Is it Worth Getting Your Hands Dirty in Fast Company’s Influence Project?
These days, trends pop fast. And they fade fast. Before you’ve even had a chance to run down to the mall, the latest craze is already sitting in the garbage bin out back. Tossed aside like last season’s undersized clutch. So, what’s this year’s latest has-been item? Apparently it’s “authenticity.” It was all the rage 10 months ago, everyone had to have it. But now the mere whisper of authenticity and you get tweyeballed like the kid who wore Garanimals to 8th grade.
Yes, authenticity is apparently over. But never fear, just like the fashion world always has something new to replace the old, social media is trotting out its new must-have accessory:
Influence.
And the first superstar to strut it down the runway, Fast Company.
You know how there’s haute couture… artfully designed, carefully handcrafted, and respected for its simple elegance…. there’s also the knock-offs. Cramped and flattened in a fluorescently lit back room with a 6-foot ceiling in Chinatown. The ones that scream “Buy me! I’m only $50!”
Versus the ones you’d have to save for dutifully before being able to own.
Well that’s pretty much the gist of the Fast Company Influence Project.
Grab it now, grab it fast, grab it cheap. It’ll fall apart on you in a couple of months, but it looks really shiny right now!
Before I proceed to rail on the Influence Project, let me first say that I love Fast Company. Since the day I picked up my first issue I’ve been hopelessly attached to it and everything it’s stood for… brilliant entrepreneurs, technologies that change the world, innovative ideas and strategies that create empires. What’s a girl not to love?
So when happening upon the Influence Project, I was intrigued. Although, the name did give me a little pause because I’ve already been hesitant to embrace the whole Klout thing. But that’s another story.
After a few minutes of inspection, the first offense in this whole Fast Company “digital don’t” was readily visible. The experiment has a misleading name. Not sure how that happened, but I’m guessing someone didn’t have the dictionary app installed on their iPhone.
Because the definition of Influence is very different from the activity and result promoted in the Influence Project.
Influence:
1. A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort. 2. Power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position.
Frankly, I don’t think they meant the “ability” to schedule auto tweets or mass DMs.
I’m not sure how “tricking, spamming, or begging people into clicking on your link as many times as possible” is anywhere near the same universe as influence. At least not true influence. And to see social media tweeps discuss their “formula” for trying to win the competition only reinforces its superficiality.
What would have been more befitting of a pro-business, pro-ethics, pro-future publication that’s trying to maintain relevance in the face of stiff digital competition would have been an experiment in something more profound and meaningful:
Engagement.
Well, they were scooped. Because a mere week after the flimsy Influence Project rolled out,
Old Spice p0wned the influence space with its viral video tweets. Real influence through real engagement. It couldn’t have come at a better time, making a clear distinction between “white hat” influence and “black hat” influence.
It’s really sad that Fast Company felt it needed what amounts to a “rickroll for business geeks” to get people to click onto its site. Fast Company is better than that. And a lot of the people who’ve signed up for it are better than that. I’m on that list. I’m an unapologetic social media joiner. I’m not going to say “Oh gee whiz, I wish I hadn’t signed up but oops! I already did so now I’ll just sheepishly apologize as my photo grows bigger.” I was curious. I was interested. I thought it seemed a little sketchy. But I did it anyway.
I posted my link on Twitter a few times until it started to feel icky. Icky as in I didn’t want to have to post it 20 times a day to make sure every follower saw the link and clicked on it. I didn’t want to get my hands dirty by doing something that went from “innocent fun” to not feeling right.
I didn’t want to sacrifice relationships just to send people I care about to a project I don’t believe in. I didn’t want to artificially leverage trust for something that’s really nothing more than an opportunity to see who’s got the biggest ego and the most lemmings. Or how high Fast Company’s traffic can shoot up between now and August 15th when the competition ends.
Me and my connections have better things to do with our time.
Like participating in the “real” influence project… tweeting the Old Spice man.
Ha. One woman's undersized clutch is another man's opportunity for a lightweight flywheel.
This is FIERCE Michelle. Somebody opened up a can of whoop-ass and poured it into your caramel macchiatt espresso this morning. This whole FC Influence thing had me wondering. I agree that they did it wrong, but the outcome has been interesting – Mari Smith won (I think) and this sista definitely has some serious Influence. So did the end justify the means?
Thanks, Stanford! I'd originally decided to not write about the Influence Project because there were so many other posts that did a really good job of pointing out its shortcomings. But after experiencing the Old Spice viral video tweets a few days later, it was crystal clear that there's a big difference between real influence and what's passing as influence in this project.
The thing that made it all click for me was watching my bit.ly numbers on the first day of the Old Spice viral campaign. My days-old Fast Company URL link had only gotten a fraction of the clicks of my brand-new Old Spice link. And the Old Spice link just kept growing. The difference was in the hundreds.
More power to those who are having fun with the project, I really don't blame them for running with it. But if I ever get my photo on the cover of Fast Company, I want it to be for something I achieve that resonates with the heart of the Fast Company brand. Not because I knew how to rickroll and spam.
I was trying to come up with a pithy reply, but all I could think of was “silver fish hand catch.” ;)
Perfection!
Tweyeballed? I better watch myself around you Michelle!
The whole Fast Company thing was a brilliant promotion for the magazine so it is what it is. I love Mari but heck, she played the game to win. Now she can add “Fast Company's” most influential online person to her website along with the Pied Piper of Facebook or whatever she was. Good for her. Those of us who know the guts of what the contest was about may scoff but we'll all be gone and she'll still have her title on her website to impress potential clients.
Some of the pundits whined that this was nothign but a popularity contest. Well guess what. It's ALL a popularity contest. : )
Thanks for the great post!
Thanks, Mark! I didn't realize there was a winner yet. My understand was that the contest lasts through August 15th and the winner will be on the cover in November. Last I heard, Guy Kawasaki was gunning for the top spot, too. We shall see!
You should go check out this post by Michael Wu. In it he talks about “social shame.” I was cracking up it was so painfully brilliant. http://bit.ly/clFpga
He decided to come up with an idea to “fix” the contest and created a social shame aspect. He proposes that whoever wins the contest and gets their photo on the cover should also have a listing by their face of all the tweets they posted to get people to click on their link. You really should read the article!
Sterling stuff, Michelle. Indeed! I love the line about “white hat” versus “black hat” influence.
Your mentioned the Old Spice campaign in the comments. This campaign is a great example of how a company is generating an authentic online buzz – that's refreshing. It's growth has been exponential because of the fun and engaging way it delivers its key brand proposition.
One of the things that worries me about companies rushing to develop apps for iPhones/Pads, etc, is that this will also change the sphere of influence open to online vendors. It's in their interest for apps to succeed. Apps will give companies more leverage to control how we use their content and engage with that as they attempt to “lock” us into the app. Having purchased an app you're more likely to stick with it and accept what's thrown at you.
Great piece Michelle -
The only point I might argue with you is whether authenticity was thrown out in the trash like last months trends, or the the truly authentic marketers do not have to strive as hard as everyone else because they are always authentic. Moreover, if you look close enough I bet the most authentic marketers, brands and individuals are the influencers.
I'm glad you brought up authenticity, Alex. There was a bit of sarcasm in my assertion that authenticity has been thrown by the wayside. I think it's still very relevant and should definitely be regarded as a must-have quality for a respectable marketer. (Or anyone.)
My irreverence was more a result of a few blog posts and Twitter comments I've come across that kind of do the eye roll at not just the word authentic, but the action of expecting authenticity. I commented on a post recently where at least half of the readers were in agreement that it's okay to write behind-the-scenes of a blog and put a CEO's name on their writing. I'm all for blogging and writing on behalf of a company, and even helping a CEO clarify their thoughts, but I think it becomes deceptive when the reader trusts a blog as personal communication, but the company is treating it like another carefully-manipulated marketing channel.
