Apr
19
Written by:
Myra Norton
4/19/2010 7:55 AM
Remember lesson #1 from The Oracle of Bacon? When studying networks, you must understand the context. I am going to share a couple of examples to illustrate why this is such a critical question to ask. Take a look at this study from ICOM. It provides some interesting research about influencers and how they communicate compared to the rest of the world. I read the entire article and had one burning question all the way through: How do they define an “Influencer?” Here is the blurb under methodology:
METHODOLOGY
Findings in this report were derived from research and analysis conducted from 2007 - 2009 with the vast majority coming from a comprehensive study conducted in the summer of 2009. ICOM’s comprehensive study (Summer 2009) included two online surveys on talkability and social media. They were sent across the United States and English Canada to a random sampling of households chosen from ICOM’s consumer panel. There were 3,857 completes for the US and 6,029 for English Canada, generating the combined sample of influencer and non-influencer households.
Still, no explanation of how they were able to divide the sample into influencer and non-influencer households. Without understanding that critical component, I can’t make much of the great research contained throughout the article. My guess is that they identify influencers based on demographics or based on some self-reporting where you essentially ask a person to tell you how influential they are (as you might imagine, this rarely correlates in any significant way with the respondent’s true influence). If either is true, then that changes how I interpret the research. So, next time you see an article detailing research on “Influencers,” ask yourself how the researcher determined who is influential and who isn’t – again, context.
I’ve got another example for you tomorrow….
Tags: