womma

Word of Mouth MarketingAssociation

MEASURING
WORDOF
MOUTH
\ r 1 r : t 1 1gy1 1 1 , i

{a*rrsffi*Y*T*m*q*
r?##trx
ffiesemr{hend $Vteas*.f;refiffi*mt
mf

[],lzaarvoile
LllGlese,i
ir.lr
L:)zzAc,lent
Editedby:
j rIrvt-isitr,
L-oILtr-r-i
L';i,t1.
WalterJ.Carl,PhD

W*rd *f fu?*sx*h
ffimrke*xrreg

''

lllrll'"'l

'

Department
of Communication
Studies

University
Dot;bieClic,l.. Northeastern
(rcrlinl'"1,rrti:
l<-;5ti51i-';1,

lntorrnatirrtr
lackMiortorr \,,Vor
lciwidc
Jolrrr.ri-ir,rpki
ir,sI ini\ronit,,,
liay(.i,0rrlr
Kttller
N4atr-hs
tic-1.r
i Lluzzit4eti
i',1
ieiser
ic:,
Irri';etrsitv
Nortlrtasttr
n 1.
!rnrnion-..lVarketRi:search
tlrire,rr-r
ltonr:s'Plrcles
I N 5M e r J rIan t e l i i q e n r ey/m
( 1cri;,
rrlrria
LJr
t/altL,'i.ri

Wqv$u*nrynm
S
,&u*turrln
]{}ffi"f
$ffi's

Qwomma
Word of Mouth Marketing Association

Challenging
the Influentials
Hypothesis
DuncanJ.Watts,ColumbiaUniversity
Abstract

(Katz
Whether
theyarecalled"opinion
leaders"
and
Lazarsfeld
1955;
Lazarsfeld,
Berelson
andGaudet
'1968;
"influentials"
(Merton
1968),
Weimann
1994;
"e"influencers"
(Ran
Keller
andBerry2003),
d 2004),
"hubs"
(Burson-Marsteller
(Rosen
fluentials"
20Oi),
"mavens"
(Gladwell
2000),
2O0O)
, or bysomeother
name,
the ideathata smallnumber
of "special"
individuals
havean important
effectontheopinions,
beliefs,
andconsumption
habits
of a largenumber
individuals
of "ordinary"
hasbecome
conventional
wisdomin theword-of-mouth
marketing
community.
InthispaperI challenge
thisidea,
whichI labelthe
"influentials
hypothesis"
bothin termsof theavailable
empirical
evidence,
andalsoin termsof itstheoretical
underpinnings,
andarguethatit hasneverbeen
adequately
demonstrated,
or evenprecisely
specified.
I alsodiscuss
howbiases
inherent
to
Measuring
Wordof Mouth,Volume3

MeasuringWordof Mouth
anecdotalevidencehaveenabledthe hypothesisto remainpopularin spiteof its seriousshortcomings,
and argue that influentialsidentifiedretrospectively
productsof circumstance
areaccidental
that areunlikelyto repeat.
Finally,I concludeby sketchingout somealternativeapproaches
to accommodating
in marinfluenceprocesses
ketingcampaigns.

Introduction
Sincethe publicationof Katzand Lazarsfeld's
seminalwork, Personallnfluence(1955),
the studyof what they
calledopinion leaders-or influentialsasthey havealsobecomeknown(Merton1968)-hasoccupiedan important placein the literaturesof the diffusionof innovations(Coleman,
Katzand Menzel1966;Rogers1995;Valente
1995;Burt 1999),communicationsresearch(Weimann1994),
and marketingscience(Myersand Robertson1972;
Chanand Misra1990;Coulter,Feickand Price2002;Vernette2004;Vanden Bulteand Joshi2007).More recently,
the ideathat influentialsplay an indispensable
rolein word-of-mouthmarketinghasbecomeconventional
wisdom in the marketingcommunityas well.Gladwell(2000),
for example,claimsthat "socialepidemics"
aredriven
"by the effortsof a handfulof exceptionalpeople,"and Kellerand Berry(2003)claimthat "Onein ten Americans
tells the other nine how to vote,where to eat, and what to buy."They conclude,in fact,that "Fewimportant
trends reachthe mainstreamwithout passingthroughthe Influentials
in the earlystages,and the lnfluentials
pp21-22);and the market-research
can stop a would-betrend in itstracks"(KellerandBerry,2003,
firm BursonMarstellerconcurs,claimingthat "Thefar-reaching
effectof this powerfulgroup of men and women can make
or breaka brand,marshalor dissolvesupportfor business
and consumerissues,
and provideinsightinto events
asthey unfold" (Burson-Marsteller
2001).All one needsto do, it seems,is to find theseindividuals
and influence
(Rand2004).
them. As a result,"lnfluencershavebecomethe 'holygrail'fortoday'smarketers."
Unfortunately,
as PeterDoddsand I suggestedin a recentpaper(Wattsand Dodds2007),the grailanalogymay
be more apt than most marketerswould like to think. We argued,in fact, that what we callthe "lnfluentials
Hypothesis"-thata smallminorityof specialindividuals
wieldsdisproportionate
influenceoverthe majority-is
not supportedby systematicempiricalevidence.nor doesit follow from acceptedtheoriesof interpersonal
influenceor the diffusionof innovations.Furthermore,
with the useof simulationmodels,we demonstrated
that
under many circumstances
influentialswere likelyto haveat mosta modestimpacton publicopinionchange,
relativeto ordinaryindividuals.Wheninfluenceor informationis propagatedviaword-of-mouth,
we concluded,
most of what differentiatessuccessfulfrom unsuccessful
diffusion,is relatedto the structuralpropertiesof the
word-of-mouthnetworkas a whole,not the propertiesof a smallnumberof specialindividuals.
Subsequently,
criticshave suggestedthat our analysisattacksa straw man (Creamer2007)-a contrivedversion of the influentialshypothesisthat nobody actuallybelieves.
In order to addressthis concern,I will restate
our argumentand show how,far from being a strawman,our proposedmodelof influencepropagation
merely
formalizesvariousclaimsthat advocatesof the influentials
havealreadymadeinformally.
hypothesis
Theproblem, I will argue,is not that our analysismisinterprets
the intendedclaimsof the hypothesis,
but that the claims
themselvesare basedon a combinationof unstatedassumptions,
of
ambiguousanalogies,
and biasedsampling
evidencethat togetheryield the appearance
of explanatorypowerwithout actuallyexplaining
anythingat all.
plausible
Oncethis implicittheory is madeexplicit,it becomesclearthat the influentials
it
hypothesis-however
sounds-does not necessarily,
or eventypically,followfrom the theoriesof diffusionuponwhichit is (implicitly)
based.

What is the "lnfluentialsHypothesis"?

What Doddsand I calledthe influentials
hypothesiscomprises
not one,but two fundamental
claimsaboutinter
personalinfluence:first,that somepeoplearemoreinfluentialthan others;and second,thatthesesamepeople
are important,not only becausethey influencemore of their peersdirectly,but alsobecause
theyexerta disproportionatelygreatindirectinfluenceon the muchlargercommunityof whichboththeyandtheirimmediate
influenceesare a part.Gladwell(2000,pp. 19-21),
for example.startsout by claimingthat "...whatwe arereally
sayingis that in a given processor systemsomepeoplemattermorethan others..." Acknowledging,
however,
radical
nothat this claim-the first claim of the influentials
hypothesis-is"not,on the faceof it, a particularly
tion" he then goes to claim that "When it comesto epidemics,though,this disproportionality
even
becomes

2Q2

'+

'!!f'#wwwffiro&
i'ir'1'

more extreme:a tiny percentageof peopledo the majorityof the work" He concludes,
finally,that "Socialepidemicswork in exactlythe sameway. Theyarealsodrivenby the effortsof a handfulof exceptionalpeople." lf
our characterization
of the influentialshypothesis
is a strawman,therefore,it is not becausewe misinterpreted
the intendedmeaningof what Gladwellcallsthe "lawof the few."Quiteclearly,
he is claiming(a)that somepeople are more influentialthanothers;and (b)that thesesamepeoplearedisproportionately
importantto the outcome of interest.Whatthen. isthe statusof thesetwo claims?
How influential are the influentials?
That some peopleare more influentialthan othersseemsself-evident.
Kellerand Berry,for example,arguethat
"The Influentialsareevidenceof somethingthat manypeopleknow intuitively,
that not all opinionsarecreated
equal. Somepeopleare betterconnected,betterread,and betterinformed.Youprobablyknow this from your
own experience.You don't turn to just anyonewhen you'redecidingwhat neighborhoodto live in, how to inv e s t f o r r e t i r e m e n t , o r w h a t k i n d o f c a r o r c o m p u t e r t o b u y . " ( K e l l e r a n d B el 5r r)yA, sp a. d e s c r i p t i o n oi fn d i v i d u a l
experience,this statementsoundsplausible-whenwe think about what we'redoing when we seekout opinions,information,and advice,it doesindeedseemthat we focuson somepeopleoverothers. lt doesnot follow
from this observation,however,that we areonly,or evenmostly,influencedby our peersas a resultof "turning
ways,we areinfluencedby the same
to them,"nor is it clearthat when we are influencedin other,lessconscious
people as those we turn to. Finally,
the experience
of valuingone person'sopinionoveranother'stells us little
about how many individualslikeusthis personinfluencesJustbecauseI regardmy friendBob as an authorityon
music,realestate,or educationpolicy,doesnot on its own tell me anythingabouthow influentialhe is.
The first claim of the influentialshypothesisis thereforepersuasive
we
inasmuchas it reaffirmsthe impressions
haveof our own experiences;
are largelyuninformative.
but as an empiricalmatter,our anecdotalimpressions
(1955),
EversinceKatzand Lazarsfeld
hasbeento devisemoreobtherefore,a centralgoal of influenceresearch
jectiveand reliablemeasureof interpersonal
influence.Katzand Lazarsfeld,
for example,defined influencein
termsof "effects:"observedchangesof opinionwith respectto someparticularissue,oversome intervalof time.
Havingidentifiedsuch an effect,Katzand Lazarsfeld
employedlaboriousinterviewingtechniquesto identify
its source.while taking painsnot to suggestany particularsourceto the interviewee.Thus intervieweeswere
askedto reflecton the processby which they cameto changetheir minds,and only if they volunteeredthe informationthat a particularpersonhad beeninfluentialin their decisionwerethey askedwho that personwas.
Katzand Lazarsfeld
Subsequently,
attemptedto verifythe reportedinfluenceby interviewingthe namedinfluencer,and only when both influencerand influenceeagreedboth on the natureand directionof the influence
could it be saidto havebeenverified.
Absent an experimentalsetting in which changingopinions could actuallybe observeddirectly,Katz and
Lazarsfeld
thereforeproposedverifiedactsof influencewith respectto previously
identifiedchangesof opinion
as the gold standardof interpersonalinfluencestudies.Unfortunately,
they wereforcedto abandonthis standard once the practicaldifficultiesof adheringto it becameapparent(forexample,becausenamed influencers
livedin differenttowns,and thereforecouldnot easilybe interviewed).
Thustheyreluctantlyopted for whatthey
themselvesacknowledgedwasa lesserstandardof self-assessment,
in whichindividuals
nominatedthemselves
as being influential.Subsequently,
the self-assessment
method has been supplementedby other techniques,
(Weimann1994;Kellerand Berry2003)whichare hypothesized
notably(a)"strengthof personality"measures
to
(Laumann
(c)
correlatewith influence;(b)"keyinformants"
who designateinfluentials
Pappi
1976);
socioand
and
metricmeasures(Coleman,Katzand Menzel1957;Merton1968)in which individuals
who are namedfrequently
by their peersas,for example,advicegivers,or subject-matter
experts,areconsidered
influential.
Noneof thesemetrics,however,requireseithera measurable
changeof opinionwith respectto any particularisidentified.Rather,
sue,or any verificationof the influencerelationships
all four kindsof measuresderivefrom re(eitherthemselves
spondents'opinionsregardingthe characteristics
of individuals
or others),not specificevents.
This common feature,moreover,is particularlyproblematicfor influenceresearch
becauserespondentdriven
data is notoriouslyunreliable.Bernardet al.(1984),
for example,reportin a surveyof severaldozenstudiesof inf o r m a n t a c c u r a c y t h a t r o u g h l y 5 0 0 / o orfeasl lp o n d e n t d r i v e n d a t a i s s i m p l y i n c o r rIencpta. r t t h e s e i n a c c u r a c i e s
arisebecauserecollectionsof past eventssufferfrom severememorybiases(Schachter
2001),suchas recency

