The Basement

The Jeff Jarvis thing yesterday was a convenient segue into a question I've been wanting to attack in detail for some time: Are Roper Influentials bell cows or bellwethers? Before I launch into my rant, I need to define a few terms and the scope in order to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Which Influentials?

As I've started investigating Influentials, one thing became immediately clear – lot's of folks have no idea what I'm talking about and because of the unfortunate name of Influentials have quickly made some false assumptions. So, to be clear, when I talk about Influentials with a capital 'I,' I mean the group of folks identified and discussed in the book The Influentials by Jon Berry and Ed Keller. The book discusses 30 years of serious statistically valid quantitative research, conducted by Roper ASW (now Gfk NOP) that has revealed a methodology for identifying approximately 10% of the American population that tend to be leading indicators for certain trends – particularly technology and adoption and political decisions. Now this, in it of itself, is terribly interesting, but Berry and Keller don't stop there.

Ed Keller presented some of these ideas in a May 2004 article in Fast Company.

There are three key reasons why the influentials matter. They are leading indicators of consumer trends. They are consumer advocates. And perhaps most importantly, they are market multipliers.

Influentials also drive marketplace acceptance and rejection.

When your advertising effectively reaches the influentials, your message will go further.

My take on this is that the Roper data undeniably proves that the Influentials are "leading indicators of consumer trends" but beyond that I'm not so sure. There is certainly no quantitative data presented in the book that proved to me that these folks are consumer advocates or market multipliers. While there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that this might be the case, for me, the book actually raised more questions than it provided answer on these points. But I digress... back to the definitions.

So, when I mentions capital "I" Influentials, I mean a group of folks that can be quantitatively identified who tend to be leading indicators of consumer trends and who may or may not actually influence others in any significant or interesting way. Please let that sink in before you comment on this – whether or not someone influences you or others has little to do with whether they are an Influential. Yes, I know, the name is terribly unfortunate.

Pro-Life or Pro-Adoption

Politics is sticky and emotionally charged and hard to measure without people attacking methodology if they don't like the results (Oh yeah, well my poll says your poll is wrong!). I find this fascinating but it presents some barriers to objectivity. While there is some wonderful work going on with Influentials and politics I'm going to focus here on the other undeniable and amazing Influentials characteristic – their uncanny ability to predict the adoption of new products and services.

To help with this analysis, I've enlisted Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm philosophy of product adoption. For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about and as a review for the rest of you, Moore proposes that products live and die in the space between the geeky early adopters (that are nice for early feedback but nearly worthless for market success) and the early majority (the first of the mass adopters necessary for product success.) He affectionately calls this gap – The Chasm. I say affectionately because he was so right about this idea that everyone of note has paid him dump-trucks full of money for coming up with the idea. In his book, Moore presented a graphic representation of The Chasm that lots of people have tacked up in their cubicle or at least should have. It looks something like this ...

(click image to enlarge)

The big question I want to ask is where in Moore's Adoption Life Cycle do Influentials live? Why? And what does this mean?

Bellwethers and Bell Cows

I'll use the labels bellwether and bell cow to distinguish those that are early indicators of a trend (the bellwethers) and those that actually lead other into the trend (the bell cows). (Thanks to Dan Nelson for injecting the phrase bell cow into my vocabulary.) Folks often talk about The Influentials with the presupposed notion that they are both bell cow and bellwether. I'm not convinced that this thinking is always valid – although I'll admit it is almost certainly sometimes valid.

Influentials are Bellwethers

As I mentions above, Berry and Keller make a strong case that Influentials are undoubtedly bellwethers. In their book, they show graph after graph where Influentials adopt new products just before mainstream America does. They show this for computers in the home, cell phones, accessing online services and the internet, investing in retirement plans and mutual funds, and online shopping. These trends are consistent for years and quite frankly, are a little spooky. There's no question here – the kids over at GfK NOP are really on to something here (even if they don't have blogs.)

