Whitepaper: Social Media Influence - Applications, Metrics and Theory

Running head: SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE 1

Social Media Influence: 360 Approach
Wm Travis Stephens


Table of Contents

Abstract 3
Introduction 3
The Constructs of Social Media 4
What is Social Media Influence? 7
Strategies and Virality 10
Metrics and ROI 15
Social Media Influence Theory 24
Conclusion: Applications and Strategies 28
References 32


Abstract

TL;DR Social Media influence is largely based upon a peer-presence, as people are the new
medium. As a business, utilizing the knowledge that people develop certain control over your
brand can be harnessed, as opposed to letting it overpower. Knowing and utilizing your metrics,
a business can strategically develop touchpoints to facilitate in steering their audience.

Introduction

Tiny advances in technology can alter the course of history, as was done in 1971 when
one computer sent another computer this message “QWERTYUIOP,” thus the first email. Who
would have imagined that minor interaction would be the first step to an online, social world
where connections don’t just inspire communication, but are a way of life? Who would have
guess that in 1994, GeoCities would pave the way for millions of people to create a profile and
send messages on hundreds of personal websites and blogs? Who would have guessed in 1997 AOL
Instant Messenger would revolutionize the way businesses streamlined their work for many
years to come?
Social media has transgressed from a series of simple tools to a streamlined way of life.
Now, people use the online social sphere to enhance their experiences, as well as find and
discover new items of interest. Businesses often want an increase in brand resonance, as well as
a cheap means to reach many people, so they turn to social media. Businesses often think they
should probably be on Facebook, maybe have a Twitter account or a blog, but without an
understanding as to how social media influence works, a firm digital strategy cannot be set.
Influence must be understood so that not only can the business be more influential, but that they
can also isolate influencers to fulfill their marketing objectives.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze social media influence from the angles of theory,
metrics and strategy. This paper will give case studies exemplifying points to help develop an
understanding of social media influence.
The Constructs of Social Media

In order to fully understand how the message travels within a group, as well as
between groups, the social media sphere must be mapped out. Robert Scoble, who developed his
career in media development in Microsoft, PodTech and Rackspace, designed The Social Media
Starfish Model. In traditional media he separates integrated marketing between broadcast,
print, direct mail, online media and social media. The social media conversions are split between


personal social networks, white-label social networks, blogs, microblogs, photo-sharing, audio,
video sharing, email, SMS text, collaborative tools, Wikis and events. Platforms, such as the
personal social networking websites, are a single location where information is gathered,
shared and discussed. Kaplan et al notes that Virtual Worlds should also be listed as a social
sphere, such as Second Life (2009). The platforms are at the top of the chain of the content
websites, as despite the content sites’ social engagement the platforms tend to be where the main
discussion is. Current platforms include microblogging (Twitter) and Personal Social Networks
(Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Plus). It is on these platforms that communities and groups develop
and cultivate. There are also white-label social networks, which are networks created by

brands to increase communication. For instance, during each season of NBC’s The Office, people
go to a website ran by NBC where they are virtually “hired” and put in a branch with other
people to compete in weekly tasks, both alone as individuals and as a collective branch.
There are other types of social media in which do not fit under Scoble’s Starfish Model,
as of the last update. Check-in services, such as Yelp and Foursquare are highly essential to
many business strategies. Both of these services do not fit into a single category, as they
provide check-ins, allow for users to read reviews and update users on where their “friends” are
at. Reddit is another website that does not fit cleanly into Scoble’s Starfish Model. Reddit acts
as a social bookmarking site, however it is more of a user-generated news aggregate. At the
same time, Subreddits (topical Reddit pages) act as communities of people with similar interests
where they discuss and collaborate - giving Reddit many of the same characteristics as a social
platform.
Kietzmann et al. suggest a platform must establish identity, allow for the development
of conversations, the ability to share messages, allow for individual presence as a member of a
community, act as a grounds to build relationships, develop reputation and branding and have
the ability for groups to be created. This model is invariably different than Scoble’s,
demonstrating an issue when studying evolving media. If a platform must give the ability to form
groups, then Google Plus, which was in beta at the time of this article’s release, would not be
considered a platform. It is biased towards Facebook and LinkedIn, which give the ability to
develop each of these facets independently. When studying any changing media, especially online
social media, the framework must be malleable to the environment, lest it be dismissed as a
‘snapshot in time.’ The Google Plus team developed their product to tie in with their other
products - creating a packaged idea of social networking and collaboration as opposed to a
single all-in-one website. Google considers Google Plus their platform, while their other
products, such as calendar, groups and documents, exist on Google but not Google Plus.


The online landscape will continue to change, but the ways we receive and transmit
information tend to only evolve with major Internet changes, such as the transition to Web 2.0
with a focus on the Internet consisting of sharable content rather than static pages. One thing
remains certain - social networking websites may come and go but the end-user, the people, will
always have the voice.

