Comments on: Are Companies Targeting the Wrong ‘Influencers’ With Social Media?

By: Alessandra

Alessandra — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:15:43 +0000

Not identifying your target audience is just like throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. In order to establish a great social media campaign. One MUST develop a target audience. One of those groups these days are Mom bloggers. I recently wrote an article about Mom bloggers and why they can be so important to your campaign. Check it out here: http://www.mysmn.com/moms-online-and-why-you-need-them-2/

By: James McNally

James McNally — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:34:10 +0000

To me, this is no better than the “gift lounges” companies set up for celebrities at the Oscars. Giving free stuff to people who have too much stuff already. Trying to buy influence with people who have too much competing for their attention already.
No wonder the results aren’t usually very good.
Great post!

By: Brandon Carlos

Brandon Carlos — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:04:25 +0000

Mack,
It’s refreshing to see an “influencer” hold this opinion. I’ve long criticized folks like Eden (above) for their praise of the Molson event when what they were doing is precisely what Pepsi has done with you– sloppy research. Targetting influential social media folks is one thing, and targeting influential social media folks who are “experts” on the product (e.g. a prominent beer blogger in Molson’s case, or a prominent soft drink blogger- if such a thing exists!- in Pepsi’s case). You’re absolutely right– what social media has done, more than anything, is connect hyper-specialized groups of folks with like interests and provided them an outlet to have their voice heard globally. I’m sure had these organizations done their research, their campaign would have been even more effective.

By: Brandon Carlos

Brandon Carlos — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:04:13 +0000

By: Jenn Mattern

Jenn Mattern — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:52:28 +0000

“I agree with you in principle but there are successful exceptions to every
rule.”
And here are a few of them:
1. Some people actually still think giving away free stuff equates to good blogger relations.
2. Some people still think awards where you have to toot your own horn just to be considered mean anything in the grand scheme of things (other than to those giving and receiving of course).
3. Some people actually believe in their own self-importance just because some company oohed and ahhed them and told them they were super-special despite the fact that their blog audience wouldn’t give a rat’s behind about what they had to say about that particular product or company (like, oh, PR bloggers yapping about beer when the company openly and publicly admitted they didn’t have any specific interest
in those bloggers discussing the relevant SM side of the event – the only valid targeting they could even pretend to be exercising on that front).
I’m not sure if I’m sad or amused to see Molson’s still spiking the Kool-aid. They’re one of the best examples of companies targeting the wrong
so-called “influencers” and they were awarded for it.
Just makes me wonder how many idiotic “blogger relations” events we’ll see following suit this year following suit. Since bloggers these days are so often demonstrating that they can be “bought,” I’m betting we’ll see plenty.

By: Eden Spodek

Eden Spodek — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:30:26 +0000

Great post Mack!
Whenever someone refers to me as an influencer (usually a PR person), I ask them why. I still don’t have a clear answer.
On the one hand, I have a shopping blog where I discuss my purchases, customer service, product review etc. Rarely, do brands I love connect with me there or behind the scenes (and I am completely transparent so if they did, I’d disclose, etc.) Quite often I’m perplexed as to why I haven’t heard from them. I’d welcome them with open arms and I know several have been monitoring my posts for the past 2.5 years.
On the other hand, I’ve had several brands contact me about trying their products or services and I’ve participated in some blogger outreach programs if I think they are interesting. If I don’t like something, I’ll let everyone know. More often than not, I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
However, last year, I participated in an outreach program for Molson – a Canadian beer company. Knowing I’m not much of a drinker, let alone a beer drinker, I was quite surprised I was invited to a blogger event. Their PR agency explained I was invited as an “influencer”, yada, yada.
As it turned out, the event was great. The Molson communications team was looking to connect with people active in the social media space for a long-term commitment. It worked so well, they were recognized with a SNCR award for their efforts. Since then, they have been able to provide ongoing support for a variety of community events across Canada through their connection with “influencers”.
I agree with you in principle but there are successful exceptions to every rule.

