• Thanks for including me in this, Geoff!

    There are two mistakes that I see groups (often big organizations or campaigns) make when it comes to connecting with their community:

    Mistake #1 – That you have only one “community”. This is very much like the point you are making above, when groups think that one message or one call to action will work as the only message because there is just one audience.

    Mistake #2 – Segments of the community are completely separated. Groups that recognize their community is actually made up of segments (both segments by channel and where you can connect to them, but also segments of interest and desired engagement) sometimes take that too far thinking that these segments never interact with each other or with you in the same way/place. This comes back to bite ’em when they set different goals, use vastly different messaging, or promise different incentives and then the segments come together on the group’s website, email, facebook, etc.

    Thanks for the great Monday morning reading – kick-starting the brain!

    • I like the addition of Mistake #2. In today’s hypernetworked world, it’s impossible to assume separation. The six shades of Kevin bacon rule applies to almost every issue. Great point, Amy!

      Thank you!

  • I always love your posts, Geoff. Thanks for the education.

    • Thanks, Dede. I appreciate your support. I owe you a call, for sure. Yet another conference today, bear with me!

      • Enjoyed this post – especially the gardening metaphor. The organic approaches work. It also works for building or spreading peer knowledge and best practices. Wikis can be gardens. Think about the social aspect of a urban community garden – may gardens cultivating their small patches together – informally sharing insights and learnings by observation or informal discussion.

        Why do so many nonprofits waste time and effort trying to reach out to the “rock stars” when they can more effective focusing on the magic middle? Is the culture of “views” and “celebrity” just so ingrained that it is difficult to change? How do you get nonprofits to think differently?

  • It was very kind of you to include me here, Geoff, thank you! Amy’s mistake #2 was one of the things I was going to point to, and she beat me to it. :) In such a connected world, it’s practically impossible to separate different segments of a community in a completely discrete fashion, particularly when it comes to online communities. I think it’s human nature (or maybe marketing nature?) to want to categorize everyone and put them in neat little boxes, but it’s very, very difficult to do that in the real world.

    What I see often is that, specifically when it comes to generating awareness and, ultimately action, many organizations, non-profits included, still assume “PR” is achieving ink in MSM. Just the other day I was talking to someone who is doing some terrific work in the NP sector. This person has built a fantastic community and the community, because it is energized by the program and mission, is doing the “job” of getting the word out, and will hopefully spur action as well.

    S/he then asked me what they could do to get more “PR”… and this is when the program has received really good visibility via some major online pubs and blogs. I said, “You’re already doing it. You’re building relationships with the people whose voices are listened to, not just heard. If you want to get more MSM visibility, think about why that will help your ultimate objective. If it’s not going to… what does it matter?” In other words, s/he is a really great gardener, and what I was trying to get across is that the tending and growing of that garden is what’s important.

    I’m certainly not saying that MSM visibility doesn’t help – of course it can, when it’s the right kind (in the right pubs, etc.). But the misconception that that is what “PR” is really needs to be put to rest, IMHO.

    • Yeah, I really like this, Shonali. I would even say that they take a media relations approach to social media, not a holistic PR approach (oh yeah, that battle). What these folks fail to realize is its not impressions, rather relationships that these influencers work off of… And we’re asking them to talk about us in a very important way: peer-to-peer.

      Thanks for a great comment!

  • Thank you kindly for the mention, Papa Smurf :). But seriously, I am a huge fan of the machine gunners versus gardeners analogy. And I don’t think the answer is necessarily one or the other. But I will take gardening almost every day over machine gunning if forced to choose.

    For example, had a client the other day that is really trying to work toward IMC and doing a great job with it. We focus our PR efforts on targeting a niche community of bloggers that are influential not because of any number (see Klout score), but because of the community they have built that matches up with the client’s target customer audience. When we explain our approach to reach out to this targeted community of bloggers, people across the marketing comms disciplines seem to get it. When we start talking about numbers (e.g. Compete, Technorati, etc), several of those same communicators all of a sudden ask, “Why are the traffic or authority numbers so low?” Interesting study in human behavior to watch.

    One more magic middle analogy to drive home the point you made so well in your post. Say you work for a cat food company and have a pitch you want to share. Would you rather earn a story in a cat food blog (gardening) or in your city’s largest newspaper? The answer, of course, is both. But if I had to pick one, I’ll take the cat food blog every time because I know that community is predisposed to the story I’m telling. Cheers.

    • I think you make a great point, which I am not sure that I conveyed well in the post. You don’t want to turn back major coverage. Sometimes that helps with the magic middle, I think they are always impressed when a major influencer is as interested in a story as they are (even if it means squat to their sector). We like having a major at sector specific events, for example, because it makes the magic middle feel special. Thanks for a great comment, Justin!

