« Conversational Index is Reputation-Driven | Main | Ballsy Protest: Art as Communication? »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Forget Influentials: in Viral Marketing, Context Matters:

» Social Media Influentials from WebMetricsGuru
I meant to write about this yesterday but didnt have a chance - I can now. In Forget Influentials: in Viral Marketing, Context Matters Valeria Maltoni says that ...reaching influentials is not the way to reach the many. Duncan Wa... [Read More]

» Winning and Influencing in Social Media from Servant of Chaos
'how to win friends and influence people' Originally uploaded by bubbo-tubbo Over the past few months Valeria Maltoni, the Conversation Agent, has been on fire. She has written scores of long form, well thought-out and clearly articulated blog posts that [Read More]

» Duncan Watts vs. The Tipping Point from [ paul isakson ]
Note: This post is a bit late coming. It has been sitting a draft since the second day of February waiting for a couple final thoughts. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've already read quite a bit on the article that spurred it, but rather than delete it... [Read More]


At least you are consistent, Gaurav

I am with David Reich on the Servant of Chaos comment. Publicity, which is generally less costly than advertising, can reach a relatively small group of people, to a degree.

Some combination of mass and "influentials" could work, but who knows what the magic formula is? It will probably differ in every case.

Unless I’m way off the mark here, and correct me if I am, the only debate here is whether you should spend your marketing dollars targeting your ads at a lower number of influentials or reaching a broader market. This is a debate about cost trade-offs, not the fundamental nature of social networks.

Given that the objective of most marketers is to spread a given idea in the most cost-efficient manner (and it is), given that improvements in technology will make it more cost-efficient to identify and target influentials (and it will), and given that influentials themselves will become more connected via social media tools (and they will), word-of-mouth/ social/ viral marketing practitioners will do well to continue to focus on the tipping point potential of influentials.


Not a stupid question at all. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in and welcome to the conversation. The point of Watts' research is actually to demonstrate two things: that (1) anyone is a network can become a temporary influential if they choose to spread the information; (2) people's level of readiness to see/hear a message influences the spreading of it.

The definition of influential in the Edelman report actually supports that. If you look at the Social Media Index, for example, people who participate in a number of networks are favored. Sure, you will see the most known people measured there, but I would bet that there are many more who have a high index and good mix and are known in other circles.

With spreading I would factor in passion and right time, right place. Some examples of that is that relatively unknown bloggers have broken big news in this last year.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search Content

Advisory Boards

As seen on


Marketing that makes business sense


Book Reviews

Comment Policy and Social Guidelines

  • This is my blog and not a public space. Critical discourse is welcomed. However, inappropriate comments will be deleted. See my social guidelines for reference.


  • The opinions blogged herein represent only those of Valeria Maltoni and do not reflect those of her employer, persons or companies mentioned herein, or anyone else.

© Valeria Maltoni

  • This work is protected by copyright. It may be quoted and excerpted. Beyond a sentence or two, you should ask for permission before publication.

  • Conversation AgentTM

  • © 2006-2015 Valeria Maltoni.