Challenging SM Experts: It's A Numbers Game?

Chris Kieff is a pretty bright guy. In his interview about Ripple6, he mentions how he helps companies realize their marketing and business goals through social media. Smart stuff in one line.

Less likable was his recent thinking about social media experts and his reaction to the criticism and praise revolving around them. The primary reason is because it feeds the delusion that social media is a numbers game.

Social media is not a numbers game. At least, it won't be forever.

Ike Pigott once framed it up as it relates to duality and juxtaposition. It was one of my favorite posts that he wrote this year, but the discrepancy goes deeper.

Social media for business is less about getting numbers and more about finding the right numbers. The potential reach is not the entire online population but rather a fraction of the entire population, plus about 5 to 10 percent and minus competitor loyalists. And, at the same time, you have to maintain one-on-one relationships with whatever numbers there might be.

In other words, some companies can thrive with the tiniest of online networks. Others will die despite massive popular appeal.

It has been this way for hundreds and thousands of years. And I suspect it will be this way for hundreds and thousands more. Popularity is no indication of talent or expertise or sustainability. It's often an indication of someone resonating with the status quo, before someone else with an innovative idea topples them off the top with a better way or better gauge or better whatever.

Wilde. Shakespeare. Ford. Beethoven. Cervenka. Warhol. Einstein. Tesla. Lennon. Jobs. Hurley. Lombardi. Socrates. While many of us know these names as influential, none of them seemed all that influential before their influence had already made an impact. And mentioning this could be important to the conversation given that the most influential "social media expert" (if there is such a thing) could very well likely be someone who has 100 Twitter followers today, or, more than likely, hasn't even been born yet.

Companies might keep this in mind while they attempt to overlay metrics onto their decision-making process. While metrics can certainly help us get the job done, they can be equally misleading. While Kieff has a point that it is fair to expect that a so-called social media expert might be expected to participate in the platforms they profess to know, basing decisions on scoring dismisses the varied unseen approaches to this space.

There are plenty of communicators who keep their Facebook pages mostly personal. There are plenty of communicators who invest more personal time on other channels than Twitter. There are plenty of people who never bothered to join a ranking list or algorithm. And so on and so forth. Not to mention, simply participating in all of them doesn't make you an expert, even if it may give you a better understanding.

Searching for someone who understands social media.

Such a decision never starts with a short list of vendors based on nothing more than modern trophies. It starts with understanding the objectives of your business and then finding someone who can help you realize those marketing and business goals using social media or, perhaps, a much broader perspective, making social media a portion of your overall communication strategy.

Sure, I know nobody likes hearing that the answer isn't some short list of criteria. But if anybody wants to be honest, there really isn't any magic formula. If you want a sustainable social media program, all you really need are the people who will match what your company can offer to the people who are already looking for it.

Some of the most prominent and most successful social media programs today did not start with a social media expert (and some did). That alone makes the compelling case that it's not a numbers game. It's about results.

A few related posts you might find enjoyable.

• Down With the Teflon Revolutionaries.
• 9 Points On Why I’m Not a Social Media Expert.
• Let’s “De-Friend” All Self-Proclaimed Social Media Experts!

Interpreting Influence: Intuition Over Infatuation, Part 2

The reason I initially chose the title of this two-part post was to illustrate that we can be infatuated with someone, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have influence over us. I like many people online, but I don't always agree with them. And generally, the people I like, don't always agree with me either.

Our influence over each other is confined to the validity of our ideas at any given moment. And what makes that a stronger relationship, in my opinion, is mutual respect because neither of us is so enamored with each other that we fawn over every word. It's an unspoken, sometimes subconscious, connection. The ties that bind are ideas, not personality, popularity, or any other measure.

This post is part two of a two-part post. If you missed the first one, it's called Interpreting Influence: Intuition Over Infatuation, Part 1. It includes a link to an extensive education study commissioned by The Wallace Foundation. This post is an extension of my own conclusions in applying it to the discussion of online influence.

What Is Influence, Anyway?

1. A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort.
2. An individual or group's power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, position, or presentation.
3. A person who exerts influence such as friends, family, co-workers, and customers.
4. A power such as the moon and the stars, divine intervention, genetics, or law of nature.

The order of most definitions provides an insight into the meaning of the word, with the most weight being given not to people but to the ideas, actions, and reflections they make. Ideas are powerful, which is why some men with mistaken perceptions or malicious intent have worked diligently to control them.