203

Measuring
Wordof Mouth
bias (Festinger1957;Gilbert2006)-when individualsrecalltheir past attitudesas being more similarto their
currentattitudesthanthey reallywere-and hindsightbias(Hoffrage,Hertwigand Gigerenzer2000),according
to which subjectsupdatenot only their prior beliefs,but their memory of prior beliefs,when new information
is presentedto them. Anotherimportantsourceof erroristhat subjectstend to "fill in" detailsof partlyrememberedevents,substituting"stockfootage"like culturalnormsor role perceptionsfor actualeventsand people
(Bernardet al. 1984;Gilbert2006).Thuswhen askedto whom they go for advice,respondentsmay simplyname
(e.9.parents,spouses,bosses)ratherthan first recollectindividualswhoserolespositionthem as advice-givers
ing the lasttime they actuallysoughtadvice,and onlythen determiningwho it waswho advisedthem.
The combinedeffectof theseerrorspoints is that existingmeasuresof interpersonalinfluencedo not actually
measureinfluenceat all.Conclusions
about influentials
that arebasedon suchmethodsarethereforesubjectto
'l0o/o
unknownbut possiblylargebiases.Justbecausean individualscoresin the top
of a strengthof personality
test doesnot meanthat the personactuallyinfluences
In
the other90ol0,
or isevenmore influentialthan average.
fact,it is not clearwhat it means.Furthercomplicating
the situationis that differentmethodsintroducedifferent
biases.Unverifiedself-assessment,
for example,maypromptindividualsto overstatetheir influenceoverothers,
out of theirdesireto be perceivedin a certainway,whereasthe sociometrictechnique,in which respondents
are
askedto nameindividualswhom they respect,or fromwhom they would askadvice,may simplyreflectthe status hierarchyof the localcommunity.lt is not clear,therefore,
that eitherof thesemeasuresreflectswho actually
influenceswhom in any particularway,or that the findingsof differentstudiesare in any way comparable.
Recentadvances
inonlinetechnologies-tracking
lmmediateFuture
blogpostings(MarketSentinel,
Onalyticaland
2005;Niederhoffer,Mooth and Wiesenfeld2007),or productreferrals(Leskovec,
Adamicand Huberman2007)for
example-show somepromisefor replacingsurvey-based
respondentdrivendata with more objective,observationalmethods.Eventhesemethods,however,faceseriouschallengesin identifyingwho actuallyinfluences
whom, asopposedto simplywho communicates
with whom. Until it is possibleto integratethe observation
of
(a)
potential
interpersonal
particular
regarding
regarding
communication
some
other
topic with observations
personalexperience
sourcesof influence(newsmedia,traditionaladvertising,
independentresearch,
etc.),and
(b)subsequentconsumerattitudes,beliefs,or behavior,
empiricalmethodsfor measuringinfluence,
andthereby
identifyinginfluentials,
will be at bestcrudeapproximations,
and at worst confusingand misleadingrepresentations of reality.
How important are they?
Althoughtroubling,thesemeasurement
issuesdo not representthe core problemwith the influentials
hypothesis.Whetheror not they can be identifiedreliablywith existingmethods,it is probablystillthe casethat influentialsof somedescriptiondo exist. Precisely
who is more influentialwith respectto what issuesandat what
times may be considerably
more complicatedthanis usuallythought, but the first-ordermessage
of the influentialshypothesis-thatsomepeopleare more influential
than others-is almostcertainlycorrect.Somepeople,
however.are alsotallerthan others,yet that is not necessarily
to measure.
an interestingquantityfor marketers
Presumablyany quantifiableattributeX, howeverdefinedand measured,will displaysomevarianceacross
a
largepopulation;thus it will alwaysbe possiblerankthe populationfrom "mostX" to "leastX" and subsequently
partitionthem into groups,whether"top 100/o
of X,""bottom quartileof X" or any other choice.Therelevant
questionfor marketersis whetheror not the top 100/0,
say,of scorerson somemeasureof influenceexertsuffi'holygrail'
cient impacton the outcomeof a word-of-mouthcampaignto justify their
status.
In addressing
this question,it is importantto notethatthe criticalconnectionbetweenthe two claimsof the influentialshypothesis
isthe assumptionof influencespreadingfrom personto person,in the mannerof a disease
The connectionbetweeninfluentials
or someother kind of contagiousprocess.
and contagionis mostexplicitin
on influenGladwell'sanalogyof "socialepidemics,"
but a similarconnectionis impliedthroughoutthe literature
tials. ln his seminalwork on the diffusionof innovations,
EverettRogers(1995,2811claims
that "Thebehaviorof
opinionleadersis importantin determiningthe rateof adoptionof an innovationin a system.Infact,theS-shape
thenumof the diffusioncurveoccursbecauseonceopinionleadersadopt and tell othersaboutthe innovation,
per
point
influentials
ber of adopters
when they claimthat
unit time takesoff." Kellerand Berrymakea similar
oe
n c. a u s e t h e y k n o w m a n y p e o p l e a n d i n c o n t a c t w i t h m a n y
a r e " l i k e t h e c e n t rparl o c e s s i n g u n i t s o f t h e n a t iB

