Influence Ripples + Social Media Fragmentation

(click on image to enlarge)

By now most of us wouldn't argue that the media landscape has been fragmented.  In the old days if you wanted to communicate something—you had a few choices.  A marketing campaign fueled mostly by television, magazines and newspapers.  You had all the usual PR methods and of course the press.  Digital happened—eyeballs went to the Web and now you had to add a whole new mix of tactics.  Social Media picked up steam and now you've got another set of options to take seriously.

Social Media Fragmentation?
What I'm wondering about is if we're witnessing fragmentation within the fragmentation?  Meaning that within the realm of social media, you've got an increasing number of places where your content can be digested—if old media was about one big "push" then old social media was also about a similar "push", while the newer social media landscape involves content, community and conversation happening at multiple venues, times and with a varied degree of reach.

My original influence ripples POV focused mostly on the influence of bloggers—while I think the notion of the ripples and their reach/volume is still valid, it's become crystal clear to most of us that social media has accelerated so quickly that we need to look at the bigger picture.  That bigger picture involves multiple platforms and methods to distribute content.  Here's an easy way to look at this—if I really wanted to get the word out on something, I might do the following:

1. Send e-mails to co-workers and friends through several mail groups
2. Post announcement on several online communities such as Yahoo! groups
3. Post update on Facebook
4. Announce news on Linked In network
5. Communicate on Twitter
6. Blog about it
7. Update Website

Multiple Ripples, Conversations and Touch Points
This list can be even more extensive.  I'm just one individual.  Imagine all the ways brands who have committed to leveraging social media have to contend with.  That's a lot of conversations.   But they are all conversations worth having as the marketplace is proving one case study at a time.  As I write this, I'm looking at Dell.com/community.  It looks like they've created a launchpad where you can access all of the areas they are having a dialog with customers.  (Full disclosure, Dell is a Critical Mass client though to date, I have not worked on this account).   I have to applaud this concept though—having  all of these touchpoints accessible in one place seems like common sense.

But you don't have to be a mega brand to appreciate what's going on in this space. Take a look at what Jeremiah Owyang wrote recently after announcing his career move to go work with Forrester:

"When I announced my job change on Monday, I did it in Twitter, I left a series of messages explaining my intent, I saw the replies come back by the dozens. I answered any questions in real-time and the wave grew in energy. As their friends saw people saying “congrats @jowyang” (the “@” symbol notifies me someone is talking to me) it encourages others to click on my name and see what I said. It rippled across the Twitter lake. Finally, I dropped the URL to my blog, and then it spread to the swimmers, then surfers, boaters, and finally the fleet, like this news site (thanks Karl)."

Dropping Many Pebbles in the Pond
Jeremiah's experience perfectly illustrates what I'm saying with the updated Influence Ripples visual.  If we want to influence folks regarding our personal or corporate brands, we've got multiple ripples happening all at once not only in the digital space, but drilling down to the social aspect of it.  It's enough to make your head spin.  But here's the big takeaway from all of this.  Successful personal and corporate brands alike will be the ones who take a holistic view when creating, maintaining and amplifying their ripples.  This means avoiding the temptation to hyper fixate on one venue thinking it's a replacement for another.  If you have cultivated a successful blog experience—thinking Facebook will eliminate the need for a blog (or site) is foolish and/or short sighted.  Facebook is a members only "closed" community.  Blogs are "open" to the global public including the powerful search engines which make the long tail possible. 

Likewise ignoring effective networks even if they create "smaller" ripples is foolish.  Many small ripples can be just as effective as a few large ones.  At some point in the not-so-distant future, the dust will settle and there will be winners and losers (Quechup anyone?) when it comes to the networks most of us leverage.  But what's becoming increasingly clear to most of us—is that like the original media fragmentation, the social version of it will be no less challenging to initiate, maintain and nurture.  We're all going to have to get used to multiplicity—or simply having a few more pebbles in the pond.

Comments

[Bob Jacobson]

Good observations, David. They echo de Tocqueville's remarks on emerging American culture in the 1820s -- the growth of numerous groups to which individuals affiliated themselves, continually evolving -- but now the phenomenon is global and the networks now are as much virtual as they were then physical. Sociometry, a relatively recent specialization in sociology (but considerably older than social network theory as we know it) offers a large body of useful findings regarding organizational formation, social networking, and group mitosis.

[Duncan Ogle-Skan]

David, on your comment "At some point in the not-so-distant future, the dust will settle"; whilst I think there is a comfort in thinking that a settled media landscape will eventually happen, I'm inclined to believe that the future may be a little more distant than your think. With no apparent slowing of new divergent and convergent ways to spread any word, it could be best to expect the only consistency to be in the rate of change for some time.

[Graham Hill]

David

The ripples metaphor is fun, but it is passive and therefore has metaphorical limits.

I prefer a bonfire metaphor.