What is Social Media Influence?

In today’s online marketing environment, the concept of influence is more important than
ever. It is becoming increasingly important for companies to raise their influence as a means of
measuring audience engagement. Unlike other methods of measurement, influence measures how
brands and individuals differ from other accounts, while other forms of measurement in the past
have been based on an internal rating system. Influence has become so important that some
marketing firms use these scores to help them identify whom to hire, based upon their influence
scores (Schaefer).
Often, companies hope to look at programs testing online social influence in terms of
Rate of Investment (ROI), though the popular tools such as Kred, PeerIndex, Radian6 and Klout
do not make any claims to measure ROI. Instead, what these companies consider to be influence
test a platform of “social capital” (Solis). They are often criticized for not legitimately
testing influence, however the concept of social influence does not have set constructs; nor are
there any academic batteries testing social influence to analyze scales.
Through the development of these online tools, a standard has been set across the
platform. Each tests the reach, engagement metrics, topical relevance, resonance,
intelligence/ trends, list development and delivery and overall score, while providing tools for
influencer relationship management and campaign management (Constine).
The studies of online social influence is a relatively new field; to date there are limited
studies identifying differences in social networking influence. The studies of online influence to
date use established social constructs of this one-one-one interpersonal communication, or as
Reed’s law, which will be discussed at length later, calls it ‘personal social circles.’ The first
impression tends to be one of the most defining points of influence. It is at the first impression the
receiver begins to develop an opinion based off any prior knowledge of the sender, the
information being sent and current standards. If a communicator’s presentation does not fit the
situation in which they are delivering the information, the perception of the receiver is likely to


be hesitant. This supports the concept that influence must begin with trust based on a sense of
varying factors. Take for instance, depending on where an academic article is distributed, the
origin (be it the author or an external one) symbolically carries a veil of influence over the
medium and the message (being this paper and the content therein). Marshall McLuhan states
“the medium is the message,” which is supported to an acute degree by the understanding how the
information is presented greatly affects the information itself (1964).
Merriam-Webster defines influence as “the power or capacity of causing an effect in
indirect or intangible ways.” In the advertising field, this is simply considered sway, or the
ability to change the cognition or affect of an audience. Powerful effects aside, an individual
or brand’s message cannot alone make an individual perform a behavior such as buying a
product. The behavior is the end result, first the effects of the message would have to develop

within the receiver’s mind and then they would make the decision to perform the behavior. This
cognitive focus is important because it empowers the user to discern between the important,
relevant messages and those having no importance to the individual. Consumer Reports says the
average person sees 247 commercials on a daily basis. If each of these commercials are a
message, the amount of message an individual would be exposed to each day would drastically
increase when social networking is taken into account. An individual is not going to proactively
reach to each of these messages independently, but instead filter them out through how
influential the message is to them. In the social networking environment, it is not only businesses
wanting a piece of the voice, it is also the end-user, the people involved on the social networking
websites. Just as brands do, these people must also establish influence, or social capital in the
online case, to get their voices heard.
There are many people and companies trying to study social media influence.
Facebook created software called Memology to study how information flows, though no raw
data or methods are released for public consumption, other than a blog made once a year
discussing popular phrases. The study of memes is growing increasingly popular, as it looks at
how a meme, or a concept, is created and spread. Unlike popular belief, a meme is not defined as
a quirky picture with words on it, as has become popular on the internet. The word meme was

created by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book the Selfish Gene as a concept of how
evolutionary principals translate through decades of cultivation. The study of memes today
look at these concepts through the flow of information across social circles to determine
virality, as well as methods of change.


Strategies and Virality

To build influence online, the encoder must focus on trust and engagement (Evans, 2008).
To build trust, one must present themselves as being credible, just as with personal social
circles. This is a multi-faceted concept with the foundation in the group(s) the individual is a
member of, quality and reliability of his/her content, his/her experience in their field, etc. To
establish trust, the individual or company must establish their ‘brand’ or their online projected
image. Branding is not a concept solely for businesses, but instead is the image meeting between
how an individual or group want people to be seen and how they actually do. If an individual is
discussing marketing, then they will want to make themselves look as an expert in their field,
relating their points to their own experience. The concept of trust relies on being able to give
reliable information or opinions about a topic. Upon defining this ‘brand’ image, the user will
then be able to determine the type of people they are interested in to both give information to as
well as engage with.
The concept of engagement highlights the ‘social’ part of social networking. Evans
suggests the audience’s unasked question is “what do I need to know” while the question should be
“through what channel or media type should I provide the answer.” This implies the content
creator knows the information they need to give their audience; the user needs to only figure out
how to deliver it appropriately to open up discussion. Engagement is about building conversations
and relationships, not just advertising your message one-way. The core of social media is
interaction, while traditional media tends to be interruptive. A television commercial has little
to no interactivity involved, but instead forces you to take a break from the message, or the
reason you are watching TV; this is the same for other forms of traditional media. Evans
furthers this point by stating “If you talked to people the way advertising talked to people,
they’d punch you in the face.” He is, of course, suggesting the social networking communities are
similar to face-to-face interactions, made up of the same norms.
In order to be engaging on the web, the individual or brand must expect feedback on all
ends (Li). The social web ends up in the hands of the people who will actually utilize it. If a
white-label social networking website, such as Amazon.com, has a review posted on it then the
people who are thinking about buying a product will see the review. If someone posts a blog
about an up-and-coming band includes video, people who are interested in new music or people
who are thinking about buying tickets to see a band will read the blog. This reinforces the
statement that people are able to filter through vast amounts of messages to receive what is
relevant to them.


