Posts Tagged social
Popularity vs. Influence
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
- The Princess Bride
-
Let’s talk about popularity (although if you’re like me, inconceivable leaps to mind). The word has sparked something of a debate about the power of numbers in social media. Is being popular the same as being influential? Can you be influential without being popular? Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
I’ve been watching the conversation and have been somewhat amazed at how popularity is being interpreted, particularly with regard to influence. I take issue with a few particular statements:
“Popularity is how many people hear what you say. Influence is how many people listen and react.”
and
“The popular person can lead the horse to water & the influencer makes them drink.”
I disagree with both of these statements. Strongly.
Popularity isn’t influence, or eyeballs, or getting horses to water. Popularity is an affinity for the association, not the content. It has nothing to do with how many people hear or see a message. All popularity promises is that that there will potentially be a large group exposed to the message. That’s it.
Popularity has nothing to do with volume or proximity. Popularity is potential.
I may know that it’s cool to hang around you, but I also may believe you’re an idiot. I’ll ignore whatever you say because I really have no desire to hear it. I’m sure you can think of a few good examples of this phenomenon.
Influence is built on trust, reputation, and consistency. Popularity is built on an X factor; it is, by nature, inherently perilous. Popularity requires no loyalty, no trust, and the audience can easily abandon you to go on to the next fascinating new thing. Use Hollywood as your reference.
Popularity and influence aren’t mutually exclusive, but they also aren’t dependent on each other. A popular person can become influential, but depending on how they’ve handled the popularity, it can be difficult. If you’ve cultivated your image as a vapid starlet, it’s hard to undo. If you’re already popular, you can grasp that opportunity as a role model, learn to better communicate, demonstrate consistency (and hopefully personal growth), and actively nurture relationships with your audience. Growing influence requires consciously tending to your flock, “I know you’re there. Thank you for listening to me. Here’s what I have to say. You can trust this because you know me.”
Realistically, it’s almost easier for an influential person to become popular than the reverse. For someone who’s influential, it’s merely an extension of what they’re already doing. An influential person becomes popular because their audience actively shares their message. The circle of influence can expand exponentially.
Effectively conveying a message via a personality, in social media or elsewhere, requires a combination of popularity and influence – a larger audience coupled with the power to move that audience to action.
One influential person who shares your message with a small group (who in turn actually listen to and act upon that information) can do much more than someone who is popular – think of it as targeted advertising. Instead of presenting your message to everyone and hoping they’ll be interested, you find out who is interested, by virtue of the relevant influencer, and present your message to a group that’s invested before you even get there.
Popularity is valuable, but it’s exponentially more valuable if influence and popularity go arm and arm. Make sense?
Why my Facebook page remains private
I’ve had more than one person ask me why I don’t have a public Facebook profile. In general, I have a fairly open social web presence. Considering that most days I’m neck deep in social technologies, I spend a lot of time thinking about social connectivity and the ways we enable people to share information. I also pay fairly close attention to how I’m portraying myself online. I don’t limit myself to only tweeting or blogging about subjects relevant to my profession. I began blogging while I was planning my wedding and that’s pretty personal. Having an honest, authentic representation of myself online is important to me. That doesn’t mean, however, that the world needs to see all the intricacies of my life.
The bulk of my social profiles are general information sharing, but I treat my primary Twitter account (yes, I have multiple) and my Facebook profile differently. I reserve Facebook for my close, personal social circle – family, high school and college friends, and other people who have been or are currently involved in my daily life. The information that group consumes and shares is very different than my Twitter friends or LinkedIn connections. They don’t care about my latest social media discovery, conference highlights, my infographics obsession, or a pithy quote about the internet. They do care about my plans for the weekend, what’s going on with my family, and the occasional lolcat. The personal and sometimes private information I share on Facebook doesn’t belong in a search engine. It belongs with my friends. The bonus of Facebook is that I’m able to aggregate the relevant bits of my web presence in one place.
Yes, there’s overlap between my professional and personal social circles, but that overlap is a choice. It’s a choice I want my friends to make based on their interests. It’s a choice I make to not force feed irrelevant information to people who are only interested in one part of my life. It’s the same choice I made when I created a special account to tweet about wedding-related tidbits. The vast majority of my Twitter followers weren’t interested in my wedding planning, but there was another crowd that was very interested in wedding planning who definitely didn’t care about my professional interests.
