Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

Influence is not as influential as influencers believe it to be, was the novel, but somewhat convoluted sounding, counter theory of influence presented by Columbia University Professor of Sociology Duncan Watts at the Audience Measurement 2.0 conference presented by the Advertising Research Foundation in New York City today.

Watts and Peter Sheridan Dodds have researched “Influentials, Networks and Public Opinion Formation,” and present their findings in the Journal of Consumer Research:

A central idea in marketing and diffusion research is that influentials—a minority of individuals who influence an exceptional number of their peers—are important to the formation of public opinion. Here we examine this idea, which we call the “influentials hypothesis,” using a series of computer simulations of interpersonal influence processes. Under most conditions that we consider, we find that large cascades of influence are driven not by influentials but by a critical mass of easily influenced individuals. Although our results do not exclude the possibility that influentials can be important, they suggest that the influentials hypothesis requires more careful specification and testing than it has received.

A central question for Watts is “How does influence between individuals aggregate over many people to produce “collective” behavior? In simpler terms, “Who says what to whom and to what effect?”

Watts seeks to dispel conventional wisdom that “a minority of exceptional people,” opinion leaders, are responsible for influencing everyone else.

The “traditional” influentials hypothesis is appealing, Watts said, because it offers an easily understandable formula: Influence the influencers and everyone else will follow. The real world is not so clear cut, Watts nevertheless cautioned. After all, how many Oprah Winfreys really are there, Watts underscored.

Watts is a proponent of a “network view of influence propagation.” From a simple logistical perspective, the reach of individuals is generally limited. Watts believes influencers are only “modestly effective.”

For Watts, “network structure” is a determining factor for whether or not influence can spread widely. Given an appropriate network environment, “anyone can start something,” Watts said. When influence “cascades” are possible, influentials may trigger larger cascades, but only to a modest degree.

The bottom influence line, according to Watts:

Influence is propagated not by a few “special” individuals who influence everyone else, but by many easily influenced individuals influencing other, easily influenced individuals.

The cascade creates the influentials, not the other way around.

In other words, anyone can be an “accidental influential” at any point in time because who is influential is largely an accident, Watts said.

The takeaways for marketers are:

1) Because the network is not a property of any individual, seeding average groups may be more effective than attempting to “influence” exceptional individuals, and

2) Focus on reaching easily influenced individuals, not influentials.

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN