ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson

Influence: The Power to Change The topic of influence is not new. Theories and ideas of power, influence, and persuasion have occupied great minds for centuries. It is the stuff of government politics and commerce, of business acumen and self-help psychology, even of history and legends. The question remains: what is influence? This paper will endeavor to examine influence as it pertains to today‟s age of technological innovation and online information commerce. Once defined, it will assess the import and correlation which influence has in the post-modern world of social networks, usergenerated content, and permission marketing. Finally, it will examine the process by which influence spreads information or entertainment via new media, and the impact this has on the bottom-line of the consumer purchase funnel. Dictionary.com defines influence generally as “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 Merriam-Webster Dictionary similarly defines influence as “the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command”. Persuasion, in contrast, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action.” So both terms are related as powerful agents of change, but influence is typically indirect whereas persuasion is direct and intentional. In terms of use within marketing and communications, however, influence and persuasion power are often used synonomously. One‟s personal power of influence is viewed as the weight or force by which they are able to be an agent of change, whether that is by reputation or title, indirectly or directly. Bruins 1999 introductory work on “Social Power and Influence Tactics” credits the authors French and Raven (1959) with a simple and classic definition of influence from the field

Page 1 of 24

ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson

of sociology : a force one person (the agent) exerts on someone else (the target), to induce a change in that target. The change could be behavioral or it could be underlying opinions, attitudes, goals, needs, or values (Bruins, 1999). Bruins goes on to define eight basic influence tactics which might be employed by the agent to change the target: assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange, upward appeal, blocking, and coalitions. He also enumerates five variables that affect the relationship between agent and target: uncertainty reduction, expected opposition, desire to be liked, assertion of group membership, and cognitive consistency. Cialdini (1984), a social psychologist by trade, defined six categories of influence based on fundamental psychological principles of human behavior: consistency, reciprocation, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity. He noted that in our extraordinarily complicated modern environment we must use devices such as stereotypes, shortcuts, and associations in order to manage all the stimuli around us. “We can‟t be expected to recognize and analyze all the aspects in each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one day. We haven‟t the time, energy, or capacity for it. As the stimuli saturating our lives continue to grow more intricate and variable, we will have to depend increasingly on our shortcuts to handle them all” (Cialdini). It is precisely these shortcuts of associations and networks through which we are influenced. Walter Carl contended that the basic function of communication is to order one‟s world and seek confirmation of one‟s viewpoint. “Conversations are everyday negotiations of this sense-making process and to the extent people shift the discourse, or engage in efforts to reaffirm a certain discourse, we can say influence has occurred” (Bentwood, 2008).

Page 2 of 24

was arguably the first user-generated content phenomenon of the internet. Social media are simply the newest mechanism by which we filter and organize the glut of information available to us.com. based on calculations including a site‟s linking behavior. garden clubs. Technorati. blogger. Two-thirds of active bloggers are male.5 million of them active. Therefore. and on average one in three has an annual household income over $75. athletic clubs.000 pieces of content every day.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Qualman (2009) observes that “we have shifted from a world where the information and news was held by a few and distributed to millions. number of unique visitors.000.com reports that approximately 175. An estimated 184 million bloggers create 570. men‟s clubs. Through various user-friendly platforms such as wordpress. It is just that technology has enabled us to go to a whole new level with our networks”. to a world where the information is held by millions and distributed to a few (niche markets)”. gatherings around office watercoolers). with 7. the leading metrics of success used are personal satisfaction.com continually ranks blogs and assigns a “Technorati Authority” number on a scale of 0-1000. There are currently an estimated 120 million blogs. Sites are ranked according to Technorati Authority compared with all other blog sites. 75% of active bloggers hold a college degree. Networks and Filters: Social Media Participation The web log. and a majority (60%) between the ages of 18 and 44. reaching about 70% of the web‟s daily audience. or blog.com. and other associated data. they are also the newest carriers of influence. categorization.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Higher authority bloggers are more prolific content creators.com. He also notes “the roots of social media and the social graph come from an offline world (of book clubs. Among bloggers.000 blogs are created daily. Technorati. and number of posts or comments (Technorati). anyone can be their own publisher. Page 3 of 24 . and typepad. posting nearly 300 times more content than lower ranked bloggers.