During one of my presentations earlier this year, this became an important part of the introduction. Every innovation in communication to help messages, thoughts, and ideas spread has led to advents in how to manage, control, manipulate or snuff them out.

However, as influence applies to the concept of collective leadership, the power outlined in the leading definition is derived by a singular individual as much as it is derived from inherent truths that already exist within a public. And even individuals in definition 2 or 3 stand the best chance to succeed when they adhere to that principle.

Six Considerations Of Influence.

1. Ideas. If someone proposes a good idea, performs an action worth following, or reflects the feelings of an audience, then the idea (assuming it reaches the right mass) will be propelled forward. Consider how many ideas you have shared over the last few months and how frequently or infrequently you remember the originator of those ideas.

2. Authority. People in positions of authority have a degree of influence. A boss can set expectations. A legislative leader can pass laws. An expert might be given our attention. However, even people in positions of authority rely on the ideas they propose and the outcomes they produce. Allowing them to influence us is voluntary, even when it doesn't feel that way.

3. Persuasion. Novelty can influence us to look, but only in that it attracts our interest. The fictional Old Spice man didn't influence anyone as much as he attracted attention. It was creative, clever, and funny. Did it compel, convincing men to start using specific scented body washes? Maybe. Persuasion is powerful, but it relies on ideas to remain sustainable. (The ads also had a reward mechanism. They made us laugh.)

4. Proximity. People who are closer to us — friends, neighbors, family — can be influential, even if that influence is unseen. Over time, people tend to adopt the behaviors and beliefs of those they associate with on a regular basis, even if that proximity is not geographical. And yet, individuals don't necessarily set the stage as much as the collective of a community.

5. Popularity. Most social media measures record popularity. And while it is true that popularity can propel a message forward, giving it the reach it needs to impact more people, popularity on its own doesn't hold much influence. Consumers snub reviewers all the time to make movies into blockbusters because the collective ideas of many consumers might outweigh their popularity or authority.

6. Reinforcement. There are positive and negative reinforcements that can influence behavior. I've seen it in labs. It is one of the few actions that can trump ideas, good or bad. In a social network setting, for example, a popular person or someone with authority might influence someone to do something for a reward, whether it be affirmation or a prize (reward). As a negative reinforcement, it might be banning them from a site or the threat of diatribe (fear).

But the question I keep asking is does this type of influence come from the individual or the action itself? When I was in college, teaching mice to press a bar for water, it wasn't difficult to figure out that I did not influence the mouse. The design of the experiment and reinforcement did. (Surely, you would laugh at me for presuming I had influence over the mouse.)

What About Reputation?

Reputation fits in rather nicely. Yesterday, I mentioned that people did not march to Washington D.C. for Martin Luther King, Jr. They marched for civil rights and social equality. However, I am sure there were a few in the crowd that would have marched specifically to see him, no matter what the reason.

It seems to me, for those few, his reputation was based on not much more than the collective ideas and actions he had taken prior to that point. But what made him a great leader, much like many great leaders, is that his greatest ideas didn't make him influential. His influence — the ability to refine and reflect what was already in the American psyche — made him great.

Others, unlike King, rise to greatness only to see their ideas do not produce stated outcomes. They quickly wither. And as they wither, some of them begin to rely on other mechanisms of influence, with fear being the most commonly employed.

What's The Point, Anyway?

I don't have to be right, but what I do hope some people get out of these two posts is that real influence doesn't come from the number of followers, retweets, or any other popular online measurement. Real influence comes from something that connects two people — a shared idea (even if one person has refined it).

And while other factors, like those noted, can be influential or sometimes work in tandem, they also tend to be more fragile on their own. If you want to influence people with positive intent, the best course of action is to pay careful attention to what they already think and then refine and reflect their ideas back to them. Just don't make the mistake of believing that makes "you" an influencer. If you think that, there is a different word. It's called narcissism.

Interpreting Influence: Intuition Over Infatuation, Part 1

There are dozens of influence measures on the Web. Most of them are reliant on some sort of algorithm. There is the Fast Company measurement disaster. Klout, which suggests Mashable is more influential than the President. TweetLevel, which even places me above him too.

When it comes to understanding influence, social media has certainly taken the wrong turn in understanding it. The continued attempt to make the unimportant look important is preposterous. Influence isn't about people or clicks or retweets or even trust. It's about ideas, actions, and reflections. And there is a new study that supports this observation.

A Study In Collective Leadership.

The study doesn't come from social media. It comes from education. It took six years to complete. It's 338 pages long.

Commissioned by The Wallace Foundation and conducted by the University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, "Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning" (Hat tip: Genesis) makes this case in a different area of study.

In studying 21 different leadership styles, the researchers discovered that collective leadership by school principals led to improved student performance. Collective leadership is a style that evaluates various stakeholder points of view, and then reflects those ideas back on the people where they came from (sometimes in a refined state that goes beyond what stakeholders imagined).

In other words, people don't follow the "principal" as much as they follow their own "ideas" as refined and retold to them by the principal. Not surprisingly, this is supported by long understood empirical evidence that groups and subgroups yield better results when they have a stake in the direction.

In education, the best performing schools all have principals who observe this leadership style, alone or in concert with other styles. And what this means is that the principal's "influence" has nothing to do with the principal, but the ideas and direction they give back to their audience.

The outcome is better performing students, supported by participating parents and dedicated teachers. And, when you think about it, it might even reveal why private schools tend to perform better than public schools, even though private school teachers are paid less.

What History Teaches Us About Influence.

Apply this thinking to history and you'll find the same conclusions. When leaders first rise to power, it's often on the promise of pushing the ideas of the community to the forefront of the agenda. Unfortunately, however, once many leaders are elected or assume power, they change the paradigm. They trade community ideas in for popularity, authority, or some other agenda.

Good leaders or bad leaders, the story always plays out the same. Stalin rose to power on collective ideas from the community, but then ruled with individual authority that refused to listen anymore. So did Napoleon. So did Hitler. So did many others.

There are some who didn't mistake influence for popularity or authority alone. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, George Washington, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, Jr. all earned respect and influence because they remained committed to the collective ideas of their community. They were influential because it was never about them.

Ergo, people did not march to Washington D.C. for Martin Luther King, Jr. They marched for civil rights and social equality.

Sure, popularity or novelty can sometimes increase the reach of a message. But, at the end of the day, if the most influential person you know tells you to punch yourself in the head ten times, most people wouldn't do it, with rare exception. What exception? The same ones employed by those dark leaders mentioned — the positive or negative use of authority in the form of fear and consequence or praise and reward.

Considering Influence: Honest Conversations

Most people agree. There won't be anything worthwhile to come out of Fast Company's Influence Project. Except, perhaps, one thing.

‎"It is not the facts which guide conduct, but opinions about facts; which may be entirely wrong. We can only make them right by discussion." — Sir Norman Angell

It might have been the wrong execution, but the topic seems prime for discussion. What is influence anyway? I've written about influence plenty. Most people in social media have. And, I expect they will continue to do so.

Three Observations About Online Influence.

1. More Followers. More Influence. The general concept borrows from the old world of media measurement. Some people believe more followers equals more influence much like circulation implied more readers. It's the easiest illusion to maintain. There are even marketing and public relations companies that actively look for people who will "Like" anything or follow anyone who will follow them.

When that doesn't work, they'll buy them up in an attempt to create the illusion of popularity. Anyone looking closely can tell which accounts are which (dead accounts on autofollow, automated feed promoters, etc.), but the reality is, at a glance, most people don't know the difference. People have trained themselves to believe someone with 10,000 is better than 100.

2. More Clicks. More Influence. The second most popular prevailing thought leads right up to the Fast Company flop. More clicks, shares, retweets, etc. somehow provide a better measure of influence. Ironically, it's the second most easiest illusion to create and the cornerstone of most "influence" algorithms.

Again, some marketing firms and social media experts have taken to having a staff of 20 retweet client events, giving them an automatic boast in perception. Not surprisingly, you can buy clicks and retweets too, spreading it out among an infinite supply of unmanned accounts.

Reciprocity isn't much better. At its worst, it is a collection of people who retweet each other ad nauseum or do so because it gives them a sense of belonging to a "tribe" centered around someone else who has more reach.

3. Real Ideas. Real Influence. And then, of course, there is the least popular but most honest construct of the bunch. Ideas have more influence than people. It explains so much.

It explains Danny Brown's and my discussion after it seems I was unintentionally rough on him regarding his initial Fast Company buy in (seems he was misled, like most people). As I mentioned then, had I only read his or Amber Nusland's post, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. It was reading two posts with conflicting ideas that piqued my interest.

And so that is how it goes with influence. If one friend, even a trusted friend, suggests you read a specific book, you may or may not. But if 20 trusted friends tell you the same thing, you'll be much more inclined to read it. Unless, of course, it's a romance book and you don't read them. Why?

