
Since hepublicationf KatzandLazarsfeld'seminalwork,Personalnfluence 1955),he studyofwhat theycalled pinioneaders-orinfluentialss hey havelsobecome nownMerton1968)-hasoccupiednmpor-tantplacenheiteraturesf the diffusionfnnovationsColeman,atz nd Menzel 966; ogers995;alente1995; urt1999), ommunicationsesearchWeimann994), nd marketing cienceMyersndRobertson 972;Chan nd Misra1990;oulter, eicknd Price 002; ernette004; anden Bulte ndJoshi 007).More ecently, the dea hat nfluentialslayan ndispensableolen word-of-mouthmarketingasbecome onventional is-dom in the marketingommunityaswell.Gladwell2000),or example,laimshat"socialpidemics" redriven"byhe effortsof a handfulof exceptionaleople,"andKellernd Berry2003)laimhat"Onen en Americanstellsheother nine howto vote,where oeat,and what o buy."Theyconclude,n fact,hat"Fewmportanttrends eachhemainstreamwithoutpassinghroughhe Influentialsn the earlystages, nd helnfluentialscanstopa would-betrendnitstracks"Kelleranderry,2003,p21-22);ndhe market-researchirmBurson-Marsteller oncurs, laiminghat"Thear-reachingffectof thispowerfulgroupofmenandwomencanmakeor breaka brand,marshal rdissolve upport or businessndconsumerssues,ndprovidensightntoeventsashey unfold"Burson-Marsteller001).ll one needs odo,tseems,sofindhesendividualsnd nfluencethem. Asaresult,lnfluencersavebecome heholygrail'foroday'smarketers."Rand004).Unfortunately, sPeterDoddsandsuggestedn a recentaperWattsndDodds2007),hegrailanalogymaybe more apt than most marketerswould like o think.We argued, n fact, hat what we callhe"lnfluentialsHypothesis"-thata smallminorityofspecialndividuals ieldsisproportionatenfluence verhemajority-isnotsupportedby systematicmpirical vidence. or does t follow rom acceptedheoriesfnterpersonaln-fluenceor the diffusionofinnovations.urthermore, ith heuseof simulationmodels, e demonstratedhat undermany circumstancesnfluentialsere ikelyohaveatmosta modest mpactonpublicopinionhange,relativeo ordinaryndividuals.Whennfluencer nformationspropagatediaword-of-mouth,econcluded,most ofwhatdifferentiatesuccessfulromunsuccessful iffusion,s relatedothestructuralropertiesf theword-of-mouthnetworkasawhole,nothepropertiesf asmallumberofspecialndividuals.Subsequently,riticshavesuggested hat our analysis ttacksstrawman(Creamer007)-acontrived er-sionof the influentials ypothesishat nobodyactually elieves.norder o addresshisconcern,willrestateourargumentandshow how, ar rombeingastrawman,ourproposedmodelof influenceropagationerelyformalizes ariouslaims hatadvocates fthenfluentialsypothesisavealreadymade nformally. heprob-lem, will argue, s notthat our analysisisinterpretshe ntended laimsf thehypothesis,uthat heclaimsthemselves rebased n acombination f unstated ssumptions,mbiguous nalogies,ndbiased amplingfevidencehattogetheryieldhe appearancefexplanatoryowerwithoutactuallyxplaining nythingt all.Once his mplicit heory s madeexplicit,t becomeslear hat henfluentialsypothesis-howeverlausibletsounds-does not necessarily,r even ypically,ollow romheheoriesf diffusionponwhich t simplicitly)based.
What s the"lnfluentialsHypothesis"?
WhatDoddsandIcalled heinfluentialsypothesisomprisesot one,buttwofundamentallaims boutnterpersonalnfluence:irst,hatsomepeoplearemorenfluentialhanothers;ndsecond,hatheseameeopleare mportant,not onlybecausehey nfluencemoreof theirpeersirectly, ut alsobecauseheyexert dis-proportionately reatndirectnfluence n the mucharger ommunity f whichboth heyand heirmmediateinfluenceesreapart.Gladwell2000,p.19-21),orexample. tarts utbyclaiminghat"...whate areeallysayingshatin agivenprocessr system omepeoplemattermore han others.." Acknowledging,owever,thatthis claim-the firstclaimof theinfluentialsypothesis-isnot,onthefaceoft,aparticularlyadical o-tion"hethengoesoclaimhat"Whent comes o epidemics,hough,hisdisproportionalityecomesven2Q2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...