A new report from Universal McCann discusses the rise of "a new breed of super influencers" that has been created by "the tools of the social media revolution." Before we all don our superhero capes, let's look more closely at the findings of the report.
Entitled When did we start trusting strangers? How the internet turned us all into influencers, the premise is that influence was moved beyond "professional and top down" (mainstream media) and into Web-enabled peer to peer influence. But despite McCann calling this a "democratisation of influence", all influencers are not equal. There are "super influencers" who are "extremely heavy users of social media, particularly in terms of content creation." Are you one of these people? Let's check out what the characteristics are...
The research was completed among 17,000 active internet users in 29 countries, according to McCann.
Super influencers are heavy social media users, who also "fit the typical profile of early adopters who are likely to try new products, take risks and share their opinions with friends."
But it's important to note straight away that it's not just about tech. The report lists a number of different categories where people can be super influencers:
It's common for people to be influential over a range of these categories. The peak of influence is said to be around 12-14 categories, much higher than was possible before the Web.
However, it's unsurprising to learn that the so-called super influencers are "more likely to be male, 25-34 and be mid or senior influential office workers." They are also more likely to be highly educated. The report puts this down to "in the knowledge heavy, written world of the web, intelligence and computer literacy are major factors in spreading significant influence."
Of course we hope that over time super influencers will include a wider representation of people.
As for their activities, we've seen variations of the following chart before. Basically they blog a lot, use social networks, upload photos and videos, and so on:
McCann notes that super influencers are making their presence felt in mainstream life. Perhaps a little too boldly, the report claims that super influencers "helped Obama get the democratic party nomination." The report states that they did so through "prolific blogging, twittering, social networking and content creation", which generated massive influence and helped to raise funds, get people out to vote and change the opinions of mainstream media.
We're not so sure that Twittering for Obama helped get him the nomination. We're all fans of Twitter here, but it's still very very niche. The fact that the RWW Ed has more FriendFeed subscribers than Obama, tells you something about its usage in the real world (and the Ed doesn't use FriendFeed that much). fwiw Marshall Kirkpatrick is top RWW writer in those rankings, at #24.
We are pleased to note however that, according to page 10 of the report, super influencers are likely to read ReadWriteWeb ;-)
It's perhaps not all good news for super influencers. The report also claims that super influencers are "much more likely to be motivated by overt commercial messaging [and] celebrity endorsements". I guess that explains the presence of punk'd star Ashton Kutcher and washed up rapper Hammer at TC50!
Finally, super influencers are a worldwide phenonomen, according to McCann, but "there is a clear skew towards the emerging internet markets of Latin America and Asia Pacific." Brazil has the highest rate of super influencers, with 24% of active internet users falling into the super influencer category. They are followed by India, Mexico and Pakistan, which McCann puts down to "how internet users have found their voice thanks to their massive use of social media in these markets."
There is a lot more to this report than the super influencer data points. The report is bullish on influencers in general: "overall participation rates for contributing opinions, thoughts and content on products and brands is extremely high." McCann recommends that "all brands have to react to the influence economy - becoming more open, more transparent and more active in social and conversational media".
There's nothing really new in the report - we've known for a while now that social media is being used to create new forms of influence in the commercial and social worlds. But there's good lessons here for brands and organizations that are still figuring out how to reach consumers in the Web age.
Also we're hopeful that the super influencer demographic will become a bit more representative, over time. Here at ReadWriteWeb we try to encourage the use of the very latest web technologies in The Real World - for example see our overview of the recent DEMOfall08 conference, which we felt showcased some promising real world applications. We hope that trend continues too.
So, now that you know what makes up a Super Influencer - are you one of them? Tell us in the comments...
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4930
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
I don't influence anything, I just have a lot of online friends.
Posted by: Robert Scoble
|
September 17, 2008 9:08 PM
I read ReadWriteWeb. I don't influence anything, but I have lots of online friends. :-)
Posted by: Robert Scoble | September 17, 2008 9:10 PM
Scoble you are defintely an influencer. Howvever, you're also one of the best at not only sharing information but receiving it to. I'd also put Chris Brogan and our very own Marshall Kirpatrick as some of the most valuable super influencers around.