By: kelly

kelly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:03:51 +0000

Dead on!! Influential alone doesn’t quite cut it.
There are a handful of bloggers who will avoid writing about certain brands because of their own bad experiences with them. You need to reach out to those who are already happy with what you offered/sold to them.

By: Jason Baer

Jason Baer — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:39:14 +0000

This is just spot on. Social media will not become all that it can be until brands and their agents realize that it’s a loyalty and retention mechanism, not an acquisition tool.
Every social media program should first (and perhaps solely) be focused on how to extend the passion for the brand that already exists.

By: Kara Krautter

Kara Krautter — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:57:17 +0000

Thanks for starting this discussion Mack! The post and comments gives me a lot to think about in terms of blogger relations, influencers and online product reviews. The targeting should look a little different. However, historically it’s easier to get these kinds of projects funded when you provide more traditional media metrics (i.e. number of subscribers/followers, potential impressions, etc.).
Just as in traditional marketing and PR, there should be more thought into ‘what story do we want to tell’ rather than ‘who can get us the most exposure.’

By: Spike Jones

Spike Jones — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:45:14 +0000

Am I blue in the face yet? It’s about finding people that are passionate – not influential. Because, as we can easily see via the internets, INFLUENCERS CAN BE MADE. PASSION CAN’T.

By: mack collier

mack collier — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:26:36 +0000

Thanks for the comments guys. This post has sparked a lot of conversation and I’m glad, because I really think social media gives companies an amazing ability to reach out to and embrace their evangelists. And I think that potential is largely being overlooked.
BTW some people (mainly on Twitter) have said that it’s more difficult to find evangelists than it is ‘influencers’.
Let’s look at Chris Brogan again. I think everyone will agree that he’s an incredibly influential person in the social media space.
But go to his blog, and note that he explains that: “I’ve driven Saturns since 1993 (okay, it’s not in my house – it’s out in the yard. Sue me). I love the company more than I actually love the car. I loved the idea when they first launched, and I love the no-hassle purchasing experience. (Note to every car seller in America: if you sold no-hassle, I’d consider you). ”
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/things-in-my-house-no-one-pays-me-to-love/
Note that post is all about stuff that Chris loves. Companies that make the stuff that Chris loves, should be paying attention. Instead, I’m betting other companies will contact Chris cause they deem him as an ‘influencer’ and want to ‘build buzz’ for their product. While the companies that produce products that Chris sings about on his blog, what are they doing?
Yes it’s a bit harder to find evangelists for your company, but odds are they are out there, and odds are it is WELL worth your time to find these special customers.

By: Ardath Albee

Ardath Albee — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:38:57 +0000

Terrific post, Mack!
I also think this has to do with putting a stake in the ground for who your market is.
Targeting “influencers” for the sake of reach isn’t what works. You are very right that fans are important, but what about peers and colleagues of your prospects as well? If people’s highest levels of trust are based on conversations with “people like me” then wouldn’t it make sense to focus on them, too?

By: Jared O'Toole

Jared O'Toole — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:19:15 +0000

Great article. That’s are you create WOMM. Evangelist’s will spread your word day and night and for free.
It’s great to get your message in front of tons of people via social media big shots. But you also have to empower the people who truly love your brand no matter ow big or small they are.

By: Mike Elliott

Mike Elliott — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:12:46 +0000

Mack,
I couldn’t agree more. For example I use Media Temple for all my hosting. Their customer service is incredible. I have spent hours telling people how great this company is and why they should switch. But they aren’t making any efforts to tap voices like mine. Obviously the best way to get people to talk about your brand is to give them a product or service worth talking about but beyond that many brands are missing a tremendous opportunity to leverage the voices of their everyday customers via social media.

By: Jackie Huba

Jackie Huba — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:21:52 +0000

Great post Mack!