Ultimately, social technologies are tools. I decide how best to maximize each tool’s capabilities. It’s my job to evaluate each social network on its own terms and determine how it best fits my life, my social circle, and my needs. Once I understand it as a user, I look at how best I can leverage that tool for my company. All too frequently, I see people trying to apply the same formula to their social presence across the board. They’re often the people who simply create redundant content instead of trying to master the nuances of each platform. They’re also “the collectors” who boast 10,000+ followers and follow just as many.
For those who espouse that the socially savvy need to have a certain number of LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook followers, I respectfully disagree. I think you’re missing the point. The shotgun approach to social media does a disservice to your followers and to your content. After all, social media is supposed to be a two-way street, isn’t it? Do you really think anyone is getting heard in the midst of all that noise?
Social engagement isn’t about numbers; it’s about relationships. Getting 10,000 people to follow you on Twitter doesn’t mean you understand social dynamics and relationships and it doesn’t mean you’re actually listening to anything those 10,000 people are saying.* When you’re following that many people, I assume you aren’t listening and in all likelihood, you probably won’t be a good investment of my time or attention. The volume of tweets alone means that what a single person is saying probably won’t ever reach your eyeballs. Why should I bother?
In the same vein, why do you really want to follow me on Facebook? Is it because you actually care about the content I’m creating? If you aren’t really interested in what I’m saying, then why exactly do you want to be my friend? I promise you there aren’t any prizes. Leave the popularity contest in high school where it belongs.
I choose to be social on my own terms. I want ‘social’ to not just refer to a type of technology, but to its true purpose. I don’t want to be part of the deathly silent user-generated content abyss that consumes most of what we produce. I listen and I’m hoping that listening is contagious.
-
*I felt a tad guilty making the ‘people following 10k+’ generalization because there are some who seem to quite skillfully and responsively manage twitter streams of 10,000+. However, when someone adds me and I see they’re following that many folks, I look at the profile. Specifically, I look at whether the person is conversing or just spouting/talking to and/or about themselves. If they pass the Twitter-profile-at-a-glance test, I’ll follow them back. I do apply the unfollow button quite liberally, however.
For two examples of people who certainly seem to successfully manage their 10k+ following habit (courtesy of the recency effect), see @AmberCadabra & @ginidietrich.
Conferences, curry, and chocolate cake
Posted by Tammy in geekery, miscellaneous & sundry on August 19, 2010
After two weekends of conferences in a row, life is starting to settle down a bit. We didn’t actually get back until Monday morning. My suitcase is still partially packed and laundry needs done, but life is mostly restored to a relatively comfortable pace.
I had delicious chicken curry and kothe (essentially a very yummy fried dumpling) for dinner from Highland Cafe and Bakery (oddly enough, neither appear on their menu online). The suitcase and laundry will be handled. I will teach the cat how to do housework, never fear. He’ll eventually pull his weight. It’s just that right now he’s napping and cannot be disturbed.
Speaking of cats, lolcats specifically, Matt and I drove to Chicago last weekend for Social DevCamp Chicago. After my amazing She’s Geeky experience, both professionally and personally, I had extremely high hopes for the weekend.
In some ways, my expectations were met. The keynotes were amazing – Chris Messina (Google) on pop computing, being a webinist, and the ‘death’ of the web; Andrew Mason (Groupon) on product development and humility; and Ben Huh (Cheezburger Network) on success, agility, and Potato Head Development (interchangeable pieces such that if one things break, no one dies). Several of the other sessions were equally excellent and left me with plenty food for thought and useful takeaways.
What the conference lacked was exactly where She’s Geeky excelled. Social DevCamp was more of a traditional conference complete with the anonymity of being in a large group, 
minimal personal interaction, and a didactic style. It wasn’t about learning from each other; it was about learning from an “expert.”
The conference certainly didn’t lack in experts and many of the presenters were certainly more than worth the price of admission, but as I learned at She’s Geeky, there’s something special about learning from each other in a group where everyone is on equal footing. It builds confidence, knowledge, and camaraderie in a way that doesn’t happen in a speaker/audience session.
With that said, I am glad I went. The keynotes were intellectually stimulating and inspiring. Chris really made me think about how I learned about the internet and honestly, how I learned to build websites. We are not the only ones who got started with html using View Source. With so many layers, proprietary parts, and other complexities, you just can’t learn that way anymore. The web has been “dumbed down” to be simple and easily accessible, but in doing so, it’s no longer, well, accessible (e.g. view source in Chrome now appears under Developer Tools instead of under View). It’s a tricky balance. It used to be that not everyone even had access to the web, but now, nearly everyone can be on the web, but could they learn how to build their own site, understand how the web works, and really become part of the group building new, important content if their access is solely through couch computing – apps, iPads, Kindles, etc?
