The age of follow the leader ... or whomever

Photo by Rakesh Shetty on Unsplash

By Deron Snyder

According to an old saying, folks should either lead, follow or get out of the way. But nowadays, it’s harder to do the latter without running the risk of being trampled.

Our society seems to move at warp speed, with the next new thing arriving daily. We’re like Sandra Bullock’s character in “Gravity,” buffeted by zooming debris as we float helplessly through space. Except the hits and misses aren’t totally happenstance. Sometimes we’re steered onto a collision course without even realizing it. But that’s only fair, since we sometimes unconsciously nudge others in likewise fashion.

Between intentional persuaders and unintentional influencers, we are surrounded by legions of leaders, swarmed by a wealth of words from a multitude of mouths. The deluge exists not only within our personal networks through face-to-face communication, but whenever we venture onto the congested Internet. There, whether through social media, email, pop-ups or video clips, we are barraged with opinions from marketers and laypeople who can switch back and forth as they assume the other’s identity.

With such an influx of voices clamoring for positions of leadership, authority and influence, we arguably require more assistance than ever in separating contenders from pretenders. Thus begins a vicious cycle: Our need for clarity creates a rise in voices offering to fill the role, which generates increased demand for decipherers, which inspires additional people to seek the mantle, and round and round we go.

In some ways we’re like Starbucks, which in July 2008 launched a website as a forum for consumers’ suggestions, questions and frustrations. In a little more than two years, MyStarbucksIdea.com had 180,000 registered users and contained 80,000 ideas. Fifty of the notions eventually were implemented in company stores, meaning that Starbucks used one of every 1,600 ideas received. Most of us aren’t peppered at the same rate that Howard Schultz experienced, but the ratio of what sticks sounds about right. Unfortunately, we don’t have a staff of volunteers to sort through our mental inbox and decide what’s worth keeping and what’s worth deleting.

Consider your personal network of friends, family and co-workers. Each segment likely has a couple of individuals that have some influence on you. They might be your go-to sources for new restaurants to try, cars to consider buying, or technology to check out. In turn, other members of your personal network might look to you for information and advice. Virtually everything that any member needs can be found within the network, particularly since everyone is subject to electronic word-of-mouth from outsiders. And we know many of those voices have ulterior motives, driven by their thirst for social status and/or social power.

A paradigm shift has occurred in interpersonal influence and opinion leadership, caused by ubiquitous nature of mobile devices. According to a comScore report, mobile now has its own “Hierarchy of Needs,” similar to the psychological list developed my Maslov. In each of the nine global markets comScore studied (including the U.S.), mobile devices accounted for more than 60 percent of all digital minutes. Pew reports that 77 percent of Americans own smartphones, including 94 percent of Americans ages 18-29, 89 percent of those between 30-49, and 73 percent of ages 50-64.

That makes electronic word-of-mouth – especially the mobile-based variety – the greatest vehicle for influencers and opinion leaders. Marketers love this development because it allows them direct access to consumers and agents who can serve as marketing representatives overtly or covertly. The wide variety of uses and gratifications associated with mobile technology gives influence peddlers several ready-made segments to target. With the evolution of word-of-mouth marketing, opinion leaders can be employed and marketers can refine messages and promotions based on feedback.

This isn’t necessarily great news for the masses. As Eli Pariser outlined in a TED Talk, being placed in “filter bubbles” is cause for concern, whether it’s done by Facebook, Google, Yahoo News or marketers, the latter already hounding us with advertisements based on our recent searches. When an automaker puts 100 hand-picked individuals in new cars, or a tech company gives 90 carefully selected bloggers a new phone, some observers will be fooled. Some will miss the announcement – if it happened – that  those folks didn’t come upon the products organically.

The public is in prime position to be suckered by such tactics. But potential benefits exist as the number of influencers and opinion leaders increases – along with their ability to broadcast instantly and intimately (via mobile devices). Innovators couldn’t ask for a better a climate to introduce their innovations, snag some early adopters, and work toward gaining a majority audience. Granted, the sheer volume (amount) and volume (decibels) of competing voices makes standing out harder. But getting within earshot and eyesight of potential followers is easier; they’re connected to their devices and essentially logged in from morning to night. If they can’t be reached, someone who can reach them is probably accessible.

Marketers, informal influencers, opinion leaders and innovators play the numbers game. How many followers can they obtain? How many clicks can they induce? How many eyeballs can they draw? The chances of conversion increase as the raw total rises, because many “friends” and those who “like” will be on the outer fringe, connected but not really connected. Therefore, large sums are desirable and necessary, especially if only one out of 1,600 people – the Starbucks’ ratio – complies as you wish.

Put the right brand/product/personality in front of enough people and plenty of them will “follow.” Get some momentum going and the Social Proof principle can take effect: People will conclude that following is the right then to do because so many others are doing it. But that doesn’t mean they’ll be easily led or influenced. Some might never check back again, treating the brand/product/personality like an automatic deduction they’ve forgotten about.

That’s the beauty and the challenge of interpersonal influence, opinion leadership and diffusion of innovation today. Followers are ripe for the taking, but often can’t make up because they’re overwhelmed by choices. 

Leaders have their work cut out.