Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

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, user-

generated 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. 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


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
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- 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, to a world where the information is held by

millions and distributed to a few (niche markets)”. He also notes “the roots of social media and

the social graph come from an offline world (of book clubs, men‟s clubs, garden clubs, athletic

clubs, gatherings around office watercoolers). It is just that technology has enabled us to go to a

whole new level with our networks”. Social media are simply the newest mechanism by which

we filter and organize the glut of information available to us. Therefore, they are also the newest

carriers of influence.

Networks and Filters: Social Media Participation

The web log, or blog, was arguably the first user-generated content phenomenon of the

internet. Through various user-friendly platforms such as,, and, anyone can be their own publisher. reports that approximately

175,000 blogs are created daily. There are currently an estimated 120 million blogs, with 7.5

million of them active. An estimated 184 million bloggers create 570,000 pieces of content every

day, reaching about 70% of the web‟s daily audience. Two-thirds of active bloggers are male,

and a majority (60%) between the ages of 18 and 44. 75% of active bloggers hold a college

degree, and on average one in three has an annual household income over $75,000. Among

bloggers, the leading metrics of success used are personal satisfaction, number of unique visitors,

and number of posts or comments (Technorati). continually ranks blogs and

assigns a “Technorati Authority” number on a scale of 0-1000, based on calculations including a

site‟s linking behavior, categorization, and other associated data. Higher authority bloggers are

more prolific content creators, posting nearly 300 times more content than lower ranked

bloggers. Sites are ranked according to Technorati Authority compared with all other blog sites,

Page 3 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

and a running list of the Top 100 blogs (across all categories) is published on their website. The

top blogs are also listed topically, in nine major categories and 31 sub-categories. See Appendix

#1 for Technorati topical directory.

Currently, Facebook is the leading platform for social networking worldwide. statistics page reports over 400 million active users, with 50% logging in on any

given day. Roughly 70% of Facebook users reside outside of the United States, and more than 70

language translations are currently available on the Facebook website. In addition, there are

currently more than 100 million active mobile Facebook users, and people that access Facebook

on their mobile devices are twice as active as non-mobile users. The average Facebook user has

130 friends, is connected to 60 pages, groups, or events, and creates 70 pieces of personal

content each month. In addition, there are approximately 2.5 billion photos uploaded to

Facebook each month.

In comparison, Twitter reportedly ended 2009 with just over 75 million users worldwide.

Just over 17% of all Twitter users sent a tweet in December 2009, an all-time low. Nearly 6

million users join Twitter each month, with nearly one-third of all accounts having joined within

the last four months. A large number of registered Twitter accounts are inactive, with about 25%

of accounts having no followers and about 40% of accounts never having sent a single tweet.

Furthermore, nearly 80% of registered Twitter users have sent less than 10 tweets. The average

Twitter user has 27 followers. Approximately 57% of Twitter users reside in the United States.

However, despite the fact that only 20% of Twitter users return to tweet in their second month

after registration, those that do return tweet so much that it makes up for all the inactive

Page 4 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

accounts. So, there is a high amount of loyalty and engagement on the platform from the small

percentage of active Twitter users (RJ Metrics data).

Blogsites, Facebook, and Twitter are far from the only options available. Other common

sites and platforms include YouTube for video content, LinkedIn for professional networking,

Flickr for photos, the online user-generated encyclopedic resource, and many

more. The amount of information and networks available worldwide on the internet is

staggering. Each of these networks and platforms offers differing levels of information,

interaction, and participation. People are free to consume available information and observe

within their social network(s), actively contribute and participate, or lead as they see fit. 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”. 56% of adult sharers and nearly

two-thirds of youth sharers send information weekly (Bernoff).

Interestingly, the factors that motivate people to participate in social media stem from the

same basic human behavior patterns that Cialdini references regarding influence. Safko (2009)

cites reciprocity, recognition, and social liking in particular as contributing factors. Amerasinghe

(2010) summarizes both intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) motivators to participation in

a concise model (see Appendix exhibit #2).

