“Influence” – one of the big buzz words in the social space for 2011.  It’s a word that marketers are intimately familiar with – just ask pysop.tv.

But as is the case with many words adopted by the digital community, the meaning has been beaten about a bit.

Influence can be calculated through the probability of message amplification, which is measurable by tools like PeerIndex and Klout. Though each of these services has its own algorithm to do all the complex math bits, the premise is pretty simple: measure the ratio between talking and engagement, and multiply the result by the size of your network.

For example, Klout knows that I have 700+ followers on Twitter, 2500 tweets, 200 unique mentions, and x number retweets. Based on this information they give me a Klout score of 61 (give or take). They give a 35% likelihood that my content will amplify, with a possible reach of 15,000+ people.

Klout may believe that I am a “key influencer,” but that may not necessarily be the case. It might just be that I am good at finding content from other influencers. The reality is that content is king: its the links, thoughts and memes that are the spreadable commodity. So while “reach” is a form of influence, it isn’t the primary type of influence that individuals or brands should seek out if they’re looking to shift perceptions or spur action.

So how can you influence behaviour? Studies show us that consumer behaviour is most readily influenced by peer opinion. Marketers’ first instinct has been to use social media to amplify their brand messaging, in the hopes that consumers who share that message will radiate credibility to their friends. But this is only partially true, because its really the content of the share that will influence further sharing. If it is apparent that a consumer is being incented to share crappy content, the credibility of that content decreases. Concurrently, if the brand lacks credibility, the likelihood of pickup also decreases.

But how do you establish that credible, shareable presence? It’s a massive question, but a partial response can be found in studying consumer behaviour. And here we see something we already knew: people’s consumer behavior is altered by their friends, because they trust their friends, and generally appreciate the content that they share. So the short answer to the holy grail of gaining credible influence? Be true to your brand image, and dole out great content.

I can’t therefore stress the importance or expansive nature of “content,” which can be regarded as anything the brand is offering to its consumers. The “value” of content may be intangible (in the service of entertainment, creating emotional connection, or otherwise haloing the brand), or more obviously geared to improving consumer experience (loyalty programs, retail experiences or utilities). Each of these pieces plays a role. Eliminating things like commercials or digital engagement experiences removes a piece of the influence-building puzzle, because its this content that provides hooks for amplification.

The social space is the new reality of the consumer. When they see a product that they really like, a commercial they find funny or have a great or horrible experience at a store, they communicate it on mass to their friends and networks. And even then, they will probably only do so if the content feels authentic.

The most obvious way to pave the way to authenticity in your brand’s communications is to act in a consistent manner to the message you are delivering. But remember even if your brand strives to be authentic, you must still earn the trust of the consumer by offering:

1) Consistency: Try to consistently deliver content that resonates with the consumer. It also means consistently engaging with the community, and making an effort to reach into the other communities your consumer engages in.

2) Agility: The perception of authenticity is heightened by the speed and accuracy with which a brand responds. Say the right things quickly, and avoid sounding scripted.

3) Repayment: Followers volunteer time to consume the brand’s content. Pay that time back. Consider spreading information about relevant local events over Twitter, or drawing attention to a fan’s content (art, music).

The combination of solid content and an authentic, engaged presence is what paves the way to influence. In the end, the consumer votes with every tweet, every comment, every like, and every purchase. Influence comes from the community deciding whom they trust enough to follow, believe and ultimately buy from.

Are there any other ways in which you feel a brand can gain influence?

I spend a great deal of time talking about brands. Whether the conversation is held with our clients, fellow Grippers, or even with friends who share my fascination with marketing and consumer dynamics, it seems the question of how to build brand equity is a consistent topic.

Many conversations of late have revolved around whether contests and promotions build or undermine brand equity in the long-term. As with many debated in the marketing world the answer is frustratingly non-specific: “it depends.”

Contests and promotions offer brands an opportunity to provide value. In doing so, they have the potential to build affinity with their consumers by rewarding them for being advocates of, or participants in, the world of their brand. It is seemingly, and frequently, positive for a brand, especially when the contest or promotion links well to the objectives and, more importantly, the positioning of the brand. There are a multitude of examples of brands effectively using contests or promotions to build interest with consumers in a way that “fits” with how consumers see the brand.  Generally, these tactics – and they are tactics – work as long as the brand avoids some of the common pitfalls, namely over-reliance on price discounting, confusing mechanisms or high barriers to participation, etc.