Influentials as Early Majority

Influentials are bellwethers for successful product trends. They are characterized by Berry and Keller as pragmatic and connected. They place more weight on personal recommendation of products (i.e. WOM) than they do on traditional advertising. These facts place them in the Moore's Early Majority. Although they tend to adopt so early that they are some times mistaken for Early Adopters. So you might call them the Early Early Majority.

Why are they not Early Adopters? Well here's what Ed Keller said...

In terms of being market trendsetters, consistently, the influentials tend to be two, three, and five years ahead of the curve. But they are not the earliest adopters. They're the early majority. Early adopters don't necessarily have the broad social connectivity you need to throw an idea forward.

I think he's almost right. According to Moore, Early Adopters do have networks and tell people about the stuff they're trying – anyone who will listen in fact. The problem is that everyone knows that these geeks are early adopters and as such they often seek high risk solutions that are difficult and expensive – not because their good but because they're cool. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, no one listens. What separates Early Adopters from Early Majority is that the Early Majority must see other Early Majority adopting before they adopt whereas Early Adopters want to be first. The Early Majority avoids being first. They don't want the head aches of the bleeding edge.

It's this paradox – Early Majority have to see other Early Majority adopt before they adopt – that creates Moore's Chasm. This is what makes it hard to launch new products.

Unleash the Marketing Hubris Monster

I think the conversation probably went something like this...

MARKETER: We need to get the Early Majority to buy.

MARKET RESEARCHER: Well we know who's going to adopt first, we call them Influentials – but not because they influence necessarily.

MARKETER: Influentials! Great! Let's market to them and they'll influence everybody else!

MARKET RESEARCHER: I'm so misunderstood. I told him Influentials may not influence. I don't understand why everyone is so confused.

MARKETER: Oh don't be silly, of course they influence, they're called Influentials aren't they - just look at this fancy chart of my freakin' brilliant marketing plan.

which probably looked something like this...

(click image to enlarge)

Brilliant, right? Wrong. This type of thinking presupposed that if you hit Influentials with a good enough marketing message that they will adopt and spread the word – instant bell cow. The problem is that Berry and Keller tell us that Influentials are increasing skeptical of advertising and marketers (in fact it's another trend for which the Influentials are bellwethers). Influentials place more weight on personal recommendation, personal experience and investigation than they do on advertising – much more. And Moore tells us that unless the Early Majority – and Influentials by extension - sees adoption among their Early Majority peers they won't adopt anyway.

You can't get Influentials to be Early Adopters, even if you spend a biscillion dollars on marketing. In fact, the more you market to Influentials, the more incredulous they become and the more resistant they are to adopting – at least with your product.

Influentials as Mirror

So if marketing isn't effective with Influentials and they aren't (always) bell cows then why do they adopt first? This is an excellent question and I think Paul Leinberger, a senior VP at GfK NOP, hit on the answer in a quote found in Berry and Keller's book. Leinberger said:

[The Influentials tend to] mirror the behavior of the total public – just out ahead of it.

Remember what Keller said on this matter, that Influentials use "broad social connectivity... to throw an idea forward". I think this is the part that he has wrong and that Mr. Leinberger has right – Influentials mirror the future; they don't necessarily drive it. I agree with the evidence that Influentials have "broad social networks," but I think these networks are used to collect information about new products and services and not always the other way round. Moore tells us that successfully Crossing the Chasm involves creating the illusion that some Early Majority are adopting – this reassurance in necessary to convince other Early Majority that they are past the "bleeding edge" phase of the product life cycle. It's my assertion that these first of the Majority Adopters – the Early Early Majority – tend to be Influentials. Why? For the reasons Berry and Keller tell us they are Influentials in the first place– because of their social networks.