The average Twitter user has 27 followers.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson and a running list of the Top 100 blogs (across all categories) is published on their website. Facebook. Roughly 70% of Facebook users reside outside of the United States.com statistics page reports over 400 million active users. The top blogs are also listed topically. in nine major categories and 31 sub-categories. Facebook is the leading platform for social networking worldwide. and creates 70 pieces of personal content each month.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Furthermore.5 billion photos uploaded to Facebook each month. and people that access Facebook on their mobile devices are twice as active as non-mobile users. nearly 80% of registered Twitter users have sent less than 10 tweets. there are currently more than 100 million active mobile Facebook users. Nearly 6 million users join Twitter each month. groups. is connected to 60 pages. A large number of registered Twitter accounts are inactive. In addition. Approximately 57% of Twitter users reside in the United States. there are approximately 2. The average Facebook user has 130 friends. with 50% logging in on any given day. those that do return tweet so much that it makes up for all the inactive Page 4 of 24 . Just over 17% of all Twitter users sent a tweet in December 2009. In addition. an all-time low. In comparison. See Appendix #1 for Technorati topical directory. Twitter reportedly ended 2009 with just over 75 million users worldwide. with nearly one-third of all accounts having joined within the last four months. with about 25% of accounts having no followers and about 40% of accounts never having sent a single tweet. or events. Currently. and more than 70 language translations are currently available on the Facebook website. However. despite the fact that only 20% of Twitter users return to tweet in their second month after registration.

Other common sites and platforms include YouTube for video content. or lead as they see fit. People are free to consume available information and observe within their social network(s). Blogsites. recognition. and participation. Flickr for photos. actively contribute and participate.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson accounts. 56% of adult sharers and nearly two-thirds of youth sharers send information weekly (Bernoff). Bernoff (2009 Forrester report) found that “two-thirds of teens and tweens and more than half of online adults send information back and forth at least once per month”. and Twitter are far from the only options available.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Facebook. Safko (2009) cites reciprocity. there is a high amount of loyalty and engagement on the platform from the small percentage of active Twitter users (RJ Metrics data). Interestingly.com) predicts “people use social networking tools to figure out who they can trust and rely on for decision making. the factors that motivate people to participate in social media stem from the same basic human behavior patterns that Cialdini references regarding influence. Each of these networks and platforms offers differing levels of information. interaction. That is. This is a logical conclusion. and many more. So. given that the purpose of online Page 5 of 24 . Craig Newmark (of Craiglist. Amerasinghe (2010) summarizes both intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) motivators to participation in a concise model (see Appendix exhibit #2). the online user-generated encyclopedic resource Wikipedia. and social liking in particular as contributing factors. By the end of this decade. The amount of information and networks available worldwide on the internet is staggering. LinkedIn for professional networking. from people with money and nominal power.com. peer networks will confer legitimacy on people emerging from the grassroots”. power and influence will shift largely to those people with the best reputation and trust networks.

On the heels of a global recession. The result is our tendency to join together into loose networks. Trust and Credibility Sources: Peer Influence How important is trust in a relationship? Edelman‟s Trust Barometer Survey found that 91% of 25-to-64 year-olds surveyed around the world indicated that trustworthiness was an important factor in the overall reputation of a company. products. with 64% of those surveyed citing them as a credible source. corporate communications (32%). Influence will reside with those that can provide valuable content or meaningful connections. At the same time. that gather based on common interest. We are suspicious of anything that comes to us from outside our circle of friends. industry bailouts. “Academic sources” or “experts” continue to be the most trusted sources of information.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson social networks and sharing sites is to bring together people that share a common bond. Brogan and Smith (2009) aptly observe that “we are currently living in a communications environment where there is a trust deficit. at 38% credibility. partisan politics. or tribes. similar interests. trust in government and business are at all-time lows (Edelman). trust in traditional media sources continues to decline. or news items Page 6 of 24 . with numerous headlines of natural disaster. We form groups of like-minded individuals around those topics. the proliferation of social media and the changing technological landscape are reinforcing consumer trust in their peer networks. However. and more. Only radio polled slightly higher than peer sources.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. which in turn can then be spread throughout our social network(s). and/or trusted relationships. newspaper articles (34%). “Conversations with friends and peers” was cited as a credible source of business information by 37% of those polled. which rates higher than TV news coverage (36%). and advertising (17%).

They‟re listening to each other talk about you. your goodwill. And they‟re using your products. “Can you hear it? In the distance? It‟s a crowd forming.” Garfield describes the current information society as an “open-source world”. content is undergoing a seismic shift to a more instantaneous. He questions media and marketing professionals alike. Page 7 of 24 . your brands names. your slogans. in which everyone may contribute and collaborate. our very definition of media is changing. your iconography.a crowd of what you used to call the „audience‟. corporate branded or sponsored communications are less trusted than the outer rings of peers and prospects. and nearly half of online consumers trust social networking profiles of people they know. Owyang (2010) mapped out various communication roles in a “Rings of Influence” graph and found similar results. shared model.” Bernoff‟s (Forrester 2009) research found that in fact nearly 75% of online adults trust email from people they know. your trademarks. not because they help us communicate. “We view online social networks as media. while 60% rely on ratings and reviews. all of it as if it belonged to them. and we‟ve shaped our own media to be an extension of our views.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson that interest us. in a way. to convince them of just that? Congratulations. your designs. As individuals can now publish anything online. but because they extend human relationships. and our tribes” (Brogan & Smith). Bob Garfield deems this shift the “Chaos Scenario”. because after all. We‟ve chosen to make the next media ours. haven‟t you spent decades. and trillions. It worked. They‟re still an audience.which. and we look to our peers to collaborate with us in creating new content as well. Open-Source Media In fact. but they aren‟t necessarily listening to you. our own businesses. it all does. So we now look to our trusted networks to find and share information.

literally that which is worthy to be noticed or commented upon. it behooves marketers to identify and understand how many people. Joiners (59%). This reflects a common theory within internet culture. and which ones. rather than create or modify the community content. Spectators (70%). which originated in the blogosphere in 2006.com). Clearly. it is a generally held rule that a minority of users will initiate and distribute online content to the majority. which holds that 20% of a group will produce 80% of the group‟s activity. Critics (37%). Page 8 of 24 . also known as the “Pareto principle”.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. These theories are similar in concept to the 80/20 rule from information science.e. are actively involving themselves in this process. Conversationalists (33%). The “909-1” version of this theory proposes that 90% of on online community view content without contributing (i. the minority that originate content and determine the content that is “remarkable”. See Appendix exhibit #3 for detail.e.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Participation Inequality As technology increasingly enables everyone to have a voice in both content production and distribution. These theories advance the idea “that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate. known as the “90-9-1” rule or the “1% rule”. and only 1% of users create the original content. and Creators (24%). Collectors (20%). These are the mass influencers of social media. while 9% participate by editing or modifying content (i. This term is often used to refer to participation inequality in the context of the internet”(Wikipedia. this categorization of participation indicates that a majority of people online merely consume content as observers. While the actual percentage of participation is likely to vary depending upon subject matter and community. Forrester (2007) created a useful Social Technographics Ladder graph which segments social computing behaviors into seven (overlapping) levels of participation (least to greatest): Inactives (17%). commenting on a post). “lurk”).

In contrast. but in different forms. Page 9 of 24 . a meme was defined as “an idea or discussion that grows and spreads from individual to individual into a lengthy commentary”. This relates to Csikszentmihalyi‟s earlier work (1996) regarding creativity memes and knowledge domains. forms opinions. and articulates them well. They describe these content distributors as “the power users of the new tools of the Web”. They connect with more people than anyone else.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Identifying the Influencers In Jeremiah Owyang‟s Dow Jones White Paper on “Tracking the Influence of Conversation”. These are the content creators. It describes meme starters as a person who “typically is creative. and more often. In general. to postulate that people of influence are those that may be categorized as either meme starters or meme spreaders. Their readership is not necessarily large but views this individual as trustworthy” (Edelman). They recommend more. these influencers “speak online technology fluently. the 2008 Edelman White Paper sought to “understand which individuals are the most trusted or have the loudest voice” by calculating online influence. A 2008 Edelman White Paper advanced this idea of memes further. Both types of people have influence. They have the ability to state a view at the right time. That paper suggested a rudimentary formula for measuring an individual‟s online influence: 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 +𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 Brogan & Smith deem the latter category of influencers (Edelman‟s Meme Spreaders) Trust Agents in their 2009 book by the same title. on social bookmarking applications than anyone else. These are the content distributors. They are trusted and have a large readership”. the meme spreaders are people who “thrive by sharing opinions and want to do it first. According to Brogan & Smith.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.

