measuring your net-work
Fast Company's article covering on Duncan Watt's influencer research there has re-sparked interest/discussion in this research. It's a theory I personally have heart because of it's implications for the power of randomness. But some observations from Grant McCracken got me thinking. It's not how many influentials you talk to or reach that matter in terms of whether information gets passed on. But you do have to make sure that where you seed has network "length."
Look at it this way. If an idea is seeded in one branch/cluster of a network, there is a chance (maybe even a good one) that the people form a circle off friends that is limited - cut off from to many others. This becomes even more of a risk/issue if this little network is sick of passing in info or just doesn't as a matter of principal (so you better have pure gold as content.
The implication is that it is better to seed in as many places as possible, and that you still have to make sure the people you seed it with have many different kinds of links. they don't have to be an influencer, or a maven. There just have to be connected to many different clusters. This makes the potential path of the idea as long as possible.
How do you measure this? They may be some kinds of groups/people/communities that are more predisposed to be part of longer paths. Again, not influencers or connectors. Perhaps more like crossroads.
2 Comments:
Wouldn't it be strange if the people you tapped into are all friends with each other? That would mean that they would simply be influencing one another and you would be left with the same number of people as before. Therefore, it is wiser to gather together people with different backgrounds and networks. This would eventually lead to you broadening your path.
Have you read Strength of Weak Ties (PDF)? If not, take a look, it's right in this line of thinking . . .
Post a Comment