ICOM (a division of Epsilon Targeting) released a new whitepaper today based on an influencer study they conducted between 2007-2009.  Obviously, we always like to see new influencer studies conducted because they greatly help support as well as inform our work.  We’ll share our thoughts in this post, but you can also download the report for yourself here (after giving ICOM your personal information)…

Overall, we didn’t find any groundbreaking results in this study, but there were definitely some very interesting insights.

One big gap in the report was ICON’s definition of an “INFLUENCER.”  There wasn’t one.  The results of the study were based on the differences between a group of “INFLUENCERS” and a group of “Random Members of the Population.”  Without knowing how they determined who belonged in the “Influencer” bucket, we’re not completely sure how to really analyze the results.

Also, it’s important to note that this study did not focus on online influencers, but instead on “influencers in general.”
With that said, here are the most interesting insights we pulled from this study:

1. INFLUENCERS ARE TALKERS.  The study showed that influential people rate high in “talkability” — they simply talk more than random people.  While the study doesn’t show it, it is natural to assume that this behavior trait would translate online, making traditional off-line influencers, active online influencers.  And vice-versa, by the way.  Often times, a person’s online influence is a proxy for his/her offline influence.  This is important to note.  The benefits of finding and engaging with online influencers are often greater than their online presence.
2. INFLUENCE IS CONTEXTUAL.  In other words, as the study says, “Influencers are category specific.”  This means that someone who is influential in the world of baby diapers is not necessarily influential in the world of auto repairs.  In some ways, this is quite obvious.  However the concept of “universal influence” is something that still holds water in general practice.  The idea that the Ashton Kutcher‘s or the Chris Brogan‘s of the world are influential across any topic area or category is something that some people still believe.  This study disproves this idea.  This “contextual-based” influence is also a fundamental belief of Traackr — we have always believed that an individual’s influence has to be related to how much he/she talks about a specific topic area (which is how we measure an individual’s RELEVANCE).  We don’t believe in “universal” influence.  It’s all contextual.
3. DEMOGRAPHICS DON’T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO INFLUENCE.  The report delivers a very interesting quote:

No demographic similarities emerged in the data; there was no skewing toward age, gender or income.  Influencers may be grandfathers or twenty-somethings, working mothers or stay-at-home dads.  They could be the well to do or the up-and-coming.

This is another very important insight.  Again, it’s a relatively obvious point, but one that is not widely practiced.  For example, some marketers are still looking to build campaigns that target “Mommy bloggers.”  This study (and we at Traackr) would argue that there is a fundamental flaw in this logic.  The only thing that “Mommy bloggers” have in common is that they are mothers and that they blog.  There is nothing to say that they (or their audiences) are interested in anything and/or everything related to babies, parenting, etc.  Some “Mommy bloggers” are interested in organic food, some in fashion, some in law, some in baby goods, and yes, some may even be interested in auto repair.  Demographics shouldn’t be a factor in an influencer campaign.  Pre-conceived notions about who may be interested in, or influential for, a particular product or topic area can only hurt the results of the campaign.  We realize it’s a hard thing to wrap one’s head around (especially for those with years of marketing experience), but the concept of “demographics” doesn’t have much place in an influencer analysis or campaign.  What matters is an individual’s Relevance to a specific topic area or subject.

That’s it for our immediate assessment of this report.  We may have more thoughts later — we’ll be sure to let you know

Tags: influencer study, research, word-of-mouth marketing

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 24th, 2010 at 8:29 pm and is filed under Influencer Discovery, We Search, We Score, We Rant. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.