I came across an entry on TomsTechBlog entitled “Influencers of the Tipping Point,” which linked to the more bluntly titled Valleywag article “Why sponsoring bloggers is a waste of money.” The short version of the story is thus: Seagate sponsored critically acclaimed techblogger/habitual overenthusiast Robert Scoble only to see their stock drop 35% in price since. In Valleywag’s world, correlation equals causation I suppose.
Valleywag goes on to declare that since the mighty Robert Scoble was unable to save the embattled commodity hardware producer from a stock price drop, it must be because influencer marketing does not work; pardon me while I roll my eyes in feign disgust at the predictable lack of intellectualism over at Valleywag. They go on to cite a study which tells us the obvious: people believe in the word-of-mouth power of their friends over the WOM power of a blogger by several orders of magnitude.
Influencer marketing is not dead, folks; it’s alive and well. Let me shed some light on this:
The Seagate example is stupid
What do Robert Scoble and Seagate have in common? What’s Robert’s message? What’s Seagate’s message? The first person that can answer all of these questions wins a slot in the Marketing Ninja hall of fame, because I sure as hell can’t.
Here’s the big problem with this Seagate example: the vast majority of Seagate’s consumers are completely unaware that they’re even using a Seagate product, and even if they did they wouldn’t care.
So how is sponsoring a prominent techblogger, especially Scoble, going to help make Seagate’s case to customers? The problem is mostly Seagate, some Scoble. Seagate’s in a commodity business and it has an exceptionally challenging task of differentiating itself from every other hard drive manufacturer. In addition Seagate should be trying to market itself to PC manufacturers, not end-consumers and tinkerers like the sort who would read Scobelizer.
Generally speaking I think blind sponsorship of anything is laughably stupid - what’s the point of having people see your logo and other branded materials if there isn’t a readily identifiable point to it?
Influencers are effective only on common ground
Influencers, whether they are prominent bloggers, noted industry experts, or journalists, are effective for the purposes of marketing only when they find common ground with your company and their audience. I can’t disclose the details (my employer is a stickler about privacy) but we’ve been working very closely with an influencer who has a common message with us: make better presentations using good visuals. Our software can be used to sculpt effective visuals and our influencer sells many books and courses on the art of giving good presentations with good visuals.
We have a good working relationship; he has been selling more books and we have been selling more software as a result of this influencer-sponsor relationship. Why is ours working so well but Seagate’s failed? Because we have a common message between us and each other’s audiences that is visible to the naked eye.
It takes a potential customer around two lines of marketing copy to see the connection, and it sells. What our influencer does is lend credibility to our message about using our software to prepare visuals, and in turn we offer our influencer a tool to help his audience implement his own advice.
The ripple effect
The study that Valleywag cited is correct: people trust the word of mouth of their friends over bloggers by orders of magnitude; however, if a blogger has an audience of several thousand and converts even a small percentage of that audience to become evangelists for the sponsor there’s a potential to create a penetrating effect within the converted audience’s sphere of contacts. It’s the ripple effect - positive or negative referrals from just one person can precipitate a sizeable number of residual sales.
As we have learned time and time again, just because the sales immediately following a sponsorship activity are do not yield net profit does not mean that the residuals won’t. In some instances the volume of residuals can be much higher than the initial sales themselves.
So the lesson here is thus: influencer marketing works, but you need to have a single, common message that is clear to the intended audience. It may not always work, but influencer marketing is by no means dead.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments 3
I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one.
Without knowing the details of your particular deal I can’t tell for sure but it sounds to me like the person your company is working with is actually using your product. If that’s the case I’m not sure I’d consider that person an “influencer” under the common definition of “someone who influences merely by suggestion.” If a person is actually giving a demo, even if it’s given during an unrelated presentation, I think I’d consider that person more of a salesman (which is something I completely agree with).
But I will agree on one point, the Valleywag article is stupid. Even if Stock price was a valid indicator of a company’s overall health (it isn’t) you can’t necessarily fault marketing for the success of failure of a company. Beyond that there’s the question of their choice of sponsor. I’m actually one of the (seeming) few who actually have respect for at least some of what Scoble’s done but I can’t say I’ve met, spoken to or read the blog of many others who think highly of him. I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who thinks highly of his technical acumen.
Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 9:24 pm ¶The reality is in their rush to hire a spokesperson, any spokesperson, they lost sight of the 3M’s (no, I don’t mean they forgot their post it notes) but the 3M’s which may very well be replacing the 4P’s
* Market
* Message
* Media
For any campaign, now more then ever these three elements must be in alignment.
Where did the Seagate go wrong? Not all IT people are bloggers, and not all bloggers are hardware junkies. Robert Scoble was the perfect fit for a campaign to promote blogging software, but not the hardware that runs it.
Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 5:29 am ¶@Lorraine,
I’m in agreement with you, Lorraine. Seagate did not have common ground (as I put it;) their 3M’s were clearly out of alignment (as you succinctly put it.) Blogging as a media may be fine for Seagate but they certainly got the other two M’s wrong.
@Tom,
It’s a shame that I can’t talk about this at length but I’ll give you the short version: essentially the influencers we’ve identified are acting as spokesmen for us and we’re both providing a consistent message to an active audience.
They aren’t salesman in that they’re actively pitching our software, but rather they’re saying that our software is an example of something that can handle a lot of the legwork in key areas of presentation design. It’s a bit more passive than direct selling and the best part is that it’s authentic: if the influencers we identified didn’t like our product or didn’t think it was suitable for their audience then they wouldn’t even mention it. I guess in that sense it’s a bit different than a sponsorship - if our product isn’t convincing enough to turn our own influencers into believers then we don’t pursue an outward-facing relationship.
I think Scoble is a nice guy, but I wouldn’t pick him as an influencer. He’s a bit too enthusiastic, too impulsive, and I think a lot of his audience feels that way too.
Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 8:43 am ¶Post a Comment