Craig Newmark (of predicts “people use social networking tools to figure

out who they can trust and rely on for decision making. By the end of this decade, power and

influence will shift largely to those people with the best reputation and trust networks, from

people with money and nominal power. That is, peer networks will confer legitimacy on people

emerging from the grassroots”. This is a logical conclusion, given that the purpose of online

Page 5 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

social networks and sharing sites is to bring together people that share a common bond, similar

interests, and/or trusted relationships. Influence will reside with those that can provide valuable

content or meaningful connections, which in turn can then be spread throughout our social


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. However, trust in traditional media

sources continues to decline. “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%), newspaper articles (34%), corporate communications (32%), and advertising

(17%). Only radio polled slightly higher than peer sources, at 38% credibility. “Academic

sources” or “experts” continue to be the most trusted sources of information, with 64% of those

surveyed citing them as a credible source.

On the heels of a global recession, with numerous headlines of natural disaster, industry

bailouts, partisan politics, and more, trust in government and business are at all-time lows

(Edelman). At the same time, the proliferation of social media and the changing technological

landscape are reinforcing consumer trust in their peer networks. Brogan and Smith (2009) aptly

observe that “we are currently living in a communications environment where there is a trust

deficit. The result is our tendency to join together into loose networks, or tribes, that gather based

on common interest. We are suspicious of anything that comes to us from outside our circle of

friends. We form groups of like-minded individuals around those topics, products, or news items

Page 6 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

that interest us.” Bernoff‟s (Forrester 2009) research found that in fact nearly 75% of online

adults trust email from people they know, while 60% rely on ratings and reviews, 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; corporate branded or sponsored communications are less trusted than the outer rings of

peers and prospects.

Open-Source Media

In fact, our very definition of media is changing. As individuals can now publish

anything online, content is undergoing a seismic shift to a more instantaneous, shared model.

“We view online social networks as media, not because they help us communicate, but because

they extend human relationships. We‟ve chosen to make the next media ours, and we‟ve shaped

our own media to be an extension of our views, our own businesses, and our tribes” (Brogan &

Smith). Bob Garfield deems this shift the “Chaos Scenario”. He questions media and marketing

professionals alike, “Can you hear it? In the distance? It‟s a crowd forming- a crowd of what you

used to call the „audience‟. They‟re still an audience, but they aren‟t necessarily listening to you.

They‟re listening to each other talk about you. And they‟re using your products, your brands

names, your iconography, your slogans, your trademarks, your designs, your goodwill, all of it as

if it belonged to them- which, in a way, it all does, because after all, haven‟t you spent decades,

and trillions, to convince them of just that? Congratulations. It worked.” Garfield describes the

current information society as an “open-source world”, in which everyone may contribute and

collaborate. So we now look to our trusted networks to find and share information, and we look

to our peers to collaborate with us in creating new content as well.

Page 7 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Participation Inequality

As technology increasingly enables everyone to have a voice in both content production

and distribution, it behooves marketers to identify and understand how many people, and which

ones, are actively involving themselves in this process. 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%), Spectators (70%),

Joiners (59%), Collectors (20%), Critics (37%), Conversationalists (33%), and Creators (24%).

See Appendix exhibit #3 for detail. Clearly, this categorization of participation indicates that a

majority of people online merely consume content as observers, rather than create or modify the

community content.

This reflects a common theory within internet culture, which originated in the

blogosphere in 2006, known as the “90-9-1” rule or the “1% rule”. These theories advance the

idea “that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate. This term is often

used to refer to participation inequality in the context of the internet”( The “90-

9-1” version of this theory proposes that 90% of on online community view content without

contributing (i.e. “lurk”), while 9% participate by editing or modifying content (i.e. commenting

on a post), and only 1% of users create the original content. These theories are similar in concept

to the 80/20 rule from information science, also known as the “Pareto principle”, which holds

that 20% of a group will produce 80% of the group‟s activity. While the actual percentage of

participation is likely to vary depending upon subject matter and community, it is a generally

held rule that a minority of users will initiate and distribute online content to the majority. These

are the mass influencers of social media, the minority that originate content and determine the

content that is “remarkable”- literally that which is worthy to be noticed or commented upon.

