This post was originally published on David Armano’s blog Logic + Emotion.
Altimeter’s most recent report titled “The Rise of Digital Influence” revolves around the theory and practice of “digital influence”. A trend that will not die despite the industry’s counter movement against platforms such as Klout and the scores of imitators which have subsequently followed. (Full disclosure, I was interviewed in depth for the report). Altimeter rightfully begins the analysis of “digital influence” by calling out the distinction from how we view influence traditionally and offering a brief definition:
“Traditional influence is defined as the act, power, or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways. For the purpose of this report, we will use the following as the definition for Digital Influence: The ability to cause effect, change behavior, and drive measurable outcomes online.”
The last line is really important as it gets to the crux of the complexity and controversy of looking at digital influence: the difference between measuring the potential to influence action and the actual outcomes of that potential—connecting the two is where the rubber meets the road.
Altimeter does a nice job of articulating “Pillars of Influence“—a similar construct to one I had worked on last year, but I really like how they’ve fleshed out a way of looking at the building blocks of how you build upon the potential to influence decision and actions. They are:
Pillar 1 — Reach: Relationships form the union of the social graph and define how far information can travel across the social graph and communities at large. Reach is a measure of popularity, affinity, and potential impact.
Pillar 2 — Relevance: Topical relevance is the glue of the interest graph and the communities of focus. Individuals aligned through subject matter create a series of linked relationships that send information along communities of focus.
Pillar 3 — Resonance: The culmination of reach and relevance serve as the foundation for “the score.” Here, resonance is the measurement of the duration, rate, and level of interactivity around content, a topic, or conversations. High resonance ensures that more people will see each post or update. In theory, this number determines the reach of activity and how long it can stay alive in the social streams of online consumers.
Probably my favorite part of the report and what Brian and I spent a good deal talking about was the concept of “social capital” and it’s correlation to an effect. When looking at programs which are fueled by tapping digital influence, it comes down to the social currency of individuals which is much more critical than network size. A large group of individuals who have built up social capital over time can be just as influential as a small highly connected group with similar capital built up.
Combine these dynamics with the size and quality of their social graphs and you have the basic chemistry to create an effect. When we raised nearly 17 thousand dollars for a family in need (effect) I observed that it was less about the size of people’s networks (it took large and small ones to move the needle) and more about the quality of them.
Surprisingly or perhaps less so, Altimeter’s report lays out a set of high level metrics which can be used as a starting point when building your own measurement framework against programs which involve digital influence. What I noticed most is that nearly all of the below metrics are consistent with many external social programs, and even more broadly consistent with traditional metrics which have always resided within either public relations or marketing business functions.
The biggest take away here is that while digital influence tools and techniques may have evolved at the core it’s being embraced as an upgrade to both traditional marketing and public relations. Altimeter’s metrics include:
.
The report is worth reading not only for it’s concise constructs, but also for it’s collection of real world case studies as well as it’s overview of tools. (Disclaimer: Tweetlevel is an Edelman platform and I am on the advisory board for Appinions). However the report is timely as it underscores a reality—while the basics of communication and interactions remain the same, our digital behaviors are constantly evolving whether it be the newly empowered consumer class or the ability for individuals who have never met in person to weave powerful and influential online networks.
Understanding, measuring and tapping digital networks is fast becoming the equivalent grassroots efforts meets rewards programs. As individuals continue to build up their networks earning and spending social capital, businesses will seek to align themselves with the most relevant and connected groups.
A full version of the report can be found on Slideshare (below):
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EdelmanDigital/~3/gF43UCdmmh4/
At last week’s Edelman Trust Barometer launch in Melbourne (click here for Sydney coverage of the national launch), the theme for much of the session was the idea of businesses earning the license to lead.
One of the stories shared by our panel was that of the reinvigoration of North Melbourne Football Club, as told by CEO Eugene Arocca. From an uncertain future in 2007, the club is now once again an integral part of its local community.
In the past week, two critically insightful occurrences have sharpened focus on this idea – that businesses can earn a license to lead and shape the national agenda.
First of these was the announcement last Friday by ANZ Bank that it would raise interest rates, out of step with the Reserve Bank. While Westpac followed suit shortly afterwards, ANZ captured public attention by doing it first. And very publicly. Since then, the rest of Australia’s “big four” banks have taken similar steps.
The second key event of the past week is Monday’s special feature in The Australian, listing its 50 most influential leaders in business.
