The following report is brought to you by the Pivot Conference taking place in New York on October 15-16, 2012. You can download a full copy of the report for free by clicking here.

At the end of 2011, Social marketing stands at a profound crossroads. Some organizations are finally embracing the importance of social networks and, as a result, increasing investments in creative engagement, marketing, and service programs. Others see the future value, but lag behind in execution. At the vanguard, Social Businesses drive a virtuous cycle of discovery: Their successes in Social marketing lead to new data, which lead to insights, which lead to new and more effective programs as well as the business systems and processes necessary to improve internal and external collaboration.

In 2012, social media marketing, driven by these innovations, will only continue to mature. Bottom-up learning about what really works in Social will be essential for this expansion. Research conducted by IBM in 2011, for instance, revealed a gap between consumer expectations toward the businesses they support in social media, and executive assumptions about what these consumers wanted. This “Perception Gap,” as defined by the IBM study, demonstrates the importance of bottoms-up, informed social marketing programs, as opposed to the traditional top-down strategies tied to the usual monologue-marketing channels.

Not all customers are created equal. So, businesses are learning that there must be more than one approach to reaching and engaging customers through the emerging Social channels.

This year, at the second annual Pivot Conference, we explored the evolving landscape for consumerism as colored by the emergence of Social Consumers. Brands, agencies, academics and thinkers examined how Social Consumers find and share information, how they influence and are influenced by engagement, and also how they make decisions. In the end, it was clear that the Social Consumer is fundamentally unlike a traditional consumer and, as such, compels brands to rethink sales, service, and marketing strategies across social, broadcast, and mobile networks. At stake is a business’ relevance to the Social Construct, which is the new key to consumer connection and success. For brands today, if you don’t establish this connection, Social Consumers will just connect themselves and collaborate without you.

To help brands more effectively plan for improving customer engagement and experiences in 2012 and beyond, the Pivot team, along with The Hudson Group, surveyed 181 brand managers, agency professionals, and experts. Their answers paint a picture for how businesses intend to reach their Social Consumers. Additionally, the results serve as a benchmark as you, the Social Business leader, assemble your strategies over the next year.

The Rise of the Social Consumer

Who is this Social Consumer and how does he or she differ from traditional counterparts? Let’s start with a working definition. A Social Consumer is someone who first goes to their social networks of relevance to learn about products and services. Though somewhat influenced by their overall social graphs, Social Consumers emphasize the input of those who define their interest graph – like-minded individuals on any given subject who share common interests and experiences with them. In this way, Social Consumers evaluate the shared experiences of those they trust, and expect businesses to respond to their socialized questions. As a consequence, Social Consumers don’t follow a linear approach through the classic ‘interest to intent’ funnel during their decision making process. Rather, they follow an elliptical pattern where their next steps are inspired by the insights of others, and their experiences are, in turn, fed back into the cycle to inform the decisions of others.

Reprinted from The End of Business as Usual, Chapter 14

In the Pivot study, we asked if participants had a clear picture of who their Social Consumer is. An astounding 77 percent said yes.

Comparing these results to the working definition presented above, which survey participants did not review in advance, as well as the Perception Gap produced by IBM, I wonder how these numbers would change if the question was asked now. Given the results noted below, it appears that respondents believe they know who their Social Consumers are, even though they may not have actually engaged them in a detailed conversation.

When the Pivot team explored specifically if respondent organizations asked Social Consumers what they expect from engagement, most responded, “No.” This is intriguing because we have 77 percent of organizations who say they know what their Social Consumers want, but 53 percent haven’t really asked. They do not—cannot—really know how to deliver value in social and mobile networks, thus pointing to IBM’s Perception Gap. On the other hand, 35 percent did note that they asked Social Consumers about their expectations. Our belief is that these organizations will most likely outperform organizations that did not ask.

Businesses shared their perspectives on the benefits and customer expectations of social engagement in their responses to the survey. The results cover a wide spectrum of sales, service, and marketing benefits, with customer service, insight to make decisions, and the ability to learn about new products as the top three entries. Deals and rewards came in fourth and fifth respectively. Each of the benefits is important, however. Offering exclusive content, the ability to provide feedback for improvement and social commerce add to the complexity of reaching and engaging the varying needs of social consumers. We think marketers should look here at the whole tapestry, more than the individual strands.

When asked about the gender of the Social Consumer, respondents believe their Social Consumers are equally divided between male and female. This is result is intriguing for many reasons, not least of which is the findings in previous studies that females skew higher across popular social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as for most social commerce services. Are we seeing the emergence of more men in social networks? Perhaps.

As we continue to examine the demographic makeup of Social Consumers, this study indicates they tend to be most commonly in their 30s and 40s. But there are strong showings of Social Consumers distributed across those 26-30, 46-50 and also 51-55. Clearly, social is no longer the province of just the young.

The household incomes of Social Consumers are scattered across the board. But in aggregate, it appears that Social Consumers lean toward desirable income levels. Median income from the study results is just over $60,000.

When asked which networks are frequented by their Social Consumers, participants stated that Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn were numbers one, two and three respectively. Facebook and Twitter are viewed as essentially ubiquitous. At the time of this survey, Google+ hadn’t yet opened up brand pages, but as of November 2011, businesses can develop official brand presences. Yet, even without the ability to do so during the survey process, businesses recognized the important role Google+ plays in the lives of their Social Consumers

When it comes to Social Consumers’ increasingly common mobile activity, Facebook and Twitter still maintain the top two spots. Foursquare, though, jumps into the third position ahead of LinkedIn, an indication that geo-location networks continue to rise in popularity.

Pleased To Meet You, I Hope You Get My Game

Gamification is becoming part of social networking, education, and loyalty programs due to its attractiveness to the Social Consumer.

Zynga is currently the overwhelming leader in capturing the time and attention of Social Consumers when it comes to gaming, probably a reflection of Facebook’s current dominance. Intriguing here is that the second most common response is “other,” a sign of the diversity in this arena.

Social professionals don’t see a clearly dominant player amount the many current portable photo networks available for popular smartphone platforms. No option received even 25 percent of the responses. However, Hipstamatic is firmly positioned at the top of the list with almost double the usage of Dailybooth, which currently sits at number two, according to respondents. They seem to be leading a rather open field.

In the world of social and group-based deals, Groupon ranks number one among Social Consumers, but LivingSocial maintains a strong foothold in the number two spot. Facebook Deals was in third, but the service has since been discontinued by Facebook.

“After testing Deals for four months, we’ve decided to end our Deals product in the coming weeks,” Facebook told Reuters in a statement published in August 2011, during the time the survey was already in the field.

Engagement is not defined by conversations. Engagement is the act of a consumer and an organization or brand interacting within the consumer’s network of relevance through a combination of conversations, content, or related information. Engagement, and here’s the important part, is then measured by the takeaway value, sentiment, and resulting actions following the interaction.

Brands largely disagree with the belief that conversations in social networks alone drive meaningful business outcomes. The true test, of course, is whether or not outcomes are defined and if they are introduced into engagement as a desired click path. On the flip side of the coin, brands either completely or mostly agree that conversations help with brand lift and relevance responding with 51 percent and 45.5 percent respectively.

There’s notable difference, however, in whether or not brands think their Social Consumers want something of tangible value in exchange for a social connection. 21.6 and 45 percent completely or mostly agree. 27 percent and 6 percent mostly and completely disagree. Our advice: When in doubt, ask.

With all of the fanfare around social media, it would be easy for those living within the new marketing paradigm to assume that social media already was or soon will be mainstream within the organization heading into 2012. However, respondents were divided in their outlook. Just over half believed that social marketing is already mainstream within their organizations and just under half think that social marketing will still be experimental a year from now. This shows where we are in the social revolution: the reality of change is broadly accepted, but norms about fundamental issues still remain elusive. We know we are going to a new place, we just aren’t yet sure exactly where and how fast.

When asked what was preventing the organization from moving beyond experimentation in social marketing, respondents’ reasons were widely distributed. Budget was seen as a challenge, as was the inability to define or measure clear outcomes. We feel that, whatever your personal sense, each of these points is worthy of exploration and definition within the organization. This is the only way to ensure that the needs of Social Consumers do not go unmet. A working strategy and understandable benefits are critical to rallying support across the organization, especially among executives. Defined metrics tied to thoughtful strategies demonstrate progress. Listening combined with research will reveal the need for a cross-functional approach as data always spotlights the varying needs of Social Consumers – beyond marketing.

