A friend sent me this recent Ad Age article about “Peer Influence Analysis”. I had to go to the dictionary to make sure that I was clear on the definition of influence. Here is what I found:
in·flu·ence –noun
1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.
2. the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others: Her mother's influence made her stay.
3. a person or thing that exerts influence: He is an influence for the good.
4. Astrology.
a. the radiation of an ethereal fluid from the stars, regarded as affecting human actions and destinies.
b. the exercise of occult power by the stars, or such power as exercised.
5. the exercise of similar power by human beings.
6. Obsolete. influx.
–verb (used with object)
7. to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person.
8. to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign.
Astrological definitions aside, I am left wondering if the number of impressions an individual makes online or the number of posts an individual makes online is in fact a measure of influence. Do those impressions or posts compel others to act differently? To behave differently? To have different opinions? Certainly some people who contribute a large volume of impressions or posts do “influence” others; but many do not. Moreover, there are a number of people who don’t contribute much to the online conversation in terms of volume; but whose opinions are trusted and respected and actually lead others to act differently, to behave differently, or to have different opinions. Given this reality, I’m not sure that Gladwell would identify “Mavens” and “Connectors” in the manner suggested by this article.
Think about it…
P.S. Can you guess the other question I have about this article (remember what a stickler for methodology I am)?