Back in '99, The Cluetrain Manifesto said that markets were nothing more than conversations and message-based marketing was the ''Anti-conversation". In light of this it insisted that companies should converse directly with 'we'- the people, if they wanted to communicate.
Since then the popularity of social media and networking sites like MySpace and Facebook has indeed mushroomed exponentially. Rapidly, we are seeing these media overshadow the 'old' media, as consumers turn to each other for the content-creation and conversation that these applications allow. In fact, this year saw the first ever user-generated marketing awards!
So what does this mean for us?
It used to be our job to inform people about new brands, products and services, but now people are increasingly turning to user-generated content and reviews to inform their purchasing decisions and opinions. Interestingly though, our research showed that it is only 8% of the UK online population that are uploading the content that the others consume, exchange and talk about.
We agree with the precept that markets are conversations, but what are people basing their conversations on? We decided to dig a little deeper and find out more about these informers of the people... what drives them to do what they do and what potential influence do they have both online and offline?
We have summarised an initial interpretation of our findings (see pdf) and are keen to kick off a conversation around these ideas...
Its a great point, and we battled for ages what to call this group. The definition for Uploaders are people who regularly contribute content (e.g. video, blogs, photos, reviews) to the Internet. So they are the core group fuelling social media.
But if 'Uploaders' defines their activity, 'Digital Influencers' defines their value to marketers. Our research showed that uploaders more connected and influential than people who do not upload content. So it's their influence not their size (8%) which makes them of interest.
Posted by: James Clifton | June 22, 2007 at 07:18 AM
Nice POV. Though I feel that the uploader label sounds clinical and isn't the most accurate (not all uploaders actually upload)—and links which don't require media are the currency. Infuencers as a label seems broader. What exactly is the difference in your mind between an uploader and influencer? Is one a subset of the other?
You might be interested in this visual—it's kind of related:
http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2006/08/influence_rippl_1.html
Posted by: David Armano | June 22, 2007 at 12:27 AM
This is thin stuff. "There is increasing buzz around buzz." Oh, come on. You guys need to realise that online identity in the form of a MySpace or Facebook profile is as much content as anything someone might 'upload'. Furthermore, microblogging a la Twitter is the tip of the ice-burg. When 'uploaders' include those who are happy to blog in just 140 characters (many more than the blessed 8% I daresay), that's when you will see what social media is really capable of.
Posted by: Mike Butcher | June 18, 2007 at 05:54 PM
IMHO it is just another way of 'soft selling'
Marketing needs to use the latest and most effective ways of communication.
I believe that marketing = communication
Posted by: Mirek mirpo Polyniak | June 18, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Ben - you are right too. Uploaders just like other "consumers" (or better, people) should be treated with respect. And I suspect both of us do belong to this group of "narcissistic"/fame seeking people (Rish -to your point, I am in marketing)- so there was no any loathing in my post. And one should be pretty thick not to realise he/she is being used for commercial gain, no matter how subtle it is...
Posted by: Ozoda Muminova | June 18, 2007 at 01:25 PM
Interesting findings. Two questions spring to mind:
1) What are the occupations of this 8%? How many of them are in what we might call 'media' or 'marketing' or 'web/internet' jobs?
2) 'Engaging' them - doesn't this mean the resurrection of the Avon lady and the Tupperware (or indeed Ann Summers) parties?
Posted by: Rish | June 18, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I have no doubt that Ozoda is right... BUT. As soon as the Uploaders realise you think they are ego-driven and that you are using their advocacy for commercial gain, the wholde thing disintegrates. Yes, these people have influence. However, they must be treated with respect.
Posted by: Ben | June 18, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Good insights, thank you! In addition, in order to be able to connect to "uploaders", we need to recognise (or test the hypothesis), that most of them are narcissistic creatures searching online for fame. Therefore, any brand activity should appeal to this trait, vigorously massaging their egos and making them look good or famous in return for brand advocacy. Why do you think Mac users are such ardent advocates? Because they think that owning a Mac puts them somewhat above the rest, making life very easy for marketers...
Posted by: Ozoda Muminova | June 18, 2007 at 09:45 AM