As Stuart Hall suggests, people will react to a message by accepting it, being
oppositional or critically thinking about it. The online social environment supports this
reception theory. At Facebook’s 2011 F8 Conference, a panel participant was quoted saying
“in the social world, your editors are your audience.” In other words, your audience is both the
receiver to your message as well as your critic, bringing the concept of trust to a level where
the audience will also look at what other people are saying about the messenger and the
message. This holds true especially for companies, as they are no longer in competition with
their direct competitors for the share of voice, but also with their very own consumers. The
virality of the social web must also be taken into consideration when establishing influence.
When information gains viral spread, it cannot be stopped by anything other than time.
Of course, viral spread can be beneficial to individuals and companies in building their

reputation, however it can also go the other way. In 2006 a blog called Wal-Marting

Across America started up , following a couple as they drove their RV across America to
rest at various Wal-Marts. Across the way they interviewed Wal-Mart employees who loved
their jobs and were more than happy to share stories with the travelling couple. People later
discovered this was a fake PR campaign meant to raise the image of Wal-Mart from the

effects of Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices documentary in 2005, which tainted the
public perception of the retail company. In the end, it was not the blog that went viral, but
instead the story of how Walmart tried to ‘fool’ America.
In the end, the messenger cannot always contain the message transmitted on the social
web. Between 1972 and 1993, pilot Gabrielle Adelman and photographer Kenneth Adelman
photographed the full California coastline. Barbra Streisand was made aware of this when
all the photos were published online (californiacoastline.org) and she requested that they
remove the image of her house. By making this public request, she inspired virality of people
looking up and sharing images of her house. A blogger from Techdirt named the phenomena for
when someone requests information to be removed and it becomes popular the “Streisand
Effect.” In the end, not only is her house easily findable with a Google search, but her name is
also associated with a term for “futile attempts to remove content from the Net” (Li et al,
2009).
Because the people are a new medium among themselves, transparency has become
increasingly important in maintaining trust. Transparency leads to ownership, credibility,
reliability and assists in managing negative press and negative virality. Walmart’s blog could


have potentially been a success if they had began their campaign by admitting they were
funding this couple to travel across the United States.
Not all cases of transparency necessarily are as clean cut, some of which on purpose.
In 2003 Sega used transparency to their advantage when developing a campaign for the

football video game Madden 2004. They released a beta version of the game to testers, in
order to create word-of-mouth buzz. After a couple weeks, Sega sent the testers cease and
desist letters, asking the gamers return the product. Very soon after this, Sega came out and
announced this was a hoax and that the letters were sent in jest. The campaign was designed to
be transparent, yet they were able to maintain their reputation and generate positive buzz
about their product.
These factors have also been heavily beneficial in advancing social change across the
globe. In 2011 a Saudi Arabian woman posted a video of herself on Youtube driving. She was
jailed for ten days. The UK’s Daily Mail reports as a direct result, many other Saudi Arabian
women began protesting by posting pictures and video of them driving on Facebook, Twitter and
Youtube (2011). The protests are continuing, however women must still have written permission
from their male guardian to be legally allowed to drive. These women are empowered by
building online communities with similar interests.
The social and political changes do not end there. “If you want to liberate a country,
give them the internet” said Ghonim, an Egyptian Google Executive when discussing how the
power of social media was harnessed to unite Egyptians to liberate their country. Social
networking did not cause the Arab Revolution, but instead it acted as a catalyst. It puts the
power of the message into the hands of the people. The message(s) is what causes the change.
Online, the message spreads beyond direct social circles, but to the masses who are interested in
the same type of message.

Metrics and ROI

One of the most asked questions regarding social media is how much is it worth? There
are many concepts of how to calculate not only the worth of online efforts, but engagement
as well.
Rob May of Backupify, a website that backs up social media data, claims that a Yelp
review is worth $9.13, while a single tweet is only worth a tenth of a cent. Of course, this was
in a blog created in the hopes of selling his product so the validity might be skewed. If it is, then
how can these be measured?

Running head: SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE
10

There are several metrics available to measure influence, as well as types of
influence. Google Pagerank ranks web pages on a scale of 1-10, with the amount of backlinks
pointing to a page. In the scope of Web 2.0 where information is heavily integrated, this
measurement is losing popularity. Fred Reicheld developed the Net Promoter Score to determine
if people talking about a brand are classified as Promoters, Passives or Detractors. This test
asks one question - how likely is it you would recommend the company to a friend or colleague.
People answering between a 9-10 are Promoters, 7-8 Passives, 0-6 Detractors. The Net
Promoter Score is derived by taking the percent of Promoters and subtracting the percent of
Detractors. This is largely a marketing measure, however in the case of determining the level
of an individual’s influence both on the social web and personal circles, this provides insight to
the types of influencers.
Klout uses a different method to quantify influence, giving each account a score based
upon its true reach, amplification and network. Klout catalogues true reach as the number of
people the account influences; these are the people responding or sharing content.
Amplification measures how much the account influences people, measuring the number of people
that share further. The network measures the influence of the people within your true reach. If
an account influences people with a high influence themselves, this give the account a higher
influence.
Klout segments the users into 16 classes of influencers, ranging from celebrity to
pundit, broadcaster, socializer, conversationalist and dabbler. These classes are based off of
an analysis of the account’s sharing habits, as well as engagement habits. It takes into
account topics the account often posts as well as originality of the content.
Forrester Research combines psychographics with online behavioristics to produce what
they coined “technographics.” Their technographic profile scale separates people between
creators, critics, collectors, joiners, spectators and inactives. These classes can blend into
one-another, but give insight as to how individuals receive and cultivate the information (Li,
2009).
When it comes to the return on investment (ROI) of social media in a business, many
companies develop a concern. Largely, numbers through both influence software (such as Klout
and Kred), and other measurement tools online act as facilitators to answer the question many
business leaders and investors are asking – “is the time I spend online to market my business
worth it in the end?” In a business, time lost can translate to money lost if not properly
allocated. Advertising and PR have both been scrutinized for having few methods of telling if a
campaign provides sufficient ROI, though in the online market measurements are easier to obtain
and analyze.

11

Generally, marketers analyze the cost that it takes to start marketing on the social
web against a rise in sales (Blanchard). For instance, a company may decide to outsource their
online marketing efforts to a digital company to handle their blog, platforms, content and
customer service efforts. They will analyze this with data from the past few years, determining
if there is an increase in sales or a demographic of sales. They will consider the decrease in their
own company having to make customer service efforts to determine if the money they are
spending is worth the investment. This analysis method may work well with products taking less
consideration, however when taking into account products with a perceived increase risk, other
items have to be taken into consideration (Lamb).
Often, companies do not take into account branding into their ROI, as well as touchpoints
(Hoffman). Through social networking strategies, individuals are often secured to the brand via
online connections. If a car salesman runs a drawing to give away a car via Facebook where
individuals must click “Like” and share the link to the drawing, often the salesman will not see
an immediate return. At first, this may be distressing to the salesman, however if he/she gets
ten thousand “Likes” then those are secured until individuals disconnect themselves from that
page. In turn, these people will be seeing the saleman’s updates for an extended period of time.
Imagine this car had cost fifteen thousand dollars, and running a local television commercial
campaign costs just as much. In a medium sized city, the salesman would have approximately the
same reach through the commercial as through the social networking, however the frequency
would be determined via the social campaigns. This model would work well for the salesman, as
vehicles are products individuals only purchase when needed.
When it comes to measuring ROI, Forbes suggests to juxtapose social media with existing
parallels to establish a basis. Comparing it to traditional media models can give a foundation,
however the marketer must understand the nature of social media to determine the differences
(Senan). Largely, the online environment is driven by the consumer as opposed to the business, as
opposed to traditional campaigns (Li). Senan continues to explain simply measuring ROI is not as
important as having a focused campaign focused on knowing and engaging with the consumer. As
mentioned earlier, using this deployment model the marketer will be able to take a decrease in
consumer care activities into account, as well as an increase in consumer satisfaction. Unlike
prior media types, social networking ROI must be measured with engagement in mind. Because of
this, the ROI cannot be simply measured in terms of net profit, but instead the consumer’s
approach to the brand and the effects the social marketing efforts have on the brand life cycle.
Take for instance, a hypothetical company in Boulder, CO develops a breakfast pastry where
the consumers can customize the filling, the type of dough and the type of icing. They begin with
a local focus, only serving people in Boulder. They realize there is potential in their business, so

