Posts Tagged ‘Influence’

New Report: ‘Public Relations 2011: Issues, Insights, Ideas’

March 12th, 2011 by Daniel Young | 1 Comment | Filed in Public Relations, Social media

PR 2011 Issues Insights and IdeasLast week chums Craig Pearce and Guy Downes and potential chum Noel Pennington released a report entitled, ‘Public Relations 2011: Issues Insight Ideas’. This 30+ page PR resource features contributions and commentary from a variety of  communications, digital and marketing industry luminaries and me.

You can click on the cover page to get stuck in.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

My highlights from today’s Future of Influence Summit #foi09

September 1st, 2009 by Daniel Young | 4 Comments | Filed in Public Relations, Social media, Technology

The ability to effectively filter information is a new ‘literacy’ that our society requires in order to sort the valuable information online from the crap.  This Crap Detection was one of the opening gambits provided by Howard Rheingold during today’s The Future of Influence Summit 2009.

Future of Influence

My firm – Burson-Marsteller – sponsored the Summit, which took place today in Sydney and San Francisco. The event is produced by The Insight Exchange and was chaired by Ross Dawson.

The Summit covered a wide range of topics relating to the somewhat nebulous concept of Influence.  It’s really hard to summarise the findings or conclusions from the event so I thought I would summarise my most interesting statements and perspectives.

The speaker list including Brian Solis, Richard Bell, Tim Burrowes and Duncan Riley:

  • There is a whole industry dedicated to ‘gaming Google’
  • We may trust people in one sphere but its hard to transfer that sense of reliability if them from one field to another
  • New tools are emerging that allow us to accurately measure Influence
  • A currency of influence is/ will emerge
  • Dell and Starbucks are two companies that have successfully listened to the feedback provided by their community and implemented it (i.e. made a change). One example of this in the context of Starbucks is the Raspberry Muffin, which was dropped but then brought back as a result of feedback provided by customers
  • Advertising and marketing industries are moving from audience measurement (readership, circulation) to influence measurement
  • We live in a confetti economy – high fragmentation of media and proliferation and distribution of source of information
  • Burson-Marsteller research with PR Week: 78% of American consumers say that advertising does not provide enough information for them to make a purchase. Approx. 60% of American consumer say that the media does not provide enough information…
  • Brian Solis categorised the social media community as an ‘ego-system’
  • Lessons are learnt in failure. Google refers to this as ‘failing wisely’
  • The Dell @DellOutlet Twitter concept succeeded partly as a result of very cheap products
  • The number of active Twitter uses is staggeringly low
  • Intel: Marketing industries should stop referring to ‘target audiences’ and start thinking about them as people
  • CBS: Economics dictate a high degree of consolidation in online media. Today’s tier one bloggers will become the trust agents of the future. We are in the adolescence of the new media industry. Power will return to marketers, as a result
  • 80% of online news content is consumer online via Fairfax properties in Australia. New media lacks credibility in this market.
  • Joe Talcott: The message is the message. Technology is the focus for communications today but technology will gradually retreat into the background and content will assume its rightful position as the most important aspect of communication
  • 80% of communication is non-verbal and 90% of conversations about brands still takes place offline

Lots of interesting thoughts and conversations here. No firm answers for a definition of influence or for a criteria or standard for measuring it.

There’s no doubt that this area of digital marketing will grow into the future, with organisations launching methods for measuring influence. I think there is a risk in using the degree to which people are inter-connected as a measure of influence.  There is also a danger in placing higher value on quant. measures of influence such as delicious tags because it assumes that the community that either has access to that content or access to the Web is somehow representative of the total, when this is not necesarily the case.

At the end of the day its very easy to ‘game the system’ and today’s Summit is yet more evidence that big business will invest heavily to excert influence online – at the cost of authenticity, trust and truthfulness in some cases. I believe that we place too much faith in the Web at our peril.

Trust in institutions has eroded; we need to protect and foster the trust that we have in each other.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Ad:tech agenda dominated by branded competitions rather than conversations with brands #atsyd

March 11th, 2009 by Daniel Young | 10 Comments | Filed in Social media

It’s day two at Ad:tech and we continue to hear examples of consumer focused campaigns run by advertising agencies (in the main) which are generating ‘engagement’ between brands and consumers. What’s surprised me about the conference is the focus on projects or campaigns as opposed to long term stakeholder engagement programs. This fact highlights a key point for me and this is that the advertising industry is culturally aligned with campaigns with a start and an end point while social media strategists and the PR industry are focused on building and managing relationships with influencers over time.

The fact that no-one seems willing (or able) to define Influence or Engagement is further evidence to me that the content of the conference is very project focused, which is reflective of an industry which is not ready or able to put the stake in the ground when it comes to qualitative measures. The Smirnoff Experience case study was interesting and compelling (original, not so?) – the team talked about the ability to turn on and turn off the community.

My second observation, which supports, the point made above is that many of the campaigns projects are focused on competitions or contests, which involve a prize (7:Eleven – free Slurpies), (Vodafone NZ – 10,000 prizes plus $10,000 cash prize for the winner); (V – $100,000 in prize money). In a sense this is a form of sponsored conversation between the brand and consumer – if it represents a conversation at all.   

This is a theme that Mark Jones picks up on here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Online Influence: Activity, Credibility, Reach, Quality and Connections?

October 21st, 2008 by Daniel Young | 1 Comment | Filed in Social media, Technology

Nick Holmes à Court has released a list:

Australia’s Top 100 Influential Twitterers

Check it out here.

It’s useful as a guide but influence is subjective and one could argue that Twitterers that post often on personal topics (i.e. respond literally to the question: What are you doing?) are Active as opposed to Influential.

I also came across this tool: TWinfluence, which analyses social networks to provide a measure for an individuals influence. TWinfluence goes one step futher than the Holmes à Court analysis by extending the analysis to the second and third layer of a social network i.e. it goes beyond direct connections.

This type of tool is really useful for agencies when conducting influencer audits.

contactdjy’s Rank: #3302 (38%)

In related news, we are currently trialling a social media monitoring tool. More on this later.

Tags: , , , , , ,