Levels of Influence

I’m working on a blog presentation I’ll be giving to our NY and Boston office in late Sept. (more on that later), and I wanted to visualize the idea of the blogger “A List”, B, C lists and so on.  But I thought I could take a slightly different angle on it. Rather then view bloggers as "micro celebrities" with an "A list" etc. I view bloggers as influencers not just in pop culture as celebrities often do but as influencers in somewhat specialized areas.  It could be technology, art, marketing, design, PR, advertising, business, parenthood—or multiple combinations of these areas with cross overs.

The bigger point that I want to make is that bloggers at each level command a “sphere of influence”.  The higher the “level”, the more people are exposed to a blogger’s influence.  The degree of influence is mainly related to the quantity (and quality) of the blogs and sites that link back to them.  And of course a blogger who is well known before they even start a blog has a better chance of reaching the top levels of influence vs. one starting from scratch (though it’s very possible to start at level 4 and work your way up).

What’s interesting about this is that in a way, it does represent a “human pyramid”.  As much as the social media network acts as a great equalizer—you can only influence as many people as you have access to.

Keep in mind that this is more complex than I am making it, but I wanted to communicate this in a very simple way that folks not familiar with the lingo will grasp.  And besides, I don’t think the “A-lister” analogy does it justice.

Like this visual?  More here.

Comments

[Ed Lee]

david, do you think that the blogger hierarchy is solely based on the # of links?

isn't that where the political strategists got screwed over in the last mide-terms? # of links is important, but doesn't show the wider picture and there are plenty of other variables to take into account.

for instance - i blog in the smallisg PR echo-chamber. i'm almost a level 3 blogger in terms of links but i doubt that anyone outside the 200 or so people who read me are interested in what i have to say. my links are because of the niche world I operate in.

on the other hand, michael urlocker (blogging about disruption) has maybe 4 or 5 links last time i checked and yet is eminently more 'influential' because of his readership - the majority of whom don't blog.

it's a dangerous slant to put on influence and even more dangerous to give the position of "king-maker" to technorati which is certainly a broken piece of technology (see BL Ochman's recent post).

i like the diagram and the idea but it's too simplistic for me.

Ed

[Brian Clark]

This is very interesting David. I do tend to agree with Ed though on links.

According to this chart, I am a level one influencer (just squeaked in). And I do enjoy a degree of influence with my readers.

But I blog about blogging, and therefore by looking at links alone, my influence is unfairly exaggerated. There are people in my general niche that are orders of magnitude more influential than I, but they don't choose to speak directly to bloggers and therefore get fewer links.

Perhaps links alone show influence within the blogosphere itself, but I can't convince myself that it can be the sole metric overall until *everyone* blogs, which I don't see happening.

Thought provoking post though, and I love your graphics. :)

[DA]

Good comments guys. I expect more along the lines of these. I did mention quality in addition to quantity in getting links back to you. An no, I am not suggesting that links back are a "sole metric"

However, let's be honest here. You are only as influential as the amount of people you reach. Now let's say that you have less then 100 links in, but someone from the media picks up on your blog, then overnight you will broaden your influence. That's another way, but it also means more exposure. More exposure leads to more links. More links lead to a higher level of influence.

That's my focus here. You can be given a megaphone, with a blog and you can have an amazing quality blog, with only a few readers. And we should not ne driven by metrics. That is not my point here.

My point is simpy that the more people you reach, the more influential you will be. Links are not the only sign of influence, but they are significant.

And I still think this analogy as simplistic as it is, works more for me than the whole A, B, C, lister thing. It's my perspective. Doesn't mean it's absolute truth.

[Seth Finkelstein]

Links are an *approximation*, one way of measuring influence. However, this discussion is so problematic to much blog dogma that there's sometimes an immediate attempt to shut-down any thinking about it (not that it's happened here yet, this is pre-emptive). One attempt is through the line of argument that an approximation doesn't capture everything. It doesn't - there's way approximations can be wrong. But it's far better than the fantasies of blog evangelism.

[Stephen Downes]

Here's a thought experiment:

Joe writes a blog, and it reaches a cadre of 100 Republicans, each of whom dutifully links back on the blogroll.

Jill writes a blog, and it reaches a network of 100 people worldwide, from diverse points of view, each of whom has linked to her blog in an article that discusses her point of view.

Who is more influential?

According to the post above, they have equal influence. However, common sense suggests that Jill will have more influence than Joe, because her ideas will reach into different circles of people, different communities.

Influence is not a function of linkage. It never has been, Technorati notwithstanding. Influence is a function of four properties (and people who have read my work before will be very familiar with these properties):

1. Diversity - a person who communicates with a diverse audience will be more influential than a person who communicates with a unifo0rm audience.

2. Autonomy - a person who is free to speak his or her own mind, and is not merely parroting some 'official view', will have more influence.

3. Openness - a person who writes in multiple languages, or who can be read on multiple platforms, or who is not limited to a single communications channel, will have more influence.