Traditional push-marketing is like a huge organised bonfire. Marketers go to all the trouble of gathering tinder and firewood and inviting people to watch. Then they light the bonfire and stand back as the flames roar and the firewood crackles. Those invited get to enjoy the heat and the spectacle, those a little further away, to enjoy the dancing flames. Those much further away probably don't know there even was a bonfire. And once the bonfire has burnt itself out, all there is left are a few glowing embers and lots of ash.

Social marketing on the other hand is like a network of hilltop bonfires. Lots of different people prepare a limited number of small bonfires. Anyone can start a bonfire and then others on other hilltops can light their own bonfires and so the message spreads. Many people get to enjoy a bit of local heat with their friends and to see the flames flickering on many hilltops. They may even get to feel that they are part of something bigger. And the reach of the bonfire is potentially endless. It only depends upon how many people are willing to light their own bonfires to spread the message.

The metaphor is useful in a number of ways. Firstly, it shows that many small bonfires can reach much further than a large bonfire. Secondly it shows that anyone can light a small bonfire to spread the message to others. Finally, and most importantly, it shows that all these many small bonfires need to be built before the message can spread. If you wait until you see another hilltop bonfire befire you build your own it will be too late. The preparation necessary before a message can spread effectively is one aspect of social media that many commentators forget, in the rush to laud the role of the influencer in propagating social memes.

Back in the real world of influence, it seems to me that traditional marketing and social marketing need each other. Traditional marketing builds category need and awareness (to use the funnel analogy), whilst social marketing enlists those with an interest to spread it further and builds intention to buy. This complementarity is implicit in the p (adoption = traditional marketing) and q (imitation = social marketing) variables in innovation diffusion models in common use for over 50 years!

Keep up the metaphorically enlightening work.

Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant
Interim CRM Manager

[Charlotte]

Great visual David - you have this fabulous ability to make something complex and mind boggling into something that excites and captivates me. It gives me confidence that it's ok to feel that sometimes the pond has too many leaves in that need clearing out. I guess more sophisticated tagging in the future will make searching and navigating all these conversations (or cleaning out the leaves) much easier.

I think companies need to take responsibility for helping mere mortals such as moi understand the web of conversations and touch points that they initiate so I can choose to hook in, listen, drink coffee and converse. At the moment I sometimes feel I 'stumble' upon fabulous conversations. Companies like Dell are helping initiate a dialogue with me whilst not pushing messages at me. I still feel like my thoughts our my own.

[Gavin Heaton]

As you know, I think there is something in this tool:
http://www.touchgraph.com/TGGoogleBrowser.html
Seems to map interestingly to the Influence ripples that each of us give off. Now, if Technorati could do something like this, it would have a service which people would PAY for ;)

[Jeremiah Owyang]

Thanks for the mention, great insight here.

[dave davison]

again! another visual gem with words to match. This is why I need you to help Raydiance - WE WILL CONNECT.

the commented link to Touchgraph by Gavin Heaton is a great example of the ripple effect.

[Bob Warfield]

Great post!

I think the ripple ponds may be fragmented along a variety of lines. One that I've been studying is how people's Learning Styles influence which Web 2.0 services they like to engage with. From that standpoint, you'd have ripple crossovers that were essential to propogation of memes into ponds that are not naturally connected.

See my blog for more:

http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/what-personality-type-is-your-web-20-fave-part-2-of-web-20-personality-types/

[giL]

David, brilliant as usual. I like the fragmentation within fragmentation idea very much and will take your advice about effective relevant networks even when they are small.

Your articles always spark up new thoughts, driving new connections in my ganglions. Thank you for doing that!

See http://individualathome.blogspot.com/2007/09/social-media-fragmentation-within.html

P.S. I hope you don't mind I am using your graphics this way. please let me know if you have any problem with that. Maybe you can tell us all how you do them sometime? :)

[Branislav Peric]

Brilliant insight and very clear illustration, as usual.

I am wondering how competitive the agency business will be at influencing, monitoring and optimizing such a complex presence layout.

The industrial way of doing advertising, CRM, media buying, or even PR is coming to an end in my opinion.
It means that mastering complexity is the key business evolution in front of us.

[Lewis Green]

David,

Even though Graham thinks the metaphor is dated and not mind-inspiring enough, the ripples in a pond works precisely because we all get it. And that is one of the two keys to a great metaphor: 1) we get it and 2) we remember it. That said, we need to better understand that all media is a form of communications, and communications work best when there are many ripples.

Great post!

[Joe]

That is a great graphic - very well done.

[social media consultant]

thats true,
these ripples are making the world more smaller . but if one ripple is dangerous to so it will effect the whole system ,this we have to keep in mind .

[Gavin Heaton]

I have been thinking over this one some more ... and it seems to me that influence is influence regardless of medium. For example, I am more likely to click on a Tweet URL from you than someone else. Similarly I will read your blog and am more likely to click through to some other site if you encourage it.

For me, this links authority, personality and influence together. And the differences between level 1, 2, 3 and 4 ripples is to do with the over-riding personal brand of the person involved from MY point of view. That is, if you are important to me, then I will act. Make sense?