244

't""'!+WffiW'Wffi&
peoplein the courseof a week,they havea powerfulmultipliereffect,spreadingthe word quicklyacrossa broad
networkwhen they find somethingthey want othersto know about."(Kellerand Berry,p. 29)
The ultimateimportanceof an influential,in other words,should be judged not in terms of the individualshe
influencesdirectly-his immediate"neighbors"-but in termsof the total numberinfluenced,both directlyand
alsoindirectly,via his neighbors,
his neighbors'neighbors,and so on. Onceagain,it seemsself-evident
that influencingmore individualsin one'simmediateneighborhoodnecessarily
impliesinfluencingmore individuals
overall-that is,if personA influences
9 people and personB influences3 people,surelypersonA is moreeffective than personB. Wellperhaps,but how much more effective?A simplelinearextrapolationwould suggest
that all other thingsbeingequal,personA would ultimatelybe responsible
for influencing,both directlyand indirectly,threetimesas manypeopleas personB. Gladwell,however,makesa strongerclaim-that the ultimate
impactof influentials
is greaterthan proportional,in fact "extreme"-and it is this claimthat would seemto account for much of the enthusiasm
surroundinginfluentials.But on what basisdoeshisclaim,or any suchclaim,
for that matter,rest?
Presumablyit has somethingto do with the dynamicsof whatever"spreading"processis taking placeon the
networkof word-of-mouthinfluence,
but this observationmerelybegsthe questionof what spreadingprocess,
what
and
network.one istalkingabout. Gladwelldrawsthe analogywith the spreadof a disease,
and a number
of populardiffusionmodels-the Bassmodelfor example(Bass1969)-are motivatedby the sameanalogy.The
analogyis plausible,becauseideasdo sometimesseemto spreadin the way of a virus,jumping from personto
personwith someprobabilityas a functionof the interactionsbetween"infected"and "susceptible"
individuals.
Butthe analogyis ambiguousin a numberof respectsthat turn out to be important. Forexample,if a friendtells
me about a new producttoday,doesit matter(to my probabilityof adoptingit) that I heardabout it from another
friendyesterday?
Thedisease
modelassumes
that it doesnot matter-that allcontactsareidenticalregardless
of
history-but intuition,now workingagainstthe diseaseanalogy,suggestsat leastthat it might.
Empiricalwork on this matteris limited,but some recentwork by Young(2006)suggeststhat when individualsare makingadoptiondecisionsunderuncertainty,their adoption rule is not well representedby the disease
model-instead, individuals
adopt only when a "criticalthreshold"of adopting neighborshas been exceeded.
Thresholdmodelsof this kind havealsobeen popularas modelsof socialinfluenceand diffusionfor manyyears
(Schelling1973;Granovetter1978;Morris2000;Watts2002),but the assumptionsunderpinningthem arevery
differentfrom those motivatedby the diseaseanalogy-whereasdiseasemodelsassumeno memoryeffects,
thresholdmodelsassumethat memoryof pasteventsplaysa criticalrole. The differencemay not seemimpor
tant, but recentwork (Doddsand Watts2004;Doddsand Watts 2005)has demonstratedthat the two typesof
modelscan generatevery differentdynamics,even under the simplestmixing assumptions.
Reasoning
about
contagiousprocesses
solelyby analogyand intuition,in other words,can be deeply misleading;thus claims
about the importanceof influentials
that are basedon unstatedassumptionsand ambiguousanalogiesshould
not be takenat facevalueno matterhow plausiblethey might sound.
By clarifyingthe assumptions
implicit in the "socialepidemic"analogyDoddsand I testedthe influentials
hypothesisby modelingthe spreadof influencethroughouta large network of individuals,and measuringthe
importanceof influentials
relativeto non-influentials
overa wide rangeof conditions.Becauseso little relevant
empiricalinformationis availableregardingthe precisestructureof influencenetworksor the mechanisms
by
which individualsinfluenceone another,we testeda wide rangeof assumptions.In all cases,influentials
were
definedasthe top 10%mostinfluentialof all individuals-a definitionthat wasnot criticalto our qualitative
con(Kellerand Berry2003).Precisely
clusions,but which is consistent
with the definitionsof other researchers
how
much more influentialthanaveragethe top 1001o
couldbe,however,wasallowedto varyconsiderably,
by altering
the shapeof the "influencedistribution,"while keepingthe averagelevelof influenceconstant.In somecases,
which we labeled"homogeneousinfluencenetworks,"influentialswere only a few times more influentialthan
average(stilla largedifference),
while in other cases-"heterogeneous
influencenetworks"-they weredozens
of timesmore influential.Wealsostudiedthe effectsboth of thresholdmodelsand disease-style
diffusionmodels,thus avoiding"stackingthe deck"againstinfluentials
by hand pickingsomeconvenientset of assumptions.