Confusion reigns today, but conviction lies on the horizon. 2013 is the year a solid set of respondents sees social marketing finally breaking beyond experimentation within the organization. Still, we can see the current uncertainty about the development of social: 15 percent look to 2014 as likely year for corporate breakthrough, another 15 percent see 2015 or later, and a sobering 35 percent still don’t know what to think.

While respondents see social marketing as crossing into the organizational mainstream relatively soon, an overwhelming 89 percent of participants see social marketing as a permanent series of experiments. The takeaway here is that professionals, for the foreseeable future, feel that there is much to learn with regard to the Social Consumer and how to effectively engage and steer positive experiences and outcomes for social marketers. As one area of social moves into the mainstream, it will just open up new areas for experimentation.

The trend in social media budgets is positive. The percentage of respondent companies spending less than 5 percent of budget on social drops by about half between 2011 and 2013 and the percentage spending over 50 percent more than doubles. The sweet spot hovers around 25 percent of budget, rising slightly over the next two years. All this indicates to us is that it remains early days in the development of social in organizations.

Looking ahead to 2012, brands are thinking through goals as they plan next year’s social marketing programs. At the top of the list, at almost 100 percent, is the need to increase sales, which is a reflection of the need for marketers to demonstrate tangible ROI. Consumer engagement, lead generation and brand lift are also atop the list. Among the notable responses from participants, influencing consumer behavior is at just over 60 percent, establishing points of influence at just under 60 percent, and discovering points of relevance shown at 40 percent spotlight how new touchpoints will play a role in driving desirable outcomes and experiences. The overall sense of the responses is a tilt away from “soft” benefits toward harder edged benefits that drive the bottom line.

Surprisingly, improving customer service and support was toward the bottom of the list, but it is promising to see that the research does show that businesses are placing it in the upper half of 2012 planning. We see customer service as one of the potential breakthrough areas for social networks.

Make the Pivot

Here’s the important takeaway: To successfully reach the Social Consumer and ensure that social media extends across the organization, look at this list as a series of steps rather than a hierarchical rank. Thinking through each item will force a more thoughtful approach to reaching Social Consumers and guiding positive experiences and outcomes. Budgets and support are the net benefits of following these action items.

1. Increase understanding of the benefits of the Social Construct within your organization.
2. Develop a clear strategy for social.
3. Define outcomes.
4. Tie strategies and supporting metrics to business objectives.
5. Earn executive buy-in with data, demonstrate the needs of Social Consumers, and show how others are successfully engaging them today.
6. Earn support across departmental functions by showcasing how the varying needs of the Social Consumer are unmet by key roles in the organization.

As you review these data and compare them to your 2012 plans, or if you’re in the planning stages now, remember that benchmarking against peers is only one part of the process. The real opportunity lies among your Social Consumers by identifying their needs, and benchmarking them against your solutions for them and thus your business opportunity.

Connect with me: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

Order The End of Business as Usual today…

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Part 11 in a series introducing my new book, The End of Business as Usual…this series serves as the book’s prequel.

There are those who believe social media is the catalyst for a new genre of business and that it will ultimately change how companies engage with customers. Others believe that for the organization to truly matter, it must adopt a culture of customer and employee centricity. Then there are those who study the evolution of consumer behavior and market shifts to develop informed strategies for the business overall and in some cases, demonstrate the need for organizational transformation. To successfully compete for the future, you must unite these internal fronts and lead a concerted effort for meaningful change.

Social Media +
Customer service and employee empowerment +
Insights +
The development of compelling experiences through product and engagement =
A holistic approach

We must realize that no matter how successful we are today, we can always improve how we compete for equal or greater revenue and attention tomorrow. Your goal within the organization is to create a special taskforce to bring about change, shift the culture to recognize unforeseen opportunities, and bring together previously disparate decision makers to create and steer positive customer experiences. Sounds easy right? Unfortunately, none of this is easy, but nevertheless, it is important to help your organization adapt in the face of a shifting business landscape.

People See One Brand, Not Departments or Functions

The conversation about the future of business is bigger than social media. Yet, when we look at the top three departments that are responsible for social media within the organization today, marketing, marketing communications, and public relations essentially own social media. Critical functions such as product development, customer service, HR, finance, are all but absent. Here we are at the beginning of the end of business as usual and the champion of change, social media, is already a silo in the very organization it sought to transform and unify. That’s why your role cannot simply be relegated to social media anything. You are a change agent and your mission is to use the tools and channels necessary to help make your business, your story, your mission and vision, relevant in a new era of consumerism.

Booz & Co. and Buddy Media recently published a report that documents the migration from “Campaigns to Capabilities” and highlights how businesses are thinking beyond the campaign, viral video or Tweet to find the true meaning of Like. What struck me about this report is that it is among the first to show that departments outside of marketing are starting to embrace the social nature of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Blogs (the top four social platforms). Here we can see that customer service, research, sales, and product development are increasing adoption until one day, social media will be equally distributed across the organization as an extension of a more customer and employee centric approach.

Change requires support and in the world of business, that support will come from an executive sponsor. However, it is up to you to convince an executive who is willing to take a risk on you and your vision to internally promote the need for transformation. In this report, one-third of companies have a senior executive who is responsible for social media company-wide. That still leaves 65% of businesses that are operating without the benefit of senior leadership or involvement. As a wise executive told me for the new book, “If you come to me with a request for budget and resources for social media, you will lose. If you demonstrate how social media aligns with our business objectives and how it will play a role in helping us achieve our goals, then you will win every time.”

The study surfaced an interesting range of critical success enablers. I wanted to focus on a few that are instrumental in leading the transformation of what is becoming a social brand to a far more important state of a social business. The resounding theme here is developing an adaptive framework and creating a culture of change to unite the organization around a holistic approach.

- The ability to react quickly
- Education on what can be achieved via social media
- A culture that encourages experimentation
- Training
- Unique content that is exclusive to the audience of each

The report articulates a substantive data point in that almost 40% of businesses polled state that social media is a CEO-level agenda item. The question here is, to what extent is social media appreciated at the top? Is it another means to broadcast messages?  Is social media a channel to reach the Millennial?

This is why we must revisit the first paragraph of this section to clearly communicate what’s possible in these as well as other disruptive channels. It’s about customer relationships. It’s about creating meaningful and shareable experiences. The rest is just technology. What you place in these channels says everything about how your business views and appreciates your customers and your work will me measured and judged as such.

As you can see, the examples of use cases mirror those departments that own social media today. However, beyond marketing, we can see that customer service, market research, sales, product development and also employee engagement are showing strong examples of what’s possible.

Survival of the Fittest Fitting

What lies ahead is nothing short of digital Darwinism, the evolution of consumer behavior when society and technology evolve faster than the ability to adapt. While money is the lifeblood of the economy that makes the world go round, in the egosystem, where people are at the center of their individual online experience, attention is the new economy. This isn’t just about survival of the fittest, but instead, survival of the fitting.

To foster meaningful relationships and lure the attention of the increasingly distracted consumer, requires so much more than a Twitter or Facebook presence. The future of business is co-created and therefore is driven by the mindful creation of shared experiences. Those experiences must be designed, reinforced, and shaped over time. Marketing alone cannot trigger shared experiences and convert them into sales or customer loyalty. Retention, engagement, and empowerment must touch customers and employees and in order to do, the entire organization must #AdaptorDie.

Order The End of Business as Usual today…

Part 1 – Digital Darwinism, Who’s Next
Part 2 – Social Media’s Impending Flood of Customer Unlikes and Unfollows
Part 3 – Social Media Customer Service is a Failure!
Part 4 – I think we need some time apart, it’s not me, it’s you
Part 5 – We are the 5th P: People
Part 6 – The State of Social Media 2011: Social is the new normal
Part 7 – I like you, but not in that way
Part 8 – Are You Building a Social Brand or a Social Business?
Part 9 – CMO’s are at the Crossroads of Customer Transactions and Engagement
Part 10 – From Social Commerce to Syndicated Commerce

Image credit: Shutterstock

The question seems premature or perhaps over dramatized, but I ask it with all sincerity. Whether the answer is yes or no or if the answer is not yet within grasp, think about the question at any level you wish and try to answer it. It is the process of thinking through the strengths and weaknesses of Facebook and Google Plus where you discover what each network means to you and why and how you will divide your time and focus in each. Or, you may uncover reasons to jump from one network to the other or pull the plug all together. It’s a healthy exercise to help you find balance and reconnect with your core values that drive productivity and fulfillment.

The adoption of Google+ is nothing short of astounding. comScore estimates that 25 million people have circled their friends and are sharing, +1′ing their way, and chatting their way toward social bliss. comScore visualizes the blinding velocity of Google’s growth, reaching 25 million within its first month of debut. In comparison, it took Twitter and Facebook almost three years to hit that milestone.