12

after a couple years they begin to make their pastries mail-order. For a period of a few months
they have a website but put very little effort into social networking, mainly relying on word-
of-mouth. When they decide to start a Facebook and blog, they don’t really notice much of a
difference in how much money they are making. If that’s the case, then is it even worth the
efforts? It is possible, as while they do not see an increase in monthly profit, it is likely that
their online efforts plateau their company on the product life cycle so they can sell their goods
for longer.
Hubspot, one of the most popular softwares for online marketers, has a more
quantitative approach to measuring ROI. One of the largest differences in their approach is they
advise to measure social media networks both together and separately, on the account one
platform may drive more website traffic, while another might generate more leads. Their
strategy is revolved around lead conversions and monitoring sales cycles to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of how the marketer is using the platforms. Using analytic tools on a
main website can give an idea of the background as to how the sales were generated. For
instance, if there was a surge in sales from people clicking a link on Facebook, the marketer
will want to look at what was posted last to fine tune what inspired the consumers (Eridon).
Measuring video is equally important. In March 2011, comScore determined the average
US online user watches 14.8 hours of video a month, not including subscription services like
Netflix. As of the time of writing, the majority of video ads are interruptive as opposed to
interactive, thus their reach and frequency can be measured in much the same way as a
television commercial. As opposed to static television commercials, they do have an advantage
in that their ads are clickable. Measuring hits generated via these clicks can determine
engagement, however unless a series of campaigns is longitudinal (or the advertising company
provides data from other advertisers), it is difficult to determine if these clicks are more or less
than the average number. This does not mean that ROI cannot be determined, as if the strategy
is fine-tuned then the individual will be taken to a page where they will be prompted to either
make a purchase or enter their contact information so they can be developed into a lead.
Marketers can also view ROI as a two-way street to help structure their online
strategy (Hoffman). To assist in determining their own ROI, it is often beneficial to determine the
return on investment on the consumer’s part. It is strategically important to analyze the
amount of effort the consumer must go through to obtain their own perceived benefits. Doing this
helps avoid wasted time on the social campaign, thus in turn potentially increasing the
company’s ROI. Take for instance, the hypothetical pastry company mentioned earlier. If they
update three times a day with only sales pitches, then they will create with Robert Scoble calls
“noise,” or useless information that people will look past on their streams. If a company gets

13

people in the habit of looking past this “noise,” then their will either disconnect themselves from
the company on that platform, or they will look past all updates - even the relevant ones.
There are a significant amount of social media metrics to use when strengthening not
only the ROI, but the campaign as a whole. Using these metrics, the marketer can determine
areas of improvement, as well as deciding what works. Currently, advertising, PR and
marketing agencies largely do not bill their clients via metrics, but instead upon campaigns. The
following chart from MIT Sloan’s Management Review breaks the social platforms down into
metrics measuring brand awareness, brand engagement and word of mouth

Social Media Brand Awareness Brand Engagement Word of Mouth
Application

Blogs * number of unique visitors * number of members * number of references to
* number of return visits * number of RSS feed blog in other media
* number of times subscribers (online/ offline)
bookmarked * number of comments * number of reblogs
* search rankings * amount of user- * number of times badge
generated content displayed on other sites
* average length of time * number of “likes”
on site
* number of responses to
polls, contests, surveys

Microblogs * number of tweets about * number of followers * number of retweets
the brand * number of @replies
* valence of tweets
* number of followers

Concreation (white * number of visits * number of creation * number of retweets
attempts
label content creation
websites)

Social Bookmarking * number of tags * number of followers * number of references to
project in other media
(online/ offline)

Forums and Discussion * number of page views * number of relevant * Incoming links
* number of visits topics/ threads * citations in other sites
Boards * valence of posted * number of individual * tagging in social
content replies bookmarking
* number of sign-ups * offline references to the
forum or its members
* in private communities:
number of pieces of
content; chatter pointing
to the community outside
of its gates
* number of “likes”

Product Reviews * number of reviews posted * length of reviews * number of reviews posted
* valence of reviews * relevance of reviews * valence of reviews
* number and valence of * valence of other users’ * number and valence of
other user’s responses to ratings of reviews other users’ responses to
reviews * number of wish list adds reviews
* number of wish list adds * overall number of * number of references to
* number of times product reviewer rating scores reviews in other sites
included in user’s lists entered * number of visits to
* average reviewer rating review site page
score * number of times product
included in users’ list

14

Social Networks * number of members/ fans * number of comments *frequency of
* number of installs of * number of active users appearances in timeline of
applications * number of “likes” on friends
* number of impressions friends’ feeds * number of posts on wall
* number of bookmarks * number of user- * number of reposts/
* number of reviews/ generated items shares
ratings and valence * usage metrics of * number of responses to
applications/ widgets friend referral invites
* impressions-to-
interactions ratio
* rate of activity (how
often members personalize
profiles, bios, etc

Video and * number of views of * number of replies * number of embeddings
video/ photo * number of page views * number of incoming links
Photosharing * valence of video / photo * number of comments * number of references in
ratings * number of subscribers mock-ups or derived work
* number of times
republished in other social
media and offline
* number of likes

While this chart is quite thorough, there are countless other types of metrics available
through third parties. For instance, there are a multitude of websites and browser plugins to
check for Twitter and Facebook unfollowers to let the user know the exact time when they were
unfollowed. This helps greatly when determining what turns people off to the point of
disconnecting with a company’s account. Also, website and blog analytics programs such as
Google Analytics and Statcounter are able to give the user geographic data, specifying where
their users are from, broken down by country, state or town. If used correctly, metrics can
allow for narrow targeting and strategy refinement.
Robert Scoble’s metrics model is more catered to conceptual factors of online influence.
He breaks it down by the target knowledge and what information can be interpreted off of these
metrics.