Page 8 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Identifying the Influencers

In Jeremiah Owyang‟s Dow Jones White Paper on “Tracking the Influence of

Conversation”, 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. A 2008 Edelman White Paper

advanced this idea of memes further, to postulate that people of influence are those that may be

categorized as either meme starters or meme spreaders. It describes meme starters as a person

who “typically is creative, forms opinions, and articulates them well. They have the ability to

state a view at the right time. Their readership is not necessarily large but views this individual as

trustworthy” (Edelman). These are the content creators. In contrast, the meme spreaders are

people who “thrive by sharing opinions and want to do it first. They are trusted and have a large

readership”. These are the content distributors. Both types of people have influence, but in

different forms. In general, the 2008 Edelman White Paper sought to “understand which

individuals are the most trusted or have the loudest voice” by calculating online influence. 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. They describe these content distributors as “the

power users of the new tools of the Web”. According to Brogan & Smith, these influencers

“speak online technology fluently. They recommend more, and more often, on social

bookmarking applications than anyone else. They connect with more people than anyone else,

Page 9 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

and they know how to leave a good impression. As they do so, they build healthy, honest

relationships. Trust agents use today‟s Web tools to spread their influence faster, wider, and

deeper than a typical company‟s PR or marketing department might be capable of achieving, and

with more genuine interest in people, too”.

Ray (2010) creating a Forrester research report titled “Tapping the Entire Online Peer

Influence Pyramid”, in which he categorizes online influencers into three large categories: Social

Broadcasters, Mass Influencers (sub-categorized as Mass Connectors and Mass Mavens), and

Potential Influencers. Forrester named these two sub-categories of Mass Influencers based on a

similar analogy described by Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point. According to

Forrester‟s report “Peer Influence Analysis”, the Mass Mavens “are the 13.8% of the online

population (24 million people) that creates 80% of all opinions about products and services in

blog posts, blog comments, discussion forum posts, and reviews”. This relates to Edelman‟s

category of Meme Starters. Forrester research indicates that the average Mass Maven is 38 years

old and has an average income of $89,800, well above the average for online consumers of

$79,100. In contrast, Forrester‟s Mass Connectors are the equivalent to Edelman‟s Meme

Spreaders. Forrester describes Mass Connectors as “the 6.2% of the US online population (11

million people) that generate 80% of all impressions about products and services within social

networks. Forrester describes Mass Connectors as young and affluent; with an average age of 32

and average annual household income of $98,100. These Connectors generally have large

personal networks online in venues such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and MySpace- with an

average total of 537 connections across all networks. See Appendix exhibit #4 and #5 for graphs

of these Forrester Mass Influencers.

Page 10 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Influence Analytics in Social Media: Assessing the 90-9-1 Rule

Dr. Michael Wu, Principal Scientist of Analytics at Lithium, has done a great deal of

work digging into the dynamics of online communities as well as the mathematical dynamics of

social interaction. His work using Lithium‟s 10 years of user participation data across 200+

communities has revealed that the 90-9-1 Rule, while a relevant rule of thumb, varies greatly

depending on the community, topic, context, as well as the definition of “most of the community

content”. Wu‟s research found that “hyper-contributors can contribute anywhere from about 30%

to nearly 90% of the community content, with an average of 55.95%”. Depending on the

definition of “most” of the community content, 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).

Forrester‟s analysis (noted above), found a participation inequality more in line with the 80/20

Pareto Principle than the 90-9-1 Rule. So, mathematical analysis tells us that there is a great deal

of variability in the data. However, we do see that “participation in communities is highly

skewed and unequal, and there is a small fraction of hyper-contributors who produce a

substantial amount of the community contents” (Wu). 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.

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. The influencer‟s power to influence is dependent of two factors: credibility- expertise in

Page 11 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

a specific domain of knowledge, and bandwidth- the ability to transmit knowledge through a

social media channel. The target‟s likelihood to be influenced is dependent on four factors:

relevance- the right information, timing (the right time), alignment (the right place), and

confidence (the right person) (Wu). High bandwidth users can be identified by: 1) participation

velocity data (such as number of posts or tweets), 2) social equity data (such as number of

followers or unique blog readers), and 3) social graph data (such as a network analysis of

following/followers relationships on Twitter). Credible users can be identified by: 1) reciprocity

data (such as online ratings), 2) reputation data (such as online rankings), 3) self-proclaimed data

(such as career experience listed on LinkedIn), and 4) social graph data (such as a domain-

specific network analysis of conversation on a given topic). Finding the influencers in a

particular social media channel, then, 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). See Appendix exhibit #6 for a Venn diagram of this process.

