I found a refreshing take on analyst influence and analyst relations in the book Influencer Marketing - Who Really Influences Your Customers, by Nick Hayes and Duncan Brown of Influencer50. The book proposes a focused, cohesive and research-driven approach to identifying external influencers and getting them to participate in appropriate ways in marketing.
The book is not about buying influence or licensing analyst content/speakers for demand gen tools. It’s about designing an influencer relations initiative that accurately targets the rich spectrum of influencers involved in purchase decisions within specific market sectors.
In the Influencer Marketing approach, organizations create a cross-discipline marketing initiative. They leverage the cream of the crop from traditional influencer silos like PR, AR, etc. They also add some new influencers to the mix — new names or new types of influencers, such as competitors, academia, government.
The first result is a “dream team” of top influencers from the many discrete spheres of influence — analysts, press, consultants, channels, customers, competitors, academia, government, and so on. All identified influencers — and the assigned relationship managers — are placed on equal footing. Refreshing.
The second result is a goal-oriented plan for participative marketing. Participative marketing puts the impetus on managing influencer relationships based on their specific role during the purchase decision. AR activities are driven by customer decision processes, rather than by vendor product/service lifecycles. Refreshing.
Organizations with analyst relations functions already in place could use this book as a springboard for creating a cross-company influencer marketing initiative. Stage it as a pilot program. Or, run it as a special executive buddy program. Make it complement the influencer strategies and programs already in place.
Such an initiative will take some AR professionals out of their comfort zone. Equal footing among all identified influencer means ranking analyst priority relative to the other kinds of voices whispering in the customer’s ear. Instead of comparing a Gartner analyst with a Burton Group analyst, for example, you would compare both to a different kind of influencer — perhaps an association thought leader like AIIM’s Dan Keldsen or an author/consultant/blogger like James Taylor.
Old boundaries are breaking down all over the place — who’s an analyst (and who’s not), who controls the brand reputation, who drives the innovation, who’s the trusted advisor. It’s going to take some trial and error to figure out how best to deal with all these changes. Influencer Marketing suggests one way to move on.
Next week’s book review: Groundswell.
Tags:
Loading ...
June 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Barbara - wasn’t aware of this book (and you know I’m a sucker for a good business book), thanks for mentioning it. [pause to add to Amazon list]
Even more, thank you for calling me out as one example along with James Taylor (most definitely an influencer, and a very nice guy to boot) as a “different kind of influencer.”
That suits me just fine, as I prefer (and recommend) the “guerrilla analyst” route for my modus operandi versus the past experience I’d had during my 13 years at Delphi Group. It wasn’t a bad experience, but times change, and we all need to adapt to the changing environments we work in.
Traditional analyst models are showing signs of cracks (witness the explosion of so many more independent 1-5 person shops), and as with any disruption, the complacency of the incumbents works heavily against them (don’t take my word for it, Clayton Christensen write far more eloquently than I).
Look at how few analysts are blogging (or have comments turned off. Wow.), or are engaging on Twitter (@dankeldsen). The next few years will be very interesting here. Adapt or be eaten, folks!
The “dream team” approach you mention should already be a “best practice” for anyone using analyst services. Taking your advice from only one source is going to provide a skewed view on the world.
This is essentially an investment in information/intellectual property, and the resulting predictions of the near-future. Nobody is providing a guarantee of success based on their advice. If your “information investment” is a single analyst or firm, we have only to look at the “real” financial markets to see what happens the core of your investment blows apart.
Hedge your bets, and diversify - it’s the only way to survive!
Cheers and thanks again for the mention, very much appreciated.
Best,
Dan
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Barbara,
You get it! Some of the analyst community think that the influencer approach is in some way competitive to analyst relations. Not so - it’s inclusive. But you’re right in sayng that it might make a traditional approach less comfortable. For that we’re not apologetic.
You suggest a few categories of influencer. All of these apply, and more. It’s very segment-specific. But we typically see 8-12 different active categories in any influencer ecosystem. Cleary, some categories are more important than others.
Thanks for the encouraging review. We’re trying hard to include everyone, and think that everyone can benefit from a more holistic approach to influence.
Best regards,
Duncan
June 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Dan: I’m fairly impressed with the book — it’s a fast, easy read and it’s a thought-provoking read, a good combo. I wrote the review for AR people, as the take-aways were obvious. I’m still digesting the implications for analysts. I think you hit one of the core messages on the nose — analysts need to take a fresh look at the rest of the decision influencers. Competition isn’t limited to other researchers.
Boy oh boy, you’re going to take issue with their position on social media + influence. My own intro to the book was a conversation between Nick and Paul Gillen at New Comm Forum 2008. This aspect of the book is definitely worth exploring further with you, Nick and Duncan. (BTW, it was published shortly after Twitter launched last year.) Let’s talk after you read the book!
Duncan: You packed many good ideas into that book. I see your vision of influencer marketing as constructive for AR, rather than destructive. My logic: relatively few tech companies have a standing contract with even one analyst house and even fewer have a dedicated AR function. This is an intelligent approach for those companies.
However, I can understand some push back from vendors with AR programs and analyst contracts in place. You wrote several pages about the decline of ICT analyst influence during purchase decisions. Plus, you questioned the value of vendor-facing analysts altogether, at least within the context of influencing purchase decisions. It is far too easy for vendor management to embrace these arguments as justification for downsizing AR/analyst expenses without investing in your broader vision of influencer marketing.