245

Measuring
Wordof Mouth
And finally,we studieddifferentkindsof networks-some random,and othersinvokingsimplenotionsof group
Structure.
Overall,we found that there were indeedsomeconditionsunderwhich influentials
were much more important
than average.Theseconditions,however,were relativelyrare,and requiredstrongassumptions
both aboutthe
influenceand influenceability
of influentials.
Undermostconditions,by contrast,influentials
wereonly modestly
more effectivein triggeringsocialepidemicsthan average,and often not any moreeffectiveat all.The reason
is simplythat when influenceis propagatedvia somecontagiousprocess,
the ultimateeffectstypicallydepend
far more on the global structureof the network than on the propertiesof the individualsnearthe start.Thus
one cannot necessarily
saymuch about how influencewill propagatebeyondany individual'simmediateenvironmentjust by lookingat that individual,or eventhat individualand his immediateneighbors-one needsto
examinethe non-localenvironmentas well. Just as forestfiresrequirea conspiracy
of wind, temperature,low
humidity,and combustiblefuel that extendsover largetractsof land,socialepidemicstend to be drivennot by
a few highly influentialindividualsinfluencingeveryoneelse but ratherby a criticalmassof easilyinfluenced
individualsinfluencingother easy-to-influence
people.To be sure,influentials
do havea greaterthan average
chanceof triggeringthis criticalmass,when it exists,but their overallimpactwastypicallylessthan proportional
to the number of peoplethey influencedirectly.Thuswhile intuitionwould suggestthat an individualwho directlyinfluencesthreetimes as many of his peersas an averagepersonwould offera multipliereffectof three,
and Gladwellwould suggestan even greaterimpact,we found that it wastypicallylessthan three-often not
measureably
betterthan the averageindividualat all.
Theseresults,of course,are speculative.Simulationsare,in the end, more likethought experimentsthan real
experiments,
and assuchare better suitedto provokingnew questionsthanto answeringthem. Carefulempiricalwork is thereforeneeded-both in estimatinginfluencenetworksand alsointerpersonal
influencemechanisms-before any firm conclusionsregardingthe importance,or lackthereof,of influentials
can be drawn.The
main point of our analysis,however,was not to show that the influentialshypothesisis necessarily
wiong,but
that it is not even wrong-that it is so impreciselyand ambiguouslyspecifiedthat one cannotsayfor sureeven
what is being said.Forexample,the claimthat influentials(howeverdefined)areimportant(in somesense)
becausethey (somehow)spreadtheir opinions(definedin somemanner)throughoutsome(unspecified)
network
isa statementthat soundslikeit sayssomething,but in fact relieson so manyunstatedand ambiguousassumptionsthat it saysnothingin particularat all.Our model,by contrast,maybe wrong,but at leastit isclearhowone
would go about provingit wrong, in which casea more accuratemodelmay be proposedin its place-a stepin
the right direction.

The"AccidentalInfluentials"
lf the influentialshypothesisdoesindeedsayvery little,however,how is it that it seemsto explainso much?The
enduringpopularityof the hypothesis,
that is,arisesnot only from its inherentplausibility,
but alsofromitsseeming ability to accountfor numerousinstancesof otherwisepuzzlingsocialphenomena-storiesin whichthe
choices,opinions,or effortsof a few individualsappearto havebeencriticalin spurringor quashingdemandfor
someproduct,changingthe resultof an election,or otherwisealteringpublicopinion.Gladwellemploysthese
anecdotesto great effect,but he is by no meansthe only personto do so-invariablyanyargumentagainst
the
importanceof influentialsmust rebut the rejoinderthat "influentialsobviouslymatter"becauseof someclted
instancewhen it seemsclearthat they did. Thereare,however,some problemswith this kindof anecdotal
empiricism.
First,many of the examplesthat come to mind are about individualswhoseimportancederivesfromthe mass
mediaor other kindsof non-personalinfluence.lt is possible,for example,that OprahWinfree's
advocacy
of a
previouslyunknown book dramatically
improvesits chancesof appearingon the bestseller
list,but to theextent
that is true, it is an exampleof the power of massmedia,not word of mouth. Likewise,
it maybe the casethat
a fashiondesignerwould be well advisedto havesome celebrityactressarriveat the Oscars
wearinghisdress,
but again,that is becauseher arrivalis being recorded,broadcast,and commentedupon by the massmedia.
Advocatesof the influentialshypothesishaveactuallybeen reasonably
expliciton this distinction(see,for exampleKellerand Berry2003,pp. 28-29),but it is frequentlyoverlookedin practice,
internet-based
especiallyas
lub

:..ilrl(l.
&ffW

#?.$ffi

publishingand communicationsblur the boundariesbetweenbroadcastand word-of-mouthmedia.When a