Identifying an influencer from a data analytics perspective can be summarized as finding

the right person(s), not with the most friends or even the most discussion around a topic, but the

one(s) with the most recent discussions about a topic/product. So, in this sense: 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑕𝑖𝑝 +

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑦 + 𝐶𝑕𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑕𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑢𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 (Wu). First, a

marketer should determine their need within the consumer purchase funnel (awareness,

consideration, intent, purchase, loyalty) to determine marketing goals and key performance

indicators. Then, 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. Then, depending on the need to create content or

distribute content, the marketer can determine relevant metrics such as number of posts or

Page 12 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- 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). Finally, the marketer can use those relevant metrics to identify

influencers within the appropriate channel(s) using the Social Media Influence analysis process.

Power of Peers: Earned Media and Advertising

According to Nielsen, “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‟- where consumers directly engage with the marketing messages and

pass them along to their friends”. As its name implies, “earned media” has to be produced

directly by consumers through trust, connection, and engagement between user and brands.

Forrester indicates that “the scale of online peer influence compares with online paid media”. In

alignment with their Mass Influencer categories, Forrester analyzed peer influence in two

categories: influence posts (by the Mass Mavens) and influence impressions (by the Mass

Connectors). Forrester estimates that consumers created over 500 billion influence impressions

on one another about products and services within social networks last year, which is roughly

one-fourth of the paid online ad impressions. Considering that consumers trust peer sources more

than any others when making purchase decisions, these social impressions carry significant

weight. This is why identifying and targeting social media influencers is imperative.

Forrester addresses the challenge of targeting peer influencers in this way, “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, but you can understand

the specific characteristics of the Mass Influencers in your particular market. That is the power of

Peer Influence Analysis: It arms marketers with knowledge about the Mass Influencers in their

Page 13 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

specific markets so that they can devise the right word-of-mouth (WOM) strategies”. Nielsen‟s

research in conjunction with Facebook found “most „earned‟ impressions have the highest level

of impact out of the formats tested, but because this subset of consumers is small, reach is

difficult to achieve solely with these impressions”. 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). Additionally, the study found ad recall, awareness,

and purchase intent continued to rise even after 10+ exposures to social impressions, which

reinforces the notion that consumers will tolerate and trust peer influence significantly more than

traditional forms of advertising (Nielsen). 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”.


Jeff Jarvis is quoted in Garfield‟s “Listenomics” article with the following statement,

“There‟s a conversation going on about your brand in the open. You can either join it or not”.

Marketers are increasingly going to need to engage in social media and networks, because that is

where consumers are spending time and forming their opinions. Garfield suggests that marketers

learn to “manage, focus, exploit, maybe even co-opt the open conversation”. Safko (2009)

concludes that business owners and marketers “need to transform the way we touch our clients,

and integrate ourselves into the very fabric of what they do every day. We have to embrace

social networks, digital connections, and the online experience and build an organization that

embraces conversation and transparency”. The most efficient way to do this is by leveraging the

power of earned media through peer influence. 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, Mass Mavens (content producers) or Mass Connectors (content distributors).

Page 14 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- 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. They found that “about 1.8% of the online population are Mass

Connectors for consumer electronics and 4.8% are Mass Mavens.” These groups account for

more than 80% of the peer impressions regarding consumer electronics. Forrester found that the

demographics of these particular influence groups (electronics Mavens and Connectors) are

fairly similar. 61% of the Mavens and 66% of the Connectors are male. On average they are

between 32 and 38 years old, with incomes between $95,000 and $106,700 annually. They are

also heavy users of mobile internet (54% to 68%) compared to the average online adult

population (25%). See Appendix exhibit #8 for Consumer Electronics Mass Influencer

Demographic data.

Twitter (17%) and Facebook (53%) are the dominant social networks for Connector peer

impressions regarding consumer electronics. Forrester found that within the consumer

electronics category, compared with the general US online population, they are four times more

likely to read others‟ tweets, five times more likely to have a Twitter account, and almost 10

times more likely to ask for the opinions of Twitter friends before making a large purchase”

(Forrester). In addition, Forrester found that 40% of influence impressions from Mavens

regarding consumer electronics occur on blogs within posts and comments, followed by 32%

from ratings and reviews on popular online news and information sites such as CNET, Engadget,

and Gizmodo.

