Saturday, 9 January 2010

Social integration: I = (NC)2

Social media integration is getting bigger and better these days.
LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Yammer, they're all interconnected somehow

From within Twitter, for example, you can update other social networks by using socalled hashtags. For instance, #fb will trigger Facebook, #in will update LinkedIn, and #yam will go into Yammer

Just the other day I saw a Tweet from @armano who was updating Twitter and LinkedIn at the same time: "Want to join Edelman?". A very clever move actually, as David was letting know his 23+K Twitter followers as well as his 500+ LinkedIn connections at the same time that his new company is looking for new people
(It was Michael Krempasky who started the tweet, but David was the first to spread it to LinkedIn simultaneously)

His Tweet was seen. And retweeted. With the #in hashtag in most cases, causing the people who did that, to update their own LinkedIn status at the same time
Tweetreach is a fantastic tool to see the impression a certain tweet made. Here's this particular tweet's reach: 94,355 people via 50 tweets. Which is awesome of course! But not counting the LinkedIn or Facebook reach...

8 People retweeted David's tweet with the #in hashtag, one decided to even change it to the Facebook #fb hashtag, making that 2 in total. Jeff Shuey, Mark Evertz and Sameer Patel are good for way over a thousand connections on LinkedIn together. Given the relatively static aspect of LinkedIn updates, this message might still be on their LinkedIn status, making it impossible to know how many people got -and still will get- this message in the very, very end.

This is what I call I = NC2. Influence = (Networks * Constituents)2

In a social network, the more value you add, the more people willingly and actively connect to you. The more people connected to you, the more influence you have. If you are in multiple networks, the same principle applies there.
But thanks to integration, a single effort on one network will lead to multiple others on other networks. And every single one of those might do the same. Einstein would be amazed, and very pleased.
Note: this people-influence correlation was perceived by others, and at some point cause and effect, means and goal, were swapped. Tweeps started collecting connections aka the numbers game to become as valued as their idols. This is frowned upon, at least by me. A connections collector will look impressive on the outside, but be hollow and shallow on the inside. People will find out, and they will end up #failing

I call it the botox of social media: blowing up yourself will cost and impact you dearly, and not last very long
And beware: initially a lot cheaper than plastic surgery IRL, it will brand people forever as a smore. And cost more than a fortune in the end

With the current integration of social media networks, Peter Dizikes might have to rewrite his article on the butterfly effect
One tweet might very well reach -and -influence- hundreds of millions of people within a matter of seconds...

And, very soon, we'll have to deal with the Reply-to-All effect as networks are becoming mutually connected: LinkedIn connecting back to Twitter is already a fact, and others will quickly follow. But that's for another blog, maybe

4 reacties:

Rick Mans said...

You really should put 'attention' in the equation ;). since that is one of the key elements in the ability of creating value. Without attention any creation of value is useless.

Also you might want to take the contacts of the people in your network into account since these might be important as well to calculate influence (so use the reach of three network layers). Also because of the overlap in network of people. Reputation might also be a parameter to be considered, although it might correlate with attention.

It would make the equation in something like:

Influence = Reputation * Attention * Networks * Three network layers reach

(Or to write it shorter: I = RANT ;)).

Martijn Linssen said...

Thanks Rick!

Very good post yourself there, we all crave for attention indeed. A lot of people will follow "celebs" just because that makes them feel bigger and better, "part of the crowd"

Attention is very important indeed. Influenced by your own reputation. I think there's a nice relation between those

The three network layers is really what makes it all exponential

Darn. I was pleased with the simple Albert-equation ;-)

Anish said...

I suspect its a sum acorss a weighted matrix :-)

Paula Thornton said...

I'm torn on the 'attention' term (because of it's typical use/misuse), but believe that it points to a relevant issue for consideration. Some aspect of 'presence' or 'got the message'. Short of that, some aspect of 'typical connectedness' would be relevant (e.g. how often someone is 'in the water').

I'm also torn on the 'reputation' term because it effectively masks two more relevant dimensions 'reach' and 'trust'. How relevant these latter become depends on the topic and the channels that the individual can and does leverage. Which really lends itself to another dimension missing from 'attention' which is 'action'. I might have all of the rest of the stuff, but I don't 'act' on sharing.

Post a Comment

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Copy your comment before signing in...