Influence: the holy grail of understanding outreach
Influence seems to be the holy grail of distributing content. Yet no-one seems to have cracked it yet. A few people claim to have to done it – and their theory seems to be valid – but results suggest that no-one has truly cracked being able to accurately rate a site or blog by exactly how influential they are.
The reason for this is that people aren’t tackling the issue in right way. In fact, I think a lack of appreciation for the simple science of influence is almost certainly why people haven’t figured it out, and that if you understand that influence, like any other metric, is different depending on what you’re trying to achieve.
Here’s a simple node diagram, showing 2 networks. Each node is a site, the size of each node denotes their audience size, and the arrows show the flow of information between sites (whether this is pingbacks, retweets, doesn’t matter – you get what i mean).
The diagram shows 2 networks sat closely together – namely Automotive, and Design (for the purposes of this example). For simplicity, let’s pretend I’m only showing up the fairly influential, larger blogs, so if Jane from Wigan is retweeting something, she’s so small this diagram can’t even see her. Thank god.
Put simply, this diagram shows us 3 types of site when considering Influence:
1. Mass Influencers. The Purple ones. They’re large in audience size, and for this reason probably show up fairly well on inbound link rankings. In fact, they’ll even have lots of nodes hanging off them, people who retweet everything they say, and may even get quoted on a few blogs too. However, what’s often overlooked is who is doing that. If you look at the arrows on the diagram from the Left-hand Purple blog, only a couple are taking it’s content, and that’s a couple of also-influential blogs. So, for this example, the Purple blog has a large audience, has high inbound links, but potentially not from it’s own influential peers – and these are the connections that spread further than just one node.
2. Well Connected Influencers. The next type are the blue ones. They’re smaller, niche, and possibly appear average when judging inbound links. However, they’re connected to several other influential blogs, and are quoted by much larger ones, so audience potential is still high. They’re also credible, highly connected (almost always in real life, not just the “blogosphere”) and know their own industry inside out.
3. Bridge Influencers. The two Green ones. These are probably the most overlooked of the lot, and where I think Influence is still nowhere near reaching yet. They appear poorly on inbound link rankings, and for 2 reasons: firstly, they may sit between 2 industries, and influence rankings prefer to put sites into distinct categories. Secondly, they genuinely don’t have a huge amount of connections, simple as that. The important thing as you may have guessed (the name? the diagram perhaps?) is that they bridge 2 networks – Design bloggers quote their stories, Auto bloggers do the same. They are the key to opening up, for example, Design-based content from an Automotive client.
What all this adds up to is that your objectives for outreach need to be considered before you identify which blogs you’d like to engage with, and that influence should be ranked in multiple ways (and no, don’t add them all up get a “score”).
- Inbound links – still hugely valid, but only if you consider who the links are coming from. A link from a large site, from a highly linked site, and a link from a highly linked site which also is linked to other highly linked sites. Complicated, but needs to be considered. Total links should also be analysed, but only valid when you don’t care how much further you want the content to spread – consumers are often the last node if your content is not top notch.
- Audience size – if you’re trying to reach the masses, then yes, consider this one. As mentioned above, seeding content to well connected sites will eventually reach the masses if seeded correctly (and sites with large audiences often want cash for content…).
- The whole network – what’s the end goal? Are you bridging the gap between 2 industries? Are you trying to be credible among Industry experts? Are you just trying to get to consumers as fast as possible?
Whatever you are trying to achieve, your judge of Influence needs to match.
Facebook [f8] decides everybody “likes” bloody everything
Facebook are at it again! So basically the biggest development to Facebook in a long while saw Facebook showing their hand at the f8 conference last wednesday, and they’ve released all the details of their evolution of Facebook Connect, the way they allow users to connect their experience on Facebook with any external sites (which embrace it).
The biggest development is called Open Graph – in a nutshell it’s the new “Like” function, but you’re now able to put it on your site – so people can like articles, videos, whatever you put on your Website – these then feed through to your News Feed as if yo’ve just liked something on Facebook itself.
There’s also two types of “Like” – one of them (highlighted by having a blue box round it) as the Major daddy of Likes – the one that signs you up to get updates on your wall from that brand. You’ve basically become a fan, without really knowing it. The other just shares the like on your wall – and you’re signed up to nowt (we’ll call it the good one…).
The second, and ultimately most worrying, is called Social Plugins. This is a toolbar that a site can easily program into it’s code, so that sites can embed relevant Facebook information into a site – such as, the CNN.com homepage – if you go on here while you’re logged into Facebook, you may notice a box that tells you if any of your friends have “liked” any relevant articles – and links straight to them. To me, that sounds like a great idea.