Posted by: Corrrvidarrrgh
|
September 17, 2008 9:22 PM
Online, I influence few people I guess. Mostly those that are friends offline.
Offline however I'd call myself a super influencer, I'm always being asked for buying advice on various things from house hold appliances to new computers and cameras... I have no idea why someone would ask me about appliances, but they do..weird..
I like to stay up on current tech and products as much as possible, often right on the bleeding edge which is some times not the best place to be. I enjoy it though.
Posted by: Mat Packer | September 17, 2008 9:37 PM
It's the nature of social networking that one's potential influence would increase the more networked they are. When you can tell a couple hundred or, in Scoble's case, tens of thousands of people something with a couple keystrokes, that's influence. It doesn't have to be consumer purchasing influence, per se, though that's the spirit of this study. Word of mouth in the real world takes time. Word of mouse on the social web is immediate.
Posted by: Max Gladwell | September 17, 2008 9:48 PM
I can influence anyone. Watch this. One of you guys in this comment section bring me a sandwitch.
Don't make me get out of this chair!
Posted by: Baz Anderson | September 17, 2008 10:10 PM
I don't know that I consider myself a "super influencer" so much as a person who just wants to keep up with what is going on in the world and with technologies. Buuuut, as a person who recently joined the blogosphere, I see your point.
I looked over the charts you gave and was surprised to see just how many of those categories I fit into. ( So, basically, I am a statistic. How nice ! )
Thanks for the article and giving me a little birds-eye view of myself and the people that I am hanging out with ( virtually, of course ! )
Posted by: Erik | September 17, 2008 10:16 PM
I just came across your blog about and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I have a site and it's about web design so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
Posted by: Stephane | September 17, 2008 10:48 PM
I would guess super-influencers vary across the stages of the service or the type of service. Scoble and Marshall have good relationships in one niche, while I may go somewhere else for advice on finance, household, or sports.
And I strongly doubt Scoble, Marshall, Chris Brogan and others like that were all that influenced by Ashton Kutcher.
Posted by: Louis Gray | September 17, 2008 11:48 PM
Louis, my reading was that's not so much they are influenced by Ashton Kutcher, but they want his endorsement. I'm certain it drummed up some nice PR for TC50, so I don't doubt that for one second. I'm not making any judgement on it either, it's just the way the world works to want celebrity endorsement of your activities, as it inevitably generates PR.
Also, one thing that stood out for me. It's true that the people on page one of the FriendFeed charts are all influential in the tech world (or the blogging part of it at least), but I was kind of wondering if the male/25-34/middle class type dominates in other areas too - like books for example. Perhaps they do, but it'd be interesting to find out. The report didn't say.
Posted by: Richard
|
September 18, 2008 12:57 AM
The majority of a people I know who are an online influencers, they were "in some public focus" before their online activities. Although there are a lot of "pure" online influencers, it is much easier to achieve online influence if you have a previous notable resume!
Posted by: Dragan Varagic | September 18, 2008 1:27 AM
Would be interesting to know why people think they are influencers? It is just a guess, or is it based on some criteria? I can run a blog, but does that make me an influencer?
Posted by: HowtoForge | September 18, 2008 1:31 AM
Surely influence is nothing without context. I might ask one or two friends about their advice for a show or movie to go and see, but an entirely different one or two friends when I'm thinking of buying a new PC or TV, etc.
I'm not sure this study goes any further than Forrester's Groundswell to be honest. And at least Groundswell provided some practical frameworks to use.
All this survey shows is that people are talking about stuff on the internet, utilising social technologies to do so, and in ever increasing volume. But I could have told you that.
What we really need to understand is to what extent this advice we either give or receive tips our buying decision - if it is not tipping my decision then surely I have not been influenced.
Posted by: Richard | September 18, 2008 1:35 AM
Isn't this article about three years too late? Even the term SuperInfluencers reeks of stale non-refrigeration.
Posted by: Curt Fitzgerald | September 18, 2008 2:06 AM
Super-influencers tend to have super-connectors at their heels. Not actively sought out, they reblog and RT everything from the Super-Influencer.
What's in it for them is the connecting or being only one degree away from the breaking news. At their best, they're filters; at their worst, they're groupies or yes-heads.