By: Scott Hepburn

Scott Hepburn — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:23:58 +0000

Well put, Mack.
For the sake of argument, I’m trying to wrap my mind around the psychology of “key influencers” targeting. Here’s what I come up with:
* “Influencers” are more likely to create rich media, such as video, photos, Flash and more. After all, these are the tools of their professions. The agency & client are more focused on packaging (ironically) than on a strong, albeit “amateurish” endorsement from an actual consumer.
* “Influencers” have larger audiences than many (most?) consumers. The agency & client are enamored with reach, and balk at the hard work required to achieve that reach via the…er, fat belly, as Paul puts it.
* “Influencers” are US. Agency types know we speak their language, at least enough to converse. Connecting with “plain ol’ consumers” would mean coming down from the ivory tower. It means taking a risk that they might not like your fancy cans or shiny new logo, or — gasp! — that they just don’t care.
I can see why/how we (marketers) make these decisions. Still, as you say, we’re not really closing the deal. Influencer marketing is a good concept…we just need to dig a little deeper.

By: Heather Rast

Heather Rast — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:23:03 +0000

Maybe the answer to the question “Why do big brands target idolistic influentials over consumer evangelists” is simple math–they target the low hanging fruit, which is to say, the people like you and the other esteemed 24 who have high profiles, reach, and your own respective mass-like audiences. Even if you don’t evangelicize their product, you’ll likely write about it in some context. So it’s kinda like the silly adage “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
This reminds me of New Media Lisa’s recent post about companies wishing social media had an easy install, like a cruise control where things just fell into place.
To begin to identify, cultivate, and promote true consumer evangelists would be an expensive, time-intensive endeavor for the brand. A real strategic initiative based on a core desire to meet customer (consumer) needs. Ahh, there’s the problem. These “outreach” projects dont’ actually have the consumer in mind. Only the brand’s.
I think this whole thing begs another question: What clout does the average consumer have when publicized through common media channels? We know from research that online product endorsements (“I liked this shoe because…” do persuade purchasers, as does trusted friend word of mouth. But how would an ad featuring Bob from Billings drinking his fave pop Pepsi on TV move us? Would it feel believeable? Or like another advertising ploy? Hmmm.

By: Ed Brenegar

Ed Brenegar — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:44:23 +0000

This is one of those days when I’m glad not to be a top 25 influencers. Imagine the pressure that applies to the person receiving the materials. This is classic interruption marketing.
At least they should ask first.

By: Ryan Ashton

Ryan Ashton — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:47:06 +0000

Mack, great read.
I think it comes down to quantitative metrics vs qualitative understanding of these evangelists.
Agency Rep / Client: “this ‘influencer’ has 1,000 subscribers to his / her blog. We should send him / her the logos to review, so more people see what they have to say”
Instead of:
Agency Rep / Client: “this Pepsi lover has been writing about our brand for years. Let’s empower him / her by giving them an exclusive sneak peek into what we’re planning. Then, let’s hear what they have to share with OTHER Pepsi lovers and learn from it.”
Such a subtle mind-shift could have far-reaching ripple effects. I’d love to see it happen.

By: Susan Getgood

Susan Getgood — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:32:40 +0000

Probably 1 out of every 3 posts I write touches on the issue of reaching out to the right bloggers. When I’m not ranting about ranking systems
Seriously, blogger outreach *should* be about engaging your most influential *customers* not some generic list of influential bloggers. Or broadly spamming a demographic group irrespective of interest in your thing.
Someday maybe….

By: Karl Long

Karl Long — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:27:59 +0000

most of the real influencers are in smaller more focused niche networks that most companies don’t even know exist.
Want to see the T-Shirt ecosystem: http://hideyourarms.com/2009/01/16/t-shirt-brands-on-twitter/
There’s similar networks of people for any product you can imagine, find them, connect with them, empower them.
Popular bloggers like Chris Brogan and others are great at spreading ideas, so focus on the value of the idea, and the actions you can inspire.