On this level, I think it works well – someone has chosen to “Like” a piece of content, and as well as posting this on Facebook itself, it tells me on CNN, as I arrive, that my friend liked an article – a good user experience.
BUT – there’s a darker side to this – and Spotify is the prime example. Their new release (v0.4.3 or something like that) includes a Social Plugin within the desktop app, that shows all your Facebook friends (the ones who are online, and have Spotify), and you’re able to see what they’re listening to, and all their playlists.
It sounds innocuous at first, but have Facebook opened themselves up again to Privacy issues? The problem for the user, is that they haven’t “Liked” anything – they haven’t opted into to sharing this information, Facebook does it automatically. The same could work for Youtube – my Facebook friends all being able to see the last 10 videos I watched?
I’m just waiting for a clever developer to create an application that stops Facebook doing this – or, as Facebook advised (for people who don’t want to share everything) – “Just log out of Facebook”.
Either way, I’m going to do one of them.
iJustine shows us the etiquette of the future – Mobile Manners
In a world where information is now available wherever you happen to be – on the bus, in a coffee shop, in a park – surely there’s now a need to lay down the rules on a new set of etiquette, “Mobile Manners” as iJustine calls it. Do you look over someone’s shoulder and peer at their screen in a coffee shop…? Shame on you…
This is video #1. I assume there’s more to come.
“Planners Favourite” – LBP & Sackboy?
I was reading the Google Barometer last week and had a look at the “Planners Favourite” award, as judged by David Benson from ZenithOptimedia. Great insights into 3 campaigns – Nike Five, Wolverine film launch (from 20th century fox) and Sony Playstation’s Little Big Planet.
His insights start with Nike, and a note on how they leverage their stars into great events, taking new twists on old methods (possibly reference to the ladder system adopted in the tournament). He then goes onto the content – “Large amounts of average footage, shot in the mandatory “urban” grainy style, draw a few comments and the odd flame but little continuity. It feels strewn across the Internet existing in YouTube and on Nike.com without either seeming like its true home.”
I’d say the part about Youtube & Nike.com is probably true, which one is the true home? However, that could be said about any campaign which uses a brand site alongside a Youtube channel – the fact is, who needs a “True home” when Web 2.0 (or even 3.0) allows people to consume content in any way they choose? I think the need for a “True home” is obsolete, especially when it comes to content.
He also thinks there’s little continuity to the “average content”. A simple look at the content shows how it’s split out – Each region has one film in the local heats. Then each region has one film at their City Final. Wow. Maybe Nike should have numbered them, for Dave.
Onto Wolverine. He appreciates the difficulty of launching films, as you need to generate all the buzz and excitement in about 1 week, and he liked the way they avoided the use of ”endless sneak peaks, Easter eggs and a Wolverine app”. So what did they do? “The biggest Youtube Homepage takeover ever”.
To me, I always wonder about the point of doing “clever” campaigns to launch films. You’re either excited about Wolverine being released (i.e. you watched 1 of 3 X-men films), or you’re not. There’s some floating voters in the middle, who might be holding back their £9 for the Star Trek release, but I’m not sure how, what is effectively a trailer, will persuade someone to go and watch the film (over something else they’ve chosen to see). Seems like simple reach to me. Good use of research though, as to whether these things actually work is another issue.
Onto Little Big Planet, the eventual winner. I’m puzzled as to what he likes about this campaign. It’s a “contest” in it’s truest form – enter the video of your custom level (a feature which is embedded into the game), and you win a trip to somewhere in the world. Genius. You see, it’s called Little Big Planet….
To me this campaign taps into what’s already there with people – a passion about gaming and a willingness to talk and share their gaming prowess / skills. People do this already, I’ve worked on enough gaming launches to know that. Offering a platform on which to do this is commendable, but not ground breaking.
Dave says LBP was a “quiet revolution in gaming”. Was it? The google barometer said LBP was backed by a “considerable marketing push”. It was everywhere – they must have spent millions, and good on them. Sackboy was pretty much made into a celebrity in his own right. The aim of the campaign was to prolong the sales curve, hence why they created the contest to run a few months after launch. However – does this prolong the sales curve? It seems to appeal to people who own the game already – so surely it must rely on creating amazing videos that will entice the non-LBP fan to go out and buy the game? Erm, it doesn’t. The entries are dull, as you would imagine! And the people who comment are owners of the game, appreciating the complexity of these levels from the people who created them. A great thing to have, but not fulfilling the sales curve objective in my eyes. More enhancing the community aspect of the game.