This has an amplifying effect and needs to be taken into account here.
Posted by: Derek | September 18, 2008 2:12 AM
Anyone with a blog and a bit of mana is your influencer :-)
Posted by: mukzz | September 18, 2008 3:04 AM
Interesting report. I like how they're trying to understand influence more. I'd suggest that the notion of super influencers is very similar to the tipping point argument or how brand advocates and their importance are discussed. The element missing here is the social influencers within a local known peer group based on their interactions with each other. I've discussed it in an article here - http://www.goingsocialnow.com/2008/05/social-influence-marketing-und.html
Posted by: Shiv Singh | September 18, 2008 3:35 AM
By the very nature of the medium we are all influencers. If we read this article and responded we are directly and indirectly creating an influence with our voice.
The fact is that those early adopters and aggressive bloggers/networkers just happen to be seen and heard by a large audience of followers thus creating the influence regardless of size.
While any one of us may influence a couple of hundred people directly it is the thought seeds and perspectives that those couple of hundred people each pass on to a couple of hundred people which creates the thought influence.
This messgae is properly preaching to the choir thus it will have little influence accpet an agreement or disagreement
Posted by: Jay Deragon | September 18, 2008 4:54 AM
Today we launched "most active" features and added "activity points" to the users and the rooms.
If you compare most active users and most popular users lists, you'll probably get more ideas about the facts of being a social phenomenon.
Posted by: FriendFeedHolic | September 18, 2008 7:31 AM
Richard,
Since I started blogging I've been fascinated by the online leadership and influence subject, thank you for sharing this research with us.
I'm still trying to figure out if it is at all possible getting to that level of influence being only active online? Looking at people like Robert Scoble, Chris Brogan and others, I see that they are heavily active offline as well.
Does offline activity, amplified by social media, is the only way?
Can one get to this level of influence not moving from his chair?
I like to think that you can influence when you have a clear objective for your web presence maybe even a mission.
You can still have web presence without a mission, and no influence, yet enjoy the only social interactions (attention:)).
Keren
Posted by: Keren Dagan | September 18, 2008 7:48 AM
thank you for the info
Posted by: hgh hormone | September 18, 2008 8:26 AM
Good blogs excellent quality :)
Posted by: diseño web | September 18, 2008 10:03 AM
One of the most interesting (and encouraging) results that stand out in this report is the linkage between super influence and education level. Tim Ferris (FourHourWorkWeek) has some interesting keynotes on YouTube - one in particular that's titled "fireside chat" - that discuss how you can rapidly increase your credibility by joining "expert" associations, speaking at colleges etc - food for thought for those of us who don't already command a influential presence in the real world.
I agree with the comments above that many of people who have influence online are people who already have accomplished a lot in the real world and are creating content that is "amplified" by the social media effect. People like Fred Wilson, Brad Feld in tech command a following because of their off-line accomplishments. Almost no one rises from nothing online. There has to be a basis for credibility (by association, accomplishment, or endorsement) first to spark a following. Maybe I'm wrong? Does anyone have an example (other t
Posted by: Steffan Antonas
|
September 18, 2008 12:53 PM
Actually I disagree with the notion that you need offline success to be successful offline. All the top 10 blogs in Technorati's list, including ReadWriteWeb, were founded by people whose main 'achievement' is in publishing. Becoming a success online is indeed just as much hard work, luck etc as it is offline. So I don't see much relation at all between offline and online, in this context.
Posted by: Richard
|
September 18, 2008 8:09 PM
@Richard
Do you consider running or attending a confernece an offline activity?
Do you think that without seeing the blogger's face this success could happen?
How many of the bloggers on this list just sit and type?
1. Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post
By Arianna Huffington
2. TechCrunch
By Michael Arrington
4. Engadget
By WeblogsInc
5. Boing Boing
By Mark Frauenfelder
6. Lifehacker, tips and downloads for getting things done
7. Ars Technica
By Ars Technica, LLC
8. The Official Google Blog
By Manuel
9. Daily Kos: State of the Nation
10. ReadWriteWeb Web Apps, Web Technology Trends, Social Networ...
By Richard MacManus
(Taken from Technorati - http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/)
Keren
Posted by: Keren Dagan | September 18, 2008 9:03 PM
That was a very interesting post. I remember reading a study done by RapLeaf that said women are more involved in Social Networking. This is showing the opposite. I think that perhaps women have more influence with other women on a peer level or word of mouth level.