Page 15 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

A quick review of‟s recent tags (May 6, 2010) reveals that “Android” has

been tagged as a topic 31 times on blogs within the last month. Technorati‟s Blog Directory

reveals that “Technology” is the 2nd most popular blog category, with 8621 blogs in the main

category (“Lifestyle” is highest, encompassing 13,703 blogs). indicates that

Android has been tweeted about 45,100 times within the last week. Together, these data points

suggest it would be possible to identify both types of social influencers: “Mass Mavens” and

“Mass Connectors” within the technology field, concerning the topic of Android mobile phones.

By definition, the Mass Mavens of Android mobile phones could be found by searching

for bloggers and technology critics recently producing content about Android. Technorati‟s Top

100 list for Technology could be used to identify high bandwidth content producers, and Twitter

could be mined to locate users with high social equity (# of tweets and re-tweets) regarding

Android. This data could then be cross-referenced with popular Twitter users and Tech site

reviewers to determine the users with highest credibility (through ratings, reputation, and

reciprocity data) to determine key Mass Maven Influencers.

Mass Connectors regarding Android mobile phones could be found, using the Forrester

research as a guide, by analyzing connection data on Facebook and Twitter. A social graph could

be constructed to represent recent Facebook and Twitter conversations regarding Android, to

pinpoint high bandwidth users. Participation velocity data could also be examined, such as the

number of tweets in a given time frame. 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.

Page 16 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Exhibit #1 Technorati Blog Directory (With Blog Count by Topic):

Entertainment (8111)

 Celeb (306)  Television (177)  Gaming (543)

 Film (711)  Comics (326)  Books (2514)
 Music (402)  Anime (96)
Business (7496)

 Finance (551)
 Real Estate (146)
 Small Business (1561)

Sports (4470)

 Baseball (433)  Hockey (64)  Motorsport (78)

 Football (287)  Tennis (24)
 Basketball (101)  Golf (192)
Politics (5903)

 U.S. Politics (2835)

 World Politics (2119)

Autos (730)

Technology (8658)

 Info Tech (2803)

 Gadgets (1896)

Living (13910)

 Health (1426)  Pets (49)  Family (445)

 Religion (2861)  Fashion (110)  Home (1280)
 Arts (1523)  Food (5916)  Travel (764)
Green (1831)

Science (714)

Accessed May 4, 2010. Browse full online directory at:

Page 17 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- 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- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Exhibit #4 Peer Influence Analysis Types of Mass Influencers (Forrester, 2009)

Exhibit #5 Peer Influence Analysis Demographics of Mass Influencers (Forrester, 2009)

Page 19 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Exhibit #6 Social Media Influence Venn Diagram (Wu, 2010)

Exhibit #7 Social Networking Graph (Concept- Wu, 2010 Image-SocialNetworkAnalysis)

Page 20 of 24
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
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson


Amerasinghe, Amitha. (April 20, 2010). SocialMediaToday Website. “What Motivates People to
Participate in Social Media?”. Retrieved April 20, 2010 at

Bentwood, Jonny. (2008). Edelman White Paper. “Distributed Influence: Quantifying the Impact of Social
Media”. Retrieved April 17th, 2010 at:

Bernoff, Josh. (February 17, 2009). Forrester Research Report, “Peer Influence in an Unstable Economy”.
Forrester Research Inc. Cambridge: Mass.

Bernoff, Josh. (April 20, 2010). Advertising Age. “Spotting the Creators of Peer Influence”. Retrieved
April 20, 2010 at

Brogan, Chris and Julien Smith (2009). Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve
Reputation, and Earn Trust. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken: New Jersey.

Bruins, Jan. Journal of Social Issues. Spring 1999. “Social Power and Influence Tactics: A Theoretical
Introduction”. Retrieved April 18, 2010 at

Cialdini, Robert B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Collins Publishing Co. New
York: New York.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New
York: Harper Collins Pub.