Chris is passionate about keeping the web open to everyone and, somewhat jokingly, calls himself as a ‘webinist’ – a web activist. I like it. I think he should start a movement.
Andrew was funny, humble, and smart. He talked about not sitting on your laurels and really building for and talking to your users, not just marketers or developers. Perhaps most poignantly, he talked about how small victories have a much greater impact on team happiness than one big win – lots of small releases vs. one really big one.
Ben was brilliant and absolutely hilarious. His lolcat and Fail-peppered talk was smart and funny. Rather than just grinning at funny kittys, graphs, and human stupidity, it made me look at their network of sites as a viable, profitable, smart business venture. The business model and execution are just plain impressive – less than $2,000 and 2 hours to put up an entirely new site. Eighty percent of the sites they put up are profitable.
All in all, the weekend was good and definitely an enjoyable learning experience. The drive to and from Chicago was long – particularly since the drive home extended itself by nearly 3 hours thanks to Chicago traffic. Would I do it again? Yes, but I’d also take off the following Monday.
And now, I’m going to go have a few bites of the delicious chocolate cake that made its way home with me. Either that or I’ll save it to eat with my tasty leftovers tomorrow for lunch. I haven’t decided yet.
p.s. If you’re interested, several of the slide decks from Social DevCamp Chicago are available here on SlideShare.
It’s raining conferences!
After a great She’s Geeky conference last week, I’m headed off to Chicago for Social devcamp Chicago tomorrow and dragging the husband with me. It was an easy sell given that Ben Huh 
(of Cheezburger Network fame) is one of the featured speakers. I mean, who doesn’t love a good lolcat? Am I right? They’re great for all occasions!
Capping off the week’s conference-related activites, the SxSWi PanelPicker went live this week, including my proposal for the health track, “Healthy Privacy: Can Health Insurance Companies Be Social?” In your copious spare time, please stop by and vote! There are a number of great sessions for the new track. There’s also a nice list of some of the best ones over at free range communications. If you’re at all interested in the intersection of tech and health, give them a look see and cast your vote! (Also, while you’re hanging out at the PanelPicker, don’t forget to veer outside of health to vote for Cultivating a User-Centered Culture from the Geek Girl’s Guide gang. Please and thank you).
Why all the confusion about Facebook’s brand tanking?
I find it perplexing that there’s so much discussion and confusion about Facebook having brand issues. More than a few good thinkers are asking why users would be so dissatisfied. Honestly, I would have been shocked if Facebook had performed any better than they did.
Facebook has repeatedly committed the cardinal sin of showing what comes across as callous disregard for their userbase. Loyal users are a sensitive, fickle bunch. Above all things, they don’t like change or the feeling their patronage and loyalty are being taken for granted.
Between significant improvements to the user interface, repeated changes to privacy settings, and ongoing shifts in how advertising was treated, Facebook has riled the core userbase mostly without apology. Instead of providing a safe, secure, predictable internet home away from home, Facebook has given its users innovation and improvements. For newer users, the changes have been fantastic. Let’s face it. Facebook’s old UI was horrible. Good business decisions? Probably, but for user relations, you’re better off slowly boiling the water.
For users with more longevity, it’s the same as trying to swap out a child’s security blanket. For those users, it becomes all the more frustrating because they’re essentially trapped. They can’t go anywhere else even though they’re unhappy and now, they don’t trust Facebook as far as they could throw the server farm.
Facebook isn’t the first site to face unhappy users and it won’t be the last. Time will tell if Facebook’s choices to make changes despite their users will be a wise or foolish decision. For now, they have some brand repairing to do. In the meantime, they’ll have to be content with “popular, but disliked” and hope no one invents a better mousetrap in the interim.
Thoughts on privacy (or the lack thereof)
Between Zuckerberg’s proclamations, data-mining, mobile tracking, and all the other ways our lives
are exposed, every day someone is echoing the sentiment that privacy is dead. I agree that the degree to which we’re able to keep information of any sort truly private is eroding; I don’t agree that privacy is dead. What’s dead is our ability to take privacy for granted.
Privacy has moved from being a passive, expected state of things to the active, ongoing maintenance and protection of personal information where the onus falls on each individual. Facebook’s constantly fluctuating privacy settings are a fine example. Protecting any information you may deem personal requires repeatedly interacting with the site’s ever-changing “new and improved” settings. At this point, information privacy on Facebook can be maintained only through vigilance.