Target Knowledge Underlying Metrics Interpreted Info
Audience Aggregate Profile Data Who’s Reading
Unique Visitors Unique Visitors, Page Views, visitor Web Analytics
info, blog mentions,
Influence Time on site, blog context, reviews, Memes and analytics over time
click analysis, traffic patterns,
sources of traffic
Engagement Clicked on, length of say, Conversions
conversation time on site, pass
alongs, commented on, post ratio,
blog mentions, reviews, bounce
rate.
Action Trends, subscribers, repeat visitors, Pass-alongs, conversions, reviews
referrals
Loyalty Bounce rates Pass-alongs, blog mentions, time on
site

15

Social Media Influence Theory

The landscape of social media can seem broad and complicated. Many platforms and
content sites exist, some in competition with one another, some existing for different purposes. The
people engaging in social media take on many different roles, interact differently amongst
themselves, developing a full web of relationships that can exist between seconds and years.
The theoretical study of social media is one of the newest, most recent studies available.
Facebook did not open it’s doors until 2005, Twitter not until 2006. Prior to this, theory in
online social media was limited to basic media assumptions from a sociological perspective. This
was backed only by exposure to forums, Usenet groups and the development of e-mail as a
medium.
Ronald Rice developed the groundwork in 1999 with the concept of online artifacts,
symbolic of current social conventions being projected in this new environment. Conventions
already have a familiarity in society may transition over into the ‘new’ (as of 1999) frontier,
however they should should not be studied on an older scale, as this is assumptive. In the case of
social media, interpersonal influence exists on the online and face-to-face levels, however this
does not imply it must be studied the same.
A new form of community was in development at this time, separate from society’s
physical factors. James Slevin argued pre-existing norms do withstand in online communities,
though without a governmental, hierarchical structure (2000). Online communities form around
a concept, notion or belief, thus they could be qualified as the most “real” idea of contemporary
community (Anderson, 1983). This is further supported by the fact individuals’ Facebook
personnas reflect the real personalities rather than self-idealized personnas (Back et al,
2009). Similar studies have not been conducted on Twitter, Bloggers or other forms of online
collaborators. This is important when studying social media influence because people often
project a group’s ideals, axioms and behaviors onto an individual’s own personal traits within
that group.
Functions and structures of online groups have drastically changed since the late 1990s
and early 2000s, however these theoretical underpinnings remain. Rice suggested artefactual
standards may exist, but should not necessarily be developed into studies of new mediums. During
the earlier years of the internet’s public consumption, scholars made what Rice would call a
mistake when devising pre-existing “laws” on understanding the influential collective. These

16

laws were made to determine network value in terms of metrics, however their foundation in
defining the network, or the online community hold less criticisms from opponents.
David Sarnoff, founder of the National Broadcasting Company, as well as leader of
Radio Corporation of America developed a law based upon his broadcast experience states the
value of the network increases directly to the amount of listeners on said network. In
advertising media buying, this dictates the reach of a broadcast network. He suggested a
network is just as valuable as the amount of people recieving the message. Earlier days of the
internet, the web was viewed in this way, much like print media. The social landscape made
people begin questioning the usage of this model on the web, as advertising transitioned into both
pay per exposure and pay per click models. Once people started using the web differently,
sharing information and developing set behavioristics on usage (which will be addressed later),
this model’s ability to accurately translate the power of a network became moot. This is better
suited for one-on-one interpersonal influence, as the people recieve the message and often it does
not grow exponentially, as other Metcalfe’s law is designed to do.
Robert Metcalfe played a valuable role in the rise of the internet and modern
computing. He is a Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate, a co-inventor of
Ethernet and a co-founder of 3Com. He looked closely at networks with a social function in
terms of delivering a message, as the message leads to discussion between the sender and
receiver, as well as the receiver's network. Metcalfe proposes with more than one conversation
about a message occurring simultaneously, the network value grows square to the number of
users. This is criticized on the account it assumes the people who receive the original message
have the same number of people in their network as the original sender. It does, however, keep in
mind the people within networks will be talking to one-another about the original message.
Like Sarnoff’s Law, Metcalfe’s Law is less relevant with the transition into Web 2.0
where almost every message potentially has social intent. Metcalfe’s law worked well with the
email medium when devising a structure for forwarding messages and getting people to discuss it,
however it is not equipped to consider other factors - such as sharing, redistribution of the
message, etc.
Similar to Metcalfe, David Reed specializes in the area of computer networking. As a
professor at MIT, his start came with his contributions in the development of TCP/IP, and now he
focuses on viral communications. His law, The Law of the Pack, states the value of a network
grows within groups. An individual does not have one specific group of people receiving and
engaging on every message, but instead a message can be directed at one or more groups within a
person’s network. Take for instance, Mr. Hypothetical Joe (HJ). HJ goes to church, he is a
professor at the local community college and on weekends he likes to play poker. His poker team