Now, some argue that the comparison to Twitter and Facebook is not parallel as Google is well established, for example there are an estimated 200 million users of gmail today. In the grand scheme of the discussion, the other social networks emerged as startups. On the other hand, Bradley Horowitz, VP Product at Google+ pointed out to me that network growth is purely organic without the benefit of Google’s marketing muscle-at least not yet. People can only join the network with an invitation from someone else. Imagine what the momentum will look like once users of other Google products are officially invited to join and in turn invite others.

Adoption is global…

As you can see, adoption is a global phenomenon. with the U.S., India, Canada, the U.K., Germany, Brazil, France, Taiwan, Turkey, and Spain rounding out the top 10 countries driving growth.

While women generally out number men in some of the leading networks in the social web, Google+ is another story. comScore notes that males make up 63% of all U.S. visitors.

Will You Leave Facebook for Google Plus?

As I noted in my initial analysis, Google+ is not a Facebook or Twitter killer and I don’t think that’s the right lens for which to survey the social landscape. In the U.S., we have a few top traditional TV networks, CBS, ABC, and NBC. In social networking, we now have three top social networks to compete for global online attention and interaction. In this example, none of the traditional networks successfully captured the attention of every viewer possible nor did one network kill the other. Instead, the programming of each network attracts people through content, creativity, and timing, defining, segmenting and sharing the audience around shared interests.

The same can be true in social networking. People will invest in the networks where they find value. Value is defined by the groups (or circles) of people they know, those they admire or respect, and the content and experiences they share. Personal fulfillment is also key. Social currency drives engagement as individuals must feel a sense of reciprocity, recognition and reward in each exchange.

With that said, I was fascinated by the number of passionate debates that explored whether or not people were planning on leaving Facebook in favor of Google+, those who were reluctant to embrace a new network and those who were ready to declare social media bankruptcy. I hosted a poll to surface opinions and perceptions that would bring clarity to the discussion.

I asked a simple, but leading question, “Will you abandon Facebook in favor of Google+?” I also invited participants to share their reasons why they voted yes, no, or selected any of the other options. I then shared the poll on Twitter, Facebook, and in Google+ and captured feedback in each network to contextualize each response. 1,977 people voted, with 23,000 people viewing the poll

To say that it seemed to strike a chord is an understatement. The emotion was raw. The responses were revealing.

I was surprised and not surprised to see that 23% of participants stated that they will leave Facebook in favor of Google+. 18% said “no way!” Almost half of the almost 2,000 respondents plan on using both networks to learn more. For fun, but also to take the temperature of social users, I asked if people currently suffer from social network fatigue (SNF) to which 7% responded yes.

Mashable and PC Magazine also hosted similar polls and I found the results worthy of sharing.

Mashable readers directly align with the results of this survey with 23% planning on leaving Facebook for Google+. But, PC Magazine readers are a little more ambitious with 50% claiming that they will move their social residence to Google+.

I also wanted to learn more about those who participated in this survey, so I asked respondents to indicate gender and age.

The gender divide almost matches the comScore U.S. breakdown of Google+visitors (63%), with men accounting for 60% of all respondents.

I also asked about age. As you can see, the numbers again almost match the comScore results with 24-34 and 35-44 representing the two largest demographic age groups with 36% and 28% responding respectively. The younger demographic didn’t turn out for my study, but as you can see from comScore’s report, they represent a significant user base.

Women represent the larger population in Facebook estimated at 57%. With Google+, men represent the larger percentage of inhabitant. It is how the results break down the gender lines that I find interesting. Note: these numbers are a representation of the larger dataset as pulling information out of TWTPOLL proved a bit difficult here.

23% vs 15%: The percentage of men to women explicit in their claim that they plan on abandoning Facebook in favor of Google+.

50% vs. 51%: The percentage of women to men that will equally explore both options before making a decision.

7%: The equal percentage of men and women who feel SNF.

Now let’s take a look at some of the responses…

YES!

Travis Wright (teedubya) - Already shut down my wall… and moved shop. Although, I will keep it open so I can “connect” with 3rd party sites easily… and comment on my high school luddite friends statuses.
Source: Google+

Steven Streight - Facebook is a cesspool of rogue apps, spammy games, phishing exploits, and disrespect for user privacy. It has very trivial content compared to Google+. I permanently deleted my account a long time ago. Twitter seems cold, lifeless, hard to manage, no Circles or ways to quickly see what my close pals are saying. Google+ is way better than both. I am spending a lot less time on Twitter now.
Source: Google+

Note: The conversation hosted on Facebook did not yield a single “yes,” but it did produce one example of SNF.

@FangFan62 – I hope to once more of my friends and family are on it.
Source: Twitter

@MiguelAngelArce - I voted Yes!, I like circles and as long as I can see, G+ is taking the best of fb and twitter, and making it better. Google absolutly are respondig to the question: How will be a social networking service if it was invented today?, using all the power, tech, tools, and apps of Google.
Source: Twitter

NO WAY!

Chad Brack - No – I believe that, over time, FB will be the primary location for sharing with family and most non-technical friends. A ‘lightweight’ sharing. G+ will be a spot for more involved dialogue and twitter/rss-style ‘following’ of topics that interest me.
Source: Google+

Jennifer Stavros - As it stands currently: no. I will use both because both serve different purposes for me. I will also not be abandoning twitter for any of these services either. For me, Google+ is a great way to moderate the various “personalities” I have on the web in one place. Its a place for me to be more serious with my colleagues and still remain the creative with those that share those interests as well. It’s for business conversations and shared innovations. Facebook stands as a platform for connections with my closer network family of sorts. These are people whom I know personally and who can understand/enjoy the dual personality of corporate & creative. Twitter is for art and free flowing thoughts. My stream is not always as business oriented as some, depending on the hour, but it is meant to be the place where my thoughts are able to spill over a bit.
Source: Google+

Bruce Scherer - No. Google+ will be a ghetto for wonks for a while, and is not tight enough to persuade regular people to stake new territory. I’ll keep feet in both places, though.
Source: Facebook

Jean Martell Ames - No..i like the separation between fb and g+…friends and family on fb…work network on g+…i know that will change when more people join g+ but it’s so refreshing to be on g+ right now
Source: Facebook

@AiDBusiness – It would be almost impossible to give up Facebook once established there. I may spend less time on FB, for a while, however.

PLANNING TO USE BOTH

BRANDInsider.tv - I think that it’ll take some time before people actually pay attention to Google+. Facebook is king and many are used to it but Google + has already been very good at sharing and their Hangouts is awesome!It’ll take some time for it to be a true competitor with Facebook
Source: Facebook

Jeremy D’Hoinne - It’s hard to tell now. None of my non-geek friends are on G+ yet. I use Facebook mostly for close friends and family.I’ll abandon it if they use Google+, otherwise I’ll keep both.But I’ll probably give up on twitter as soon as Google+ find a way to manage collapsed comment by default and smart choice for displaying shared post (no more than once per circle for example or just mention the re share)
Source: Google+

Garrett Moon – Why bother? I get tired of this idea that one network has to die for another one to come it. How about both? I think they can both provide something different, unique, and worth while. It will keep them both and use them both. Now, that doesn’t mean G+ isn’t more fun!
Source: Google+

@JudithSoto – I haven’t played with Google+ enough to commit 100%. But I’m not a fan of Facebook because of privacy issues and I often teeter on closing my personal account. Not confident that Google would respect my privacy either, though. I’ll have to explore Google+ more
Source: Twitter

@Aaron_Emig Personally I will use both. I will use FB more for the business pages and other apps like events, notes, etc. Google+ is great for most FB users who just chat, post pics, ask for recommendations, etc. because G+ is a lot more user-friendly than FB.
Source: Twitter

SNF

Niki Nikolaou - anybody else as tired as I am on sharing so much? I don’t want to add another thingee to my list of thingees. Now I know why we die.
Source: Facebook

@chrisfauch - Facebook is dead! G+ offers a quiet and cosy ONLY place where to meet people you have to meet for your job & projects. Looking like SNF
Source: Twitter

@AAARenee – I voted SNF because since 2003 I have been exploring Social Networks, building them up to make them meaningful & finding success in different ecosystems. With the promise of every new SN I am both skeptical & hopeful. Over time it is harder & harder to pack up my social friends & convince them to go West with me for bigger & better things. Google+ for now reminds me a lot of FriendFeed, an ecosystem where the innovators & early adapters meet to discuss high level content. For that reason alone I will spend time on the site. I have no doubt that Google+ will be around for some time but I think it will be a long time before it becomes mainstream & has the audience engagement that Facebook has. It’s growth will accelerate with the right apps & social tools.
Source: Twitter

A NOTE ABOUT TWITTER

It wasn’t a question that was asked, but some respondents did say that Google+ had already claimed Twitter profiles.

