There are several good reasons to replace the terms “influencer” and “influencer marketing” in the marketing vocabulary. What are the best  alternatives? I don’t know the answer, however I see signs of a backlash against misuse and abuse of these terms.
What are the issues with the word influencer?
To start, not everyone likes being branded as an influencer. As Evan Quinn so often tells me (and I’m not the only one), many analysts bristle under the “influencer” label.
Then too, there’s the growing confusion around who is an “influencer”. Â As Duncan Brown so often says, not everyone is an influencer. You can’t transform anybody into an influencer. Finding influencers is just not that easy, even in the wild west of social media.
Finally, as Nick Hayes says, “None of us has ever seen anybody with a business card that says ‘Influencer’.”
By contrast, there are the outstanding examples where the terms are applied appropriately and best practices applied flawlessly. Â Case in point: Don Bulmer’s program at SAP. Such clearcut instances are more exception than norm.
The right words are out there. If we pay attention, we’ll recognize them when we hear them.
Popularity: 16%
September 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
An influencer should be able to provide an unbiased opinion based on being educated about the topic/product/service……at hand. They do not have any loyalities to anyone, and are able to accurately deduct a proper decision or course of action. I think that if we can accumulate the traits of effective “Influencers”, that will assist in finding the proper terminology.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I like the approach you’re suggesting. I’m not in total agreement with all the traits you’ve listed. However I do like the direction — a more accurate term that reflects the traits and context of a decision influencer.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Hi Barbara:
This is a good discussion. Also, thank you for the kind words about the work that we are doing at SAP!
In my mind the core issue is less about what the program is called/labeled, rather it is about how you interact and engage with the individual, firm, community, association, etc.
When we re-organized our efforts at SAP in 2007 we chose to call our overarching program ‘Industry and Influencer Relations.’ This seemed to be good label at the time - representative of all the areas and external channels that we work with and support.
Below are the teams that make up the Industry and Influencer Program at SAP, and the external audiences we support:
• IT Influencer Relations (evolution of traditional analyst relations): Industry analysts, developer community, consultants, and bloggers
• Business Influencer Relations: High-profile business academics, gurus, authors, and social networks
• Customer Community Relations: Customer peer networks; 31 SAP user groups representing 25% of SAP’s customer base
• University Alliances: 1,000 leading business and IT universities, 4,000 professors and 200,000 students
I ran across a good definition of Influencer Relations some time ago that I really like that identifies the function as “a systematic way to identify, measure and build bridges with influential people who impact customer perception.”
At SAP we are in constant interaction with our influencers and communities providing education and working with them as consultants, advisors and net promoters of our business and product strategy. Often times we engage with the intent to exchange valuable insights that ultimately influences each of our views.
We have explored the business and governance model of each influencer group/community that we work with. Each has a very unique and powerful value proposition that factors quite heavily on their engagement with customers and ultimate impact on purchase decisions.
As such, we have established equally unique engagement models to work with and mange the relationships of each group. We try to avoid a generic approach to working with our ‘influencers and communities.’ With a program as comprehensive ours, a one-size fits all approach will not work. We must work with the ‘influencer’ in their environment and talk with them in their language (as an analyst, academic, customer, etc.) in order to be successful. Forcing them into a generic ‘role’ that extends outside the boundary and integrity of their governance and business model, simply will not work.
I am sorry for the long comment - but I hope the context on SAP’s approach might help people.
Don
September 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Don,
Thanks for this generous contribution of the insights you’ve acquired over the last few years and some of your reasoning in evolving SAP’s influencer program. The key take-aways are, for me:
* you have successfully grouped vastly different categories of influencers into a centrally managed program
* you have found a balance between common denominators, individual customization and program overhead
* you emphasize what I call “communications in context” — which means you’ve found ways to transition from blasting out communications to engaging in conversations with the influencer on their home turf
In other words, you’ve achieved proof of concept. You’ve shown that a diverse influencer relations program can succeed from an operational standpoint. That’s a big milestone. This sort of undertaking entails managing costs, skills, politics and perceived risks.
One of the aspects of the SAP influencer program that qualifies it as a relations program — and not simply another integrated communications program — is your emphasis on communications in context. It’s easy to overlook that. Yet, that’s one of the major obstacles to successful influencer relations. You can’t shout out them and you can’t treat them like a crowd of clones. Yet, you can’t drive your program infrastructure costs through the roof, either.
You’ve touched on several fascinating aspects of designing and running a program. Coincidentally, Kathleen Schaub and I talked about several of the same elements over lunch just a few weeks ago. Look forward to developing these ideas with the LI group and on our blogs.
Coming full circle to the question of the label: does it matter if we use the terms influencer, influencer marketing or influencer relations? I agree with you that it may not amount to much of a concern internally. I think it does matter to the outside world, and within the marketing industry at large.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Hi Barbara:
How about anyone of teh below?
Some of these suggestions may be challenging to adopt depending on the politics within any given company (very broad and perhaps overlapping other organizational boundaries):
- Industry Relations/Marketing/Communications
- Marketplace Communications/Relations
- External Communications
Don
September 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Hey Don,
Your suggestion “Marketplace Relations” sits well with me. I like that.
Another good idea came up in the Twitter exchange over this post. Filiberto Selvas (Social CRM) suggested “Peer Marketing”. I like that too.
Why I like: both terms have the essence of decision-maker networks and ecosystems. And both leave room for the traditional labels - public relations, community relations, analyst relations, public affairs, customer peer networks (as in your program), etc.
Agree with you that the internal politics is a hurdle as much as the external politics. There’s no way around it for early adopters.