Then there are the moments when brands run a promotion that is inconsistent with their consumers’ expectations. And yes, that can be damaging. Frankly, these examples are more fun to look at; in fact, one in particular was the influence behind this post.

A while back a friend forwarded me an email. The first thing that caught my attention was the subject line: “Dinner?”

Hmm, I thought. I do like a good dinner.

The ante was upped a bit when I realized that it had been forwarded, and that the original sender was President Obama. While we must acknowledge that Obama is a person (an American actually – thanks to Mr. Trump for clearing that up), we must also recognize the extent to which he has become a brand. In fact, his equity was strong enough to win him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything (aside from offer relief from the Bush Jr. administration.) At any rate, it’s safe to say that there is a certain tone of prestige and gravitas that I would associate with the Obama brand.

You can imagine my surprise when I realized that this email was essentially contest spam.

The body of the email explained that any donation over $5 to the administration would enter the donor into a draw for a dinner with the President himself. I am not kidding. It gets weirder when you read the poorly drafted faux messages from the man himself:

“I’ve set aside time for four supporters like you to join me for dinner”

“Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests. We didn’t get here doing that, and we’re not going to start now.”

And my favourite: “This won’t be a formal affair. It’s the kind of casual meal among friends that I don’t get to have as often as I’d like anymore, so I hope you’ll consider joining me.”

That’s right, a nice casual dinner at the White House with the President with his “friends” who, if you remember, were picked by random lottery after donating a minimum of $5.

I initially thought this email was a joke. It seemed so out of character that my first reaction was to laugh. Then I felt sad. This is a prime example of how to damage the equity of your brand. It seemed less “Obama” than it does “Russell Oliver.”

Hard to believe, but it got worse when I realized that it wasn’t a one-off. A mere 6 days later, my friend forwarded me another email from Joe Biden checking in to make sure that we don’t miss out on this great opportunity. Joe seemingly went to the same writing classes as Obama:

“I’m reminded every week that sitting down for a meal with the President of the United States — without TV cameras or a big crowd — is something only a few people will ever get to do.”

He even signed off by wishing us luck!

The debate will continue as to whether contests or promotions build or diminish a brand’s equity over time. Clearly some, like this spam campaign, can do damage. On the whole though, I think they are a powerful tool when used correctly. They drive the desired behaviour (usually sales) and build brand equity. My one piece of advice would be to ensure that promotions alone aren’t doing the heavy lifting of building your brand. Strive to make this the case, and you will be much more likely to create something of value to the brand as well as the consumer.

You will also avoid embarrassing incidents like the team Obama email.

It’s a frantic Friday afternoon. Your RSS tells you that there’s a new Big Orange Slide post.

How often have you been too busy to read a post in its entirety? At this point in the week, most of us are preoccupied with wrapping up work, and dreaming about the weekend. You may not have the capability – or be in the mood – to consume long form content.

The oh so important variable we as marketers sometimes overlook, is whether or not a consumer is “in the market” to receive our message. The timing and relevance of communication is key. Imagine a window of communication opportunity before every consumer purchase. Advertising’s job is to influence. Good timing is placing the right message in that window of opportunity.

Take the Nike “Earl and Tiger” ad that surfaced in April of 2010. There has been a lot of debate surrounding the content of this spot, but what it really had going for it was timing and relevance.  The spot dropped one day before the Masters and shortly after Tiger’s personal life became very public.  A bold statement from the brand, delivered days after multiple major sponsors abandoned the golfer. Just when everyone was expecting Nike to pull the plug, the brand publicly stood by its marquee pro, and brought the partnership to a new level.

Food For Thought: How can we rethink the importance of timing when developing our next campaign or media plan? How can we hone in on just the right moment of our consumer’s day?  How can we quickly capitalize on what’s relevant right now? How can we deliver an already powerful message at a precise moment  - making it even more impactful?