Heather White-Laird - Never been a fan of facebook..too many pets and babies. But the sad part is i’m leaving twitter behind which I do love. G+ has almost my full attention these days.
Source: Google+

Dana Severson - No, but I’m considering Twitter.

Bill Hewson - no, but i have already kind of abandoned twitter

@HLeichsenring – I am thinking about changing FB to a purely private usage. In any case I am going to use my FB Page even more. G+ is right now an interesting SM experiment. I am using it besides my FB FP. Let’s see, were it will end One of the more interesting things is: will G+ be able to attack twitter… Kind regards from Germany Hansjörg
Source: Twitter

barry brown – Facebook will be how I stay in touch with family and close friends until or if they move elsewhere. My Facebook page is where my customers live and I truly don’t see that changing any time soon, but will be trying to create a community of new customers on Google+ when business profiles are introduced. I am already spending less time on Twitter and believe that platform has more to worry about than Facebook.
Source: Twitter

If you can make the time, I suggest that you read some of the other responses. They really steer the discussion in interesting directions.

Google+ 1 (Poll Round 1)

Google+ 2 (Poll Round 2)

Facebook

Twitter

Social OS

At the heart of the matter is the either or nature of Google vs. Facebook and to some extent vs. Twitter. The numbers and the supporting responses reflect passionate, frustrated and also practical views of a multifaceted discussion. Personally, I don’t believe this is an either or discussion however, at least not yet. It’s far too complex to pick up and move completely away from a social or interest graph. Investing countless hours assembling personal, professional, and also emotional pieces of who you are in real life to build a semblance of you in the digital egosystem plus the valuable relationships forged over time equates to a tangible value measured in social capital. What I do believe is worthy of exploration is a conversation that’s less about social networking and more about the notion of a social OS.

Over the years, I’ve thought a lot about the idea of social networks as hubs for the digital version of “you.” The idea was that Facebook, Twitter, and now Google+, become your attention dashboard. And through the cultivation of your social and interest graphs, the apps that further personalize the experience, and those that plug into other applications such as Web sites, documents, collaboration tools or those that translate into the real world, essentially create a social OS. Ideally, this platform eventually connects the online with the offline, creating a complete experience drive though one integrated dashboard.

If you wonder how I voted, I side with the majority of respondents. I plan on using both, learning about the cultures, dynamics, and opportunities in each to gain personal and professional value in each.

Where do you stand in this discussion. Have you made up your mind or are you planning on experimenting to see where the social tide takes you?

Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

___
The New ENGAGE!: If you’re looking to FIND answers in social media and not short cuts, consider either the Deluxe or Paperback edition

___
Click here for the Conversation Prism, Twitterverse, Behaviorgraphics, and Social Compass posters…

___
Image Credit: Shutterstock (Modified for this post)

2010 was the year where we revisited not only the definition of influence, but also deeply explored its meaning in today’s social economy. What represented an ongoing series of virtual global summits on the topic, influence was scrutinized as a way of better understanding its role in new media.

It goes beyond academic study however. Influence permeated the realm of the masses and suddenly, we the people, were gifted with the opportunity to voice what moved us. In doing so, we also earned the opportunity to build networks around who we are. The quest for the meaning of influence emerged as something much more personal. Influence impacted digital societies and many were earning it without fully understanding why or how.

With the pervasiveness of social media, we were learning, and sometimes confusing, the differences between influence and new found, micro fame, celebrity and popularity. Suddenly the dichotomies of influence and popularity were blurring. And, the controversial Fast Company Influence Project only diluted distinction.

Unlike so many terms in Social Media, influence is not a new word invented or reinvented to suit the times. Its origin is Latin, “influere” which translates into something very interesting for the social era, “to flow into.” Almost everything we discover and share in social networks these days is done through our streams and to loosely translate the root of influence symbolizes the ability to flow into the streams of others.

The text book definition of influence is the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.

Effect…

Effect is key in understanding influence and its role in societies online and in the real world. In social media, it’s the ability to cause measurable actions and outcomes. While popularity may help, this really becomes a study of the quality, caliber, and conditioning of an individual’s social graph where context plays an increasingly important role over time.

Understanding the relationship between cause and effect in new media also helps us better understand the shift from influence to influencer.

In 2010 and heading into 2011, influence will only continue to captivate attention and interest. With services such as Klout, PeerIndex, et al, we are now measured by how we interact online and whether we like it or not, our influence factor (IF) is also weighted. To introduce a sense of urgency into the subject, many businesses are placing great importance on these scores, which in the real world is not new either, but here, we still have much to learn about social currency and individual capital.

Looking back to 2010, I’ve assembled a few of my favorite discussions on influence.  We learned many lessons and sparked significant insights that will help us continue the discussions in years to come. And, we’ll learn every step of the way.

Please read and share…

The 2010 Series on Influence

- Exploring and Defining Influence: A Study with Vocus

- Please Repeat: Influence is not Popularity…and Popularity is not Influence

- Influence is Bliss: The Gender Divide of Influence on Twitter

Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Facebook

___
If you’re looking for a way to FIND answers in social media, consider Engage!: It will help…

___
Get The Conversation Prism:

___

2010 will be forever commemorated as the year Twitter matured from a cool but undecided teenager into a more confident and assertive young adult. While there’s still much room to mature and develop, Twitter’s new direction is crystallizing. With a new look, Dick Costolo as the new CEO, and an oversold new advertising platform, Twitter is growing into something not yet fully identifiable, but formidable nonetheless.

At a minimum, Twitter is an extension of each one of us. It feeds our senses and amplifies our voice. We’re connecting to one another through shared experiences creating a hybrid social network and information exchange tied by emotion and interest. While Twitter provides the technology foundation, it is we who make Twitter so unique and consequential by simply being human and sharing what we see, feel, and think – in Twitter time. It’s both a gift and a harbinger of enlightenment. As new media philosopher, and good friend, Stowe Boyd once said, “It’s our dancing that makes the house rock, not the planks and pipes. It is us that makes Twitter alive, not the code.”

Combining our senses with digital inner monologue is something that we must learn to use wisely . While we may have freedom of Tweet, we are also witnessing that in some cases, common sense is not so common after all.

As there are multiple sides to every story, in this case, Twitter, its users, and the sentiment in between, let’s look at the opposite end of the stream for a moment. Twitter isn’t the only character in this tale to have matured. You, me, and the other 150 million Twitter denizens also changed over the last year. Social media monitoring service Sysomos released new data that highlights just how far we have come between 2009 to 2010.

Let’s start with the population of Twitter. Twitter reportedly attracted more than 100 million users in 2010. While it’s not quite the size of Facebook, which currently serves as the digital residence of 550 million, its impact on media, culture and society is profound.

Social Biography

As Twitter is an extension of your digital identity, users are finding comfort in sharing more about who they are. In 2010, 69 percent shared a bio which is more than double of those who did so in 2009.

Bios are only one part of establishing a digital identity. Whereas with instant messaging services of old, with Twitter, we are encouraged to share our name rather than an alias. The jump here is also profound. 73 percent provide a detailed name or descriptor. Last year, only 33% were as revealing. This is part of the transition from Twitter as a micromessaging or microblogging network to a more personal extension of who we are.

Where in the world are we? On Twitter, 82 percent want you to know. In 2009 however, the number of those who shared their location was only half the size.

If Google “was” the resume of the individual in 2008 and 2009, perhaps Twitter, and also Facebook, are presenting us with a more favorable opportunity to design our online persona. Now 45 percent, up from 22 percent, share a URL in their Twitter profile.

As we can see, privacy is something that’s discussed on the “other” networks…not just Twitter. Here, its natives live in public and do so willingly.

Who are These Tweeple Anyway?

We are what we say. How we describe ourselves says much more about the greater community as well. Twitter’s citizens are expressive, combining emotion and fact as their verbal self portraits. Love. Life. World. Friends. Family.

In 2010, Twitter realized its greatest velocity of growth in its short four-year history. In just one year, 44% of its total population moved in to the micro utopia in the hopes of finding and sharing something missing elsewhere online and IRL.