17

may have one or two professors at his community college in it, but the team is a different group
entirely. If he has a message to his poker friends, he might post it online but it may or may not
also be directed toward his students and church friends. On a macro scale, this goes for his
message in the groups as well. If he posts a message for his church peers, they will be the ones
that would recycle the message within their group, potentially travelling to other individual’s
extended groups and so on. The network interconnectivity creates a non-simplistic environment
extending beyond Metcalfe and Sarnoff’s Laws. Groups have the ability to filter the message,
acting as gatekeepers for further networking. According to Reed, this complex system defines an
individual group’s community (Reed). This idea transgresses different channels of communication,
from face-to-face to online curating and sharing (Kilkki, et al.).

Conclusion: Applications and Strategies

At first glance, social influence may seem daunting, but it is necessary to understand as
a business putting it into praxis. Understanding the gatekeeper model when keeping Reed’s Law
into mind can provide the inspiration for making that extra step, as if the efforts put in do not
correlate with the desired effect then you can rest assured knowing the ability for it to do so is
there, but the strategy needs tightened. It is also important to understand how the information
travels on what medium. For instance, it is more likely that people will have personally met
most of their Facebook friends in person at least once, while Twitter is designed for people to be
connected to others with similar interests. In turn, this means that Facebook is more of a social
grounds for people who are known to the individuals (therefore more likely to have more of an
influence on people they know), while Twitter is social grounds for people to share information
of similar interests.
One of the key points of this paper is that giving the power to the users is highly

important. Both Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff’s book Groundswell and Jeff Jarvis’ book What

Would Google Do? are huge advocates of transparency. Full transparency is key to building
trust and developing a company others will want to talk about. Further, being transparent
allows for the individual or brand to develop themselves as perceived leaders in their field -
which Jarvis believes is one of the key mechanisms that allowed Google to rise to the surface.
From my studies, I have developed six steps to becoming more influential. This is, of
course, only steps to help make yourself more influential - it is not a strategy in itself.

18

1. Create Sharable Content

Your company’s posts should not be sales pitches. Target leverages their Facebook by creating
relationships with their customers, providing content relevant to their brand, but without
directly trying to make sales. When you create sharable content, you harness the power of
other influencers to reshare and reach more people. In turn, this can not only spread your
message out further, but also secures more people to your site. Your content should be easily
sharable, so that when someone visits your website they can easily reshare a blog, a post or an
item.
2. Have a pattern for how often you share

Be it a Tweet, a Facebook post, blog or podcast, you should share with some regularity to keep
yourself at the forefront of the audience’s mind. At the same time, don’t create “noise” by
updating too frequently, lest you will turn potential consumers off.
3. Target your audience

Part of the beauty of the online sphere is people share their own information. If you are
retailer of specialty micro beer, you can use a platform’s search for, find and connect with
individuals whom may be interested in your brew in your area.
4. Engage your audience

Simply said, get them to talk. Further, get them to talk about your product/ service. Create
dialog, as questions and be sure to answer their questions when they have them. Social media has
become a new form of customer support, so when people come looking for answers or have
problems with your product or service, answer them! Doing this helps you look more transparent
and helps establish them as a life-long customer.
5. Get people to like you

One of the most important aspects of establishing influence is being perceived as an expert in
your field. You want to be the person or brand people come to when they have questions or need
a service provided. Pitching yourself this way can drastically help establish new business.
6. Don't be afraid to get in the conversation

Don’t be afraid to talk to people who have a poor view of your company and are sharing it. If
you can utilize good customer service skills then you can harness it to your advantage, as Pete

19

Blackshaw’s book states in Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers

tell 3,000.

Also, don’t expect people to come to you, communication is a two way street. If you see a thread
online where people are discussing something in your field, by all means chip in! You will be able
to show your expertise and help establish yourself outside of your current circles. Don’t forget
that you and everyone in your business is a brand ambassador.

References

(2009). In Consumer Reports. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C
%3Ecnt_id=18759&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=18151

Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined communities; reflections on the origins and spread

of nationalism. London: Verso. pp 13-14

Antonakis, Avolio, Sivasubramaniam. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the
nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly 14:3. 261-295.

Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D.
(2009). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization.