popularbloggerexpresses
hisenthusiasmfor a particularproduct,for example,potentiallythousandsof people
readhisopinion;but is the correspondinginfluenceanalogous
to that of an Oprahendorsement,
a personalrecommendationfrom a friend,or somethingelse? Byfailingto distinguishbetweenthesetypesinfluence,many
more storiescome to mind in which "influentials"
haveplayeda role,but in processthe meaningof the hypothesisitselfbecomesfurther muddied.
A second,and more seriousproblemwith anecdotalevidenceis that it suffersfrom the logicalfallacypost hoc
ergo propter hoc-"after this,thereforebecauseof this"-which assertsthat if eventX precededeventY then Y
wasin fact causedby X.Thusif a smallgroupof eastvillagehipstersstartwearinghushpuppies,and subsequently the brand'sfortunesrevive,it is temptingto concludethat the revivalwascausedby the hipsters.Manyother
explanations
arealsopossible-other peoplemayhavebeenwearingthem aswell,for example,or perhapsthey
simplyrespondedto the sameenvironmentalcuesasthe hipsters-but becausenarrative
havedifexplanations
ficultyaccommodatinglogicany morecomplicatedthan"X happenedthen Y happened"the possibilityof multiple or indirectcausesistypicallyoverlookedin favorof simple,linearcausation(Tilly2006).The post-hocfallacy,
in other words,mistakesa narrativedescriptionof eventsfor a causalexplanation.
Demonstrating
that X caused
in
however,
even
a
requires
to
account
not
only
for
what
actually
happened,
single
circumstance,
us
but also
Y
what might havehappenedbut did not.
Determiningall the things that might havehappened,but didn't, is of coursea tricky business;
thus the most
post-hoc
perform
commonway to avoid
reasoningisto conductexperiments,
or
randomized
trials,or at leasttry
to comparelargenumbersof independentcasesin whichsomethingsimilarto X happensmanytimes(the stanmorethan would be expectedby random
dard approachof statisticalstudies).
lf Y doesnot followX significantly
chance,then it generallyacceptedthat nothingaboutcausationcan be asserted.
Unfortunately,
thisobservation
highlightsa third problemwith anecdotalevidence:
we onlytell storiesabouteventsthat sparkour interest.We
do not try to explainall the eventsthat did not attractour interest-why,for example,all the other thingsthat
go on to become
eastvillagehipstersmayor may not havedecidedto try out overthe yearsdid not subsequently
b r e a k o u t h i t sN. o r d o w e h a v e t h e a b i l i t y t o r e p l a y a v e r s i o n o f h i s t o r y i n w h i c h e v e r y t h i n g i s t h e s a m e e x c e p t t h a t
the hipstersare not wearinghush puppies.Thuswhileour singleanecdotesoundsinformative,
it doesnot actually enableus to saywith any certaintywhethereastvillagehipstersactuallycausedevenone socialepidemic,
let alonewhetherthey are more likelythan anyoneelseto causeanother.
Together,theseproblems-ambiguouslanguage,post-hocreasoning,
and biasedselectionof events-seriously
of anecdotalevidence.Anytime we noticesomethingof interest,
underminethe usefulness
whetherit be a surprisebestseller,
a breakoutartist,or a hit product,it will almostcertainlybe the casethat somerelativelysmall
numberof peoplewere involvedearlyon, especially
if it is unclearprecisely
what kind of peoplewe are looking
for (problem1).Thesepeoplewill subsequently
seemto be specialsimplybecausethey did X andthen everyone
elsedid X (problem2). And becausewe haveonly one eventto explainone event(problem3),our explanation
" X c a u s e d Y " c a n n o t b e c o n t e s t e d b y a n y o b s e r v a t i o n s o f s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h Y d il d
f onnoet f o l l o w X .
is lookinghard enough for a few specialpeopleto whom to attributecausality,
therefore,one will probablyfind
if one is not lookingfor othercauses,
them. Correspondingly
one will not find any alternatives
to challengethe
e x p l a n a t i otnh a t o n e e x p e c t e da l l a l o n g .
Theapparentexplanatorypowerof the influentials
hypothesis
maythereforebe littlemorethanan artifactof the
influentials-oriented
worldviewthat we bringto the analysis
in the first place.Otherwiseordinaryindividuals,
by
virtue of the particularcircumstances
they happento occupyat a particularpoint in time,influencesomenumber of others,who then influenceothers,and so on, ultimatelygeneratinga significantevent.Retrospectively,
one can alwaysfind influentialsabout which we cantell stories,and one can always"explain"knownoutcomes
i n t e r m s o f t h e s e i n f l u e n t i a l sB. u t t h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s o n l y w o r k i n r e t r o s p N
e cotm
. atterhowmanyanecdotes
we accumulate,
for the previousfad,say,areunlikelyto be responsible
for the next.
the influentials"responsible"
(Watts2007)-individualswho seemto haveplayedan imporTheyare,in other words,"accidentalinfluentials"
tant role in an outcomethat we now know happenednot becauseof any specialattributesof their own, but on
accountof the accidentalconfluenceof a possiblylargenumberfactors,which may neverrecurtogetheragain.

247

MeasuringWordof Mouth
Thereis nothingyou can measureabout them,therefore,that will tell you anythingthat is necessarily
usefulto
you,becausenexttime it will be somebodyelse.
The accidentalnatureof influencecan be illustratedwith an exampleof realepidemic.Whenthe SARSepidemic
explodedin early2003in the Princeof WalesHospitalin HongKong,a subsequentinvestigationrevealedthat a
singlepatienthad directlyinfectedfifty others,leadingeventually
to 156casesin the hospitalalone(Tomlinson
and Cockram2003).Because
this event in turn led to propagationof the epidemicbeyondHong Kong,some
observersconcludedthat the spreadof epidemicsdependsdisproportionately
on the activitiesof a few "super
(Masuda,
spreaders"
Konnoand Aihara2004;Small,ShiandTse2004;Bassetti,
BischoffandSherertz2005).In retrospect,this conclusionappearssound-after all,therewerea few peoplewho infectedmanyothers,and those
eventsdid invigoratethe epidemic,which might otherwisehavedied out. A closerlook at the case(Tomlinson
and Cockram2003),however,revealsthat the real sourceof the problem was a misdiagnosis
of pneumonia.
Insteadof being isolated,asone would normallydo with a patientinfectedwith an unknownrespiratoryvirus,
the misdiagnosedSARSpatientwas placedin an open wardwith poor air circulation.Evenworse,becausethe
diagnosiswasfor pneumonia,a bronchialventilatorwasplacedinto lungs,and proceededto spewvastnumbers
of viral particlesinto the air aroundhim. The conditionsin the crowdedward resultedin a numberof medical
workersbecominginfected,aswell asotherpatients.Theeventwasimportantin spreadingthe disease-at least
locally-but what was importantabout it was not the patienthimsellso much as all the particulardetailsof his
circumstances.
Priorto the eventitself,nothingyou couldhaveknownabout the patientwould haveled you to
suspectthat therewasanythingspecialabout him, because
therewas nothing specialabout him.
Evenonce the Princeof Walesoutbreakhad transpired,it would havebeen a mistaketo then focuson superspreadingindividualsratherthan super-spreading
circumstances.
The next major SARSoutbreak,for example,
took placeshortlythereafterin a Hong Kongapartmentbuilding,the AmoyGardens,
and the personresponsible,
who becomeinfectedat the hospitalwhile beingtreatedfor renalfailure,had diarrhoea.Thistime the infection
s p r e a dt o 3 0 0 o t h e r i n d i v i d u a lisn t h e b u i l d i n gv i a a l e a k i n gd r a i na n d o t h e r p r o b l e m sw i t h t h e b u i l d i n gi n f r a structure,not a misdiagnosis
and a ventilator(Tomlinson
and Cockram2003).Whateverlessonsone might have
learnedabout super-spreaders
in the Princeof WalesHospital,
therefore,would havebeen nextto uselessin the
Amoy Gardens.A betterapproach,
implementand the one that the WHOand its affiliatedagenciessuccessfully
ed, was to ramp up screeningand isolationproceduresacrossthe board. By focusingon generictransmission
mechanisms,
not specialindividuals-by,in effect,treatingall individualsas potentialsuperspreaders-what
pandemicwasbroughtto heelin a surprisingly
could havebeena devastating
few
shorttime,and with relatively
deaths.

Conclusion
Likeplanningfor epidemics,marketingis typicallyconductedas a prospectiveexercise-thinkof who or what
might helpyour brandandtry to exploitthe relevantforcesin yourfavor-but it is usuallyonly in retrospect
that
we learnwhat works. lt isveryeasyto get thesedifferentviewsof causeand effectconfused,yet doing sotends
to underminethe usefulness
hypothof the insightswe think we havegainedfrom experience.The influentials
esis,likethe myth of super-spreaders,
is a theorythat can be madeto fit the factsoncethey are known,but in
glossingover the specificmechanisms
by which influencepropagates,
sayslittle about how the next eventof
interestwill take place,or who will playan importantrolein it. As suchit is at besta convenientfiction,and at
worst a misleadingmodelof how publicopinionreallychanges.The realworld is considerably
morecomplicated, and causalityis harderto ascribe,assomeword-of-mouthmarketershavealreadybegunto discover(Godes
and Mayzlin2004;Wasserman
2007).
Abandoningthe premisethat a minorityof specialindividuals
is necessarily
for socialchange,howresponsible
ever,does not underminethe relevance
of interpersonal
influence,
or the efficacyof word-of-mouthmarketing.
Rather,as word of mouth marketersimprovetheir abilityto trackthe impact of specificinterventions,
a more
c o m p l i c a t e d a n d l e s s d e t e r m i n i s t i c v i ei nwf o
l uf e n c e i s l i k e l y t o e m e r S
g eu .c h a v i e w m i g h t b e n e f i t b y d e v e l o p i n g
more realisticand empirically-grounded
versionsof the simulationmethodsthat Doddsand I advocated
in our
s t u d y . M o d e l s o f t h i s k i n d m i g h t b e u s e d , f o r e x a m p l e , t o m o dv ea lr i o u s " s e e d i n g " s t r a t e g i e s , t e s t i n g t r a d e o f f s
betweenthe costof recruitingdifferentindividuals
andtheirexpectedimpact,or betweenfocusingon cohesive

208

-+3,W#ffi?trg?ffi
groupsinsteadof randomlyscatteredindividuals
(Wattsand Dodds2008).Alternatively,
word-of-mouthmarketprocesses
ersmaybenefitsimplyby acknowledging
influence
that
areinherentlyunpredictable.
As SteveHasker
and I havesuggestedpreviously(Wattsand Hasker2006),they couldthen devotelessenergyto predictinghow
or throughwhom a givenproductwill succeed,
and moreto the business
of detectingand fosteringsuccess
that
is alreadyhappening,whetherit wasanticipatedor not. Finally.
word-of-mouthmarketingmay benefitby leveragingtraditionalmass-media
techniques,
like ad-buysand mailinglists,but adding "viral"functionality(Watts
and Peretti2007).
Althoughdifferent,all theseapproaches
acknowledgethe importanceof word-of-mouthinfluencewithout attemptingto reduceits operationto the influenceof a few "special"people.As a result,they lackthe tidy,intuitive
appealof the influentials
hypothesis,
andalsoits dramaticclaimto be able to do so much for so little. Likediets
promise
that
rapidweight losswithout sacrifice,
however,the claimthat a few specialindividualscan magically
makeor breaka brandinvariablyglosses
oversomeimportantdetails-in particularthat the individualsin question areonly everevidentin hindsight.I suspect,in fact,that manyword-of-mouthmarketingeffortsthat areostensiblydirectedat influentials
in realitytargetordinaryindividualsin a largelyad-hocmanner.No doubt many
of thesecampaignsfail,but somesucceed,
and the myth of influentialsis therebyperpetuated.By avoidingthe
problemof havingto identifyinfluentials
in advance,however,pragmaticapproacheslikethoseoutlinedabove
will ultimatelyserveword-of-mouthmarketers
betterthan eventheir best loved myths.

Bibliography
. Bass,FrankM.
1969.'ANewProductGrowthforModelConsumerDurables."
Manaqementscience
15:215227.
. Bassetti,S.,W. E. Bischoff,and R. J. Sherertz.2005.?re SARSsuperspreaders
cloud adults."Emerging
lnfectiousDiseases(serialon the lnterne0.
. Bernard,H. R.,P.D. Killworth,D Kronenfeld,
and L Sailer.1984."The Problemof InformantAccuracy:The
Validityof RetrospectiveData."Annual Reviewof Anthropology13:495--517.
. Burson-Marsteller.
2001."Thee-fluentials."
New York:Burson-Marsteller.
. Burt,RonaldS.
1999."TheSocial
CapitalofOpinionLeaders."TheAnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPolitical
and SocialScience566:37-54.
. Chan,K. K.,and S. Misra.1990."Characteristics
Of The Opinion Leader- A New Dimension."JournolOf
Advertising19:53-60.
. Coleman,JamesSamuel,ElihuKatz,and Herbert Menzel.1957."The Diffusionof an Innovationamono
Physicians."
Sociometry20:253--270.
. -. 1966.Medicollnnovotion:A DiffusionStudy.Indianapolis:
Bobbs-MerrillCo.
. Coulter,RobinA.,LawrenceF.Feick,and LindaL.Price.2002."Changingfaces:cosmeticsopinionleadership
amongwomen in the new Hungary
. ." EuropeanJournalof Marketing36:1287-1308.
. Creamer,Matthew.2007."What'sPlaguingViral Marketing;' in AdvertisingAge.
Dodds,P.5.,and D.J.Watts.2004."Universal
behaviorin a generalizedmodelof contagion."Physical
Review
Letters92:218701.
-. 2005."A generalizedmodel of socialand biologicalcontagion."Journalof TheoreticalBiology232:587604.
'1957.
Festinger,Leon.
ATheoryof CognitiveDissononce.
Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Gilbert,Daniel.2006.Stumblingon Happiness.
New York:Alfred A. Knopf.
Gladwell,Malcolm.2000. TheTippingPoint:How Little ThingsCan Make a Big Difference.New York:Little
Brown.
Godes,David,and DinaMayzlin.2004."FirmCreatedWordof Mouth Communication:
A Field-Based
QuasiExperiment."
HBSMarketingResearch
Paper.