If we were to draw an Influentials/Chasm diagram based on this interpretation, it might look something like this

(click image to enlarge)

The Influentials are aggressive data collectors – they collect from multiple sources and place a high value on the opinions of others (excluding marketers). Through their extensive social networks, Influentials instinctively know when everyone else in on the verge of adopting. It is this sense of eminent adoption that provides the reassurance that Influentials need to adopt themselves. A sense of eminent adoption, it seems, feels much like actual majority adoption to the Early Early Majority Influential. Social networks are absolutely essential in the adoption process but they work in exactly the opposite direction that conventional wisdom dictates. I think Berry and Keller have it right – Influentials tend to be at the center of these social networks – but the information flowing inward is more important in adoption decisions than the information flowing out.

The Influential Paradox

So Influentials adopt first. Then what? We turn to Moore again – the rest of the Early Majority adopters are standing around looking for their peers to adopt. Because their social networks are not as strong they miss the memo – EVERYONE IS ABOUT TO OWN CELL PHONES for example. They know they want a cell phone. They think cell phones are a good idea. They just aren't sure if cell phones are going to be mainstream enough to be safe – what if they don't keep building towers, what if the store I buy from goes out of business, etc. All they need is to see another Early Majority adopter with a cell phone – enter the Influential. And yes, in this small yet important way, the Influential is, well, influential with a lower case i. The Influentials are the quintessential Jones with whom the other Early Majority folk must keep up.

At this point the Marketing Guy usually jumps out of his chair and exclaims "So it IS the Influential I want to target!"

Uh, still no. They won't listen to you. They'll listen to those in their social networks and to other independent information sources that they consider credible. Haven't you been listening? Of course not, you're a marketing guy. Never mind. Stupid question. Forget I asked. Okay – last time through – non-Influentials won't buy until they see Influentials buy but you can't market directly to Influentials as they won't listen to you, so you need to market to everyone else so they tell the Influentials so the Influentials will adopt which then triggers everyone else's adopting. Got it? Good.

This is the Influential Paradox. Influentials don't adopt until most everyone in their social networks are about to adopt. Yet to reach the Influentials, marketers have to go through the social network because Influentials listen to people in their network – not marketing.

This is a little mind bending. Those who know me know that this can only lead to one thing – analogy.

Think of people as a bunch of dominoes. You set each dominoes up on end on a gymnasium floor so as to knock each other down in sequence. All of these dominoes lead to a few key dominoes that you set up very last in order to prevent a premature triggering. Of course, these key dominoes are your Influentials. If they were set up by themselves and knocked down (with no other dominoes behind them) the show would be a little underwhelming. All of the other dominoes have to be set up and ready to fall first before your Influentials do any good. And yes, the Influential dominoes do cause all the rest to fall but only after you've done all the work to set all of the rest of the dominoes up.

In the real world you can tell when you're about to cross The Chasm because the key dominoes are finally set up – your Influentials, your Early Early Majority begin to adopt.

If this is the case, why should marketers waste their time with Influentials? What good are they if you can't convince them to buy directly?

Marketing to Influentials After the Sale

Influentials aren't going to "throw an idea forward" that they don't know to be valid. Their reputation rides on their recommendations and they aren't going to risk that on a product or service they're not passionate about. This passion doesn't come until after they've used the product. A lot of the conversations about Influentials are focused on getting them to buy (which as I've outlined is somewhere between really really hard and impossible) instead of just after they've bought. It's after the point of purchase that Influentials become truly valuable to the marketer. Just like anyone, Influentials want to be right. Marketer's greatest opportunity with Influentials lies in giving them something positive to talk about right after adoption. Great out-of-the-box experience! Great customer support! A product that actually works! What? These don't sound like marketing functions? Well they are are now. For more on the transition from shouting at customers to having a conversation with them see WOMMA CEO Andy Sernovitz's State of The Industry presentation from the March WOMMA Summit.

The best way to turn Influentials into evangelists for your product or service is to let them make their purchase decision on their own and then make sure they have an I Rule experience after they buy. For more on creating I Rule experiences see Kathy Sierra's excellent Creating Passionate Users blog. I don't think marketers can make Influentials talk about their products – but I think if Influentials are going to talk that marketers can do a lot to help ensure that Influentials say a lot of good stuff.

