In the good old days, celebrities were gods -- omnipresent, overpaid and seemingly timeless. The era of good old mass exposure lasted in its full glory for about five decades. And it made stars out of achievers in every field.
Who were they? Movie stars and television actors with lead roles, popular rock stars, high-ranking politicians, national television reporters, television show hosts, supermodels, successful sports people and chart-topping pop musicians form the major chunk. It's not just limited to the glamorous professions -- they included newspaper editors, book writers and some humanitarian leaders such as Mother Teresa or Aung San Su Chi who achieved recognition because of their imagination-capturing work in the field of social upliftment. There are numerous other examples, but you get the idea.
These celebrities had enormous power to influence perceptions and mould behaviors.
The era changed, and then dawned the fastest growing, immensely accessible and extremely powerful era: The digital era. And in this age, celebrity-ism assumed a significantly micro role. Now, not only might it not have anything to do with your original profession -- it might also not be dependent on the media owners. It might rather be a passion or hobby that makes a person recognized, and alongside the digital democracy also opened the doors to countless enthusiasts or followers pending the right content!
In this connected era, it is quite clear how this phenomenon of magnifying the actions of people in the public eye impacts society. The people who create content or are the subject of content can quickly rise or 'have a great fall'. They can make pariahs of their subjects or make others rise to the dizzying heights of fame.
Not only is this marketing game changing, but it also has a socio-cultural impact. Japan and Korea are the most wired countries in the world. Interestingly, they are also two immensely celebrity-loving nations. And it is here that some of the most familiar examples stem from. Think the 'dog poo girl' (not linking to the story lest it causes fresh trouble for the subject -- after years of that video) or the various open to public shame stories, bounced relentlessly because they were picked up by someone of a certain authority at some stage. At the same time, there are numerous cases of bloggers indicted into politics (Malaysia) and writing contracts (and I’m not even talking Jeff Jarvis).
These guys are not celebrities. Oh well, not in the usual sense of the word. They are not the usual pop star glitzbash guys that you associate celebrity-ism with. But they do enjoy influence within their circles -- their "circle of influence". The hook is -- all their circles are interconnected. And the collective ripple is stronger than the charming authority of a cinema hero.
The era has dawned. The era of the Micro-Celebrity. Sorry -- correction. The era of the Micro-Influencer.
Who are these guys? They need not have a direct influence on millions -- or even thousands. They can have a following of a few hundred. That's enough. Enough to have the influence that matters in today's communication-overdosed, narrowly fragmented era. Not to mention that the indirect influence these guys have might rival that of a full blown major league celebrity.
I call it the "Circle of Influence" leading to the "Opportunity to Influence" (as compared to the metrics of "Opportunity to See" in media terms)
There are times when I go to a conference and people who I have never met before in real life recognize me (I read your article on Social Media Today! OR So YOU run ChasingTheStorm?) Oh! And if that comes across as pompus, it is not only me, I'm sure you have your own story to tell. There are quite a handful who are regularly recognized, quoted, commented upon and referenced. Even if it is so by a handful few (as compared to, say, Brad Pitt).
But since I have better access to data with regards to myself, I will go further to demonstrate the phenomenon -- with me as a reluctantly pompous example. My LinkedIn profile for example has about 400 directly connected friends. And I have a reach of about 7 milion people through these 400-odd contacts. Add to the blog readership, Twitter, Facebook and a few other accounts, minus the duplication, I might have the indirect influence over about 15 million people all across the world. And it is not minus the personality. I have videos, people have tagged me in photos, and I write for a few other publications. Net net, let us say 15 million. In a world with over 1.5 billion internet users, I have a circle of influence of about 1 percent! Just within Asia -- 550 million Internet users -- (taking my reach base in Asia as 60 percent of the total) the circle of influence rises to 1.6 percent of people who use the internet.
Just because one has the reach does not imply one has the influence, but it does denote the 'opportunity to influence'. Imagine you being a musician and given a stage to perform -- with an audience of 30,000 (you will rub shoulders with the likes of U2 I guess then). Now just because you have a stage and an audience is half the story. If you do not perform well, you do not have the attention of the crowds.
As a matter of fact, if you do not engage them and catch their attention in the way that is expected, you might get yourself a truckload of rotten tomatoes to take home.
So what defines a micro-influencer? Three things -- reach, authority and consistency. And then comes the magic (though no frantic screams). You can argue there are other things at play when it comes to micro-influence -- like charm, appeal, sharing spirit -- well yes -- but most of those attributes should be covered in the three elements that define micro-influencers.
What does it mean for marketers? What does it mean for you as a business owner? What does it mean for you as a micro-influencer? How CAN you become a micro-influencer -- if you think you are already not one?
I will cover in these subsequent posts.
Shalabh Pandey is a digital engagement marketer and runs a micro-influencer blog on www.chasingthestorm.com.
