Being weak in business is a negative and is, obviously, the opposite of strong. And strong is where the prestige is, right? Strong brands, strong products, strong reputations, strong online presences. Well, leave it to social media to turn that notion on its head! In social media, weak is stronger than strong.
As it turns out when it comes to buzz, A-List bloggers (and even top Twitterers with gobs of followers) aren’t as influential as some might think. So if you are a marketer targeting A-List bloggers and Twitterers to create buzz for your strong brand, you may want to reconsider.
How so?
Recently, Communication World (a publication of the International Association of Business Communicators) had an interesting article called “Human Transponders in a Digital Age” by Angelo Fernando that talks about buzz. What caught my attention most in this article was the subhead “Respect for the weakest link.” In this section Angelo talks with Emanuel Rosen, author of “The Anatomy of Buzz Revisted” about influencers versus the weak links within social networks.
According to Emanuel, the weak links offer the most potential. Why? Because they aren’t hearing the same buzz that all the influencers are. In essence, the influencers tend to be exposed to the same similar sources of information. What does that mean for you? Your buzz really isn’t that buzzworthy once it hits an influencer because they most likely already know about it. The weak links, on the other hand, tend to generate new information because they belong to other social sub-networks and are exposed to different sources of information.
Don’t believe it? Tara Hunt, the author of The Whuffie Factor, has a great example on her blog, in a post called Whuffie Math. Tara’s question is “which is greater, 0 or 500?” (Give her post a quick read and then come back. If you don’t have time, below is a brief synopsis to make a point.)
Tara goes on to explain:
“The other day, my publisher asked me to send them a list of bloggers/twitterers to send an advanced copy of my book to. Great, I thought. Let’s see who wants one! So, I proceeded to tweet out a message that said I’d send a book to 20 bloggers who want a copy. Instantly, I received a slough of excited messages with addresses…”
Well, apparently her publisher thought the list needed to be made up of influential bloggers who had more readers and Twitter followers than the list Tara submitted because their response was:
“Don’t you have a list of bigger bloggers – you know, influencers – that you want me to send these to?”
Tara goes on to say “I want to send the book to people who WANT to receive it. People who are excited and are more likely to write about it, tweet about it, tell their friends, their bosses and everyone who will listen. I want to send my book to people who give a damn.”
So what’s greater 0 or 500? Well, if you are a marketer going after busy influencers, who most likely don’t have a lot of time on their hands, and get a 0 response versus being a marketer that nurtures and respects the weakest links, you can easily see that 500 is the greater number. [Note: 500 is from Tara's post and is an example of the potential number in the weakest link's network and who they'd share the buzz with.]
I’d like to position the question this way too…what’s greater 1 or 500? If you get one influential blogger to write about you is that as powerful as 500 non-influential people sharing your story?
When it comes to creating buzz on a social network–your weakest links might just become your strongest chain.
Tags: Buzz Marketing, Social Media, social metworking, Word of Mouth Marketing
Nailed it. It’s not about who gets the advance copy or reads your story: it’s the advantage that is gained from catering to a really excited audience. You do a solid for them, and they are far more likely to help you out and share their experience with others. Grassroots=Win.
Beth,
My gut feelings and own personal experiences with my last book are confirmed by your post. Influencers aren’t those with the most followers; they instead are those with the most desire and passion for your product or service. It isn’t about a high number; it is (and always has been) about the right number.
Great post, Beth.
Wharton marketing had a great post a while ago entitled “The Buzz Starts Here: Finding the First Mouth for Word-of-Mouth Marketing”. The post shows the results of research they did in a particular case and how they identified the (surprising and unexpected) individual who was key to creating buzz.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2170
Hi Beth
It sounds like this is the strength of weak ties. The first paper on this topic was written in 1973.
http://bit.ly/BJk44
You might find it interesting.
True, true. People underestimate the strength of their weak links. Like you mentioned, if they are excited about it (regardless of if they are a top blogger) they will talk about it and get the word out for you. The more you foster relationships with those smaller links, the stronger you will make them and it comes back and benefits you even more.
I’ve seen this type of ‘argument’ come up in a couple different places (i.e., quantity over quality).
Why target the people who don’t care? As much as it would be great to have an influential blogger on your side, they’ll probably pass you right by if they have no interest in your product or message. Seems to me like it’d be a waste of time for marketers to target these influencers who have no interest in what you have to say.
Also, I’d imagine that the weight of one truly supportive, well-thought-out comment or plug by a weaker link would hold even more weight because it’s born from real support and reverence of your product; that person really believes in you.
1 big influencer doesn’t make up for 500 interested weaker links, and I love that you’ve pointed that fact out (along with others, of course!). Great post, Beth!
@StuartFoster, grassroots efforts are what keep some non-profits, well, profitable. It’s always great to have a celeb come in and do an endorsement, but it’s the true “weak links” that have the power to keep generating donations.
@Galen De Young, I read that research a few months back, it’s excellent! Thanks for the reminder and sharing the link. I won’t give away the answer here, because I think people should read it.
@AllenWeiss, why did I just have a flashback to the Breck commercial?! ‘She told two friends, and they told two friends and so on and so on…’ Was that the 70s or 80s? I guess what’s old is new again… fashionable marketing trends?!
Old model: Known size of audience = Influence = Priority
New Model: Passion related to product + kind of people connected to + willingness to evangelize = influence = priority
Transition = hard.
Another archetype model that might prove useful here is Malcolm Gladwell’s distinction between mavens and connectors (Tipping Point), where mavens are the highly specialized (i.e., passionate) experts and connectors are the big “influencers.”
It seems to me, especially in light of your example, that unless your book is about connecting (which influencers have made their business), you’re not likely to get connectors to talk about it by sending them a free copy of your book. And even if your book is about connecting, your chances are slim because the influencers may believe they have little else to learn or they’re just too busy connecting.
Instead, focus on people who would be delighted at the chance… people who are passionate learners in the same realm of whatever idea it is you want to spread.
Great thoughts, Beth. Lots to chew on here.
Great post, Beth. Granovetter’s work really comes to life (and explains) the murky mess of influence. And to our surprise we find that influence is not obvious, that action is driven not by strong relationships but weak links – and that a cohesive and robust community depends not on the core but on the marginalised.
For me, this explains why marketers struggle understanding social media. It is conversation from the outside-in.
Oh, and don’t forget Duncan Watts’ perspective that the Tipping Point is Toast: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/122/is-the-tipping-point-toast.html