By: laurent

laurent — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:49:58 +0000

Relevance…I really think there’s no excuse anymore for marketers/agencies who target ‘influencers’ with so little precision as in your example . Now they use technorati and other tools that aren’t smart enough to find ‘niche’ influencers. If you’re a computer security vendor, better find and engage with the influencers in computer security (I created a list of 750 of them) than in the top influencers on technology. And as someone said in a comment, outreach doesn’t replace being part and active in the community. Companies should do 1) identify their target 2) find the communities in which their target market socializes online 3) listen 4) engage which means several type of actions, one of them could be blogger outreach (much better if there’s already some kind of relationship with the blogger that’s being outreached to). Ok it’s work but well worth it.
That’s what I’m preaching my customers.

By: Stephen Rothman

Stephen Rothman — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:42:44 +0000

I wonder if K-Mart was contacting the Chris Brogan of his social media blog or Chris Brogan of his dad blog. The latter would make sense, but I suspect it was the former. Why would marketers possibly think that social media influencers are the right people to contact to spread word of mouth for a particular consumer goods brand? It simply makes no sense.

By: Glenn Raines

Glenn Raines — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:52:56 +0000

Mack, thanks for pointing out the importance of qualifying “influencers” for relevance and interest. My work in influence mapping involves a process of peer nominations of influencers (who does the market say is influential in a specific topic, etc.)for segmentation. Next step is to profile the influencers and build a database for future engagement with them based on their relative interest. Otherwise, to your point, there’s a lot of waste in targeting those who may not be passionate enough to take action because they love their Dr. Pepper too much.

By: mack collier

mack collier — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:14:16 +0000

Eric it’s definitely easier for big companies than small businesses, simply because the small business has fewer evangelists to find. But for a small business, you can still reach out to and connect with your customers. That’s the quickest way, if done properly, to convert a regular customer into an evangelist.
And I think companies should focus more on simply connecting with their evangelists, where they are. I don’t think it’s best to create tools to help your evangelists get started blogging, if they aren’t now, and aren’t interested in blogging.
But if they are, you should reach out to them and give them new ways/tools to promote you. Companies waste so much time and money trying to reach people that don’t want to be bothered, that it just makes sense to actually communicate with the special few customers who DO want to evangelize your company to others!

By: gianandrea facchini

gianandrea facchini — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:05:29 +0000

Going for the top bloggers is the same approach of going prime time with a TV spot. But the web is rather different from TV.

By: Eric Hoffman

Eric Hoffman — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:44:11 +0000

Mack, this seems to me to be easier said than done; as for many companies there aren’t many customer evangelists in the social media space. In fact, there may not be any, which in my mind is what leads some companies to reach out to what they may see as ‘general’ influencers and try to use them as a gateway to creating brand evangelists. That said, I’d hope that Pepsi did try to see if there were some Pepsi fanats in the SocMed space before sending their cans to these main ‘influencers’.
My question is, should companies be creating ways and even maybe tools for their brand evangelists (fans) who are just getting into SocMed?

By: mack collier

mack collier — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:32:46 +0000

“This is a great point. I recommend that companies reaching out to mombloggers hire a momblogger to help them in their efforts. Hiring a “woman on the inside” can help a company target their raving fans and others who are most receptive tot he companies product or message.”
Great idea. Instead of giving an agency tens of thousands to find/identify/contact ‘influencers’, why not buy a few hours time with a top mommyblogger or two and have them teach the company how to connect with and communicate with other mommybloggers?
Communicating with vs talking at.

By: mack collier

mack collier — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:29:21 +0000

Alan I think the main reason why is because companies want to ‘build buzz’. And along with that, they really don’t understand that evangelists are customers that are LOOKING for a reason to promote your company to other people. Who should a company be reaching; an ‘influencer’ with 1,000 blog readers a day (and no interest in promoting you), or an evangelist with 50 blog readers a day, that is BEGGING you to give them a reason to promote them?
BTW another thing is the word ‘evangelist’. Music artists call these people ‘fans’.
Companies need to be embracing their fans. THEY are the real influencers.

By: Alan Wolk

Alan Wolk — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:19:50 +0000

Thanks for putting down what so many of us have been thinking and talking about lately in private conversations.
Not much to add other than that I’m completely baffled as to the decision-making process that lead to the examples you’ve cited.