IMedia Connection published the first less-than-positive review of The New Influencers today. It’s written by Phil Gomes, a veteran blogger who’s often cited as the first PR professional to practice the craft. In my view, Mr. Gomes’ review can be summed up as follows: New Influencers is a useful, if flawed attempt at putting into context a rapidly changing market in which decisions are frustratingly difficult to make. The book is full of good stories and makes a solid case for why corporations should pay attention to social media. However, it is marred by some factual mistakes and advice that is occasionally off-base. It’s a decent early attempt at putting social media in context, but it needs to be baked more fully.
I would call the review modestly positive, although the headline, “Does ‘Guide To The New Social Media Mis-Guide?’” implies otherwise. I don’t completely agree that the headline accurately represents the review, but I’ve written enough headlines in my time to know that it’s a judgment call and reasonable people disagree.
I have enormous respect for Phil Gomes and don’t quibble with any of the flaws cited in his review. I would like to respond to a few of them, though, if only to point out sources and motivations.
Mr. Gomes notes disapprovingly that I recommended that readers vote for favorable stories about their own companies on Digg.com. He’s right that that was bad advice. Digg was still fairly new when the book was submitted to the publisher last October, and time has demonstrated that my recommendation was misguided. He has a good point.
He takes me to task for using statistics from Alexa and Technorati to validate the significance of trends and the influence of blogs. He notes accurately that Alexa relies upon a limited universe of users of its toolbar to estimate traffic statistics, which skews the results. This is true; however, the Alexa toolbar is used by millions of people, and should give a representative, if not statistically valid view of traffic performance. Alexa is open about the limitations of its approach, and I should have cited this at least in a footnote. However, in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king, and Alexa is the best we’ve got.
The same can be said of Technorati, whose blog popularity ranking has been both hailed and reviled. I cited Technorati rankings generously in the book, mainly because it is the measure of popularity that bloggers overwhelmingly told me they use. Blogpulse has a similar ranking, but its universe is much more limited. While Technorati has its flaws, bloggers pay attention to it and I think that has merit.
Mr. Gomes comes away with the impression that I lavished too much attention on the Technorati A-list, thereby downplaying the importance of less prominent bloggers. If this is the impression the book leaves, then I did a terrible job of making my case in Chapter 4, titled “Measures of Influence.” The whole point of that chapter was to emphasize that A-list bloggers are influenced by many others, and that any campaign that focuses exclusively on the A-list is ignoring the sophisticated patterns of influence that work in the blogosphere. As noted in that chapter:
“Most A-list bloggers actually select at least half the items they choose to highlight from tips sent in by their readers, many of whom are small-time players. So the supernodes actually get their energy from satellites of much smaller influence who have their ear… [E]ven small players in the blogosphere can exert an unusually high level of influence depending on who is reading them. It is a modern version of the six-degrees-of-separation model. The blogger without much influence may actually be a link between two bloggers who have significant influence.”
He points out that I incorrectly identified Steve Rubel as head of Edelman‘s new-media consultancy. I stand corrected. I did send Steve an earlier version of that material for his review, but I evidently introduced errors after he had seen the early draft.
Finally, Mr. Gomes chides me for claiming that entertainment and celebrity blogs “don’t generate much cross hyper-linking activity.” In fact, that statement was attributed to a researcher at Nielsen BuzzMetrics in the context of a discussion about patterns of influence. While that doesn’t absolve me of blame, I did not present the statement as being my own.
I offer these comments solely in the spirit of giving my perspective of these issues. In reviews of any kind, perception is reality, and Mr. Gomes’ perception of my misfires are my responsibility to correct, hopefully in a second edition. He says he’d be willing to read it :-).
Bit by bit..
In my view, Mr. Gomes’ review can be summed up as follows: New Influencers is a useful, if flawed attempt at putting into context a rapidly changing market in which decisions are frustratingly difficult to make. The book is full of good stories and makes a solid case for why corporations should pay attention to social media. However, it is marred by some factual mistakes and advice that is occasionally off-base. It’s a decent early attempt at putting social media in context, but it needs to be baked more fully.
Fair ’nuff. (Though many decisions in this area are far from “frustratingly difficult.”)
I would call the review modestly positive, although the headline, “Does ‘Guide To The New Social Media’ Mis-Guide?” implies otherwise.
On balance, the review was positive, though I’m a bit disturbed that I’m the first of my peers to point out the errors in the book. The review wasn’t gushing, no, but I felt it was more than fair.
I don’t completely agree that the headline accurately represents the review, but I’ve written enough headlines in my time to know that it’s a judgment call and reasonable people disagree.