Association for Psychological Science, 21(3), 372-374.
doi:10.1177/0956797609360756
Bass, B. (1990). Handbook of leadership: theory, research and managerial applications
(3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from
http://gsb.haifa.ac.il/almog_files/leadership%20and%20decisions.pdf

20

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership styles that use rewards

and shared values help platoons perform well in simulated combat situations. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 88(2).

comScore releases March 2011 U.S. online video rankings. (2011, April 12). In comScore.
Retrieved April 17, 2012, from
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Releases_M
arch_2011_U.S._Online_Video_Rankings
Blackshaw, P. (2008). Satisfied customers tell three friends, angry customers tell

3,000: Running a business in today's consumer-driven world. New York, NY:
DoubleDay - Randomhouse

Blanchard, O. (2011). Social Media ROI. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc

Constine, J. (2012, March 21). Klout and PeerIndex don't measure influence. In Tech Crunch.
Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/21/klout-kred-
peerindex-radian6/
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

Daily Mail Reporter, . (2011, June 18). Saudi women take to the wheel in defiance of driving ban.

and post results on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. Daily Mail UK. Retrieved
November 8, 2011, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005078/Saudi-
women-defy-driving-ban-post-Facebook-Twitter-YouTube.html
Emilsson, A. G., & Valdez-Vivas, M. (2011, December 11). An empirical study of influence

maximization heuristics for social networks. Stanford University. Retrieved April 15,
2012, from http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs224w/proj/mvv_Finalwriteup_v1.pdf
Eridon, C. (2011, December 2). How to measure social media ROI like the experts. In HubSpot

Blog. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/29395/How-to-Measure-Social-Media-
ROI-Like-the-Experts.aspx

Evans, D. (2008). Social Media Marketing. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

21

Goyal, A., Bonchi, F., and Lakshmanan, L. (2010). Learning infuence probabilities in social
networks. In Proceedings of WSDM.
Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010, August). Can you measure the ROI of your social media

marketing? MITSloan Management Review, 52(1). Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
http://www.emarketingtravel.net/resources/can%20you%20mesur%20the%20ROI%20of
%20your%20Social%20media%20marketing.pdf
Jarvis, J. (2009). What would Google do? New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010, January). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre', B. S. (2011, May). Social Media?

Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business

Horizons, 54(3), 241-251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

Kilkki, K., & Kalervo, M. KK-law for group forming services. Nokia Research Center.
Retrieved April 15, 2012, from
http://kotisivukone.fi/files/50ajatelmaa.ajatukset.fi/tiedostot/Others/kilkki_kk-
law.pdf
King, A. B. (2001, December). Affective dimensions of internet culture. Social Science

Computer Review, 19(4), 414-430. doi:10.1177/089443930101900402

Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. (2012). Essentials of Marketing (7th ed.). Mason,
OH: South Western Cengage Learning.

Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2011). Groundswell. N.p.: Harvard Business Review.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pallavi, G. (2006, October 9). Wal-Mart's Jim and Laura: the real story. Bloomberg

Businessweek. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061009_57913
7.htm

22

Reed, D. P. (1999). That sneaky exponential - beyond Metcalfe's Law to the power of community

building. Context Magazine. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://www.reed.com/dpr/
locus/Papers/Context%20GFN%20article.doc
Reicheld, F. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2011, from
http://www.netpromoter.com/np/calculate.jsp

Rice, R. E. (1999, April). Artifacts and paradoxes in new media. New Media and Society,
24-32. doi:10.1177/1461444899001001005

Scoble, R. (2007, November 2). Canter on Open Social and the Starfish. In Scobleizer.
Retrieved November 2, 2011, from http://scobleizer.com/2007/11/02/canter-on-open-
social-and-the-starfish/
Senan, S. (2011, December 16). Measuring the social media ROI. In Forbes. Retrieved April 18,
2012, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/infosys/2011/12/16/social-media-
measurement-bte/

Shaefer, M. (2012). Return on influence: the revolutionary power of Klout, social

scoring and influence marketing. N.p.: McGraw Hill.

Simeonov, S. (July 26, 2006). "Metcalfe’s Law: more misunderstood than wrong?".

HighContrast: Innovation & venture capital in the post-broadband era.
http://simeons.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/metcalfes-law-more-misunderstood-than-
wrong/.
Slevin, J. (2000). The internet and society. In J. Slevin (Ed.), The internet and forms of

human association. Malden, MA: Polity.

Solis, B., & Webber, A. (2012, March 21). The rise of digital influence. In Altimeter Group.
Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://www.slideshare.net/Altimeter/the-rise-of-
digital-influence

Whitepaper: Social Media Influence - Applications, Metrics and Theory

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Whitepaper: Social Media Influence - Applications, Metrics and Theory

Similaire à Whitepaper: Social Media Influence - Applications, Metrics and Theory (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Whitepaper: Social Media Influence - Applications, Metrics and Theory