A question on Quora follows the track of influence, asking what exactly makes someone super influential on Twitter. Most of the responders wrote in the now familiar "social media" tone about influence not being about numbers, and how it's about real world connection and not just rankings and numbers.
I vehemently disagree. Failing to understand the power of the network effect is the single biggest mistake social media professionals make in discussing what social media is capable of. While numbers don't always lead to influence, or the actions we may we want, sheer numbers of followers is a very useful tool, especially on Twitter. Here's one of the examples I use when speaking on social networks:
You're in a room with a hundred people, and you have a microphone and a spotlight that follows you around, and no one else does. You can ask simple questions, and get answers that no one else can get, simply by virtue of the fact that you have the microphone and the spotlight.
Say I ask for a volunteer looking for a job. I know nothing about the person, but if I have the microphone, I can put the spotlight on that one person and direct the attention of the room to him. I can't vouch for him. I can't refer him with confidence. But I can point him out. That has value.
Suppose a former manager across the room knows the unemployed guy and is able to vouch for him, but they didn't know he was looking. My focus on the unemployed guy leads the guy across the room to stand up. I go over to him, and let the former manager vouch out loud to the group.
A woman up front is looking for a hire. She does not know the former manager, but knows the company he works for. His strong referral leads her to contact the unemployed person and arrange an interview.
I knew no one there. I knew nothing of any of three. I merely had a microphone and the attention of the room. And through that, I was highly influential.
And now, by the way, I have a room of 100 people who think I'm influential, who like me because I helped out others, and they are more likely to refer me and my services, even though I didn't actually have influence when I started.
By the way, that's a lot more impressive to do in person, than to read about. Get a large enough crowd and you can demonstrate it live.
What I just described happens on Twitter all of the time. The reach of large numbers of followers leads to a greater chance that the people you can reach will have the answers others in that network need. Doing so on Twitter means you can connect people quickly and with little effort, even if you have never used the account for such purposes.
If you were starting a new account, which would you rather have, 100,000 Twitter followers, or 6? Don't tell me you'd go with 6 if they were Jason Falls, Jeremiah Owyang and Brian Solis and Charlene Li and Charlie Sheen and Seth Godin. One, that ain't happening, and two, those people follow a lot of folks too, which means your message can be washed out. But with 100,000 followers, the network effect is so big, you can mold those followers into an online army of mutual benefit, especially if you start helping people in your network.
The problem we often run into in social media is trying to degrade the notion that bigger is better, despite the fact that all of us can appreciate those who have built large followings. That's a throwback the original blogger ethos, which suggested that trying to make money online was immoral (and foolish). That's just not true anymore. I'm not sure it ever was. Back in the olden days, affiliate marketers made billions of dollars gathering giant lists of our emails, many of which were bad emails, or for people that would never buy a product. And yet, those large lists allowed the affiliate marketers to play in the big leagues with major brands, ultimately getting their hands on better lists, and making even more money.
Even a bad list, if large enough, can turn into a good list if it's used properly. A small list, no matter how filled with experts, still has a more limited range. Like it or not, we don't get to work in the perfect world dreamt of by social consultants. Stating that an engaged, perfect audience made up of only interested buyers is an ideal marketing solution is a bit like saying San Diego has nice weather. Most of us don't live in San Diego, and never will.
Big matters. Bigger matters more. In our mad rush to declare social the new way to market, let's not lose sight of the, uh, bigger picture - which is that having a large network allows us access to more information and more connection than a smaller one.
Don't tell me numbers don't matter. You can say it feels icky, and you can say you're envious, and you can work to improve the content and quality. Just don't lie to yourself that getting more followers isn't a foundation for pushing the bounds of social media. It makes me think you're selling something, badly.