Who you follow says a lot about us. While many use the follow as a strategy to boost follow-backs, following the right people is also where we can fine tune the signal versus noise in our social stream. As we can see, only .05 percent of the total Twitterverse have more than 10,000 friends and only 2.05 percent connect to more than 1,000. The majority of Tweeps, 95.8 percent, maintain a network of less than 500 friends.

On Twitter, one of the most popular discussions is popularity versus influence. No, influence is not popularity and popularity is not influence. But that doesn’t mean that earning a vast network of followers isn’t a remarkable achievement in and of itself. Only .06 percent of micro socialites on Twitter boast more than 20,000 followers. Again, the trend continues across the network. Still only 2.12 percent have more than 1,000 followers. This leaves the greater population to connect everyone else with 95.9 percent maintaining less than 500 followers. For those who pay attention to influence however, influence is measured by the quality and resonance of a network, not its size.

I always find it so fascinating when the Pareto principle, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule, continues to prove itself over and over again. In Twitter’s egosystem, Of all Twitter users, 22.5 percent post 90 percent of Tweets.

.18 percent have published more than 25,000 Tweets. 2.7 percent have Tweeted more than 5,000 times. Just over 80 percent have either a bit of stage fright or they’re still finding their voice, with only sub 500 Tweets to their avatars to date. After almost four years on the service, I’ve published just over 9,000.

To this day, the friend to follower ratio continues to serve as an important benchmark. I think this is a dying stat as it only encourages us to dilute our streams with updates that don’t improve our Twitter experience. In 2011 and 2012, we will focus on ridding ourselves of the information overload that buried us in email and social networks in the past, concentrating on substance over numbers.

According to Sysomos, the follower-friend ratio is even until users reach about 1,050 followers. After, the numbers skew greater towards followers. The trend continues as followers outpace friends. For example, someone with 5,000 followers usually averages 3,700 friends. As we approach 10,000 followers though, the ratio balances again. Sysomos found that someone with 10,000 followers will most likely maintain an average of 9,600 friends.

Twitter continues to change how we discover, communicate, and share. Each time we do, we reveal a bit more about who we are and what moves us. As we embrace the new year, Twitter’s numbers will expand, but I believe the nature of the service and also how we use it will change significantly.

What do you think? Is this you?

UPDATE: To balance this post a bit, I ran traffic numbers for Twitter.com using Compete and I found something worthy of sharing. It appears that visits to Twitter.com in the U.S. is receding. Between July and October 2010, visits have gradually diminished from a high of roughly 29 million down to 26 million – close to the ~24 million closing out 2009. While many users access Twitter via third-party apps, traffic to the dotcom is a good indicator for potential growth. I should point out however, that globally, Twitter.com earned just over 100 million visitors in October, up 79 percent from 2009.

Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook

___
If you’re looking for a way to FIND answers in social media, consider Engage!: It will help…

___
Get The Conversation Prism:

___

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Influence is bliss…

The socialization of media is as transformative as it is empowering. As individuals, we’re tweeting, updating, blogging, commenting, curating, liking and friending our way toward varying levels of stature within our social graphs. With every response and action that results from our engagement, we are slowly introduced to the laws of social physics: for every action there is a reaction – even if that reaction is silence. And, the extent of this resulting activity is measured by levels of influence and other factors such as the size and shape of nicheworks as well as attention aperture and time.

Defining Influence

The word influence as well as the individuals referred to as new influencers are elusive in terms of standard definition. Finding a common understanding and meaning is easier said than done. Influence itself is undergoing reexamination to better understand the diversity in perceived and actual social capital and the effects of conversations across first degree social graphs and across the social graphs of those connected across each degree (friend of friends and so on).

To help, I drafted a working definition to address influence and influencers as slightly modified from its longstanding definition in standard dictionaries.

Influence is the ability to cause desirable and measurable actions and outcomes.

As everyday people flirt with reach and impact, the question becomes, do they hold the same potential to cause effects similar to those of traditional influence and connectedness, for example celebrities, industry or political leaders, media properties and favorite brands? Or does social media represent the equalization of influence? One thing is already clear, influence is not popularity and popularity is not influence. According to research, size does not matter.

The Influencer Poll

Defining influence is just the beginning. Understanding perception and expectations around influence and influencers helps us identify where we need to focus time on education and innovation.  This month, I partnered with Vocus to run a formal study on influence. As a result, 700 business leaders, entrepreneurs, and marketing professionals contributed to the report, which is available now as a free download.

I’ll share some of the observations and insights here…

Demographics

Of those polled via email, Twitter, Facebook and blogs, the genetic makeup of respondents was diverse.

79% of all panelists resided in the United States.

14% work in Europe.

3% practice in Asia.

1% were divided across the Middle East, Australia, and South America.

Of those who participated in the study, marketing represented the largest group at 35% with Public Relations following at 28%. Social Media earned a spot in the top three with 17%

The experience was diverse, with 69% identifying themselves at the director level or above. Perhaps a pleasant surprise or simply just surprising, with 30%, the largest group of individuals who participated were at the executive level, including CMO, CEO or owner. Senior level, directors and program managers followed with 25%. At 19%, mid-career, account supervisors and account managers followed with the third largest group.

For this study, we received a well rounded response of divergent organizations. Corporations accounted for the largest sampling with 33%, which edged slightly ahead of agencies (marketing, PR, advertising, social media) with 32%. Next, self-employed/freelancers accounted for 14% of all responses with non-profit/trade associations checking-in with 12%. Education represented a healthy 7% followed by government with 2%

Participants scattered the business landscape, with a majority (42%) focusing their efforts in businesses that are generating less than $1 million. 19% responded on behalf of companies earning between $1-5 million. 15% work for organizations generating between $6 and $50 million. Businesses with over $1 billion in revenue represented 9%.

Popularity vs. Influence

The debate between influence and popularity is of particular interest. Many believe that one must have earned popularity in order to wield influence. However, as you’ll see in this report, influence and popularity could live in isolation from one another. And, according to participants of this study, 90% believed that influence is indeed different than popularity.

However, the insight is in the commentary. To help convey the perception of each, here are the words of participants for or against the difference in influence and popularity…

Yes

“Popularity is just that people like you. influence is when people listen to you.”

“Popularity is fleeting. Influence lasts”

“Lady GaGa is popular, Bono is influential.”

No

“Usually, the most influential things are the most popular.”

“Maybe they aren’t equal, but there is certainly a strong correlation.”

“But … one definitely bleeds into the other. More popularity = more visibility = more opportunity to influence”

Tweets, Status, Action

When asked if a correlation exists between an influencer’s reach and their ability to drive action, 84% said yes.

If we highlight a quote from the previous question, Lady Gaga and Bono are clearly two very popular people, but in the eyes of one particular panelist, Bono was clearly more influential. To shed a bit of light on the matter, we have to visit the history of Bono’s career. Over the decades, he has cultivated his community to expect personal views, experiences, and requests for help in and around his music and performances. Essentially, he has groomed his “followers” to take action and as a result, he has caused action.

Now, as we see, Lady Gaga is the living example of someone who is attempting to convert popularity into influence…and hopefully action. Recently, she led a charge to help repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in an effort to stop the military’s gay ban. I believe that the shift from popularity starts with intention and activation.

To help us gain greater insight into the thinking behind the responses, let’s examine some of the commentary around the subject…

Reach Does Not Drive Action

“A person can have only a few contacts and greatly influence just those few.”

“I would say there’s a stronger correlation between an influencer’s depth and their ability to drive action”

Reach Drives Action

“The farther the reach, the greater the ability to drive action.”

“It’s certainly not a perfect correlation, but it definitely exists.”

Causing Measurable Outcomes

If the previous question assumes that reach is necessary in order to influence action, our next question represents a possible reversal in thinking. 57% believe that an individual with a tightly focused network of the 3Fs (friends, followers, and fans) would have a more measurable effect on outcome over someone with a much larger number of loosely connected friends, followers, and fans (36%).

Ranking Influence

Understanding the characteristics of influence is as important as studying influence itself. We asked our participants to rank a set of contributing factors that make a person or brand influential, where each number could only get used once.  As you can see, the numbers appear greatly divided, but also united.  5=best.

60% of respondents said the “quality or focus of the network was most important”

55% forced a tie between “quality of content” AND the “capacity to cause measurable outcomes”

40% ranked “depth of relationship” as their top choice.

If we combine 4′s and 5′s, we see similar results, but with a difference in hierarchy.

90% attribute influence to the quality or focus of a network

85% cited measurable outcomes

85% stated the quality of content was the top attribute of influence

78% equated influence to online reputation

77% believe that the number of RTs and shares establish influence

76% assign the depth of relationship to influence

The ability to drive traffic ranked 7th with 75%.