Find What Influentials Want and Build That

I would assert that a lot of what the WOMMA folks are discussing comes in to play here. Influentials are more about listening than talking. Again, because of their connection with their social networks, Influentials are the most informed of both positive and negative trends; the wants, needs and desires of their networks; and what motivates those networks. It's hard to get an Influential to listen to a marketer but it's easy to get them to talk to a market researcher. Berry and Keller report that Influentials like to share their opinions with others. And as Gfk NOP's Paul Leinberger said – Influentials mirror the future. They are bellwethers. They're are the closest thing you have a to crystal ball. So talk with to them – not to sell to them – but to listen to them, to learn about the future. Once you know where people are going you can be there with a product that meets their needs.

And About That "One American in Ten..." Stuff

For the three of you that don't know, the subtitle of The Influentials is "One American in ten tells the other nine how to vote, where to eat, and what to buy." Hmmmm.

Before I rant a bit, I need to disclaim - the ideas presented here are ones that I just came up with. Mostly as I was writing them. I have no research to back me up. None. I'm not a professional market researcher, or marketer, or advertiser, or professor or student of marketing or related topics. I don't work for a consumer products company and I've never attended an AMA or WOMMA meeting. I'm a new breed, what some media guy is bound to call a citizen marketing industry analyst or some silliness. This is just a hobby. An elaborate, sick, hobby.

That said, I think that my hypothesis is more consistent with the quantitative evidence presented in Berry and Keller's book than their catchy subtitle is. I don't think that the Influentials are influential. I think they're influenced. I think nine in ten Americans tell the other one how to vote, where to eat and what to buy. If he or she has a good experience, then the other nine will learn from watching the guinea pig and start sticking their toes in the water. But that probably wouldn't have sold as many books.

This is not to say that I don't believe in the Influentials. I think their discovery is astounding and important – very important. But I think that banging them into the shape of a bell cow because it make marketing easy is flawed and dangerous and diminishes the credibility of the idea. To be fair, beyond their subtitle, Berry and Keller don't wander very far down the bell cow path – but the damage has been done. It's time for everyone to be deprogrammed. Repeat after me – Influentials may not be influencers. Influentials may not be influencers. Influentials may not be influencers. Amazing bellwether yes. Bell cow – maybe - at best but I don't think so – not in the way marketers want them to be.

And How Does This Relate to Blogs?

Of course I have to relate this back to blogs. Call it an obsession. According to Blogads, 70% of blog readers are Influentials. A good number of these maintain their own blogs. The rest probably write comments somewhere – probably about your company or service. If you want to know what the future is, read blogs. If you want to encourage discussions among Influentials then start a blog about your product or service or industry – one with comments. In a post on WOMMA's Womnibus blog, Jupiter Research's Gary Stein reports

the people who post online are your best customers and have an increased sense of brand loyalty. If your company is trying to find and communicate with the people who are most likely to purchase your product or service, look at the people who post about you.

I think this is great advice. Of course, Mr. Stein doesn't have comments or trackbacks on his blog so I'm not really sure how he plans to communicate. For example if I wanted to say that I think that Jupiter Research produces sloppy shoddy products or that they don't practice what they preach, he might not even know about it. If he does find out about it, he then needs to come and comment here – or else folks might not see his response. Or he can post a response on his own blog with a link for his readers to follow here – where they will learn what I've said. Hmmm. Good thing I don't know anything about the quality of Jupiter's products and have no such opinions or else they might be in a sticky situation. – but that's beside the point. The point being, if you care what Influentials think then you should blog and, according to Mr. Stein's philosophy, enable comments - no matter what example he sets.

[UPDATE: Mr. Stein was gracious enough to stop by and offer some insightful comments. Very classy, very professional and quite funny. He's clearly tuned in and listening. I appologize for even suggesting otherwise.]

Niall Cook of Hill & Knowlton has some more good thoughts on this here.

Great. I'm glad we cleared that all up. Thanks for reading. And if you're an Influential, please leave comments – I've got them enabled.