That wasn’t the headline I originally offered. I’m not sure it does such a good job of representing the piece, but oh well. I was on vacation when that draft was sent back and it got buried in my inbox. My bad. (The original headline was “Gillin shows Influencers” or something equally bland.)
Mr. Gomes notes disapprovingly that I recommended that readers vote for favorable stories about their own companies on Digg.com. He’s right that that was bad advice. Digg was still fairly new when the book was submitted to the publisher last October, and time has demonstrated that my recommendation was misguided. He has a good point.
Digg’s “newness” is immaterial to the issue. If caveman Gurg carved “What Think Of Club Of My? Gud ur bad?” on a cave wall and started scratching hashmarks on his behalf in the “gud” column, it’s just as damnable.
Alexa is open about the limitations of its approach, and I should have cited this at least in a footnote. However, in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king, and Alexa is the best we’ve got.
Even the best tools are the equivalent of sticking one’s wet finger in the air to check the weather. Now, why is Alexa “best”? What about Quantcast?
The same can be said of Technorati, whose blog popularity ranking has been both hailed and reviled. I cited Technorati rankings generously in the book, mainly because it is the measure of popularity that bloggers overwhelmingly told me they use. Blogpulse has a similar ranking, but its universe is much more limited. While Technorati has its flaws, bloggers pay attention to it and I think that has merit.
Okay. We have what various bloggers told you. But what did *you* think and what cautionary advice would *you* give?
Mr. Gomes comes away with the impression that I lavished too much attention on the Technorati A-list, thereby downplaying the importance of less prominent bloggers. If this is the impression the book leaves, then I did a terrible job of making my case in Chapter 4, titled “Measures of Influence.” The whole point of that chapter was to emphasize that A-list bloggers are influenced by many others, and that any campaign that focuses exclusively on the A-list is ignoring the sophisticated patterns of influence that work in the blogosphere. As noted in that chapter:
“Most A-list bloggers actually select at least half the items they choose to highlight from tips sent in by their readers, many of whom are small-time players. So the supernodes actually get their energy from satellites of much smaller influence who have their ear… [E]ven small players in the blogosphere can exert an unusually high level of influence depending on who is reading them. It is a modern version of the six-degrees-of-separation model. The blogger without much influence may actually be a link between two bloggers who have significant influence.”
This citation only makes my point more valid. All that this passage is saying is that the courting smaller voices are the path to achieving A-list attention. A-list attention is not the best or, frankly, even a good goal.
NB: You can have a very successful program — trust me on this — even if 1) you ignore the A-list completely, and 2) you don’t strive to become part of the A-list yourself.
In fact, I often try to ignore the A-list because their measuring sticks don’t often jibe with those of the everyperson they claim to be the champion of. Part of my “Those who ‘get it’, really don’t” philosophy.
He points out that I incorrectly identified Steve Rubel as head of Edelman’s new-media consultancy. I stand corrected, although in fairness, Steve did review the draft chapters and didn’t point out the mistake.
Take that up with Steve. Near as I can tell, none of that information in question was supplied in the drafts he was given. Again, talk to Steve.
Finally, Mr. Gomes chides me for claiming that entertainment and celebrity blogs “don’t generate much cross hyper-linking activity.” In fact, that statement was attributed to a researcher at Nielsen BuzzMetrics in the context of a discussion about patterns of influence. While that doesn’t absolve me of blame, I did not present the statement as being my own.
Fair ’nuff, but it makes one wonder how much else was taken at face-value.
I offer these comments solely in the spirit of giving my perspective of these issues. In reviews of any kind, perception is reality, and Mr. Gomes’ perception of my misfires are my responsibility to correct, hopefully in a second edition. He says he’d be willing to read it :-).
And I thank you for addressing these concerns so quickly.
Based on my reading here, your definition of “less-than-positive” is synonymous with “not completely gushing.” I’m deeply surprised that I was apparently the first person to give this book a decently critical reading. I felt that the various caveats I’ve outlined in my review should be made clear to any marketer who seeks to use this work as decision support.
That said, no marketing book yet written, in my mind, has inspired a gushing response from yours truly, so I wouldn’t spend too much time thinking about my review.
In blogging parlance, that is called a fisking.
I have not read the book, nor do I plan on reading it, mainly because
any book that purports to point out the new influencers is damned to
begin with, no matter the kudos, asterisks, or damnations. The real
influencers are likely not in this book, because the club you
hung out with don’t know the real influencers, don’t care about the
real influencers, and care more about themselves than the people they claim to influence.