In a recent blog on Forbes, Haydn Shaughnessy explains how the 10 most important influencers use their followers to get more people to follow them. Honestly, I think Chris Brogan (who is listed as the top influencer) has so much beneficial information on his Twitter and his blog (I do follow him on Twitter and he was a speaker at PRSSA's national conference). However, I don't believe that he should be considered a social media influencer because of the number of followers he has. Nor do I believe he should be measured by his tweet's retweets. Just because someone retweets someone's tweet and gains followers for that person does not make that person an influencer.
I feel that influencers should be measured by the quality, not quantity, of their content/followers. They could have 10,000 followers but if the followers aren't engaging with them what's the point of tweeting or blogging? The pull method that Shaughnessy uses (which was developed by PeekYou) is explained in these terms:
"In other words, if someone with a pull of 10x posted a tweet, it would receive the same audience coverage as 10 average people tweeting the same message"
Yes, someone with a pull of 10x posts a tweet and they receive the same number of coverage as 10 average people, but how does this reflect the quality of an influencer's work? People may start following them because they had a great tweet. However, are these followers going to start engaging with them?
In conclusion, I feel influencers should not be measured by their audience but by the quality of their work and how followers are engaging with them. Just because they are reaching people does not mean that they're having an effect on them. An influencer's work and the feedback that they receive is what matters, not 'people'.
No comments:
Post a Comment