The ratio is pretty simple. Take any idea, plus the collective exposure and recommendations, and you might take action if you are already predisposed toward it. It's why Obama was elected president, but people are now dissatisfied. It's why people rallied behind Bush after 9-11 despite how many people didn't like him. It's why people turned out to hear Martin Luther King, Jr. speak in Washington D.C. or why JFK was such a revered figure in American history.

How Great Leaders Inspire Action.

One of my friends, Krystal Hosmer, shared a Simon Sinek video from TED after reading my Differentiate Or Die post. I think Sinek's video fits even better with this conversation. After all, what is "influence" if not "inspired action?"


What really struck me from Sinek's presentation is that it demonstrates that my unpopular position (ideas, not people, have influence) isn't exclusive to social media. It has always been that way. People tend to gravitate toward ideas. Sure, they can't gravitate to an idea unless it crosses their path.

But then again, that's the easy part of social media, assuming you have the patience to build a community without pretending to look popular or pretending to share personal interests or pimping other people's ideas in exchange for them pimping yours. Sure, all that stuff works a little bit today. But personally, I'd rather keep my subscribers smaller and streams more manageable and search for the truth in communication uninfluenced by opinions that might be wrong.

Is there a downside to this? Yes. It means there are many companies from Edelman down that cannot "influence" the game nearly as much as they think. It also means we aren't trust agents, but merely messengers of trust. At least, I like to think so. Need a little more on this subject? Read Ike Piggot's post on A Cupful of Wisdom.

Pimping URLs: The Fast Company Influence Flop

Shirley Polykoff, the first woman copywriter for Foote Cone & Belding, increased hair color sales by 413 percent in six years and expanded the market from 7 percent to 50 percent of all women. No one really knew her name, but her headlines can still be attributed to a Clairol campaign that some people remember despite not even being born yet. That is influence.

Fast Company: The Influence Project measures idiocy.

It was first brought to my attention by Amber Nusland on Brass Tack Thinking. She's one of several hundred blogs I subscribe too, many of which are in my reader as part of the Fresh Content Project. She said Fast Company confused ego with influence. (Close.)

Then, scrolling down the Fresh Content reader list, Danny Brown plugged the project as potentially valid, complete with an embedded link to add influence though he added a "non" add influence link too. He said it might reveal whether community trumps popularity. (Upsidedown.)

Those two post "influenced" me, I suppose, to find out more. This is the kind of thing that some of my clients ask about and I write about, so I don't have much choice. I joined, I pushed the links, and then something caught my eye: How We Measure.

So how do they measure?

1. The number of people who directly click on your unique link. This is the primary measure of your influence pure and simple.

2. You will receive partial "credit" for subsequent clicks generated by those who register as the result of your URL. In other words, anyone who comes to the site through your link and registers for their own account will be spreading influence while they spread theirs. That way, you get some benefit from influencing people who are influential themselves. We will give a diminishing fractional credit (1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc.) for clicks generated up to six degrees away from your original link.

Seriously? Fast Company convinced some folks to fluff up a URL pimping contest with the structure of a pyramid scheme? There is nothing worthwhile that can be gleaned from the project other than what we already know.

• Most people will never read the rules of this game.
• Many people will pimp their URLs to create the illusion of "influence."
• Some people will be disgusted, delete any links, and look for the opt out. There is none.
• Fast Company has less credibility today than it did before it rolled out its pimping contest.
• Emails from Fast Company land in my spam box. Oh, right, you probably didn't know that.

So no, Mark Borden, this is not a good weird. It's a bad weird. And with the exception of a November punchline for a joke that has already been told before, nothing remotely like research will come out of this "experiment" except perhaps a new social media superstar. And that poor soul may likely be embarrassed.

Real influence is a function of authority, credibility, and ideas. And real influence cannot be measured exclusively online.

“I'm sick of just liking people. I wish to God I could meet somebody I could respect.” — J.D. Salinger

Of course, you can discount that and accept the new explanation. It isn't an influence project. It's an editorial investigation. Ironically, all the lead up to the explanation is supposedly tied to an experiment I ran months ago.

Obsessing Over Influencers: Six Influencer Styles From Psychology

Foresight Research, a Rochester, Michigan, based market research firm specializing in automotive research, has released some findings from its study influence of the Internet and social media on automotive purchase decisions. What they found won't surprise anyone involved in social media.

In 2009, 86 percent of all new vehicle buyers used the Internet in their new vehicle purchase process. Of those who used the Internet, 90 percent compared vehicles and pricing while 83 percent checked for incentives. Thirteen percent would also share some form of social networking to share information about their purchase.