Yes, I believe blogs and posts should be polished. But I think authenticity is lost when the spirit and honesty of a blog is sacrificed. There's a fine line, I know. Because sometimes executives need help articulating their thoughts. But it's painful to watch marketers and writers charge ahead without admitting that personal blog posts should be held to a different standard than other forms of communication. Just that one moment of pause at least, please!
If we want to preserve one of the great things that has come out of social media, authenticity, preserving the sanctity of the blog should be at the top of the list.
Michelle, love the analogy to the fashion industry…it had me in stitches (pardon the pun!). Silly me, I signed up for the Fast Company project because I thought if I did it would give me an influence graph of some sort (happened to be looking for social influence graphics/info for a client). When I realized what it was, my immediate thought was “Crap, delete, delete!” Of, course you can't delete anything.
Fast Company is a smart publication, I wish they weren't sold on this contest (yes, it's a contest…) because it has made them lose credibility with a bunch of folks.
As far as influence goes, it's something no one truly understands (yet)… I am convinced of that. If they did, they could answer one simple question for me. Why is it I have some 'perceived' influence regarding Twitter and my blog and yet when I tweet as @SerengetiCom or blog on EndlessPlain.com (as me!), I have none? Is it that I somehow loose all influence because I am associated with a brand? I find that hard to believe… [And please, let's not even discuss personal branding -- I don't believe in it. Reputation, yes...personal brand, no. Waiting for that ugly plaid skirt of a trend to die off... ;-) ]
Beth Harte
@bethharte
Thanks for the comment, Beth. I love that you bring up the point about Fast Company losing credibility. Just yesterday I noticed whenever I came across a link that pointed to a Fast Company story, I hesitated and then avoided clicking. No one wants to get tricked. I bet Fast Company and Mekanism weren't considering the backlash of something like this. It will be awhile before I trust a link to Fast Company.
As for personal branding, that's a complicated issue. It's a really narcissistic concept, but we're in the middle of a narcissism renaissance. Sad, huh? Thanks to social networks, everyone does have a brand of sorts. The word is annoying but its purpose is just to remind everyone that social media is an open stage. You're not anonymous anymore and everything you share in social media is public and being judged in a similar way to how consumers have always judged products and national brands. Someone is always paying attention so you have to be more careful and think about how the “gestalt” of your personal presence is being perceived.
As for your personal brand “Beth Harte” and the company “Serengeti” having different levels of influence, that's an incredibly interesting question! I for one don't think I've added Serengeti to my Hootsuite and if I'm not alone, a lot of your regular followers aren't seeing it either. I don't think you lose influence by being associated with a brand. I think your other brands you represent haven't built up influence in the way you have personally. If you were to stop tweeting under Beth Harte and tell your followers you were moving all activity to Serengeti, you'd see something different than you're seeing now. I think every account has to exude its own personality and build its own following, regardless of who is tweeting behind it. What do you think?
Great write up. I haven't been following Fast Company as much as I used to so this is the first I've heard about this. Why am I not surprised that Guy Kawasaki is ranking so high?
So couldn't we hijack the process by putting up an “objectionable” photo and convincing lots of people to click through from that account? I'm not actually advocating that but it could be kind of funny, at least until they caught on and removed it. :)
Adam, that's BRILLIANT! That would really show Fast Company wouldn't it? Or maybe create an embarrassing fictional character. We still have time… the deadline isn't until August 15th.
BTW, Michael Wu came up with an idea that puts this whole Influence Project in its place. He suggested that for whoever wins, beside their face on the cover should be the long list of all the tweets they put out promoting themselves and their link. He called it “Social Shame.” After reading his ideas I was thinking it'd be great to have those spammed tweets watermarked over the entire cover. Fast Company, are you listening?
Here's Michael's post. It's a great read: http://bit.ly/clFpga