Blizzard’s recent experience with Real ID reinforced that anonymity we may take for granted can end at any time. We’re left with a choice. We can take the time to pay attention to the activities of companies with whom we share personal information or we can just go along for the inevitable ride. The companies we trust today may, in an effort to “be social,” either inadvertently or intentionally expose information we prefer kept out of the public eye. Those changes can occur at any time with or without full disclosure. It’s a risk we take on a daily basis and one we should contemplate every time we choose to register with a site.
With each new interaction, we risk our identities, interests, relationships, and any other information we’ve chosen to share being exposed to the world-at-large. In reality, while we should think twice before we share information, we often don’t. At some point, we’ve all registered somewhere we probably shouldn’t have or shared information that, on second thought, we wish we hadn’t. We can’t take those decisions back. Once the information is out there, we no longer have control of it. It no longer belongs to us as much as we may wish to make it so.
The bottom line is that you need to share information wisely and if you have reason to be concerned about what might pop up, remember that online reputation management isn’t just for corporations. Change privacy settings, delete accounts, request information be removed, and do whatever else you need to do to maintain the reputation you want online. The days of thoughtlessly and anonymously bounding across the internet are long since gone, if they ever existed at all. If you don’t want someone to know what you’re doing, don’t do it – whether you’re online or offline.
Why I think Blizzard Got it Wrong
I have a confession. I game and I don’t play just any games. I play World of Warcraft, but I don’t just casually play, I raid. I dedicate a portion of each week to cooperatively kill vicious pixels with 24 other people. I admittedly don’t do the killing. I’m a healer and I am, in fact, our raid’s healing lead. I virtually manage a team of 5 – 6 other people to keep the raid alive. I’m also pretty good at it.
People who know me well already know that I play. It inevitably comes up since it’s actually how I met my husband. “Hi, my name is Tammy and I met my husband in an MMORPG.” I started playing a few years ago and I enjoy it immensely. I find it rewarding, in the virtual and accomplishment sense, and I’ve obviously formed some solid and lasting relationships through the experience.
Gaming and World of Warcraft (WoW) in particular have a bad rap with a lot of folks. The games and the people are stereotyped and misunderstood to the point that some employers may decide to not hire someone based on the simple fact that the individual plays WoW. I’ve generally been cautious about how and when I discuss my hobby as the misinformation is rampant (until today, I suppose, but this is my blog so I’m allowed some leeway).
So during the day, I’m a mild mannered employee of a health insurance company who specializes in all things social and internet-y. At night, I’m an extremely tall, lavender goat from space. Don’t judge me. Most of the time, I spend my days educating people about and evangelizing social tools, including the privacy implications. I am deeply invested in my work and I’m a firm believer that social technologies will continue to change how we live our lives. Given that I spent seven years of my life getting a doctorate in Clinical Psychology, it’s fair to assume that I pay attention to such things. It’s also safe to assume that since I work in healthcare and with social media, I am very sensitive to how personal information is managed.
I am extremely protective of my personal information. I am one of the relatively small percentage of people who took full advantage of Facebook’s privacy features. I care about who sees my information and how they see it. I want to have as much control over my information as possible. Only within the past year have I begun using my full name online as it is part of my professional identity.
A month ago, Blizzard (the WoW folks) introduced Real ID. The system allows players to communicate across all of Blizzard’s gaming universes by implementing a single “real” user ID for each player. The system was presented as opt-in and was seemingly designed to connect the users’s real life identities similar to Facebook. The move streamlined player communications and allowed friendships to expand beyond a single game.
This week, Blizzard announced their intention to implement Real ID in the World of Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo forums. Soon, commenters will be able to post only using their full first and last names as part of the Real ID system. Blizzard stated the change was being made to combat forum trolling and flamewars, which have been a recognized problem.
What happened next may have been a surprise to Blizzard, or perhaps not, but it was not a surprise to anyone familiar with social technologies, Facebook, or with any interest in online privacy issues. Players were outraged. While few argued with the legitimacy of Blizzard’s concerns about trolling, the proposed solution was onerous enough to result in 2000+ pages of player responses in the North American WoW forums alone, over 44,000 mostly angry or simply astounded comments.
While Blizzard points out that the exposure is opt-in, it is only a choice in the sense that a player may choose to post or not post in the forums. While forum posters are merely a subset of Blizzard’s users, they are a vocal, invested, and passionate subset. They are exactly the players that Blizzard cannot to afford to lose or alienate. The mystery here is that Blizzard did exactly that. So, the question is why would Blizzard take that risk or did they simply get it completely wrong? Read the rest of this entry »
