Edelman’s attempts to measure social media influence by counting ‘connections’ against ‘activity’ is like me saying I’m a tissue owner manufacturer because I wipe my nose frequently (you can insert another analogy here, if you wish). Just because one Twitter’s about everything they do from the time they get up, or links to everything they’ve read during the day, or comments everywhere or just Pownce’s on everything, doesn’t mean they really have all that much influence day-to-day.

“I am” – I just Twittered.

“A” – I Twittered again.

“Twittering” – That’s me again.

“Fool!” – Twittering, that is.

Or to quote from It’s a Wonderful Life, “Get me. I’m givin’ out wings.”

It’s cute that Edelman’s Steve Rubel takes the top spot (did I mention Edelman came up with the survey?). With all of his ‘activity’ it would be hard not to climb to the top of the heap. Or as colleague David Brain comments, “Personally I think he needs to do some client work some time.”

Anecdotally, I have made some ‘connections’ through my blog, my comments, my del.icio.us links, Twitter, Facebook and recently Pownce. But do I believe that because I’ve detailed my latest lunch I have made a lasting impression? Depends on how much I weigh, I suppose.

Personally, I think influence comes from a variety of factors and doesn’t have much to do with my ‘persuading influence’ attempts through Twittering or any other social media form. I would much rather see a survey showing how someone was influenced through my actions, example and messages by measuring online and offline responses. And I’m talking lasting influence through a long term committed relationship with another person or company. Just because a person is good at typing 140 characters doesn’t mean they have that much influence to effect lasting change or force a paradigm shift.