This relates to Edelman‟s category of Meme Starters.with an average total of 537 connections across all networks. and Potential Influencers. LinkedIn. Forrester research indicates that the average Mass Maven is 38 years old and has an average income of $89. In contrast. Forrester‟s Mass Connectors are the equivalent to Edelman‟s Meme Spreaders. blog comments. and with more genuine interest in people. discussion forum posts. Forrester named these two sub-categories of Mass Influencers based on a similar analogy described by Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point. Forrester describes Mass Connectors as young and affluent. Trust agents use today‟s Web tools to spread their influence faster. Twitter. well above the average for online consumers of $79. Ray (2010) creating a Forrester research report titled “Tapping the Entire Online Peer Influence Pyramid”. According to Forrester‟s report “Peer Influence Analysis”. the Mass Mavens “are the 13.2% of the US online population (11 million people) that generate 80% of all impressions about products and services within social networks. and reviews”. These Connectors generally have large personal networks online in venues such as Facebook. they build healthy. See Appendix exhibit #4 and #5 for graphs of these Forrester Mass Influencers. As they do so. honest relationships. Mass Influencers (sub-categorized as Mass Connectors and Mass Mavens). and deeper than a typical company‟s PR or marketing department might be capable of achieving.100. too”. in which he categorizes online influencers into three large categories: Social Broadcasters.8% of the online population (24 million people) that creates 80% of all opinions about products and services in blog posts. and MySpace.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.800. wider. Forrester describes Mass Connectors as “the 6. with an average age of 32 and average annual household income of $98.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson and they know how to leave a good impression. Page 10 of 24 .100.

His work using Lithium‟s 10 years of user participation data across 200+ communities has revealed that the 90-9-1 Rule. However. found a participation inequality more in line with the 80/20 Pareto Principle than the 90-9-1 Rule. and there is a small fraction of hyper-contributors who produce a substantial amount of the community contents” (Wu). we do see that “participation in communities is highly skewed and unequal.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Influence Analytics in Social Media: Assessing the 90-9-1 Rule Dr. Wu‟s research found that “hyper-contributors can contribute anywhere from about 30% to nearly 90% of the community content. has done a great deal of work digging into the dynamics of online communities as well as the mathematical dynamics of social interaction. with an average of 55. Forrester‟s analysis (noted above). The influencer‟s power to influence is dependent of two factors: credibility. context. while a relevant rule of thumb.95%”. Wu recommends use of the Lorenz curve (from the field of economics) and the Gini coefficient (from the field of statistics) to specifically analyze the participation inequality in a particular community. Michael Wu. So. Finding the Influencers Wu‟s research continues with a breakdown of the process of influence from a data analytics perspective. His simplified model of Social Media Influence involves an influencer and a target. mathematical analysis tells us that there is a great deal of variability in the data.expertise in Page 11 of 24 .ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Principal Scientist of Analytics at Lithium. topic. the ratio between hyper-contributors and occasional contributors may be anywhere from 99:1 (with hyper contributors averaging at least 30% of all content) to 5:1 (with hyper contributors averaging at least 50% of all content). varies greatly depending on the community. Depending on the definition of “most” of the community content. as well as the definition of “most of the community content”.

ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.the right information. First. purchase. depending on the need to create content or distribute content. consideration. 2) reputation data (such as online rankings). and bandwidth. not with the most friends or even the most discussion around a topic. tools such as Social Network Graphing (Exhibit #7) and Forrester‟s Social Technographics Profile (Exhibit #3) can help a marketer identify which social media channel(s) are being utilized by their target audience. Finding the influencers in a particular social media channel. is a matter of identifying the credible users and high bandwidth users for a particular topic or field and then refining the data to its intersection point (Wu). Then. and 3) social graph data (such as a network analysis of following/followers relationships on Twitter). The target‟s likelihood to be influenced is dependent on four factors: relevance. then. but the one(s) with the most recent discussions about a topic/product. So. Credible users can be identified by: 1) reciprocity data (such as online ratings). See Appendix exhibit #6 for a Venn diagram of this process. 2) social equity data (such as number of followers or unique blog readers). loyalty) to determine marketing goals and key performance indicators. Then. intent. the marketer can determine relevant metrics such as number of posts or Page 12 of 24 . Identifying an influencer from a data analytics perspective can be summarized as finding the right person(s). alignment (the right place).Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson a specific domain of knowledge. 3) self-proclaimed data (such as career experience listed on LinkedIn). and 4) social graph data (such as a domainspecific network analysis of conversation on a given topic). a marketer should determine their need within the consumer purchase funnel (awareness. timing (the right time). High bandwidth users can be identified by: 1) participation velocity data (such as number of posts or tweets).the ability to transmit knowledge through a social media channel. and confidence (the right person) (Wu). in this sense: 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑕𝑖𝑝 + 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑦 + 𝐶𝑕𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑕𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑢𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 (Wu).

these social impressions carry significant weight. Forrester indicates that “the scale of online peer influence compares with online paid media”.where consumers directly engage with the marketing messages and pass them along to their friends”. Finally. which is roughly one-fourth of the paid online ad impressions. Forrester analyzed peer influence in two categories: influence posts (by the Mass Mavens) and influence impressions (by the Mass Connectors). and engagement between user and brands. “earned media” has to be produced directly by consumers through trust.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. but you can understand the specific characteristics of the Mass Influencers in your particular market. Considering that consumers trust peer sources more than any others when making purchase decisions. That is the power of Peer Influence Analysis: It arms marketers with knowledge about the Mass Influencers in their Page 13 of 24 . As its name implies. Power of Peers: Earned Media and Advertising According to Nielsen.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson number of connections in a network to refine their search to Mass Mavens or Mass Connectors to align with their marketing goal(s). “marketers are moving from a broadcast-based marketing relationship with consumers to a relationship that more explicitly considers how traditional paid media drives „earned media‟. connection. Forrester addresses the challenge of targeting peer influencers in this way. In alignment with their Mass Influencer categories. “How do you target millions of influencers in a medium where marketers must earn rather than buy attention? You cannot build one-to-one relationships with millions of influencers. the marketer can use those relevant metrics to identify influencers within the appropriate channel(s) using the Social Media Influence analysis process. Forrester estimates that consumers created over 500 billion influence impressions on one another about products and services within social networks last year. This is why identifying and targeting social media influencers is imperative.

The most efficient way to do this is by leveraging the power of earned media through peer influence. The study found users exposed to both a paid Facebook ad and an organic (social) impression remembered the ad at three times the rate of those exposed only to a paid ad (Nielsen). and integrate ourselves into the very fabric of what they do every day. and purchase intent continued to rise even after 10+ exposures to social impressions. Nielsen‟s conclusion was that “the key to success for marketers is creating a mix of social impressions that incorporate both paid and earned media”. You can either join it or not”. Page 14 of 24 . and the online experience and build an organization that embraces conversation and transparency”. “There‟s a conversation going on about your brand in the open. Nielsen‟s research in conjunction with Facebook found “most „earned‟ impressions have the highest level of impact out of the formats tested. Marketers are increasingly going to need to engage in social media and networks. Mass Mavens (content producers) or Mass Connectors (content distributors). Conclusion Jeff Jarvis is quoted in Garfield‟s “Listenomics” article with the following statement. Garfield suggests that marketers learn to “manage. Additionally. which reinforces the notion that consumers will tolerate and trust peer influence significantly more than traditional forms of advertising (Nielsen). exploit. but because this subset of consumers is small. maybe even co-opt the open conversation”. reach is difficult to achieve solely with these impressions”. the study found ad recall.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson specific markets so that they can devise the right word-of-mouth (WOM) strategies”. The two key variables that must be analyzed to accomplish this are the percentage of active influencers within a given community channel and the influence type. focus. awareness. digital connections.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. We have to embrace social networks. because that is where consumers are spending time and forming their opinions. Safko (2009) concludes that business owners and marketers “need to transform the way we touch our clients.

