This is a portion of a talk given at BlogWorld L.A. 2011. The other portion was given by Chuck Hemann of Edelman Digital. The objective of this presentation was to create a dialog around the fact that there are different 'types' of objectives revolving around influence marketing and that activities should be approached with that in mind. In particular, advocacy and the creation/management of advocate programs isn't getting near enough attention vs. programs focused on 'mass influencers'

1. GIVING SUBSTANCE TO
ONLINE
INFLUENCE
MATT RIDINGS - @TECHGUERILLA
EXCERPTED FROM TALK AT BLOGWORLD L.A. 2011
Giving Substance To Online Influence. From BlogWorld L.A. 2011. I should mention that I put this talk together
the day of the speech as I worked through the concept. My hope was to incite discussion around the topic and
have the audience look at influence from a different angle than we’ve taken to date. So you’ll have to excuse the
fact that it’s not as polished and refined as I’d like.

2. WE
N O LO N G E R
SURF THE WEB
@TECHGUERILLA
Let’s start with the concept that we no longer surf the web.

3. WE
SHAPE THE WEB
@TECHGUERILLA
We now shape the web. We are shifting more and more to a
curated economy of ideas. Instead of roaming the
internet via search engine results we now increasingly let our
tweetstreams and facebook updates guide what we experience on
is driven, and
the internet and how. This curation
filtered by the influence of those around
us.

4. THEPREMISE
@TECHGUERILLA
As we look at the way ‘influence marketing’ is being done in the marketplace, we’re treating it like it’s one ‘thing’
when in fact, like most activities, it has multiple purposes.

5. AWARENESS
V
ACTION
@TECHGUERILLA
Two of those big buckets of intent are ‘awareness’ vs. ‘action’.

6. ADVERTISING
V
MARKETING
@TECHGUERILLA
This is similar to the distinction of activities between advertising and marketing. I’ve always described Advertising
as being about the *creation* of potential whereas Marketing is about the *realization* of that potential.

7. WHERE
CONVERSIONS
ARE CONCERNED
@TECHGUERILLA
As we look at these two different buckets two things become pretty clear. Where conversions are concerned....

8. WE’RE DOING IT
WRONG
@TECHGUERILLA
we’re doing it wrong.

9. TREE
LOGIC
IF-> THEN->ELSE
As I thought how to try and present what is a very nuanced concept, that is going to be difficult to accept, I
thought a logic tree approach would be appropriate. So join me on this ride, open your mind a bit, and on the
items that you disagree with we’ll attack those in Q&A so bear with me.

10. 1
@TECHGUERILLA
WE ARE
EQUALS
(Watts and Dodds, JCR, 2007)
First, and the most difficult item to accept at face value, is that where the ability to influence the spread of content
is concerned, we are all equals. The guy with the Klout score of 20 is just as able to trigger a cascade of
information as the one with a Klout score of 70. Tough to believe, and this may seem counter-intuitive at first
glance.

11. 1
MORE ACCURATELY WE
REPRESENT THE SAME
POTENTIAL
@TECHGUERILLA
Perhaps it’s easier to accept if framed as “we all represent the same *potential* to be influential”

12. 2
@TECHGUERILLA
CONTEXT IS
REL ATIVE
Secondly, and if you’re still with me, we need to talk about the nature and importance of context. First off,
context is *relative*. The meaning and importance of what is being said, and how it is received is completely
dependent upon the context of the environment. For example....

13. 2
SAYING “I’M SORRY”
AND SAYING
“I APOLOGIZE”
MEAN THE SAME THING...
@TECHGUERILLA ~DEMETRI MARTIN
Saying “I’m sorry and I apologize mean the same thing”....

14. 2
SAYING “I’M SORRY”
AND SAYING
“I APOLOGIZE”
MEAN THE SAME THING...
UNLESS YOU’RE AT A
FUNERAL
@TECHGUERILLA ~DEMETRI MARTIN
Unless you’re at a funeral

15. 2
@TECHGUERILLA
CONTEXT IS
FLUID
Also, contextual relevance of influence is *fluid*. What is influential one day, may not be the next depending
upon the context.

16. 2
@TECHGUERILLA
JOE THE PLUMBER
FLUID
If your sink is clogged then that plumber you know all of a sudden has a great deal of influence.

