Matt Hurst raises another interesting question about teasing influence out of wide-ranging social phenomena:
It is always pertinent, when discussing influence - and influence based analysis, that one should maintain two models of the blogosphere. The first is the networked, influence rich model (which BuzzLogic is promoting). The second is the data driven, signal based model. In this second model, rather than Jeff Jarvis being the sole type of threat to a brand, 1,000 LiveJournalers who each express independently some dissatisfaction with a product, a movie, etc. within the same timeframe are equally important. There is a signal in the data as a whole that is of vital importance to the brand being monitored.An illustration of something of this view is the discussion around The Illusionist. In this case, there is no clear online influencer out there shaping the reaction to the movie - what we are seeing is a reflection of offline activity manifesting as a record of individuals' experiences and their propensity to recommend the movie. Monitoring this type of thing requires comprehensive data coverage.
Finally, I would also comment that it is sometimes the story or message that has influence - this is something closer to a true meme - an idea that due to some intrinsic quality will make itself spread between nodes in the network.
"Within a timeframe" is an absolutely key notion, we agree. Our system provides longitudinal analysis of user-defined timeframes, not just an atemporal view of the network.
But we also have discovered that within those 1,000 hypothetical posters, whether on LiveJournal or across multiple sites, there are parties that lead the movement, so to speak, and others who spread the message. These roles can be seen in the linking patterns, since many of the participants in the discussion point to someone to agree or disagree with their opinion. To some degree there are patterns that repeat within those large phenomena that can be used to identify where to participate as a marketer. That is not to say, however, that the same people always play the same role, rather statistically it is possible to identify within those movements who is currently taking a leadership role.
"Meme," which Matt uses to describe how a story or idea becomes the driving force in a discussion is a problematic word, since it is often used to suspend analysis of the interaction of people by suggesting that they merely transmit the meme, but the meme is somehow in control. Nevertheless, we can learn from epidemiology, for example, an use some of the statistical srategies from that discipline to identify the roles played by individuals "infected" by an idea.
For more about how to understand the spread of ideas and disease within society, I am looking forward to my friend Stephen Johnson's upcoming book, The Ghost Map, which chronicles the discovery that cholera spread via waterborne contamination, not in, as thought at the time, odors. Voilá, germ theory.
For a summary of the book and a key insight into social analysis, see Stephen talking in this short documentary, where he explains that "[John] Snow through his whole life never actually managed to see the vibrio cholerae, but he could see it in the pattern of lives and deaths that emanated out of this pump.:"
Comments (2)
Hi,
The fact is companies are interested in both "Hyper influentials" and the broad trends that emerge over time amongst all bloggers, forums etc. It is not too difficult to explain that overall trends are made up of influentials as well as those that are less influential. One unit of buzz is not equal to another (paradoxically)
Perhaps another angle worth touching on is what country is leading the debate, why do French bloggers react to a new technology or issue but not in the UK. Influence and trends do have cultural and language bias...
Simon
Posted by Simon McDermott | October 2, 2006 6:29 AM
Posted on October 2, 2006 06:29
The interesting question, I think, is what is a "unit of buzz" or even if a unit exists, since we are talking about individuals.
Influence is a relative metric, as one could have influence in a crowded discussion and still be involved in perceptions of it based on the same energy that one could dominate a lightly discussed topic.
So, what we have been thinking about is how to give a topic or venue different weight, as well as how to deal with "celebrity" as a factor--celebrities can be tremendously influential regardless of their perceived knowledge of, or attention to, a specific issue. The cultural questions you raise, it seems to me, are tactical in nature from the marketer's perspective. If you choose to launch a tech product among French bloggers you still want to know who within your market has the most influence historically and recently on the product area you are entering.
That said, simply knowing where you get more for your efforts within a market does eliminate the negative--that is, unexpected--consequences of the paradox of buzz you point out by giving the marketer some insight into what they may get in return for their engagement with an influential person.
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe | October 2, 2006 10:40 AM
Posted on October 2, 2006 10:40