they are four times more likely to read others‟ tweets. They are also heavy users of mobile internet (54% to 68%) compared to the average online adult population (25%). In addition. compared with the general US online population.8% are Mass Mavens. Forrester found that 40% of influence impressions from Mavens regarding consumer electronics occur on blogs within posts and comments. with incomes between $95. Forrester found that the demographics of these particular influence groups (electronics Mavens and Connectors) are fairly similar. followed by 32% from ratings and reviews on popular online news and information sites such as CNET. Page 15 of 24 .700 annually.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Forrester found that within the consumer electronics category. Engadget.8% of the online population are Mass Connectors for consumer electronics and 4. and almost 10 times more likely to ask for the opinions of Twitter friends before making a large purchase” (Forrester). Twitter (17%) and Facebook (53%) are the dominant social networks for Connector peer impressions regarding consumer electronics.000 and $106. They found that “about 1. and Gizmodo.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Case Analysis Example: Android Mobile Phone Mass Influencers Forrester‟s “Peer Influence Analysis” research (through their Technographics data service) has recently completed research on Mass Influencers for consumers who share opinions about consumer electronics. See Appendix exhibit #8 for Consumer Electronics Mass Influencer Demographic data. 61% of the Mavens and 66% of the Connectors are male. five times more likely to have a Twitter account.” These groups account for more than 80% of the peer impressions regarding consumer electronics. On average they are between 32 and 38 years old.

com indicates that Android has been tweeted about 45.com‟s recent tags (May 6. Together. by analyzing connection data on Facebook and Twitter. reputation. This data could then be cross-referenced with credibility data from the social network graph as well as from reputation data and self-proclaimed data on websites or networks such as LinkedIn (noting expertise in the domain). These steps would identify the key Mass Connector Influencers for Android phones. By definition.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson A quick review of Technorati. to pinpoint high bandwidth users.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Technorati‟s Blog Directory reveals that “Technology” is the 2nd most popular blog category. Participation velocity data could also be examined. This data could then be cross-referenced with popular Twitter users and Tech site reviewers to determine the users with highest credibility (through ratings. Page 16 of 24 . concerning the topic of Android mobile phones. Tweetvolume.703 blogs). the Mass Mavens of Android mobile phones could be found by searching for bloggers and technology critics recently producing content about Android. and Twitter could be mined to locate users with high social equity (# of tweets and re-tweets) regarding Android. these data points suggest it would be possible to identify both types of social influencers: “Mass Mavens” and “Mass Connectors” within the technology field. encompassing 13. Mass Connectors regarding Android mobile phones could be found. such as the number of tweets in a given time frame. and reciprocity data) to determine key Mass Maven Influencers. Technorati‟s Top 100 list for Technology could be used to identify high bandwidth content producers. 2010) reveals that “Android” has been tagged as a topic 31 times on blogs within the last month. A social graph could be constructed to represent recent Facebook and Twitter conversations regarding Android. with 8621 blogs in the main category (“Lifestyle” is highest. using the Forrester research as a guide.100 times within the last week.

Politics (2835) World Politics (2119)    Hockey (64) Tennis (24) Golf (192)  Motorsport (78) Autos (730) Technology (8658)   Info Tech (2803) Gadgets (1896) Living (13910)    Health (1426) Religion (2861) Arts (1523)    Pets (49) Fashion (110) Food (5916)    Family (445) Home (1280) Travel (764) Green (1831) Science (714) Accessed May 4. 2010.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.com/blogs/directory/ Page 17 of 24 .Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Exhibit #1 Technorati Blog Directory (With Blog Count by Topic): Entertainment (8111)  Celeb (306)  Film (711)  Music (402) Business (7496)    Finance (551) Real Estate (146) Small Business (1561)    Television (177) Comics (326) Anime (96)   Gaming (543) Books (2514) Sports (4470)  Baseball (433)  Football (287)  Basketball (101) Politics (5903)   U. Browse full online directory at: http://technorati.S.

Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Exhibit #2 Motivation to Participate in Social Media (Amarasinghe-2010) Exhibit #3 Social Technographics Ladder (Forrester 2009 Update) Page 18 of 24 .ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.

ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. 2009) Exhibit #5 Peer Influence Analysis Demographics of Mass Influencers (Forrester.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Exhibit #4 Peer Influence Analysis Types of Mass Influencers (Forrester. 2009) Page 19 of 24 .

