Duncan Watts, research scientist with Yahoo and former Columbia University professor, believes brand campaigns targeting "influencers" would do just as well targeting a random group of consumers. Although influencers may matter, not enough research is being done to find out who those influencers are.
"Everyone thinks they know what an influencer is and everyone thinks they know why they matter, but everybody thinks something different," Prof. Watts told Brandweek in an interview. "Is an influencer the hipsters in the East Village or Oprah Winfrey? What makes Oprah influential is very different from what makes the hipster in the East Village influential. And so by failing to differentiate carefully between all these different types of influencers you really undermine the ability of the theory to say anything predictive."
Prof. Watts, once called the anti-Malcolm Gladwell in a New York Times article, said that successful product breakouts are often linked to influencers in hindsight through "simple intuitive models." But he said breakouts are "highly unpredictable" and similar circumstances rarely lead to similar results.
"Just because the hipsters in the East Village were wearing Hush Puppies and suddenly everyone else started wearing them doesn't mean that you can go out and get the hipsters in the East Village to wear your product and it will be popular," said Prof. Watts. "To put it another way: Hipsters in the East Village are wearing stuff all the time and it doesn't always become popular."
He calls for more scientific research, such as pitting potential influencers against control groups. For example, while it's often assumed that the popular kids in school are the biggest influencers, it may be the kids that are most into music or technology. Or it may be the unpopular kids with friends across many groups who spread the most influence.
As it works now, the influencer theory acts like "more of a rhetorical device than a theory" he argued. If a breakout occurs, influencers were successfully reached. If it doesn't, influencers weren't reached or didn't help for some reason. Prof. Watts said if it turns out that marketers are better off seeding randomly, time and effort would be saved.
"The irony I think is that targeting ordinary people is probably what marketers are doing and if something takes off they say, 'Oh, we reached the influencers,'" said Mr. Watts. "So it's one of these impossible-to-falsify theories because who you identify as an influencer is always after the fact."
Discussion Questions: Are too many assumptions being made in campaigns aimed at influencers? Is much more scientific research required to better define influencers?