"What's interesting is that the information and advice given on social networking sites typically comes from automotive 'shouters,'" said Steve Bruyn, president of Foresight Research. "[They're a] thin slice of the population that is most acutely familiar with the latest vehicle models, offerings and options – these are the people that influence other folks' automotive purchases."

According to Bruyn, the most influential car buyers offer vehicle recommendations on social networking sites (29 percent) and use the Internet regularly (93 percent). At t a glance, the common conclusion is that if a firm or dealer can pinpoint, cater to, and influence influencers (or shouters as Bruyn calls them; trust agents as Chris Brogan calls them), it will lead to more sales.

But is that all that is going on? We don't think so. Not all influencers are the same. Not all influencers are created equal.

Six Influencer Behavior Styles And What They Might Mean.

In psychology, influence has always been among the more favored tracks of research. Here are just a few things that most people already know about influence within social media.

• Reciprocity. People tend to return favors. Those who share other people's ideas, opinions and work often have their ideas, opinions and work shared in return. Reciprocity is discussed often enough.

• Commitment. When people commit to something, they are more likely to honor that commitment. In other words, if they become engaged on a blog or social network page like Facebook, then they are much more likely to share positive information. Social media always underscores commitment over campaigns.

• Social Proof. People tend to follow groups. If a group of people join a social network, then other people are likely to follow. Just like nature, people are predisposed to follow order and conform. The illusion of popularity tends to pop up here as a topic from time to time.

• Authority. People generally follow authority figures, which tend to be established by rank, position, or mass of followers. Even if people are asked to do something unethical, they are likely to do so if they are ordered. Right now, people have a diminishing opportunity to build authority from nothing with social media.

• Liking. People are much more easily persuaded by people they like. Popularity, personality, and niceness can go a long way in establishing a following. While outbursts and contrarians tend to get short-term attention, likable people tend to be believed more readily. Popularity or the perception of being popular tend to be a social media obsession.

• Scarcity. When something is only available for a limited time, can only be provided from a limited source, or even when attention is granted by an influencer in high demand, then the product, information, or personal attention tends to have the perception of increased value. Increased value means increased demand. Exclusive content, with enough lift from followers, will help you gain exposure as an early adopter.

Sure, some people might think I just plucked some of the more popular social media advice off the net to make this list. I didn't. It's really the other way around.

The "Six Weapons of Influence" were never written with social media in mind. They were established by Robert B. Cialdini, who focused on real world influence, and relied on historic case studies within the field of psychology.

Whether these ideas were inserted into social media because some experts rediscovered them or stole them outright may likely never be known. They've become embedded in the foundation of social media. Still, the real takeaway is another layer deep.

Marketers hoping to tap into influencers are best served by understanding the backgrounds of the social media influencers they hope to attract and weigh it against cultivating their own. Did these influencers gain favor because they did favors for others? Seem always present online? Attract the attention of an established group? Enter the scene with a perceived authority? Are genuinely nice, fun, and helpful? Were privy to information that no one else had? Was it a combination of several?

If you want to know, take a look at the top five individuals from the locked down list at Ad Age Power 150: Seth Godin, Chris Brogan, Lee Odden, Brian Solis, and Andy Beal.

Do you know which paths each of them followed to establish the authority and/or the popularity they seem to have now? We do. Do you know which methods are most sustainable for you (as opposed to them)? What about those who quickly climbed the list or, in other cases, vanished? What about those who never bothered to be added (there are dozens)? Have you ever considered them?

These represent only a few of the questions marketers or public relations professionals need to ask before reaching out to influencers within specific spheres. After all, if you don't know how they became an influencer, there is little chance you'll be able to relate to them on their terms. And, in some cases, you might even find they don't really know anything about the spheres they talk about, leaving your company exposed to very random assessments. In other words, don't follow mere shouters.

Studying Influence: Epsilon Targeting

Last year, we suggested what real influence might mean. This year, ICOM, a division of Epsilon Targeting, conducted a study that reveals much the same: there is no universal influencer and there are few commonalities exist within demographics for influencers.

Really? Well, there are some characteristics. Influencers, online or offline, tend to make recommendations more often. Forty-five percent of influencers will always recommend brands they like compared to only 36 percent of consumers. Fifty-six percent of influencers believe people follow their advice compared to 45 percent of consumers. The summary concludes that the primary difference is that influencers are talkers, primarily propped up by the frequency they talk.

Key Points From The ICOM Influencer Study.

