The Age of Influence, Part 2
As children, we learn at an early age that, in order to make friends, we must exchange information — whether it be through gossip, sharing hobbies, or talking about the latest show on TV. We soon learn that to reach a high place in the social hierarchy, we must possess and barter exclusive information in a way that makes us invaluable resources of knowledge. The more people we attract via that information, the higher our level of influence.
Information is binding.
Every day, we connect to one another through information. We exchange stories, ideas, names, dates, values and feelings. These are the ways we can relate to one another and deepen a connection. Information is the currency for social connectivity. Information is the means. Social connectivity is the end. Social media facilitates all of these things and makes a high place in the social hierarchy accessible for people not backed by institutions than ever before. In other words, you don’t have to be a movie star to be famous on Twitter.
As social media becomes a proven means to boost the consumption (hyper consumption) of information (or content), we also begin to enter an age of influence transaction which has weight to industries that rely on influence and mass audiences such as publishing, marketing, advertising, education, etc.
But the age of influence carries implications we had not previously considered:
- Who are we as beacons of influence?
- What does this mean to old business models—those in which only those with power had the ability to create, publish and disseminate information?
- What is ethical influence bartering?
The beacon of influence is now you: The average user now has the tools to create, publish and disseminate information (content). The average user also now has the hyper consumption tools of social media. The average user also has access to the same advertising means as any corporation. And in addition, thanks to the cultural shift in media consumption—one in which mainstream media competes with non-mainstream media to gather information—the average user is free to compete with brands.
Brands of influence (news organizations, PR agencies, education providers, politicians) no longer compete only againsy other brands. Now they compete against you, the average user.
In previous generations, journalists, for example, were hired to work under one publisher to produce content that would generate an audience. The journalist, in most cases, were bound to a byline and the occasional accolade. Columnists or opinion editors had the privilege of engaging with the audience for long as their views were diverse or consistent with the publisher.
In previous generations, journalists also had little ability to generate an audience, contain an audience and transport that audience to a different location for a different set of goals. That is no longer the case. Now journalists can create accounts, track audiences, generate lists, and more importantly connect with their audience on a more personal level.
Individuals who are successful at generating, containing and relocating an audience become valuable assets to larger beacons of influence, much like small planets orbit a giant sun to form solar systems.
Akin to corporate mergers, brands will seek to absorb individuals who have high influence on a target demographic. The value of that influence will be determined by the audience size, demographic breakdown and depth of influence (the likelihood of someone obeying your requests). Individuals with influence will be able to transact audiences much like houses and railroads in a board game of Monopoly.
We are beginning to see the first evidences of audience bartering in blog partnerships with other blogs, larger news organizations and individuals. We are also beginning to see evidences of such bartering as journalists with self-generated influence are hired by organizations. Such audience bartering is not explicit as much as it is implicit. One who is a celebrity blogger is more likely to be a better candidate than one who is not well known at all. Evidence is always singular.
And when we reach a matured age of influence, what will that say about our value as media consumers? What will that say about our perceived notion of filtered media? How will we tell the difference? What will be more important to us as information consumers: loyalty or autonomy?
