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.
Last updated by at .
Spread the Word - Like and/or share this page, your friends will also love it and thanks for it.
Fully agree that it’s WAY too early to be measuring social media influence. What I see going on is people fiddling with all these new social media technologies and platforms trying to figure out ways to actually utilize them — like inventors or tinkerers looking for ways to apply the science and in the market-driven economies we inhabit, applied means “monetized.”
Problem is that many of the forms never existed and that has stood the old “form follows function” maxim on its head. The function in many cases hasn’t even been imagined and you’ve got people playing with these forms ad infinitum trying to figure out what to do with them.
Because some of them are incessantly tinkering with the new media platforms, does that make them more “influential”? Only if they come up with real killer applications of the technology … maybe with all the tinkering, they will. But, for now, spending endless hours twittering and powncing just means … they’ve got a lot of time on their hands.
The idea that the *quality* of your interactions can be measured with a tool like that one seems pretty far-fetched. I like the idea that it in some way acknowledges that some people are stretching beyond a single platform to communicate with others.
Just because I’m a serial joiner of social networking sites doesn’t mean I’m worthy of being #27 on the list. I’ll take the momentary attention, but I don’t rate myself as more influential than hundred of other bloggers I respect who don’t show up on the list.