209

MeasuringWordof Mouth
Granovetter,M. 5. 1978."Thresholdmodels of collectivebehavior."AmericanJournolof Socioloav83:14201443.
Hoffrage,Ulrich,RalphHertwig,and Gerd Gigerenzer.
2000."Hindsightbias:A by-productof knowledge
updating?"Journol of ExperimentalPsychology:Learning,Memory,& Cognition26:566-581.
Katz,Elihu,and Paul FelixLazarsfeld.1955.Personqlinfluence;the part playedby peoplein the flow of mass
communications.
Glencoe.lll.:FreePress.
Keller,Ed,and Jon Berry.2003.Thelnfluentials:OneAmericanin TenTellsthe Other NineHow to Vote,Whereto
Eat,and Whatto Buy.New York,NY:FreePress.
Laumann,EdwardO.,and FranzU. Pappi.1976.Networksof collectiveoction:a perspective
on communityinfluencesystems.
New York:AcademicPress.
Lazarsfeld,
PaulF.,BernardBerelson,and HazelGaudet.1968.Thepeople'schoice;how thevotermakesup his
mindin a presidentialcampaign.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Leskovec,
..lurij,Lada A. Adamic,and BernadoA. Huberman.2007."Thedynamicsof viral marketing."ACM
Transoctions
on the Web 1.
MarketSentinel,
Onalytical,
and lmmediateFuture.
2005."Measuringthe influenceof bloggerson corporate
reo utation."
Masuda,N.,N. Konno,and K.Aihara.2004."Transmission
of severeacuterespiratory
syndromein dynamicafsmall-worldnetworks."PhysicalReviewE 69.
Merton,RobertK. 1968."Patternsof influence:Localand cosmopolitaninfluentials."
Pp.441-474
in Social
Theoryand SociolStructure,edited by Robert K. Merton. New York:FreePress.
Morris,S.2000."Contagion."Reviewof EconomicStudies67:57-78.
Myers,JamesH.,and ThomasS.Robertson.1972."Dimensions
of OpinionLeadership."
Journalof Marketing
Research
9:41-46.
Niederhoffer,
Kate,Rob Mooth,and DavidWiesenfeld.20Q7."fhe Originand lmpactof CPGNew Product
Buzz:Emerginglrends and lmplications."
Neilsen.
Rand,PaulM.2004."ldentifyingand ReachingInfluencers."
Availableonlineat http://www.marketingpower.com/content2Q476.php.
Rogers,EverettM. 1995.Diffusionof innovations.New York:FreePress.
Rosen, Emmanuel. 2000. The Anatomy of Euzz: How to Create Word-of-MouthMarketing. New York:
Doubleday.
SchachtetDanielL.2OO1.The
SevenSinsof Memory:HowtheMindForgets
andRemembers.
Boston:Houghton
MifflinCompany.
ThomasC.1973."HockeyHelmets,ConcealedWeapons,and DaylightSaving:
Schelling,
A Studyof Binary
with
Choices
Externalities."
Journalof ConflictResolution17:381--428.
Smafl, M.,P.L.Shi,and C.K.Tse.2004."Plausiblemodelsfor propagationof the SARS
virus."leiceTronsactions
on Fundomentals
of Electronics
Communicotions
ond ComputerSciences
E87A:2379-2386.
Tilly, Charles.2006. Why?What HappensWhen PeopleGive Reasonsand Why.Princeton,NJ: Princeton
UniversityPress.
Tomlinson,Brian,and CliveCockram.2003."SARS:
Experience
at Princeof WalesHospital,
HongKong."Ihe
Lancet361:1486-1487.
Valente,ThomasW. 1995.Networkmodelsof thediffusionof innovations.Cresskill,
NJ:HamptonPress.
Vanden Bulte,Christophe,and YogeshV.Joshi.2007."New productdiffusionwith influentials
and imitators."Morketing Science 26:400-421.
Vernette,E.2004."Targetingwomen'sclothingfashionopinion leadersin mediaplanning:An application
for magazines."JournolOf AdvertisingResearch44:90-'1Q7.
Wasserman,
Todd.2007."Q+A:Buzz-Kill:
ColumbiaProfBlastsInfluencerModel."in Brandweek.com.

210

'&WffiXY'effi&
Watts,DuncanJ.2OO2.'?simplemodel of informationcascades
on randomnetworks."Proceedinqs
of the
NotionalAcademyof Science,
U.S.A.99:5766-5771.
-.2OOT."TheAccidental
Influentials."
HarvardBusinessReviewFebruary:22-23.
Watts, Duncan J., and Peter S. Dodds. 2008. "ThresholdModels of SocialInfluenceProcesses."
Pp.
Forthcoming in OxfordHandbookof AnalticalSociology,edited by PeterHedstromand Peter5. Bearman.
Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Watts,DuncanJ.,and PeterSheridanDodds.2007."lnfluentials,
networks,and publicopinionformation."
Journalof Consumer
Research
In press.
Watts,DuncanJ.,and SteveHasker.2006."Marketingin an Unpredictable
World."HarvardBusiness
Review
September:25-30.
Watts,DuncanJ., and Jonah Peretti.2007."ViralMarketingfor the RealWorld."HarvardBusiness
Review
May:22-23.
Weimann, Gabriel.1994.Thelnfluentials:PeopleWholnfluencePeople.Albany,NY StateUniversityof New
YorkPress.
Young,H. Peyton.2006."Thespreadof innovationsby sociallearning."
JohnsHopkinsUniversity.

11\