  • I think the “magic middle” is one of the best phrases I’ve come across when it comes to describing why and how organizations can influence others to pay attention to them and actually care about what they are doing.

    Shonali makes such a good point about what I think of as the new PR – tending to your garden community and creating really great ties that generate press attention is what PR is about nowadays.

    I think the next class you should teach is one on creating a create community garden, don’t you?

    I’ll be passing this along to folks – thanks for getting my brain going this Monday as well.

    • We’ll see if I teach again. LOL! David Sifry did such a great job with the Magic Middle analysis that Technorati was doing in the middle of the last decade. It’s a shame that Technorati has lost so much muscle because they did do an interesting job promoting and ranking. Thanks for the comment and tweet, Debra!

  • Pingback:Machine Gunners and Gardeners | Geoff Livingston’s Blog « What's On My Mind?

    […] A movement exists to quantify everyone’s social media strength across diverse social networks and blogs. This widespread strength is a sign of true influence, argue social media gurus. Perhaps from a mass consumer market or a top influencer’s perspective, a “machine gun” approach towards influence makes sense. For most, addressing only widespread influence puts an organization into a position of weakness. A vast majority of companies and nonprofits must cultivate specific vertical markets, and specialized media and communities, just like a gardener tending his/her specific plot of land.   Read More […]

  • Pingback:Focus on the Magic Middle Influencer: Geoff Livingston’s Blog « Cyberqueen VA Solutions

    […] May 3, 2011 Focus on the Magic Middle Influencer: Geoff Livingston’s Blog Posted by Ana Lucia Consulting under virtual assistant Leave a Comment […]

  • Great article, thank you!

  • The big mistake companies make is assuming influence = intensity. As Spike Jones says all the time, I’d rather have 500 people that are genuinely passionate about my brand, versus 1 famous person who is moderately excited.

    • Good analogy! Influence = intensity, and it’s so true. It’s like spending all your money on the first day of vacation! That = a craptastic VK! Thanks for the comment and the RT, Jay.

  • Great post!

  • You definitely need to hear my keynote on influence from the other night. Exactly in line with this.

  • Great post. Context is everything when you are discussing influence. General scoring has little to no use to a business trying to produce results within a specific context. I think this is even more relevant to B2B conversations because the context tends to be more focused.

    At the end of your post you talk about people who basically influence the “influencers”. It really breaks down to how is your community structured and how does information flow. If you are a company that is trying to get out a message for example and you want to reach an “influencer” with the right intelligence you might find it much more productive to build a relationship with an influencer of the influencer. So I guess my other point here is that the business objective you are trying to achieve greatly influences who your influencers are based on what you need.

    I love the post and glad I discovered the blog.

    • Yes, influencer of an influencer. So, one thing that may make sense is that in an ecosystem, there is always intradependence. It’s never so easy as the big fish. You need the plankton and the small and medium sized fish, too. Sharks are small relatively speaking from a populations perspective. Point being, we are all interconnected, there really is no singular A-List. Cheers, and thanks for a great comment!

  • Excellent post and great analogies.

  • I find that people with less influence can have more passion for your brand than those with higher influence levels. Even if the influence and numbers aren’t there to back that person up, they will tweet about you and your brand all day long, as long as you talk back!

  • Pingback:Four Things Pick-Up Basketball Teaches You About Social Media, PR. Seriously. #localgovchat #gov20 « LocalGovChat

    […] It is too easy to go for the big splash in PR. Sure, it’s exciting. But over the length of a campaign, you want something sustainable. You want something high-percentage. I’ve seen too many government campaigns start huge and get great numbers for a week or two, but then quickly fade away. You need to pace yourself and allow the community to grow. You need to give time for the initiative to gain momentum organically. […]

  • Pingback:How to create love online: To Mama with Love

    […] has spent years planting seeds of love and cultivating a community of giving. She cultivates the “magic middle” of stakeholders, activists, and influencers who would genuinely care about a cause such as Epic […]

  • Check the fingernails.

  • Pingback:Influence: The Face of the Facebook Revolution? | Geoff Livingston's Blog

    […] back to the Magic Middle influencer theory, we see that in the cases of al-Obeidy, Bouazizi, and Ghonim, none of them were famous or well […]

  •  Geoff, great points. It’s the ‘working’ influencers aka magic middle who are fully immersed and contributing to their communities who have meaningful, sustainable influence.  

  • Pingback:The Four Social Strategies Applied to Facebook | Geoff Livingston's Blog

    […] aren’t necessarily the most powerful within your stakeholder community. Research and find the magic middle, influencers who are accessible to the community yet are well referenced and hold […]

  • Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!

Comments are closed