Why we Follow

Why we follow a person or organization says more about the mechanics for influence than we may imagine. Again, we asked those who participated in the study to rank the reasons they follow a person or company…each number could only appear once. 1=best.

The number one reason people follow others has everything to do with the quality and caliber of the content they share.

37% followed because they post interesting content

32% believe that relationships matter and therefore a personal connection is paramount

If we add 1′s + 2′s together we can see the nuances, the “dots” that define the picture through pointillism.

62% follow because of relevant content

51% considered those they follow as thought leaders

43% focused on the personal connection

Thought leadership enters the top 3 in this perspective and as such, becoming a thought leader and ultimately an influencer, is earned through the creation of valuable content and the cultivation of communities to take action.

Earning Influence, One Way or Another

If you could choose one, single most important action a person or brand could take to increase influence online, what would you choose? In this case, content ranks at the very top. And while content might appear as king, compelling content is defined by context and relevance. Only the content that connects with individuals is worthy of not only consumption, but also sharing.

Causing Measurable Action

In any new landscape, metrics are the waypoints that validate our journey on these uncharted paths. To assess the meaningful actions that equate to success, respondents graded several criteria…each number again could only make one appearance. 1=best.

There’s a sense of irony here in that almost one-third say “an action” is the most important metric, yet just more than one-third also said it’s the least important.

If we add 1′s + 2′s together we gain greater clarity…

Action ranks as a top metric for success with 37%

Page views is second as a success metric with 36%

Tweets surprisingly outranks clickthroughs with 32%

Clickthrough followed with 32%

When we examine the mean average for each, we see a slightly different hierarchy…

An action (purchase, registration, download, request for information, vote) 3.24

Views of a particular piece of content (video, post, landing page, site) 3.1

Mean Clickthrough rates via Bit.ly or website analytics 3.08

Bitmap Tweets, retweets, likes, posts 3.06

When defining success, it’s clear, social media and influence is not governed by a one size fits all approach. Social media experiences are personal and therefore, they’re unique for every organization. We can not measure what we do not value however, and as such, success must be defined upfront and appreciated as it’s realized.

Money Can’t Buy Happiness, But Can it Buy Influence?

A truly fascinating question often begets unexpected answers. Of those polled, 57% claimed that they would pay an influencer to help drive actions or outcomes.

To get a better understanding of who would pay for the leverage of influence, we broke out the question by industry…

Search/SEO contributed to the top category for “yes” but they also represented the smaller category of participants overall. As advertising pays its way to prominence as a matter of practice, it’s no surprise to see it rank among the top with 78% yes vs. 22% no. Although, in advertising, we’re seeing a dramatic rise in the fusion of paid and earned media or what I refer to as Hybrid Theory.  Marketing followed with 61% yes vs. 39% no. Social Media and PR tied for 5th, behind “other” with 52% yes as opposed to 48% no.

For those champions looking to either seek advice or approval from decision makers within your organization, look no further than the CEO or upper management. Each accounted for 63% and 60% respectively in their willingness to pay for influence.

Apparently it’s true, while money doesn’t grow on trees, it does grow on tweets.

Redefining Influence

In conclusion, we asked panelists to submit their working definition of influence in 140 characters or less. A word cloud was then generated to amplify the most common ingredients.

Let’s revisit the definition I proposed at the beginning of the discussion…Influence is the ability to cause desirable and measurable actions and outcomes

The first word that seems to have everyone’s focus is “ability” followed by “action” and the new 5th P of Marketing, “People.” Examining the other words reveals that we have before us, the recipe for influence and it might look a bit like this…

Ability/Power

Action

People

Affect/Drive

Opinions/Thoughts

Behavior

Now try to string together a working definition of your own based on this research.

In the end, it’s our job to become “the influencer.” We owe it to our communities of customers, prospects and the people who affect their decisions to lead by example. Then and only then, can we master the ability to influence the influencer.

Download the full study from Vocus.

If you’re looking for a way to FIND answers in social media, consider reading Engage!: It will help you…

___
Get Putting the Public Back in Public Relations and The Conversation Prism:

___
Image Source: Shutterstock

…and popularity is not influence.

In social media, influence has taken center stage. With the spotlight perfectly fixed on the “me” in social media, a large shadow is now cast over the “we” that defines the social web. As individuals begin to realize the possibilities and benefits that surface as a result of building connected social graphs, a very public exploration to find the balance between influence and popularity unfolds.

What’s clear in this chapter of the ever-evolving Web is that we can expect the unexpected. What isn’t clear however, is a pervasive definition of influence and how it is embodied in the avatars that populate social networks and the social objects that we introduce into the streams.

A good place to start is to recognize that influence is not in need of a new definition nor is it open to adaptive interpretation to suit the needs of those who confuse influence with favors, popularity, actions without effect.

Merriam-Webster defines influence as the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command.

Exploring alternative sources, influence is described as the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.

I recently examined the definition of influence in a new report, “Influence is Bliss: The Gender Divide of Influence on Twitter.” While the study evaluated the distribution and level of influence by gender on Twitter, it opened with a review of what influence is and isn’t.

There’s a clear delineation between influence and popularity and it’s important to understand that in social networks, influence is not derived by the quantity of followers, friends, clicks, or “likes.” Nor is it discernible by the frequency of which one participates in their respective communities. While these serve as indicators of influence, they are not necessarily constant factors in its quantification.

Influence was thrust onto the stage recently as a result of Fast Company’s Influence Project, which for all intents and purposes, blurs the line between influence and popularity and it starts with with the tag line, “You’re more influential than you think.” The confusion between influence and popularity is only fortified by Fast Company’s explicit intent, “Searching for 2010′s most influential person online.”

The dilemma here is that this project is not rooted in measuring the effects of influence at all; it simply measures the clicks as a result of how well someone campaigns for votes. Participants, all 27,000 of them, are now operating under the assumption that clicks contribute to influence and influence then begets publicity and ultimately some semblance of fame.

Is this program a mockery of social media as  cast by some of the web’s most vocal pundits? No. However, to position it as a way of measuring individual influence is disappointing. With leadership comes responsibility and as such, we must continually earn a position of authority through our actions, ideas, and words. Doing so thoughtfully contributes to not only our social capital, but also our level of influence.

As an aspiring social scientist, I do find that as a cultural experiment, The Influence Project is fascinating and even fun to those involved.  To take the role of anthropologist and document the experience is something that I’m sure Fact Company’s Mark Borden is anxious to document and publish.

The experiment comes at a price however and one that requires a modest, but important webwide cleanup effort. At the heart of the matter is a simple, but powerful word and it needs to be taken back.

Wisdom of the Crowds

Social media is said to be defined by the wisdom of the crowds. As Andrew Keen emphasized in his book, “The Cult of the Amateur,” many of the most visible movements online wouldn’t represent the level of wisdom one might expect. As such, effects are measured by the sum of their parts. And unfortunately, one can never underestimate the power of the uninformed in large groups.

It’s trivial to spur a click, vote, like, or share/ReTweet. Over time, harmless requests transform into questionable acts of self-promotion and once switched, the transition is difficult to reverse. Social currency comes into play in all that we do online. It is the active investment of relevant content and insight combined with recognition, reciprocity, and reward that boosts trust and authority. Over time, our net worth is measured not by the size of our social graph, but our place within it.  As a result, social capital is visualized as influence. It is influence that shapes the agenda of social communities and the resulting activity and conversations that contribute to their resonance.

In social networks, influence aligns with an individual’s investment where authority becomes a measure of return. Services such as Klout, Edelmen’s TweetLevel, and PeerIndex, have devised complex human algorithms to calculate the level of prominence individuals have amassed in each network over time. These services, to some extent, establish a FICO score that calculates the credit of one’s social capital.

HP’s Social Computing Lab recently published a landmark study that examines the building blocks for making a tweet unmistakably influential. The team led by Dr. Bernardo Huberman, Daniel Romero, Wojciech Galuba and Sitaram Asur analyzed 22 million tweets. To put that number into perspective, 65 million Tweets fly each day, equating to just under 2 billion Tweets per month.

As a way of measuring influence and identifying particularly influential users, the HP team devised a new “IP Algorithm” to measure the influence level of users as well as surface Twitter’s most influential individuals. The calculations also accounted for “passivity,” the propensity for someone to view, ignore, or miss the content shared by others. Over the years, I’ve studied “connectivity,” the opposite of passivity, where attentiveness begins with our attention aperture. In order for social object to trigger the social effect it must represent something compelling and shareable in addition to a right time vs. real-time introduction.

