This post was sparked by reading and interview with Tina Wells, chief executive officer and founder at Buzz Marketing Group, that Diego Vasquez had on Media Life about marketing to millennials.
First off, I think most of this is right on. I especially like the age group of 8-26. It seems no one agrees on how old a millennial is…but that is another post.
“I just believe that Millennials have more influence. The pop culture influence of Millennial-driven media (for example, “Gossip Girl” and “The Hills”) is huge. It’s the influence to purchase that is really huge with this demographic.”
The current idea of influence is misleading. Influence is always attached to the influencer not the influencee.
If we attach influence to the influencee we get one fundamental shift. It makes influence a finite quantity. Only as much influence exists among a target audience as it takes to get them all to act.
This also shatters the Klout score model. Influence isn’t a number assigned to actions it is a percentage of a target’s capacity to be influenced.
This reasoning means that we don’t evaluate Elle magazine an influencer score based on Klout, site traffic, # of Facebook followers, etc. Instead we would look at it from a buyers perspective and determine if Elle magazine would deliver a message about Aveda products it would move a member of our target x% closer to buying Aveda products. Now we can assign percentages differently to Elle’s print advertising, Facebook page, the fashion editors twitter feed, etc.
It also gives us a measurable goal. We are trying to move our target toward 100% influence in order to take action.
Does anybody have thoughts on measuring influencers differently?