Excerpt by Noemi Pollack from PRNewswire & Agility@Work’s crowdsourced e-book, The Practitioner’s Guide to Social Influencer Engagement
Nielsen reported recently that consumers trust “real friends” and “virtual strangers” over newspapers, TV, magazines or ads.(1) This trend, coupled with the increased value of third-party endorsements and positive word of mouth, demonstrates a fundamental need to earn trustworthy endorsements from influencers in today’s increasingly consumer-driven environment. The challenge for brands, however, is not just finding an influencer – it’s finding the right influencer. Measuring Influence
Influence is a commonly used word with a very broad definition. Without dissecting the etymology of the word, suffice to say it refers to the act of compelling someone (or a group of people) to a particular opinion or behavior. In other words, a successful influencer would be one who can incite others into converting, whether that means purchasing a product/service or agreeing with an idea.
Since influence is more than merely being heard, one must look beyond metrics such as audience size, friends/fans/followers, website visitations and impressions. There should certainly be a baseline expectation of a person’s network size, but that should not be the only metric. Influencers should be weighed more in the quality of interactions they have with their audience, the amount of responses they earn with their interactions and, perhaps most telling, the evidence of positive conversions. For example, looking at the number of Facebook friends is not enough. Do the friends interact and engage with the influencer? How many comments/likes does an influencer produce with each post? Is there evidence of conversations in which the influencer has swayed the opinions and/or behavior of audience members? This information can be found through an influencer’s blog, through Twitter mentions and any other platform on which he or she is active.
Qualifying the Influencer’s Audience
Determining whether or not a person is influential is not enough, alone. Your brand advocate could have sway over millions of people all over the globe, but if those people are not the right people for your brand, that influencer may as well be shouting in a vacuum as far as you are concerned. Age-old market research tactics can ensure that the right person is saying the right message to the right audience. Vetting a potential influencer’s audience need not be time-extensive and costly.
One can simply research his or her online network and view their profiles. What types of organizations do they like/follow? Do they respond in a positive way to brand messages similar to yours? Would they buy your product or be influenced by your ideas? The influencer’s offline audience can be researched as well. What organizations is the influencer involved with? Do their affiliations and offline activities support or conflict with your target audience? If you had the budget, would you pay to advertise to this influencer’s audience?
If you are engaging an influencer to become a brand advocate, or even if you are paying them to be, be clear that on many levels you are relinquishing control of your brand to this person. Therefore, it is paramount that the influencer personality and the brand personality be aligned. If the influencer’s communication style, general personality or personal opinions greatly conflict with your brand, then you could have tremendous exposure and heightened risk of negative word of mouth.
In essence, influencers behave as brand spokespeople – but unlike real spokespeople, brands don’t have direct control over their message. So a brand should be comfortable with an influencer’s voice, style and public positioning.
In a Nutshell
When actively pursuing influencers, take the time to gauge their level of influence, as well as their target audience and public persona. When there is a perfect match, then brand advocacy is effective and far-reaching.
1. Nielsenwire. 2009. “Global Advertising: Consumers Trust Real Friends and Virtual Strangers the Most.“ Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/ global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most/
The shady individual who put up a faux press release on PRWeb about Google acquiring ICOA, the “neutral host” broadband wi-fi provider, for $400 million, got away with it long enough for several news organizations, now red-faced, to have picked up the fake news release and distributed it. Also, long enough for a short-lived, but significant bump (a fivefold increase), in ICOA stock and for someone to pocket the profits before the stock plummeted again very quickly upon discovery.
In the wake of it all, ICOA said the story was a hoax, Google declined to comment, several high profile news publishers got egg on their faces, among them Associated Press, TechCrunch and The Washington Post — publications that ran the story and later had to issue retractions and PRWeb was forced to issue a mea culpa of sorts, an embarrassing apology after posting false news.
Curiously, PRWeb’s parent company, Vocus, called it “identity theft.” I am not sure I get that, other than using this to declare innocence of any wrongdoing in posting this. According to them, “Even with reasonable safeguards identity theft occurs, on occasion, across all of the major wire services. Maybe I am naïve, but it’s news to me…
It looks more like a financial crime than anything else. In reviewing the release, there were clear signs of fraud within it, for not only did it lack details, it was pretty unbelievable that Google would purchase a penny-stock company with a total market cap of less than $1 million, for $400 million. Somebody profited off bogus news, which was probably written in the first place by the person who had schemed to profit from it, and get away with it. According to a Buzzfeed follow-up report, that somebody could have earned six digits’ worth of easy profits.
Incredulous how everybody could get it wrong. Whatever happened to fact checking a story?
The PR industry needs to question as to who bears the responsibility for this – journalists or a service such as PRWeb? To me it has always been journalists. A PR service can offer the platform for posting releases, but it is the journalist in the end, who needs to vet the story. After all, it has always been, and will always remain so, for them to check out – “from whose mouth the story comes.” In other words, the source…Their very credibility depends on it.
Two lessons can be learnt from this: not everything posted is an unvarnished truth and good journalism requires an investment of time.
What ever happened to the journalist’s nose for truth in news?
I think that some marketers have gone nuts. Piggybacking on Hurricane Sandy to sell something is akin to selling your grandmother. What on earth were the marketing teams at the Gap, American Apparel, Urban Outfitters and Groupon thinking when they thought up ways to sell their wares during the storm? It’s not only the companies that were dinged with a flurry of online outrage, but also the marketers who, by association, gave a greedy black eye to the category itself.
So, as all now know, what happened was that the Gap suggested via a tweet for “doing lots of Gap shopping at Gap.com,” while Urban Outfitters offered free shipping Monday morning, attempting to capitalize on the college students stuck inside all day. Groupon offered a daily deal to midtown Manhattanites for a dinner at a restaurant serving a surprise meal in complete darkness and American Apparel offered a Hurricane Sandy Sale.
Gap apologized quickly for its marketing tweet during the devastating storm, but not really. What they said was, that “what they really meant was” – etc. Sometimes apologies are not enough. If it was greed that spurred them on to take advantage of a national disaster, they could have garnered far more visibility by putting on their corporate social responsibility hat and thinking through how to garner customers’ loyalty in a time of need. They could have offered to send free apparel for the displaced, the ones that lost homes, or were flooded out of homes, losing everything. Maybe they could have set up a center for distribution of the clothes through their retail outlets after the storm or, minimally, offer warm clothing to children whose homes were burned down by fire within days after the storm.
Altruistic maybe, but socially responsible…
Groupon could have offered “best deals,” negotiated through restaurants that had power, to feed those that did not. Urban Outfitters could have just kept quiet about their shipping ideas and American Apparel, well not much can be said for a company that thinks there is nothing wrong in holding a storm sale as the devastation unfolds.
It may be small potatoes in the scheme of things, but such poor judgment should be written up by the marketing textbooks as examples of what not to do.
Amidst all the moment-by-moment political news, polls and candidates’ latest remarks, statements, speeches, there appeared in the Chicago Tribune a vapid news tidbit that focused on a statement on the Allstate Blog that said, “obese Americans are hurting the fuel efficiency of vehicles, contributing to more than 1 billion gallons of fuel wasted each year.”
Apparently, the home and auto insurer teamed up with Cars.com to document the struggle between fuel efficiency and passenger weight. Really? Why?
Maybe it was in light of the federal government pushing automakers for greater fuel efficiency and Allstate and Cars.com wanted to insert themselves into the mix and subsequent conversations. They came up with a document that pointed out that between 1960 and 2002, 1 billion gallons of gasoline could be attributed to the weight gain of motorists in passenger vehicles. They cited a 2010 article by Consumer Reports for the extra gas needed. However, translated, that means that less than 1 percent of the total fuel used by passenger vehicles, annually.
Never mind that the government had stated that it expected automakers to achieve fuel efficiency through “the use of advanced technologies” and weight loss was not mentioned as a means to achieve that goal.
I can only guess that their statement that, “Americans keep gaining weight, and cars are losing it,” was only made to be clever or something, and ill-conceived at that. And it continued, “It’s a seesaw battle that’s making it difficult to realize the gains expected by a big push for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars.” (They got this from a U.S. Energy Department document that reported that, an extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your miles per gallon by up to 2 percent.)
That the American population is getting more and more obese year by year is a sad fact that needs attention from the medical community. But certainly not from an insurance company, that teamed up with an online car retailer, to pinpoint blame for fuel inefficiencies, on a growing 30% of the US population, rather than focus on automakers’ innovation deficiencies. Maybe it suited their “who-knows-what” agenda.
As to the Chicago Tribune, it must have been a slow news day. Otherwise what is the point of bringing this up as news?
Hey, it was a Monday…
The global edition of the NYT had a story yesterday on the latest PR stunt to allegedly support the nature-preservation efforts of Vladimir Putin. This one had him flying, rather hang-gliding (motorized) in sync with flying cranes, geared at re-introducing Siberian cranes into the wild. Sounds fine until reported that the cranes had been a set up and were flown in for the “event.” Previously he had been shown placing a satellite transmitter collar on what appeared to be a wild Siberian tiger, who in reality was heavily sedated as was the case with the wild polar bear in 2010. Maybe good photo ops for Putin, but the Russian public was not impressed.
Funny, but deceptive anyway…
Maybe Putin being Putin got away with it, but Nokia got caught when last week’s news reported that Nokia had demoed their latest technology – the new Lumia 920 smartphone with optical image stabilization (OIS) technology for shaky hands. But in this transparent world the company got caught red-handed when sharp-eyed bloggers watching the ad caught the reflection in the window of the cameraman in a white van, using a professional camera to record the entire event. It turns out the video was not shot at all with the Lumia 920 by Nokia’s own admission, since the technology is in pre-production. Moreover the company admitted to using misleading marketing materials for a new line of phones
Once a dominant force in the mobile phone market, it has been hit hard by competition, most notably Apple, Samsung and others. But surely deception is the wrong road to take to regain market share. What is most puzzling is why Nokia thought that they could get away with it. Maybe 15 years ago they could, when neither bloggers nor the 24/7 social media conversations were around, but today? What were they thinking? Did they cave in to shareholders demands? Was competition the driver? Was it a coincidence that Nokia’s introduction followed a move by Samsung in August to show off its own Windows 8 phone and that Apple’s upcoming introduction of its next iPhone is happening this week?
Apology accepted, but faking video and photos from a camera is not cool. Nokia got a well-deserved black eye for this one. The deception has dinged its credibility.
And besides Putin and Nokia there was another tidbit in the news that is apropos to deception. Apparently L’Oreal’s Lancôme USA subsidiary, markets their pricey anti-wrinkle cream product as “boosting the activity of genes and stimulating the production of youth proteins.” Wait a minute, what’s wrong with that? In a rare rebuke to a major cosmetics maker, the FDA says that if it affects the way the human body works, it would need to be classified as a drug, which would need FDA approval.