The study found that a notable majority of Twitter users act as passive information consumers and in turn, rarely share or RT content to their respective social graphs.  The key discovery is that to become influential, individuals  must not only catch the attention of their followers when their attention aperture is open; they must also overcome passivity. This is also something that I explored with Dan Zarrella in “The Science of Retweets.” The same is true for Facebook and YouTube.

What’s most important, is that HP’s Social Computing Lab scientifically separates the concept of influence from popularity. The link between the size of the social graph and the propensity to cause effects is weak.

The study concludes, “This study shows that the correlation between popularity and influence is weaker than it might be expected. This is a reflection of the fact that for information to propagate in a network, individuals need to forward it to the other members, thus having to actively engage rather than passively read it and cease to act on it.”

During the limited period of data collection, the HP team found that of all the influencers discovered as a result of the research project, the following users rose to the top of “IP-influence,” @mashable, @jokoanwar, @google, @aplusk, @syfy, @smashingmag, @michellemalkin, @theonion, @rww, @breakingnews.

From Influence to Influencer

Over the years, I’ve explored the roles of influencers in social networks and as a result, I’ve refined the definition as simply the ability to cause measurable actions and outcomes. Intentional influence then assumes that certain actions are therefore definable and as a result, desired activity and results are now designed into strategies. The execution of these plans is then dependent on the reach and conviction of the influential voices to which they’re aligned.

In a world where we are measured by our social graph and our stature within it, influence, not ignorance, is bliss. Attention, engagement and affinity are earned privileges and as such, with influence comes great responsibility.

Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Facebook
___
Please consider reading, Engage!: It will answer your questions…

___
Get Putting the Public Back in Public Relations and The Conversation Prism:

___
Image Credit: ShutterStock

Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero and Fang Wu of the Social Computing Laboratory at HP Labs conducted an in-depth study of the relationships that power Twitter. The team recently released its report, “Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope.”

The abstract:

Scholars, advertisers and political activists see massive online social networks as a representation of social interactions that can be used to study the propagation of ideas, social bond dynamics and viral marketing, among others. But the linked structures of social networks do not reveal actual interactions among people. Scarcity of attention and the daily rhythms of life and work makes people default to interacting with those few that matter and that reciprocate their attention. A study of social interactions within Twitter reveals that the driver of usage is a sparse and hidden network of connections underlying the “declared” set of friends and followers.

The paper captures the definition of online relationships in the Social Web and why they are inherently ambient and not intimate as opposed to those we maintain in the real world. In life, we embrace those relationships that are mutually beneficial and not necessarily one-sided.

In social networks, however, many factors are present that impact the social graph as well as the ebb and flow of information and ultimately dictate what becomes a top trending topic, who garners relative authority, and also what goes viral.

According to the report, “A link between any two people does not necessarily imply an interaction between them. As we showed in the case of Twitter, most of the links declared within Twitter were meaningless from an interaction point of view. Thus the need to find the hidden social network; the one that matters when trying to rely on word of mouth to spread an idea,
a belief, or a trend.”

The intentions of Social Networks and Micro Communities (such as Twitter) were genuine and innovative as they attempted to improve communication, sharing, and connectivity between friends, family, associates. The new social economy also aspired the building of bridges between the previously disconnected and interspersed relationships that join friends of a friend (FOAF).

What has evolved however, is so much more than the connection of friends and friends of friends. Social Networks have created a parallel friend/follower archetype that injects a homologous top-down network where individuals not only connect with those they know, but also with those who are interested in following their online activity, and not necessarily with the expectation of reciprocation. This injects a new dynamic into online social relationships, one that facilitates and fosters a less personal, but still meaningful engagement, creating an ambient, persona-audience interconnection.

In an attempt to measure influence while revealing relationships on Twitter, Benedikt Koehler developed Twitter Friends. Koehler’s application is by far the most compelling and valuable analysis tool for measuring the @-crowd or “the relevant net,” those people that any given user converses with most often.

He observes, “The number of people you follow on Twitter is not the whole truth. It’s more interesting [to see] who you are talking to whether you are following them or not. It [is] not a connection-based network but a performance-based network.”

Revealing the Hidden Network – The Outbound Relevant Net

Using TwitterFriends to visualize the outbound relevant net for someone, in this case me, on Twitter, here’s a snapshot of those I most recently conversed with in the public timeline:

This is what’s called the “Hidden Network,” but it’s not representative of the whole story. This map merely represents a moment in time where context and related events connected individuals and therefore formed a transient first-level map of contextual relations or conversations.

The Inbound Relevant Net – Public Conversations @username

The followers and followers of followers that consistently, and loyally, RT, @, promote, or cite (tweet) excerpts of content related to a particular username is a far more compelling revelation into the true influence and authority of a relevant network – one that is powered by both parallel and divergent factors associated with outbound conversations sourced from the host ID.

Using TwitterFriends to visualize the inbound network as it relates to @briansolis, let’s compare the corresponding map to that of the Relevant Net above:

Both reveal valuable information as they transform hidden networks into visual maps of contextual relations and associated influence for deeper analysis. But to assume online social influence or connectivity is limited to only the above networks, incoming or outgoing, is insular.

Contextual Networks

I suggest we inject another dynamic into the equation, one that in my opinion, weighs more than the conversation quotient that measures the hidden network of those you (or any username) message in public – whether inbound or outbound. Whether or not these conversations are intended to elicit a response directly from a source or @username, the orbiting dialog around a particular person and the topic of conversation is paramount. We’re seeing this increasing level of shared behavior in the practice of RT (retweeting) on Twitter or “liking” on Facebook or Friendfeed. The public sharing of relevant content introduced by any given individual sparks conversations across social graphs with or without the formal participation of the original contributor. This exchange changes based on the content that’s introduced to the public.

This is what I call the Influence Factor (IF). It is a related network that connects second, third-level and sequential friends and friends of friends (FOFs) that are bound by topic and time.

The Backchannel

Perhaps the most accurate Relevant Net that truly documents actual relationships is The Backchannel – those individuals whom someone directly engages behind the scenes.

This additional, but no less relevant, hidden phenomena is the explicit exchange of content, a private request, or an implicit action that catalyzes the sharing of information, content, or ideas across multiple, distinct social graphs to directly influence and catalyze the friends of those trusted social beacons as well as the progression levels of the friends of friends effect.

The Social Economy

In day-to-day online conversations, content exchange and reciprocity are the currencies that finance the Social Economy. This entire discussion is true and constant whether focused on Twitter or traditional social networks such as Facebook or MySpace.

A social network is not necessarily bound by relationships as much as it is driven by the exchange of shared ideas and information through a one-to-one and one-to-many conversation that is inclusive of top-down, bottom-up, inside-out, and outside-in peer-to-peer interaction.

Many of us forge relationships and engage in online conversations unlike those we maintain in the real world.

The Ties that Bind

Source

We’re bound by context and it is under these circumstances, the relevant network actively transforms in each of the scenarios above.

The ties that bind us together in online networks aren’t intrinsically dictated by people, but instead by constant as well as shifting contextual themes that unite us. It forms the foundation for a different dynamic for engagement and a new definition of relationships.

The individual social graph is then networked by the common interests of people as they relate to specific dialogue over time and also in the moment, and thus, it’s always expanding and contracting. We identify uniquely with different individuals across varying topics. A true social graph and the relationships that define it are constantly influx and measurable only as snapshots tied to subjects frozen in time.

It is for this reason, that we should also create and analyze contextual maps based on the themes that bring us together.

Therefore keywords, not necessarily those conversations we host or “@” in aggregate, are the primary research criterion when analyzing the connection and interaction between individuals and groups to more accurately identify and chart a “contextual map” that visualizes the distinct relationships united by commonality, affinity, and/or loyalty.

Viral marketing, videos, content, “insert keyword here,” as governed by an identifiable and formulaic process and Relevant Net, technically become myths. It’s people and their shifting network of relationships combined with the extended reach of their contextually-based friends’ networks that can make something viral or make someone influential within specific social realms.

Everything starts with listening and observation – a bit of digital anthropology if you will – in order to assess and understand diverse cultures, relationships, behavior, and dynamic influence, as well as the migration and impact of content, across the relevant net.

A connection-based network now also becomes a performance-based network. But metrics, maps, and hidden networks aside, the culture of social networks is cultivating a new breed of influence and connections that tie us to more than those we know in the real world, but also those whom we connect with because of what we represent through our online personae.

How does this change how you view and manage important relationships if at all?