My very last point is Dave’s last point – and I quote – “15,000 subscribers vs. the mighty Nike’s 10,000 says it all”.
Nike increased their subscriber base from 6,000 (in Feb) to 10,000 (in May) by – again, in my opinion – creating engaging, short form content which followed a continuous story following an event. They created a Video Masher for users to cut their own highlights, and created an online appointment to view – true innovators of the online world, and something people sign up to (both literally and from a brand pov).
Little Big Planet took their subsciber base from Zero (in Feb) to 15,000 by around April, by – incentivising users to subscribe by offering a T-shirt and a Sackboy toy? Wow, that’s genius! A bribe.
What do I think will happen? I think Nikefootball will continue to grow as a channel, by providing a constant stream of content, not based on campaigns or competitions, but as a brand that always has something to say. Content always wins.
No-one’s safe from swine flu…
Not even Pooh Bear. In fact, especially Pooh Bear. If anyone’s NOT safe, it’s him.
He really did. Walliams had a go at my flatmate…
Ok, here goes. David Walliams had a go at my flatmate. It’s a mildly amusing story, and goes like this:
One summer afternoon, my flatmate is working his last day at an old employer. Walking back from lunch, my flatmate and a colleague known in this story as 4 foot baby (4FB) spot David Walliams standing outside Pret, probably minding his own business (although he might have been causing trouble, I don’t know, I wasn’t there).
4FB bets flatmate he won’t pinch DW’s bum for a fiver. Now, after a 2 hour lunch and 5 pints of guinness i’m sure you’ll agree this is a no-brainer. So DW’s bum is pinched, flatmate skips (or scuttles) 50 yards to the office, which is where the video begins.
First: flatmate tells receptionist about funny story of the time he pinched Walliams’ bum. Next: Walliams rudely interrupts his funny story with a “tirade” (more of a short rant) about how this is obviously unacceptable, not funny (he should know, Little Britain USA was AMAZING… :-s) and plain rude.
Cue apologetic flatmate explaining it was a joke (and probably not disclaiming it was for a measely fiver).
Walliams leaves, flatmate laughs (probably a smidgen too soon), before Walliams storms back in (check it out, he really does STORM!) shouting “Stop laughing at me! Just because i’m famous you can’t just pinch my bum… etc etc”.
Everyone tries to calm him down, he’s clearly per-turbed by such unwanted attention, and offended that anyone would dare laugh at him. Shocked onlookers look-on, receptionist answers a couple of calls, random visitor on the right, well she doesn’t do anything (did not one of her senses pick ANYTHING up?).
Connaisseurs amongst you will notice 4FB offer over the bet money when DW leaves. He never got the fiver.
Courtesy of myself, and the much-maligned-but-misunderstood-CCTV…
118247 Yell Ad, another online inspired creation
I’m sure most people have seen this ad breaking recently, a catchy little tune and a fun animation to explain yet another 118 number service (OK, I know yell.com is probably one of the biggest and its been around for ages).
A (slightly) lesser known fact is that the Ad is complete copy of Magical Trevor, a pretty old school animation from Mr Weebl, who created weebl and bob, the badger viral and, well, Magical Trevor.
Will the Ad achieve more Youtube views than Magical Trevor? It has a way to go yet, but Yell have put a Youtube campaign behind the Ad. On the channel they challenge people to see if they can “out-rhyme us” and the description of the ad says “think you can do better?”. I’m yet to see any actual mechanic to do this, other than the video response function – which 5 people have done already.
They’ve also made quite a point of saying “you either love it or hate it”, to the point where their website even has a Love or Hate option. 81% love it. Do 19% actually hate it? It’s not exactly Marmite, maybe 19% of voters are die-hard Magical Trevor fans.
Have a look for yourself – Top one is Trevor, the bottom one is the ad. Nice bit of trivia is that Trevor is in the ad, waiting for his curry…
Ad:
Disney sign “landmark” deal with Youtube
According to BBC Newsbeat (I know, why not just BBC?) Disney and Youtube have struck a “landmark” deal to allow Youtube to distribute Disney’s ESPN Sports channel and other TV shows for the next couple of months.
Disney said the deal allows them ”the opportunity to reach a broader, online audience as well as extend the reach of our advertisers”.
Or, “we’re not making enough money from TV ads, and youtube have agreed to go halves…” [this is not a quote from disney].
I’m off to think about why this deal is landmark. Here’s the newsbeat story