Edelman Strategy One Research (Jan, 2010). 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer: Annual Global Opinion
Leaders Study. Retrieved February 23, 2010 at:

Facebook Statistics. Retrieved May 5, 2010 at

Garfield, Bob. (2009). The Chaos Scenario. Stielstra Publishing.

Gibs, Jon and Sean Bruich. (April 2010). Nielsen Compan and Facebook Joint Research Study. “Advertising
Effectiveness: Understanding the Value of a Social Media Impression”. Retrieved May 4, 2010 at

Gladwell, Malcom. (2000). The Tipping Point. Back Bay Books: Little, Brown and Co. New York: NY.

“Influence” Definition. (n.d.). Unabridged. Retrieved May 04, 2010, from

“Influence” Definition. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from

Page 22 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Maki. (November 11, 2009). “11 Ways to Influence People Online and Make Them Take Action”.
Retrieved April 20, 2010 at

Moore, Robert J. (January 26, 2010). The Metric System Blog by RJMetrics. “New Data on Twitter’s Users
and Engagement”. Retrieved May 5, 2010 at

Newmark, Craig. (April 6, 2010). Craig from Craigslist Indulges Himself. “Trust and Reputation Systems:
Redistributing Power and Influence”. Retrieved April 18, 2010 at

Owyang, Jeremiah & Matt Toll (2007). Dow Jones White Paper. “Tracking the Influence of Conversations:
A Roundtable Discussion on Social Media Metrics and Measurement”. Retrieved May 6, 2010 at

Owyang, Jeremiah. (April 5, 2010). Web Strategy by Jeremiah Owyang.“Framework: Rings of Influence”.
Retrieved April 17, 2010 at

“Persuade” Definition. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from

Qualman, Erik. (2009). Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and Do Business.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken: New Jersey.

Ray, Augie and Josh Bernoff. (April 20, 2010). Forrester Research Report, “Peer Influence Analysis”.
Forrester Research Inc. Cambridge: Mass.

Ray, Augie. (Feb 27, 2010). Forrester Blogs. “My First Forrester Report: Tapping the Entire Online Peer
Influence Pyramid”. Retrieved April 20, 2010 at

Safko, Lon and David K. Brake. (2009). The Social Media Bible: Tactics, Tools, & Strategies for Business
Success. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken: New Jersey.

SocialNetworkAnalysis Graphics (2010). Retrieved May 6, 2010 at

Sussman, Matt. (October 19, 2009). Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009 “Day 1: Who Are The
Bloggers? SOTB 2009”. Retrieved April 14, 2010 at

Sussman, Matt. (October 20, 2009). Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009 “Day 2: The What and
Why of Blogging- SOTB 2009”. Retrieved April 14, 2010 at

Page 23 of 24
ADV 6320 Message Delivery & Engagement Systems
Spring 2010- Final Paper/Presentation
Alexandra Watson

Sussman, Matt. (October 21, 2009). Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009 “Day 3: The How of
Blogging- SOTB 2009”. Retrieved April 14, 2010 at

Technorati blog analytics tool at

Technorati Authority FAQ at

Twitter “TwInfluence” analytics tool at

Twitter “Twitalyzer” analytics tool at (Feb 20, 2010). “1% Rule (Internet Culture)” Retrieved April 26, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (March 18, 2010). Lithosphere Community- Product Blog. “The 90-9-1 Rule in Reality”.
Retrieved April 18, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (March 24, 2010). Lithosphere Community- Product Blog. “The Economics of 90-9-1: The
Lorenz Curve”. Retrieved April 18, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (March 29, 2010). Lithosphere Community- Product Blog. “The Economics of 90-9-1: The
Gini Coeficient (with Cross Sectional Analyses)”. Retrieved April 18, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (April 12, 2010). “The 6 Factors of Social Media Influence: Influence Analytics 1”. Retrieved
April 18, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (April 15, 2010). Lithosphere Community- Product Blog. “Finding the Influencers: Influence
Analytics 2”.Retrieved April 18, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (April 22, 2010). Lithosphere Community- Product Blog. “The Right Content at the Right
Time: Influence Analytics 3”. Retrieved April 26, 2010 at

Wu, Michael. (April 29, 2010). Lithosphere Community- Product Blog. “Hitting Your Targets: Influence
Analytics 4”. Retrieved May 4, 2010 at

Page 24 of 24