This is very interesting.
Posted by: Stephanie | September 19, 2008 11:05 AM
@Richard - I absolutely agree with you that you don't NEED to be successful offline to be successful online. After your comment I went back to the Technorati top 100 and confirmed that there are quite a few examples of major online-first success stories. What I should have said was that, statistically speaking, the percentage of bloggers who have gone from zero to super influencer online alone are a tiny minority. There are many internet entrepreneurs, publishers etc who got their start online and are now moguls. Hat tip to you. You are correct. ;-)
Posted by: Steffan Antonas | September 20, 2008 4:35 PM
I think you can influence pretty much anybody, you just have to be into your thing - you know like whatever you like to do. For social networking sites users would be keep on networking.
Posted by: natalie dylan | September 20, 2008 5:22 PM
How does it influence bloggers and other social media users when RWW lets blatant comment spam through? See Stephan's site and the arabic script link. Honestly...
Also, the first chart isn't very easy to read. Are the people strongly influencing an additional |----| percent on the chart, or the 0-----------| plus that extra |----| ?
Finally, it's interesting that these folks only touched in passing on the political involvement of social media influencers. The Influentials, a popular book on the topic (though eventually a bore as it gets increasingly repetitive) highlights their involvement in local associations etc. repeatedly.
Posted by: Gab Goldenberg | September 20, 2008 8:04 PM
While more granular and difficult to track, I'm curious to see who's created original works of art, as opposed to simply uploading/linking to others' or doing minor edits — specifically, not just "uploaded an MP3", but "composed a song in GarageBand and published it myself".
(I realize there's some slide for argument, esp. with sample-based music, but having this sort of visibility would be useful to separate the "super-influencers" from, say, the "ultra-influencers" who are at the very most polar, participatory end of the social media pool.)
Posted by: Torley | September 21, 2008 7:15 AM
I agree that the influence which internet users have on the general public is increasing. I know that I, even for small things, usually depend on the opinion of strangers via website. For example, when I buy clothes or want to research a new camera or product or hotel room from which to buy from online, I always check the consumer reports or the comments which others have left about the product. It is not unusual for me to use these opinions to base my decision.
Posted by: Brittany Carson | September 22, 2008 1:06 PM
Richard
Thanks for the interesting article. However, I think we may need to look just beyond the magnitude of influence and look at what types of influence different people have out there on the web (and maybe beyond).
For me there are at least 3 different influences that can be exerted.
1. Sentiment
2. Behaviour
3. Links/SEO
Note: there may be others to consider as well
See this link for more on my thoughts
Hayden Sutherland
Posted by: Hayden Sutherland | September 23, 2008 3:53 AM
I'm definately one....for helping my social circle with helping them out in whatever & whenever. ;)
Posted by: Saad Ali Abbasi | September 24, 2008 2:25 AM
Well, I suspect that this analysis, even if performed all over the world, does not take in account the influence of language in determine the success of a super-influencer. Just read this ( http://lindipendente.splinder.com/post/17933798/Dominant+culture+speaks+Englis ) about language dominance, and this ( http://lindipendente.splinder.com/post/18417750/Upon+whom+can+we+rely%3F ) about reliability.
As you can see from those articles, the web is divided in a big bubble (the English one), loosely linked to various other minor bubbles (mostly Western languages), quite insulated from a huge Chinese bubble and a smaller Arabic one. So, super-influencers at global levels do not exist, but if some may arise, it will be in the English bubble, since English articles are read in other countries and sometimes translated. It is rare that vice versa occurs.
Posted by: Dario de Judicibus | September 24, 2008 4:47 AM
As we attempt to influence as marketers it's important to know where the conversation is and who the people that lead the conversation are.
That changes with each new topic and it makes it difficult to judge who are the overall super influencers, but influencers in specific topics? Sure.
In attempting to help other understand the concept I started a discussion on my blog asking what influence is and how we measure it when it's dependent upon the topic. I think the discussion is an important one to have.
Posted by: Chel | October 3, 2008 10:16 AM