4. Connectivity - a person you can communicate with, and who will listen to your point of view, will have more influence than a person who does not.

The basis for this list is found in my paper 'An Introduction to Connective Knowledge'.

[DA]

Please keep the comments coming. This is helping me organize my thoughts around this.

Stephen and Seth, thanks for not shutting down this conversation starter, but rather elaborating upon it.

I agree with your points. And why is this perspective being aligned with Technorati when I never even mentioned them? Just because I mentioned links? I didn't know that Technorati had a monopoly on this. I only found out about how Technorati worked months after starting my blog which was not too long ago.

I'm looking at this from a very elementary principal. The more people who hear your message, the more you have the potential to influence.

Stephen, your example is valid, but in your scenerio each blogger has the same exposure (100 to each). My perspective is looking different the levels, not comparing bloggers within the same "level".

Again, yes the thinking here is incomplete, but I want to comminicate this at a high level to an audience who doesn't know much about this.

That said, I very much like the 4 points that Stephen has outlined. They would make for a good follow up slide and make this thinking more compete.

And let's look at the bigger picture here. I'm focusing on Influence vs. Popularity. Blogs have the potential to allow us to be both I guess. I'm a little more interested in the influence part.

[Brian Clark]

>>Links are not the only sign of influence, but they are significant.

Agree no doubt with that.

Hopefully higher-level influencers understand that what you give to your audience is what gets you that influence in the first place.

An interesting thing I've noticed with links though, at some point the network effect kicks in even though some top influencers have forgotten that fact, and popularity often continues to rise even though value and quality can diminish.

That's the kind of cruel irony that we were supposed to get beyond in this environment. But I suppose society is what it is, online and off.

[DA]

"Society is what it is, online and off"

Now THAT is a great observation Brian. I am no expert in this area. My education on how the social media works stems directly from my experience since I started participating (less than a year ago)

And to me, it does seem that the network mimics human behavior on almost every level. We connect, we share, we converse, we debate, we agree, we disagree, etc.

And as social beings, people end up in ranks, classes or whatever you want to call it. It's not pretty. But it's true. Just walk outside of your home if you want to find this out for yourself.

And back to personal experience. I started out as a "level 4" blogger. A little over six months later and I am a "level 3". Why? Because I put a lot of effort and passion into this blog as well as participating in the community and being a part of this whole thing.

But guess what? I also have a lot more people linking to me now. Again, not the only indicator but a sign that my level of influence has gone up.

[Bob Glaza]

Great conversation on influence, David. I'm thinking out loud. Trying to be brief. My first reaction to the drawing (graphic) - clearly stated. Its logical the number of links - mine is -100 - reflects how many participants in the blogosphere found a thought (entry) worthy of reconsideration. As I wonder just a bit more - this might be overdone - but is there a place for circles in this sphere? Using a worn analogy - like ripples from a pebble dropped in the stream. Its not linear though links "seem" to be. But it IS more representative of conversation - which I feel is the main target of blogging.

I tend to agree with you on keeping it simple. A basic understanding of blogging is available for those who choose. Beyond basic, it gets pretty cloudy. And who the influencers are is advanced.

Anyway - thanks for opening the conversation. I am a consumer of blogs in the process of becoming an active participant. You can tell I tend more toward the emotion than logic. Linked here from JaffeJuice. And will permalink this post to my blog entry.
Bob

[DA]

Bob,

Now we are getting somewhere. Your ripple idea is really interesting. I need to perculate on that. Don't be surprised if you see another visual by end of day.

And I this post has motivated you to move from spectator to participant, then it has served it's purpose. :)

[Lewis Green]

David, of course I want lots of readers and to grow my sphere of influence. But more important to me is not the size of the readership but who they are. I would rather have a smaller audience made up of the readers I am trying to reach than lots of readers who fall outside my target audience. As is always the case, it isn't about us, it is about the consumers (the readers).

[DA]

Lewis,

I agree with your sentiment. But as you know, I am curious as hell. Why do people feel that they need to point out that rank does not and should not matter when they see something like this?

I don't think that most people at the top of the "pyramid" blog just to get there. It happens for a number of reasons. And the links come along the way. That seems ro be the norm.

I look at the social network and I see people who influence a little, people who influence a lot and everything in between. This doesn't mean that I'm losing focus on what's important (the readers. community etc.). I'm trying to communicate to an audience of non-bloggers that this exists. They need to know about it. Lot's of people outside of blogland still view blogs as the rantings of crazy people who have nothing better to do with their time.

Can somebody tell me that influence hierarchy doesn't exist? I'm not interested on whether we approve of it or not. Does it exist?

[ariel]

David, hope you don't mind but your post inspired me to write off on a tangent:

http://swbu.blogspot.com/2006/08/do-brands-have-power-to-reverse-ripple.html

Thanks for opening this up for conversation.

[Bryan Person, Bryper.com]

I would tend to fall more in line with Ed's comments, as well as Lewis's. More important to me than how links I receive to my blog is the influence or "quality" that those linkers wield in the blogosphere and business world.