• Consumers are influencers strictly within product categories, not across them all.
• Few commonalities exist with influencers across gender, age, income and channel.
• Influencers have a tendency to talk a lot in person — at the table, in the aisle, and on the phone.
• Marketers need to understand influencer behaviors as much as demographics or channels.
• Influencers are best engaged across multiple channels (online and off), not just one.
• Influencers are highly motivated to provide feedback to brands and manufacturers.
• Influencers like to be the first to try new products so they can give their opinions.

The ICOM study reminds me of another study conducted by Pollara, a Canadian-based public opinion and research firm. It found nearly 80 percent of people said they were at least somewhat likely to consider buying products based on real-world friends and family, but only 23 percent reported they would at least be somewhat likely to purchase a product by 'well-known bloggers.'

"This shows that popularity doesn't always equate to credibility," said Robert Hutton, executive vice president and general manager at Pollara said then. "Marketers might have to reconsider who the real influencers are out there."

The difference is in the intent. One of the most compelling parts of the study suggests 68 percent of social network participants use tools to connect to friends. The remainder, which includes most influencers, use social media tools to be heard. So much for two-way communication.

Experts and businesses are working too hard to be heard, honestly.

We see the ICOM study differently. Marketers don't necessarily have to find influencers as much as they need to help create them, and not by measuring popularity. As mentioned last week, branding is a function of relationships. Influence is equally reliant on relationships.

An online influencer who is privy to reviewing the latest product releases only maintains any semblance of influence as long as they are privy to being the first source of information. An online influencer who writes for a major publication, such as The New York Times, only has influence as long as they write for The Times. A company that relies on establishing a brand culture, only succeeds as long as it remains unwavering in its support of that culture.

When the relationship shifts, such as a self-proclaimed influencer exchanging dialogue for one-way communication because they cannot keep up, they experience a decline in popularity unless they successfully shift to a new relationship. Some can. Some cannot. (This is the very reason MyBlogLog began to fail shortly after being bought by Yahoo. The relationship changed and participants didn't accept the new paradigm.)

The point to consider here is simple enough. Influencers need to understand the relationship they have with people if they hope to retain the moniker (whether they really influence anything at all). And marketers need to reconsider how they think of influencers because social media "experts" aren't hand soap "experts." In fact, among hand soap consumers, they don't even exist beyond being busy talkers.

Attracting Attention: Public Relations Specialists

"A good advertisement is one which sells the product without drawing attention to itself." — David Ogilvy

I included a slide in my visual presentation for Writing for Public Relations tonight that not all public relations professionals will appreciate. It defines a public relations specialist as "an online celebrity for a company" and attributed it to prevailing thought.

I don't really believe that is what a public relations specialist is, mind you. But the concept seems to be clouding some industry thinking.

It has been a little less than a year since Geoff Livingston launched an Anti-Fan Movement, which addressed much of the same. While he believes like I do, that every company has stars, the "personal brand" can come with a cost to an organization. And, if public relations embraces the concept full on, it may come at a cost to the profession.

If popularity is a primary measure of professional prowess, then what makes Kim Kardashian different than David Armano, who Arik Hanson used as an example against my caution that public relations firms might think twice about what Lee Odden called "brandividual."

Personally, I think anyone who has read Armano for any length of time knows that popularity played very little into Edelman Digital's decision to hire him. It's Armano's work that stands out. And he has long maintained a "we" approach to social media.

From "me" to "we" and back again.

Don't misunderstand me. Hanson raised an interesting question: is it more beneficial for a public relations firm to have a "firm" blog or "individual" blogs? Of course, it also struck me as very similar to a conversation I've been having with Karthik S, who is head of digital strategy, Edelman India (coincidently).

However, when I think back to early prevailing social media concepts as it relates to public relations over the years, part of the initial concept was to move from "me" to "we" thinking — collaboration, consensus, and teamwork with everyone, colleagues and clients included (some of it was even spooky). Brandividual seems to move too much in the opposite direction for mainstream adoption.

The answer is found in balance. The question starts with intent.

For public relations firms, the discussion to have a blog or not, whether or not that blog belongs to the firm or individuals, whether or not that blog is authored by teams or individuals, and what content to include, is really a question of communication intent.

If you can determine the intent of the communication, then you'll likely answer all those other questions. And many different firms will find many different answers. As for the rest, the work will stand on its own as long you don't make your ideas a slave to popularity.

“I'm sick of just liking people. I wish to God I could meet somebody I could respect.” — J.D. Salinger