[Gavin Heaton]

OK ... and more ...

The key determinant of influence is trust. A good measurement of this is loyalty (and in social media terms this can be measured by subscriptions, repeat visitors etc) -- how well and how far are you trusted?

This further breaks out into dialogue -- who picks up your original story, who discusses or comments on it and who re-writes and re-imagines it?

[DA]

Gavin,

I would agree on just about all your points. Especially how similar influence is in both online and offline worlds. The key difference is amplification—and when amplification is mixed with being true to your "personal brand" then the "influence ripples" become even more effective.

[Sam Freedoms Internet Marketing Controversy Blog]

David, I'm sorry I don't have time right this second to read the whole article but rest assured I will. You are, perhaps, one of the first to speak of this fragmentation. I already saw it but I never spoke about it. I guess it depends on one's aims because we each have a choice to make...

...do we want to be modern day Moses-types who imagine we are leading all kinds of people to freedom?

...or do we wish to skillfully, and quietly, use what our environment offers to us and find our own unique way of showing gratitude "apart" from the event at hand.

In other words, if I discover oil in the hills of Vermont. Must I shout it from the rooftops and end up competing with the rest of the world for it. Or would the world be better off were a decent person to harness the flow and then dispense it to those entities which shared similar life-affirming values?

Your even mentioning fragmentation is of interest to me because it takes a special set of eyes to see it, and a very secure person to even dare bring it up.

The waves of fascination are still going very strong and to suggest their demise is almost akin to raining on the party.

Anyways, my friend, I am hoping to make it into Cambridge tonight but I've a piano gig and might not make it until 8:45-9pm... in tux. ;-)

Hope so...

Best wishes,
Sam
ps. Have a quick look if you get a moment:
Further Exploitation via Data Mining on Twitter at my blog

[Steve Swanson]

Very helpful model. I think will be interesting to understand the bandwidth of various people...how many and to what extent can they maintain thier system as the options continue to expand.

Thanks

[JKash]

This is a great model -- the visualization is fantastic. I agree with Gavin concerning trust. In the somewhat tech-backwards professional services industry, deals are driven by reputation. Blogging and other social apps are helping bring other people to the table, but it’s too early to determine to what extent it will impact larger deals and transactions.

Back to your ripple model -- do you think there are instances where the roles are much more fluid? I'm thinking of something that might start in the blogosphere, say evidence of a company behaving badly. Could the ripples of open networks overtake mainstream media, perhaps "resonating" to the extent that traditional PR is cancelled out or surpassed? There was a great article in HBR about risks and reputation… perhaps if companies realize that PR won’t help them undo “ripples” from the public/stakeholders, they might behave a bit better.

[Frank Dobner]

David,

This is a great way of combining concrete and social media. I think that the individuals that adopt this mentality will have a definite leg up on new media than taking a partisan approach between old and new. Look at this in an appropriate consolidated model for a particular individual niche is how I also look at this. For the knee-jerk social media experts, it may seem immediately that adopting the fad-ish all SMM model will cause quick attrition. However SMM is a great option in the current economic mentality of scarcity.

Twitter: frank_dobner

[Maria Popova]

It's interesting that even when we talk about "social" media vs. "traditional" media, we can't help making the most fundamental mistake of all – forgetting that both are, above all, just that: media. Meaning, just different channels to communicate the message, or content.

So when we talk about fragmentation, perhaps we shouldn't look at the media where it's taking place, be they "new" or "traditional," because the media are just the symptoms. The "content" is the cause – fragmentation is driven primarily by the increasing information overload we all face, which takes place in both "traditional" and – especially – "social" media.

Today's communication plague isn't the lack of access to information – it's the overabundance thereof. That's when and why people begin to gravitate towards "influencers" – people or entities who serve as effective filters for all the best, most relevant information on a given subject, usually a niche. So there's virtually no difference between the reason sports fans watch ESPN (a niche byproduct of television's fragmentation, to give a "traditional" media example) and why the web-savvy read Guy Kawasaki's blog or follow Chris Brogan on Twitter.

My point is, the kind of fragmentation we're experiencing is one of attention, driven by the overwhelming amount of information available – that's the underlying cause of the symptomatic media fragmentation. Influencers are merely the welcome go-to helping alleviate that overload and make our information consumption more efficient.

[Elaine Starling]

Your insights apply equally well to all media. As the advertising world struggles to integrate the increasing variety of media venues, it's critical to remember that each one serves a valuable purpose. Having measurable success metrics for each medium plus cross-media is imperative. As you mention, it's the cumulative power of the ripples that creates the ultimate effect.

[Authority Networker]

Many marketers are attracted to internet network marketing and social media because of the reduced costs compared to expensive television, radio and newspaper ads. Today's internet users want personal interactions with those they do business with before they make a buying decision. Social media marketing, which taps into a familiar concept called attraction marketing, lets you build relationships with your targeted audience. Social media sites can help establish your presence in a number of different places on the Web. Just imagine the social media profit you can have in being able to recruit people from different places.