17. 2
@TECHGUERILLA
CONTEXT
CONVERTS
Lastly, Contextual relevance converts. Being at the immediate point of need, with a solution to that need creates
alignment that converts.

18. CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE
2
•RELATIVE
•FLUID
•CONVERTS
@TECHGUERILLA
So, if context is relative, fluid, and converts. Then...

19. 2
@TECHGUERILLA
CONTEXT IS
KING
Context is king. Great content, delivered at the wrong time and environment, is useless.

20. 3
A C A M PA I G N BY
DEFINITION IS
PLANNED IN
ADVANCE
@TECHGUERILLA
Now. A campaign by definition has to be planned in advance. You need a list of people to market to. You have to
define and filter who you want to target and the message that you want to deliver to them.

21. 3
@TECHGUERILLA
BUT..
IF CONTEXT IS
RELATIVE & FLUID
But, if context is relative and fluid then true contextual relevanceis necessarily ‘real-time’.

22. 3
AND INFLUENCE
SCORES ARE
TRAILING
INDICATORS
@TECHGUERILLA
Klout and other influence scores on the other hand are static snapshots of the past. Klout is like ROI in that it is a
trailing indicator. It tells me something about yesterday, but not necessarily predictive about tomorrow (because
as we’ve established, being predictive about what is fluid and changing in real-time is nigh impossible). This will
improve over time as the topical influence indicators of Klout, et al improve to a more granular level but will still
never reach that ideal state of identifying at the point of need.

23. 3
PROACTIVE
+
TRAILING
=C T I V E
INEFFE
@TECHGUERILLA
The desire to be proactive (campaigns) is in direct conflict with influence measures because influence measures
are not (currently) predictive enough.

24. 4
NEED
NEW
APPROACH
@TECHGUERILLA
So we need a new mindset, a new approach.

25. FOCUSON
THE
INFLUENCED
@TECHGUERILLA
We need to focus on the *influenced*, not the influencer.

26. AD VO CATES
N O T
INFLUENCERS
@TECHGUERILLA
We need advocates, not influencers. Why? Why do it this way?

27. FIND
EASY
TO
@TECHGUERILLA
The influenced are easy to find because you can listen and find them at the point of need.

28. ENGAGE
EASY
TO
@TECHGUERILLA
They are easy to engage because that point of need opens a door, and because they were being influenced by
someone else there is implied trust that we are borrowing upon. We are not having to gain trust in advance, we
are simply leveraging existing trust.

29. BUILD
EASY
TO
@TECHGUERILLA
They are easy to grow, incent, and motivate to a mutually beneficial relationshiop....a true advocate

30. MENTAL
SHIFT
@TECHGUERILLA
This is less about the *activities* that we undertake than it is the mental outlook on the customer. We are still
focused on ‘influencers’ it’s just that a focus on advocate development carries with it a focus on the long term
relationship, which we are currently failing at pretty badly.

31. DON’T BUILD
LISTSBUILD
RELATIONSHIPS
@TECHGUERILLA
You don’t build lists, you build relationships.

32. DON’T THINK
CAMPAIGNS
THINK
EVOLUTION
@TECHGUERILLA
You don’t think campaigns, which are short term efforts with end dates. You think evolution. How can I evolve
this relationship over the entire customer lifecycle.

33. DON’T
LEVERAGE
INFLUENCERSCREATE
ADVOCATES
@TECHGUERILLA
You don’t ‘leverage’ influencers (which is push), you create advocates out of the ‘influenced’ (which is pull) and
scales more easily over time.

34. YOU
THANK
@TECHGUERILLA
Some really great Q&A took place in the post discussion. One of the primary concerns of the agencies in the room
was that the long term approach is great, but they may not be involved with the client for the long term so this
presents some resourcing and engagement model challenges. My response to this is pretty simple, if not
satisfactory to some. I believe you always focus on what’s the *best* thing to do for the customer first and then
structure your business and the engagement *around* that to monetize it. Trying to avoid the most effective
thing for your customer just because your business doesn’t currently do it that way is a recipe for going out of
business in my opinion because someone *will*, and your clients as they evolve and become more educated will
*demand* it. You can choose to lead your customer or have them lead you (or leave you).