Occupying top spot is Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce. Back in November Mr Joyce was pilloried for daring to ground the airline amidst ongoing union negotiations.
While not a week goes by without someone asking me whether I think it was a “PR disaster” (quite what that is I’ve never really understood), the truth of the matter is that it was a defining step in re-evaluating Australia’s industrial relations landscape.
For proof, look no further than the recent declaration from Toyota’s local head that productivity issues are doing Australia’s manufacturing landscape no favours.
Regardless of whether you think a fleet grounding, an interest rate rise or an “occupy” protest movement are good ideas, the reality is that the decision to take action in each instance has been a definitive statement of leadership.
The idea of a license to lead has been central to some of my thinking about the practice of public relations for some time, and the decisions of Mr Joyce and ANZ CEO, Mike Smith, approximate loosely to the idea of “throwing an elbow” (see here and here for references). In a turbulent, tumultuous market like the one we’re currently living in, true leadership continues to demand drastic measures. Frequently, leadership flies in the face of popular opinion and there’s a good example of that going on right now in Greece.
There’s a reason we talk about “earning” a license to lead. It’s not gifted to us either by market share, market capitalisation or market dynamics. It’s not bestowed by an independent arbiter. A license to lead is granted by like-minded organisations that see merit in an idea, an action, a vision. A license to lead is granted by a discerning customer base and challenging market conditions. A quick glance at The Australian’s Top 50 shows it to be littered with visionary, strategic leaders, whom regularly make front-page news with the power of their decisions. The question now is…who will be the next?
Disclosure: Edelman Australia has worked with a number of banks in the past, including current client PlanBig.com.au (Bendigo & Adelaide Bank). This blogger also flies quite a lot and was a little bit put out by the 2011 grounding of the Qantas fleet, however he also enjoys the Qantas butter chicken on those Melbourne-Sydney commuter shuttles. He also hopes to one day have a home loan.
As 2011 came to a close, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance on responding to unsolicited requests for off-label information, which included guidance on how to respond to requests made online. The draft guidance reiterates past guidance and compels pharmaceutical and medical device companies to adhere to existing federal regulations governing how the companies handle off-label communications.
As marketers, we must understand the ramifications of this latest draft guidance, and be clear about what it is and is not addressing. Some key points to be aware of:
One of the key take-aways for pharmaceutical and medical device companies engaging in social media, this draft guidance underscores the need for diligent monitoring and management of all social channels. Whether by internal resources or via agency partners, a monitoring and management program tied into a company’s already existing quality and customer response programs can mitigate issues before they arise.
While the intent of this guidance may be debated for some time to come, when it comes to content related to social media within the draft guidance, the FDA is clear in its language:
“This draft guidance provides FDA’s recommendations to firms wishing to respond to unsolicited requests for off-label information, including both requests made directly and privately to firms and requests made in public forums, including through emerging electronic media.”
The mention of “emerging electronic media” (EEM) does give the feel of social media guidance if we equate Twitter, Facebook YouTube and the like as EEM. But the key phrase in the sentence is in the subject: these are recommendations for companies wishing to respond to unsolicited requests for off-label information. All channels are covered: direct contact (most likely by sales representatives in the field), and other channels (electronic media included) covered by labeling and advertising regulations.
The draft guidance is one of the first from FDA to acknowledge the use of EEM as a means to respond to inquiries. Along with this acknowledgement, the most salient concern mentioned in the FDA document is the ability for information to be “broadcast” via online means, rather than in the recommended one-to-one communication outlined by the agency:
“…Because product information posted on websites and other public electronic forums is likely to be available to a broad audience and for an indefinite period of time, FDA is concerned that firms may post detailed public online responses to questions about off-label uses of their products in such a way that they are communicating unapproved or uncleared use information about FDA-regulated medical products to individuals who have not requested such information. In this circumstance, communications to persons who have not requested information may promote a product for a use or condition for which FDA has not approved or cleared. FDA is also concerned about the enduring nature of detailed public online responses to off-label questions because specific drug or device information may become outdated (e.g., new risk information may become available).”
Common sense and continued adherence to federal regulations are key when determining why, how and when companies respond to requests for information on off-label uses of approved products. Social media can and should be a part of the communications mix. However, true guidance comes from understanding existing regulations.
Image credit: JFCherry
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EdelmanDigital/~3/zJOvb8j84YE/