I would also rather have a smaller, more targeted audience -- and therefore probably fewer links -- than a larger, more disparate one, provided that the targeted audience is the intended one!

A fascination discussion going on here, guys. Let the comments continue to flow.

--Bryan Person
Blog: Bryper.com
Podcast: NewCommRoad.com

[Gavin Heaton]

The ripple concept is a great one ... especially when you start to see these as a number of conversations happening simultaneously. As the waves overlap and hit each other, we get extra flavour added to the story, we open paths to new audiences and also allow the sphere of influence to expand or contract according to its relevance to the audience.
David's diagram may look more realistic if shown from a bird's eye view -- like rain drops hitting the surface of a lake.

[Toby]

David -
One person's level "a" links may be another person's level "d" links.

So counting links, while part of a model of influence, should be of lesser importance than the quality of those links.

Case in point, a few months ago a post I wrote was the 1st post on one of a A*list tech blogs for almost a full day. I received well over a thousand visits from that blog.

However, most of those who clicked into Diva Marketing stayed seconds. Tho nice for the link ego, it probably did little to earn me more 'influence.'

[Mack Collier]

"My point is simpy that the more people you reach, the more influential you will be."

Disagree DA. More exposure doesn't automatically translate into more influence. The odds are that it will, but it's not an absolute.

For example: Let's say that Doc Searls gives me a glowingly positive link, "Wow that Mack guy came up with an amazing new way of looking at marketing today, check this post out".

Then let's say you do the exact same thing. Doc gets probably a few thousand visitors a day, and might send more traffic to my blog, but YOUR link to my blog would be more influential, IMO. Why? Because you are likely more connected to your community of readers, and your community overlaps with other communities, such as mine, such as Jaffe's, such as Karl Long's, such as Daily Fix's, etc etc etc. Doc's link might impress a few other A-Listers that have never heard of me. Sorry but IMO that doesn't really help me much.

While Doc's link would give me more EXPOSURE, your link would give me more INFLUENCE with the RIGHT people. Besides Doc would just call me 'MaRk'. Then again you would too ;)

[DA]

Mack,

I hear you on your points. But can you give me an example of someone who enjoys "level 1" influence and doesn't have the linkage to go with it?

I envision someone like Seth Godin as the figure on the top of the pyramid. He influences people in marketing as well as outside of marketing in areas such as business, design, etc.

I don't think quantity and quality are mutually exclusive. Actually, the biggest blogger/influencers tend to have both.

Toby, you currently have 407 blogs currently linking to you. I know you don't care about that stat and I know that the people who link to you do it because they find value in what you say—my point is that having a rank places us all in a hierarchy of influence whether we like it or not.

The bloggers we hear about seem to all have healthy numbers of blogs linking back to them. Is this coincidental?

[Mack Collier]

"I hear you on your points. But can you give me an example of someone who enjoys "level 1" influence and doesn't have the linkage to go with it?"

Laura Ries, Joe Jaffe, Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba....

CoC has around 900 links I think, Joe has almost 500, and I think Laura has around 300.

I'd label them all as A-Listers, maybe some would disagree, but then again I think many of the so-called 'A-Listers' got that label due to longevity moreso than content.

[Ed Lee]

oooh, has anyone started the engagement thread yet? i'd rather have two readers of my blog if they were both in a position to affect change, and who commented regularly on every post than 1000 readers who never left comments (if i were getting a lot of links, it would probably mean they'd track back to me *cough* Seth G!)

wouldn't the level of engagement on the blog itself (just like this post) be indicative of influence? is that why some people (amanda chapel) like to incite rather than inform - because the feedback makes them feel influential?

david - your post certainly drew a lot of feedback, not all of it in support of your original premise, i'd be fascinated to see how/if your position has changed and how you'd choose to define it now?

Ed Lee

[DA]

Mack,

We may be speaking different languages here. And this is one of the reasons why I think the term "A-lister" has issues.

Each of the people you mentioned are already major influencers. And they all run excellent blogs. Jaffe basically falls in a "level 2". according to my visual. But I think it's logical to say that someone like Godin has a broader influence. At least for now.

Seth comes in at 5,652 blogs that link to him. And he's HUGELY influential. Most of the people I work with know who Godin is (and actually many don't—which is surprising to me).

Out of everyone on your list, Seth's blog was the only one that businessweek has nominated for best blog (forgot which category)

Again, this is not about who's got good content or not. It's about acknowledging that there are various levels of influencers.

[Mack Collier]

"Again, this is not about who's got good content or not. It's about acknowledging that there are various levels of influencers."

And something else is, your level of influence is directly affected by your level of participation in the blogging community. Seth has almost 20 times the links that Laura does, but the Ries name is one of the most influential in all of business, and IMO her work is more influential than Seth's.

But Seth posts almost every day and comments on other blogs, whereas Laura only posts a few times a month, if that.