Connect with Brian Solis on:
Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Plaxo, Posterous, or Facebook
—
Click the image below to buy the book/poster:

pr pr+2.0 pr2.0 public+relations marketing advertising interactive social+media socialmedia brian+solis social media media2.0 media+2.0 2.0 smo social+media+optimization marcom communication publicity advertising expert interactive spin brand branding guru social+architect

Jeremiah Owyang, Chris Heuer, Louis Gray, Guy Kawasaki, and Jesse Stay (founder of SocialToo) and I hosted the second annual Twitter Bowl 2009 during the big game – additional history here.

Jesse Stay worked tirelessly to help us create a scalable and efficient system on SocialToo to track and share votes on Twitter. Thank you Jesse.

Now let’s take a look at the play-by-play and the final score in this year’s Twitter Bowl 2009.

As Michael Pilla stated on Twitter, this could be one of the largest focus groups to hit Twitter yet. Indeed the volume of referring traffic from Twitter to our survey was enough to max out the server to handle the tidal wave of simultaneous visitors.

Here are the top Super Bowl commercials you voted for on SocialToo…

2009 Twitter Bowl Top 10

1 – Transformers
2 – Hulu
3 – Career Builder
4 – Pepsi Max, “I’m Good”
5 – Doritos, “Free Doritos”
6 – Budweiser Clydesdale, “Fetch”
7 – Bridgestone, “Mr. Potatohead”
8 – Budweiser, “Conan O’Brien”
9 – NBC LMAO
10 – Pepsi MacGruber

Let’s compare our Twitter Bowl results to outher traditional polls sourced by Neilsen, USA Today, and TIVO…

Neilsen IAG Ad Ratings

1 – Budweiser, “Fetch”
2 – Doritos, “Crunch”
3 – Doritos, “Crystal Ball”
4 – Pedigree
5 – Careerbuilder.com
6 – Budweiser, “Generations”
7 – Budweiser, “Circus”
8 – Bridgestone, “Astronauts”
9 – NFL, “Usama Young”
10 – Pepsi, “Forever Young”

USA Today

1 – Doritos, “Crystal Ball”
2 – Budweiser, “Circus”
3 – Budweiser, “Fetch”
4 – Bridgestone, “Mr. Potatohead”
5 – Doritos, “Crunch”
6 – Cars.com
7 – Pedigree
8 – Pepsi, Will.I.am, Bob Dylan
9 – Castrol, “Grease Monkeys”
10 – Bud Light, “Meeting”

TIVO

1 – GoDaddy.com: “Enhanced?”
2 – Bud Light: “Summer to Winter”
3 – Careerbuilder.com: “It May Be Time”
4 – Doritos: “Crystal Ball”
5 – Transformers: “Revenge of the Fallen”
6 – Monster.com: “Moose Head”
7 – Bud Light: “Man Thrown out the Window”
8 – Pepsi: “MacGruber/Pepsuber”
9 – Dennys: “Thugs”
10 – Coke Zero: “Mr Polamalu”

As I’ve stated in much of my work on digital anthropology in social networks and micro communities, the associated cultures are unique to each locale. For example, Twitter is still driven by those individuals who reside on the left side of the adoption bell curve.

When you compare the Twitter Bowl results to Neilsen and USA Today (participants who most likely reside in the middle to the right of the bellcurve), the commonalities are obviously divergent. When compared to the TIVO poll, resemblances are clear, perhaps representative of the demographic and psychographic similarities between the user bases.

Analytics

Hosted conversations were tracked and channeled using the hashtag #superbowlads. Between Friday and Monday, we tracked over 1,500 relevant tweets containing “#superbowlads” as they related to the specific discussion we were measuring. This number assumes that the Twitter API was also running normally (which isn’t always the case.)

We also created a special short URL using Poprl (http://poprl.com/FmN) to measure referring traffic from Twitter to the SocialToo survey. We quickly realized that individuals in the first wave of RTs would share our Poprl link intact, but those not exposed to the shortened URL who in turn tweeted or wrote about #superbowlads as well their first wave of retweeters would either select their favorite URL shortener (TinyURL, Bit.ly, etc.) or share the original URL (http://socialtoo.com/survey/view/1221) with their social graph.

According to Poprl:

Over half of the referring traffic to the survey was sourced from Twitter.com with roughly another 25% stemming from Twitturls.com. Facebook News Feeds and the PR 2.0 post were also significant contributors to the survey.

Were the 2009 Super Bowl Ads Disappointing?

As a universal observation, the general public sentiment concurred that ad creativity and engagement overall was much lower this year. Perhaps creative budgets were restricted this year (although creativity isn’t necessarily expensive, sometimes constraint inspires genius and creativity). Maybe it was also a representation of the shared feeling of humbleness and economic sobriety. According to a “lite” follow-up Twitter survey, the numbers support this observation, with most either voting in the middle or towards the lower end of the scale.

Google Analytics sourced from the SocialToo survey indicate that for every one tweet about #superbowlads, three people voted. Engagement also hovered around a whopping 3.5 minutes, most likely due to the fact that that we also captured a dedicated stream of tweets related to the hashtag. It was interesting to read the dialog in a channeled flow.

Also there was a reduction in the gross discussion of the ads this year compared to last year. Many factors contributed to this trend as new, competing threads were pervasive on Twitter related to Super Bowl ads. Also, more people appeared to be more captivated by the game – as the majority of tweets were tied to game activity (as noted by the NY Times examples below).

Thanks to everyone for participating, and we look forward to hosting next year’s Twitter Bowl or perhaps we might have to augment the experience with a Facebook Bowl and FriendFeed Bowl as well.

As a bonus, make sure to visit this expeptional video created by the New York Times that documents keywords placed on a US map during the big game!

Twitter Chatter During the Super Bowl – NY Times

Watch the 2009 Super Bowl commercials online here:

NBC
Hulu
Spike
Superbowl-Ads
Spotbowl
NFL

Related Posts on PR 2.0:

- Anheuser-Busch Debuts AB-Extras.com; Fuses PR & Social Media to Humanize Ads
- How Dell Deals with Twitter
- Need a Dictionary for Twitter?
- Introducing MicroPR, A Resource for Journalists, Analysts, & Bloggers on Twitter
- Twitter Tools for Communication and Community Professionals
- Is Twitter a Viable Conversation Platform
- Is FriendFeed the Next Conversation Platform
- State of the Twittersphere

In 2008, Jeremiah Owyang had a great idea to extend the conversation about Super Bowl ads from my living onto Twitter. Chris Heuer, Stephanie Agresta, Darryl Siry, Ben Metcalfe, Eric Gonzales, and I quickly supported the idea and set up a series of Twitter stations to kick things off. Josh Bernoff of Forrester analyzed 2,500 tweets and organized the results into an impressive ratings summary. That was the beginning of #superbowlads on Twitter.

This year, we will continue the tradition of rating the Super Bowl ads on Twitter, but with a small twist – one that hopefully makes Josh Bernoff’s life a little bit easier. Unfortunately Jeremiah and Shirley are returning from Hawaii, so I had a different idea to get us back into the game, while contributing and showcasing the results in real time.

This year, we’ve also rallied the support of Louis Gray, Guy Kawasaki, and Jesse Stay, founder of SocialToo. Since Twitter is rooted in public interaction and provides the ability to extend its functionality, I wanted to find a Twitter application that would allow us to not only monitor discussions and ratings related to #superbowlads, but also provide the ability to capture and present votes. This might be one of the biggest “social” focus groups to date…

SocialToo is a suite of productivity solutions for Twitter and other social networks. It’s most notable and unique feature is SocialSurverys, providing the ability to create elegant polls that can be shared across multiple networks (provides for automatic distribution through Twitter) and tracked in one central location for analysis.

Introducing the Second Annual Twitter Bowl…

Your hosts:

Jeremiah Owyang – @jowyang
Chris Heuer – @chrisheuer
Louis Gray – @louisgray
Jesse Stay – @jesse
Guy Kawasaki – @guykawasaki
Yours Truly – @briansolis

How to Play:

- If you don’t already have a Twitter account, join here.

- Vote for your favorite ads here and share the following link with everyone you know (do so often): http://poprl.com/FmN

- Discuss and rate each of the Superbowl ads on Twitter. Be sure to add this text #superbowlads, to each Tweet. Doing so will automatically channel your updates into the main dialog hosted at SocialToo (below the survey).

That’s it!

Enjoy the game and follow the conversation. We’ll publish the final stats and compare the how Twitter compares to mainstream polls.

Don’t forget, share this link!
http://poprl.com/FmN

Watch the 2009 Super Bowl commercials online here:

NBC
Hulu
Spike
Superbowl-Ads
Spotbowl
NFL