2010 Image-SocialNetworkAnalysis) Page 20 of 24 .Wu.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Exhibit #6 Social Media Influence Venn Diagram (Wu.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. 2010) Exhibit #7 Social Networking Graph (Concept.

ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Exhibit #8 Consumer Electronics Mass Influencer Demographics (Forrester. 2009) Page 21 of 24 .

com/SMC/190499?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&u tm_campaign=technology Bentwood. Retrieved May 04. 2010 at http://www. (2010). New York: NY. “Distributed Influence: Quantifying the Impact of Social Media”.com/dictionary/influence Page 22 of 24 . 2010 at http://www. (April 2010). Csikszentmihalyi. Forrester Research Report. Jan. (2007).com website: http://dictionary. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.php?statistics Garfield. Bruins.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson References: Amerasinghe. Robert B. Retrieved May 4. (February 17. Hoboken: New Jersey. (2008). Dictionary. Bob.com/press/info.facebook. Inc.nielsen. Brown and Co. Amitha. 2010). Chris and Julien Smith (2009). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.edelman. 2010 at http://adage. “Advertising Effectiveness: Understanding the Value of a Social Media Impression”. Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence. Cambridge: Mass. 2010 at http://www. 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer: Annual Global Opinion Leaders Study. 2010 at: http://www. SocialMediaToday Website. Retrieved April 20. Back Bay Books: Little.com Gladwell. (April 20. 2010.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=143372 Brogan. 2010 at FindArticles. Jonny.com Unabridged. and Earn Trust. Retrieved February 23. New York: New York.). (April 20.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_1_55/ai_54831706 Cialdini. The Tipping Point. Edelman Strategy One Research (Jan. Retrieved April 18. Malcom. Harper Collins Publishing Co. Retrieved April 20. New York: Harper Collins Pub. (2009). Retrieved May 5.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Jon and Sean Bruich. “Spotting the Creators of Peer Influence”. from Dictionary. 2010 at: http://www. 2009). The Chaos Scenario. “Peer Influence in an Unstable Economy”. Josh. (n. John Wiley & Sons. Advertising Age.merriam-webster. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.com/browse/influence “Influence” Definition. “Social Power and Influence Tactics: A Theoretical Introduction”. Journal of Social Issues. Mihaly (1996).com/trust/2010/ Facebook Statistics. “Influence” Definition.d.edelman. Bernoff. Retrieved May 4. Improve Reputation. from http://www. “What Motivates People to Participate in Social Media?”.com http://findarticles.reference. 2010).com/ Bernoff. Nielsen Compan and Facebook Joint Research Study. Gibs. Forrester Research Inc.socialmediatoday. Josh. Retrieved April 17th. Stielstra Publishing. 2010. Spring 1999. Edelman White Paper. 2010). (2000).

com/ways-to-influence-people-online/ Moore. Cambridge: Mass. 2010). Retrieved April 14.web-strategist. (2010). “Tracking the Influence of Conversations: A Roundtable Discussion on Social Media Metrics and Measurement”. Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009 “Day 1: Who Are The Bloggers? SOTB 2009”.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/trackingtheinfluence. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken: New Jersey. 2010 at http://www. The Social Media Bible: Tactics. Jeremiah & Matt Toll (2007).com/blog/2010/04/05/rings-of-influence/ “Persuade” Definition. Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009 “Day 2: The What and Why of Blogging. Erik.html Safko. Forrester Research Report. 2010 at http://technorati. (2009).com/dictionary/persuade Qualman. 2010). Matt. Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and Do Business. Forrester Blogs. Retrieved May 4. Retrieved May 6. (October 19. 2010 at http://technorati. (2009). (April 5.merriam-webster.fmsasg. The Metric System Blog by RJMetrics. 2010). Retrieved April 20. 2009). (April 20. (October 20. Ray. Ray. (April 6. 2010). 2009). & Strategies for Business Success. Augie. Retrieved May 5. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Augie and Josh Bernoff. Craig from Craigslist Indulges Himself. 2010 at http://www. Retrieved April 17. Craig. Web Strategy by Jeremiah Owyang. “New Data on Twitter’s Users and Engagement”.SOTB 2009”. John Wiley & Sons. Robert J. 2010).com/2010/04/trust-and-reputation-systems-redistributing-power-andinfluence/ Owyang.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010.rjmetrics.cnewmark. Jeremiah. Brake. Forrester Research Inc. “Trust and Reputation Systems: Redistributing Power and Influence”. Inc. from http://www.forrester.com/blogging/article/day-1-whoare-the-bloggers1/ Sussman.com/2010/01/26/newdata-on-twitters-users-and-engagement/ Newmark. Retrieved April 14.pdf Owyang.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Maki. Inc. Retrieved May 6. Retrieved April 20. “11 Ways to Influence People Online and Make Them Take Action”. Matt. Retrieved April 18.com/blogging/article/day-2the-what-and-why2/ Page 23 of 24 . SocialNetworkAnalysis Graphics (2010). (Feb 27. 2010 at http://www. 2010.doshdosh. Dow Jones White Paper. Lon and David K. 2010 at http://www. “My First Forrester Report: Tapping the Entire Online Peer Influence Pyramid”.com/interactive_marketing/2010/02/my-first-forrester-report-tapping-the-entireonline-peer-influence-pyramid. Hoboken: New Jersey. 2010 at http://www. 2009). Tools. 2010 at http://themetricsystem.com/SocialNetworkAnalysis/ Sussman.web-strategist.“Framework: Rings of Influence”. “Peer Influence Analysis”. (January 26. 2010 at http://blogs. (November 11.

