Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Measuring influence is complex, not complicated

An individual’s ‘grading’, ‘influence’, ‘fame’ or however else you wish to describe it is no longer about who gets the biggest number. It is all about relevance.

I outlined that in a chapter of The Power of The Network and you can also find the thinking here
I’m relevant to you if you’re reading this blog. So my influence may be reasonably high. But it only remains so if:
  1. I stick to my brief – you trust me to talk social media, future of publishing, impact of the power of the network etc. If I start giving you tips about horse racing you’re going to treat them with caution – at the very least.
  2. I remain consistent: If I give you a series of bum steers my value to you will rapidly reduce.
  3. 2 and 3 can mix. If I start giving you horse racing tips AND I am consistently right – you’ll value this new aspect (I’ll even attract new communities of purpose as a result.
  4. The result of 2 and 3 mixing can impact on those who followed me because of 1&2.
  5. The value of my influence can only be measured from the receivers point of view – recommendation happens in the mind of the receiver.
  6. My influence among those who are yet to connect with me, but have the potential to through meta data is somewhere between 0 and infinity.

Complex, isn’t it?
I've explored this in a more detail on the BrandoSocial blog, which I'd like to introduce you to, right here, if I may.

By way of disclosure; BrandoSocial is where I work four days a week.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?