I would like to think I have a vast following of
readers for this blog, hanging on my every post about various topics relating
to strategic communication. There are thousands of IP addresses clicking in
each day, seeking my lofty, unbiased opinions about strategic communication
trends, successes, and failures. However, I have access to the “traffic stats”
for my blog and I know my vast following has yet to arrive.
I am surprised by the level of traffic I do have, but it is nothing to get
excited about just yet.
What makes for a successful opinion leader? Can
opinion leaders use social media networks as a channel to reach even more
followers than they might already have on traditional media networks? Would you
know an opinion leader is using the social media network for commercial
purposes?
Think about your own life. If you are in the market
for a new TV, will you be seeking out the opinion of your computer geek/nerd
friend or the opinion of the gym rat friend who does not even own a TV and hikes
150 miles every weekend just for fun?
According to Diffusion of Innovations theory, the
first 2.5% of people who try a new product or innovation are called “Innovators.”
The next 13.5%, called “Early Adopters” encompass most of the opinion leaders
relating to the particular subject matter at hand. These are the people the
rest of us take our cues from when making decisions relating to a particular topic.
For our example, you will rely more heavily on the
opinion of the one you feel has more of a relevant insight into which TV is a
better value for the money. But what if you have never met face-to-face this
“friend,” this opinion leader about all things electronic? The study of
electronic word of mouth marketing (WOMM), specifically in online communities,
is extremely interesting and may make you wonder about some of your “friends”
online.
A study conducted by Robert V. Kozinets and
published in the Journal of Marketing (2010) broke down how opinion leaders
were viewed after they participated in a marketing campaign, depending on how
they presented the information: did not announce it was a campaign, announced
the campaign, recommended the product or did not, etc.
Three things Kozinets observed: the message was
communicated, the communicators staked their reputation on the message, and the
message was converted by the communicators to fit the various online
communities.
Back to our TV opinion leader you have never met
face-to-face. What if you were to learn your “friend” is actually an employee
of BetterBought electronics superstore? Does that change your opinion of the recommendation
he made? How would you even know?
This makes me think about my own social media
network affiliations. I am a member of a number of general social media
networks (Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, Google+) as well as some
special-interest networks (Deviant, LumberJocks, Flickr, Instagram). As I note
in my profile, I make rustic furniture from recycled wooden pallets. I post
pictures and simple descriptions of the various pieces of furniture I design
and create. I upload them on LumberJocks, for example, and there are usually a
number of comments left by other members about how wonderful the project turned
out, what a great way to be “green” or questions about designs/tools, etc.
What if Irwin Tools were paying me to weave into my
discussion or responses mentions of their wood drill bits or clamping tools?
Would the other members of the community know? What would their reaction be to the
use of our little social network community for commercial gain through my “name
dropping?” What if I raved about how much easier it was to do a particular
project with the tools from Krebs for pocket-hole joinery?
[Writer’s
Note: Irwin Tools, Krebs nor any of the social media networks mentioned have
employed me to hawk their goods, sing their praises, or drop their names in any
of my blog entries. I will entertain all offers, though.]
With the proliferation of social media networks and
use of the internet touching almost every facet of our lives, WOMM is a growing
field, ripe with huge potential. In additional to the obvious ethical questions
about disclosure and transparency, how will these online opinion leaders remain
significant over time? In a TED Talk presentation from May 2011, Eli Pariser
warned of the “filter bubbles” that can be created as internet companies
incorporate relevance filters and algorithms designed to “learn” the user and
automatically filter out things it deems as not of interest to the user based
on the choices previously made.
If you routinely click on headlines about sports
events and rarely click on headlines about art shows, your searches on your web
browser will load query results with more of a connection to sports because it
has learned this is of more interest to you than query results related to art
shows. Pariser warned that these algorithms had the potential for creating a “filter
bubble” around your interactions on the web, inadvertently sheltering the user
from information that may be different, uncomfortable or just thought to be of
no relevance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author: David is a dedicated husband and proud father of a strapping fourteen year-old son and twin five year-old daughters. He has twenty years of professional communication experience, working in the public relations field. He has worked for public relations firms in Metro Detroit, hospitals and a state-wide faith-based social service organization helping at-risk children and their families. He grew up on a mid-sized Michigan blueberry farm, spent two years in Texas and now resides with his family outside Tampa, Florida. An avid reader and photographer, David also enjoys building furniture using recycled/upcycled wooden pallets.
No comments:
Post a Comment