Retrieved April 18. 2010 at http://en. 2010).com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/The-Economics-of-90-9-1-TheGini-Coefficient-with-Cross/ba-p/5466 Wu.wikipedia. “The Economics of 90-9-1: The Lorenz Curve”.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29 Wu. Retrieved May 4.Product Blog.lithium. Retrieved April 18. “The Economics of 90-9-1: The Gini Coeficient (with Cross Sectional Analyses)”. 2010 at http://lithosphere.ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems Spring 2010. Lithosphere Community.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/The90-9-1-Rule-in-Reality/ba-p/5463 Wu.Product Blog.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/The-6-Factors-ofSocial-Media-Influence-Influence-Analytics-1/ba-p/5708 Wu. 2010 at http://lithosphere.com/t5/Building-Community-thePlatform/bg-p/MikeW Page 24 of 24 . 2010 at http://lithosphere. Michael. Lithosphere Community.Final Paper/Presentation Alexandra Watson Sussman. Michael.lithium.SOTB 2009”. Michael.com (Feb 20.twitalyzer.Product Blog. Michael. (April 22.com/blogging/article/day-3-thehow-of-blogging1/ Technorati blog analytics tool at http://technorati. Retrieved April 26.lithium. Matt. (March 29. (April 15. 2010 at http://technorati. Lithosphere Community. (April 12. 2010). “The 6 Factors of Social Media Influence: Influence Analytics 1”. 2009).com/t5/Building-Community-thePlatform/Finding-the-Influencers-Influence-Analytics-2/ba-p/5709 Wu.Retrieved April 18. 2010). Retrieved April 18. Michael. 2010). (March 24. “The Right Content at the Right Time: Influence Analytics 3”. 2010). (March 18. Lithosphere Community. (October 21. Michael.com/t5/Building-Community-thePlatform/The-Economics-of-90-9-1-The-Lorenz-Curve/ba-p/5465 Wu. “Hitting Your Targets: Influence Analytics 4”. (April 29. “The 90-9-1 Rule in Reality”. Michael. 2010). Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009 “Day 3: The How of Blogging.lithium.com/ Technorati Authority FAQ at http://technorati.lithium.lithium.com/what-is-technorati-authority/ Twitter “TwInfluence” analytics tool at http://www. 2010 at http://lithosphere. “1% Rule (Internet Culture)” Retrieved April 26. 2010 at http://lithosphere. 2010 at http://lithosphere. Lithosphere Community.Product Blog.lithium. “Finding the Influencers: Influence Analytics 2”. Retrieved April 18.com/ Twitter “Twitalyzer” analytics tool at http://www. 2010 at http://lithosphere.Product Blog. Lithosphere Community.twinfluence.com/t5/BuildingCommunity-the-Platform/The-Right-Content-at-the-Right-Time-Influence-Analytics-3/ba-p/5710 Wu. Retrieved April 14. 2010). 2010).com/ Wikipedia.Product Blog.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful