How Fast Company Confused Ego with Influence

Comments | Add yours

Brass Tack Thinking - How Fast Company Confused Influence with EgoI’m a Fast Company fan. I’ve been reading for years, and they have some super smart writers and contributors on their team.

But I really think they missed the mark with The Influence Project, in a big way, and confused the idea of “influence” with ego.

To me, influence isn’t about popularity. Or even reach. It’s about the trust, authority, and presence to drive relevant actions within your community that create something of substance. That last bit is key.

I clicked this morning on a tweet from Tac Anderson, someone I like and respect a great deal. I even uploaded my picture, all that stuff that I was supposed to do, hoping that there was something really interesting that would happen at the end, something I was supposed to do. Spread the word about a charity? Encourage people to contribute thoughtful content around an idea? Something I could sink my teeth into to show how great ideas can spread?

Nope. This is in the confirmation email I got:

1) You can use any means to spread your unique link to your online network. We shortened it for you so you can share on Twitter and Facebook.

2) Your goal is to influence as many people to click on it as possible.

3) You want those people to sign up as well, since they will be spreading your influence along with their own.

4) You can track how your influence has grown, where it’s lead, and where you stand at any time on the site.

5) Your picture is going to be in the November issue of Fast Companymagazine, where we’ll reveal the most influential person online!

Seriously, Fast Company? The goal is to influence clicks to my stupid profile? And I want people to sign up to be my minions so they can “spread my influence along with their own?”

This isn’t influence. This is an ego trap and a popularity contest, pure and simple. There’s no goal other than click pandering. Already, Twitter is full of people shouting “click on my junk!” and flooding my stream and countless others with nothing more than clamoring for…well…validation.

Influence can be quiet, understated, and wielded with grace. Influence is NOT jumping up and down, begging for people to click on stuff so that they, too, can find the gatekey for their own path to feeling important in the online fishbowl.

I’m sad that there wasn’t more to this. I was expecting something different, something meaningful, something that shows that influence isn’t about numbers and eyeballs and fleeting stabs of attention in the maelstrom of 140-character snippets.

I’m disappointed. I’m sorry I clicked, and hoped for something different. And I’m frustrated that, once again, we’re going to have to discuss influence in its proper context, the work that it takes to create a truly influential platform that people can trust,  delineate the difference between people who can inspire meaningful action, and those that seek the panflash of popularity in an attention-starved space.

Sigh.

UPDATE: Thanks to Molly Block for pointing out this PDF that was a creative brief/pitch from Mekanism (the agency behind the experiment) to Fast Company. The third concept appears to be what they were attempting with this stunt, and while I agree that it will most certainly attention and eyeballs if that was their aim, I still have a fundamental problem with the way they’re treating the concept of “influence”. There were probably better ways to achieve the same aim without implying that influence was part of the equation. Just call a spade a viral contest stunt spade and be done with it.

Find more like this: Communication, Community, Social media , , ,

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • http://rmeray.com Ryan Meray

    Nail on the head here, Amber. I'm opting out.

  • http://rmeray.com Ryan Meray

    Nail on the head, Amber. I'm totally opting out myself.

  • http://twitter.com/braddahmike Michael Jensen

    Great post Amber, saw this last night and have kept seeing posts about it all day. After reading your post, I can help but think the “winner” of the contest may end up being a big loser and something no one wants to claim.

  • http://www.adelemcalear.com adelemcalear

    See my comment to Ike, below. My gut says that FC had honest intentions of running a cool experiment and did not seek to misuse the trust they've gained in the industry.

    The problem is, their methodology is flawed. And, because we trust Fast Company and hold them to a certain like-minded standard, when they ask us for faith in something, we're likely to give it. But, in discovering that the exercise is flawed and knowing that individual reputations have been effected as a result of simply participating, people will end up feeling duped and angry.

    It's too bad for Fast Company that they've burned quite a few reputation points amongst a certain crowd. Others, though, won't even notice that there's a problem and the perpetuation of hollow link baiting as a measure of influence will continue. To me, that's worst of all.

  • matthewdibble

    I'm wondering if Fast Company fell prey to the quick hit that so many other companies do in this space… “think about how many magazines we can sell with all of those faces on the cover.”

    It's a dressed up version of that age old lame attempt at “engagement”… “RT this to win a free such and such.”
    Don't sweat it, none of us would have expected that from Fast Company. WHY didn't they go with “WTF Man?”

  • Steve

    Great assessment. But then have come to expect some spot-on thinking from you. Thanks.
    Fun to check out the Mekanism pitch doc too.

  • http://www.meryl.net/section/blog/ Meryl K Evans

    I'm embarrassed. I clickedthrough to see what it was about. If I had seen the confirmation email BEFORE clicking, then I would've Ctrl+F4 (closed tab). I tend to ignore conversations around this because they spread the wrong message and influence meaningless actions/behavior.

    I just want to have meaningful and intelligent conversations with y'all and get to know you and your stories (journey). If we end up helping each other out — that's a bonus (short-term destination).

  • http://facebook.com/marismith Mari Smith

    Amber, I love what you've written here.

    I was one of the, uhm, hand-picked “influencers” that Fast Company (Mekanism) reached out to for early notification of this project.

    Call me naïve. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. Maybe I see what I want to see. But I thought this project was really, really cool. A chance for everyone and anyone to have their picture in the print and online versions of a respected magazine. I thought it was an *inclusive* project. I though it was similar to what Seth Godin has done with his inside jacket book covers.

    It didn't occur to me there would be this mad frenzy of people vying for clicks on their own links. Yet, I fell right into the “trap,” so to speak. (I'm cool with my choices as I made them in good faith.)

    It wasn't 'til a couple of fellow social media devotees poked a few holes in the initiative this morning after I'd already promoted the project. It was a d'oh moment: this could be likened to a human pyramid scheme?? Yikes!

    Even as I read your post here, I'm reminded of times I've been added to lists describing influence whereby people are ranked depending on how good they are at SEO, frankly. And that just does not sit well with me at all. I never refer to those lists/rankings. They are not a true indicator of influence. So, yes, this Fast Company project is, in essence, similarly biased.

    The concept (and interface!) certainly seem worthy on first pass. But, I must admit, in back of my mind I was thinking: You know, all it will take is for an Ashton Kutcher – or similar big celeb with monumental following – to promote the heck out of the Influence Project and voila he/she's the winner. And then that just doesn't prove anything.

    In any case, thanks for shedding your perspective on this and I also appreciate the input of the other few folks who are seeing a different angle.

    At the end of the day, I believe everyone has a degree of influence on the community around them, regardless of the size of that community. And we don't need a nifty new interface to tell us so.

  • http://facebook.com/marismith Mari Smith

    Amber, I love what you've written here.

    I was one of the, uhm, hand-picked “influencers” that Fast Company (Mekanism) reached out to for early notification of this project.

    Call me naïve. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. Maybe I see what I want to see. But I thought this project was really, really cool. A chance for everyone and anyone to have their picture in the print and online versions of a respected magazine. I thought it was an *inclusive* project. I though it was similar to what Seth Godin has done with his inside jacket book covers.

    It didn't occur to me there would be this mad frenzy of people vying for clicks on their own links. Yet, I fell right into the “trap,” so to speak. (I'm cool with my choices as I made them in good faith.)

    It wasn't 'til a couple of fellow social media devotees poked a few holes in the initiative this morning after I'd already promoted the project. It was a d'oh moment: this could be likened to a human pyramid scheme?? Yikes!

    Even as I read your post here, I'm reminded of times I've been added to lists describing influence whereby people are ranked depending on how good they are at SEO, frankly. And that just does not sit well with me at all. I never refer to those lists/rankings. They are not a true indicator of influence. So, yes, this Fast Company project is, in essence, similarly biased.

    The concept (and interface!) certainly seem worthy on first pass. But, I must admit, in back of my mind I was thinking: You know, all it will take is for an Ashton Kutcher – or similar big celeb with monumental following – to promote the heck out of the Influence Project and voila he/she's the winner. And then that just doesn't prove anything.

    In any case, thanks for shedding your perspective on this and I also appreciate the input of the other few folks who are seeing a different angle.

    At the end of the day, I believe everyone has a degree of influence on the community around them, regardless of the size of that community. And we don't need a nifty new interface to tell us so.

  • http://briancarteryeah.com/ briancarter

    I bit and sent mine out there. Because I'm a shameless egotist LOL. But if they seeded with handpicked influencers first, don't those people have a big advantage in the voting? I would think that screws it up.

  • http://twitter.com/emerigent/lists/memberships Emeri Gent [Em]

    IMHO this reminds me of what made zombie movies so great, because that is where I would go to watch this form of fawning influence “mashination”. I do think that it is important to raise a personal objection against any form of egocentric pedestal pushing fan creating celebrity dross kind of thinking because it goes to the heart of what personal brand should not be but sadly can easily deteriorate into.

    There is always going to be room in this world for professionally minded brands that are the best in class and that deliver the underlying promise of a trust mark. Turning influence into a personality contest only makes the dilution of brand that much more of a social weakness, and this is where I have always had a thing about turning brand into trivialized or personalized conceptions rather than as an authentic reality.

    I like separating process from people and over the years I have enjoyed seeing intelligent writers coming through Fast Company and doing their best and there has been good work. I don't much care for superficiality or faddish publicity, or whatever one deems to call any descent into superficial promotions, IMHO it takes away from the strengths that have always been there, which are the same strengths that people like Alan Webber brought to the magazine in the early days in the dotcom heyday. This is a process issue here not a people issue, and as I have said, the writers and the creative talent that has walked through their doors has been superb in comparison, to do justice to those writers don't descend into click pandering.

    Groupthink is one of those things I don't care for and to treat influence this means we should take some care in rescuing what the word “influence” should mean. I would be appalled if groupthink becomes the low watermark of superficial influence. That kind of pop culture should have gone out with the 80's boy bands, but it continues to be pretty strong and I blame superficial branding the promotion of branding superficiality. Let's return the idea of “influence” to a higher standard and in turn it is time to rescue the diminishment of branding itself, so that branding represents the best of a trustmark or a promise rather than the worst of blind trust and fad promotion.

    When I write this response, it is about my standards and not free consulting for a media organization or for the promotion of significance. I was reading “Power and Innocence” by Rollo May and it is amazing how much thought of great writers hasn't permeated its way into global consciousness and that we seem to fall into the rinse and repeat world of reacting rather than learning. I think it is important to recognize how complicit we can be in that which we may raise a voice against, and some of those behavioral things have not changed despite years since Rollo May made his observations about the human condition.

    I think we are always going to be watching zombie movies, there is always going to be a place for “Shaun of the Dead”, we are all fully capable of engaging in superficial process. It is however important to recognize that superficiality, because it is in that recognition where we gain the win-win of understanding. What did I learn from this? If I don't know that, then I am merely a rubberneck participant. What I learned from this is that influence (the kind that Robert Cialdini describes) is the only kind of “influence” I want to focus on. (And I will).

    [Em]

  • http://twitter.com/emerigent/lists/memberships Emeri Gent [Em]

    IMHO this reminds me of what made zombie movies so great, because that is where I would go to watch this form of fawning influence “mashination”. I do think that it is important to raise a personal objection against any form of egocentric pedestal pushing fan creating celebrity dross kind of thinking because it goes to the heart of what personal brand should not be but sadly can easily deteriorate into.

    There is always going to be room in this world for professionally minded brands that are the best in class and that deliver the underlying promise of a trust mark. Turning influence into a personality contest only makes the dilution of brand that much more of a social weakness, and this is where I have always had a thing about turning brand into trivialized or personalized conceptions rather than as an authentic reality.

    I like separating process from people and over the years I have enjoyed seeing intelligent writers coming through Fast Company and doing their best and there has been good work. I don't much care for superficiality or faddish publicity, or whatever one deems to call any descent into superficial promotions, IMHO it takes away from the strengths that have always been there, which are the same strengths that people like Alan Webber brought to the magazine in the early days in the dotcom heyday. This is a process issue here not a people issue, and as I have said, the writers and the creative talent that has walked through their doors has been superb in comparison, to do justice to those writers don't descend into click pandering.

    Groupthink is one of those things I don't care for and to treat influence this means we should take some care in rescuing what the word “influence” should mean. I would be appalled if groupthink becomes the low watermark of superficial influence. That kind of pop culture should have gone out with the 80's boy bands, but it continues to be pretty strong and I blame superficial branding the promotion of branding superficiality. Let's return the idea of “influence” to a higher standard and in turn it is time to rescue the diminishment of branding itself, so that branding represents the best of a trustmark or a promise rather than the worst of blind trust and fad promotion.

    When I write this response, it is about my standards and not free consulting for a media organization or for the promotion of significance. I was reading “Power and Innocence” by Rollo May and it is amazing how much thought of great writers hasn't permeated its way into global consciousness and that we seem to fall into the rinse and repeat world of reacting rather than learning. I think it is important to recognize how complicit we can be in that which we may raise a voice against, and some of those behavioral things have not changed despite years since Rollo May made his observations about the human condition.

    I think we are always going to be watching zombie movies, there is always going to be a place for “Shaun of the Dead”, we are all fully capable of engaging in superficial process. It is however important to recognize that superficiality, because it is in that recognition where we gain the win-win of understanding. What did I learn from this? If I don't know that, then I am merely a rubberneck participant. What I learned from this is that influence (the kind that Robert Cialdini describes) is the only kind of “influence” I want to focus on. (And I will).

    [Em]

  • Sroth

    Amber, you are spot on. I have to admit, it is a fun app they are running if for no other reason than to run into others out there on this massive map. I dont know you, however, I am now going to subscribe to what you have to say, cause I get your realness and respect it. Authenticity, transparency, honesty….

  • http://twitter.com/TantienHime Shanta R. Nathwani

    I have to admit, I was drawn into it too. I was getting around to reading your article and after I signed up I agree that I expected to see something more. I agree that the term “influence” may not be appropriate. Maybe the “Twitterfly Effect”? I was curious to see where my tweets go and how many people find them useful. Guess I'll have to find/develop it myself.

  • Anne Hill

    At least they make perfectly clear one prominent model of social media influence: influence as a Ponzi scheme. I'm with you, I much prefer people following me because I have something unique and interesting to say. Does this mean that there is an inverse proportion between creative content and mindless follow campaigns?

  • lacouvee

    Thanks for talking about IMPACT Amber. I'm more commonly called a “power-user” (don't like that term) and love social media for the ability to connect with and create community (both online and offline). As far as I'm concerned we're still at the stage of norming the social media community (as if there is only one).

    I want to create “real” demonstrable action in the communities I'm part of, whether that be donations to the food bank, surveys completed, people at events, dollars raised, connections made.

    I respect the two people who posted about the Influence Project and like you, signed up and now wish I hadn't.

    So – I'll go back to doing what I do best – working – hard!, towards the goals and outcomes that are important to me. It'll take more than a few random clicks….

  • http://twitter.com/jdojc Jason Dojc

    @ambercadabra RE: @fastcompany's #influencerproject Were you able to opt out? And if so, did you?

  • Pingback: influence-v-popularity

  • jessicaeavesmathews

    This is such a great discussion – thank you for launching it, Amber. I was one of those people who got sucked in and even retweeted it. I wish I hadn't! I am not about a popularity contest. I am about authenticity, real connections and excellent content. Lesson learned. No more bright shiny objects for me!

  • http://joshuadenney.com Joshua

    THAT would be genius.

  • http://joshuadenney.com Joshua

    I've seen far too many fake gurus get press at Fast Company to take that part of their operation very seriously. That said, I was optimistic about the project at first glance.

    I signed in and looked around, but didn't need to pass around my 'influence' link to see what it really was, and where it is going.

    If it were only that easy to find out how we're all interconnected & influence each other ;)

  • http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com Michael A. Stelzner

    Amber,

    You nailed it completely. I was turned off by the lack of information and transparency with this clear “promotion.”. I can hear the back room discussions right now, “Just think what people will be willing to do to get their picture in our magazine (drool).” [emphasis added]

  • http://www.jmorganmarketing.com jacobmorgan

    Didn't you hear it was all just a late april fools joke :)

  • http://itsjosipnotjoseph.com/ Josip

    Great article Amber! Your argument is sound and I agree with it to a sense. But I think the “project” itself is a project. Although some will use it for popularity, I think that's merely a result from the project. Think of this as a high school science experiment were you put something in the petri dish. In essence, the whole online world – and even offline communication – are the petri dish and the project itself is the element inside the dish. I think Fast Company is quite aware of what they're doing.

    The real question here is do you want to be part of this science experience? The annoyance factor does exist. Along with the deception of the personal links being mistaken for actual links. I figure you can either enjoy this and have some fun or you can be opposed to it. What will be interesting is the results that will come out of this. Results that all of us – pro, against and neutral – will use, tweet and examine.

    Quite frankly, there are a lot of sophisticated undertones here. Some that might not even be apparent to Fast Company themselves. Participating in this can't be any worse than Twitter, Facebook and all other social networking platforms that in themselves the post's argument can be applied to. So yes, I can see your point Amber. But, curiosity wants me to see where this will go.

  • Pingback: How Fast Company Confused Ego with Influence (Amber Naslund/Brass Tack Thinking) | Headset Walkie Talkie

  • Pingback: How Fast Company Confused Ego with Influence (Amber Naslund/Brass Tack Thinking) | Waterproof Two Way Radio

  • Pingback: How Fast Company Confused Ego with Influence (Amber Naslund/Brass Tack Thinking)

  • http://twitter.com/thompsonpaul Paul Thompson

    The cynic in me thinks there's another possible goal for the project. To test how easy it is in the current web climate to “influence” people to take an essentially worthless action.

    No, I'm not kidding – think about it. It's a great way to test the general web population's willingness to engage in an action that offers no up-front explanation for participating nor what, if any, “benefit” might accrue from the action.

    What if the project's actual purpose is to test how willing we are to be sheep?

    Paul

  • ambercleveland

    Amber, I am really sorry that it wasn't what you expected today. Just thought you might like to know that from a listener perspective, I heard a lot of great things. Some of them I have heard before, but to have 1 great tip after another, was really valuable for me. Insight, from those who are respected…there was some plugging of people's books, blogs, websites, etc. but I think that was ok too – kind of the price of a “free” webinar.

    One of the things I heard at SME10 (from @natanyap) was that it isn't what you want to say, it's what people want/need to hear from you. I got that from you today. The thing you said that resonated with me was: “Online influence is organically grown over time. Give more than you get!” You did that today, just like you do every day since I started following you (and I suspect the days before I followed you, too- SALB). Just thought you might like to know.

  • http://ernohannink.com ernohannink

    So weird I hate the farm ville and mafia games on Facebook and the contests where you need to click on people's links in Twitter. Then I click on a link of someone that I admire and influences me. Luckily there are people out there that also influence me and make me think again (like Amber, Liz, Chris).

    There is this part in me that get's enthusiastic too fast sometimes. This is probably one of those moments. This post actually makes me rethink the 2 Awards we are handing out on our Social Media Event. Is it about the Awards or the clicks? Mmm. We started it because we wanted to find the experts in their fields, the influencers. Or did it become a clicking game to get traffic to our site? And yes it generates traffic, but is the traffic valuable not so sure. Note, there is also a jury looking at all the nominees and vote for the winners.

    This FC games is more Influence versus the abbility to promote the contest fast and good. It is like the old chain letter schemes, the ones that start the initiative end up getting the best deal.

    Another thing, this action is not transparant at all. When you invite influencers (well respected people with lots of following) to promote your contest these people should reveal this. Have not seen that.

    Thank you Amber for making me rethink, Ike for the joke and Chris for not participating.

  • http://uniquevisitor.net Jeff Pester

    Hey Chris, I got a total of three emails inviting me to participate via @SocialMedia411. When I saw the details in the final email this morning I realized this wasn't an experiment in influence, but (as Amber correctly points out) a popularity/persuasion contest. I'm embarrassed for Fast Company signed – it makes them look out of touch on the entire category.

  • AmberNaslund

    Amber, I think you're confusing the “shortest marketing conference ever” with fast company's project. They unfortunately share a similar name. But I was very happy to be part of the conference along with some other great folks. Different project. :)

  • Pingback: Fast Company Confuses Network Marketing with Influence « Black Web 2.0

  • http://twitter.com/kamichat Kami Huyse

    I am thinking that being called a whore large scale could be less-than-desirable attention. But I know many who thank any publicity is good publicity. They then can go on to say were named most influential by Fast Company, instead of most like to have a viral disease (sorry, couldn't help myself).

  • http://twitter.com/kamichat Kami Huyse

    Yes, yes and yes. It is the ACTION step that counts. And good luck getting that without convincing people you have something they want/need. If you squander what influence you have getting people to click on something like the Fast Company article, with no value, than you reduce the possibility they will click again.

  • http://twitter.com/kamichat Kami Huyse

    Picture Twitter babes in nothing but overcoats. More of a Playboy light IMHO.

  • http://treypennington.com treypennington

    I'm with Amber on this one: from you, sir, I would have expected nothing less. ; )

    I'm STILL trying to get my private URL shortener, http://www.TP4.me to work…

  • AmberNaslund

    Amy, I don't think influence is as simple as that. Inspiring action is part of it, sure. And motivating someone to click a link is a demonstration of some measure of influence, I suppose, at a really superficial level. But for all the work we're doing to try and communicate how intricate and nuanced (and contextual) influence is, I think this misses a key piece. By the “inspire action” logic alone, you can call an infomercial influential. What *I'm* positing is that influence has to also come with some measure of lasting impact, not just impulse.

  • AmberNaslund

    I don't know that it's really all that filthy – I'm still thinking there was some kind of good intent here, or I hope so anyway. But you're clearly not alone in feeling let down and a bit puzzled at the whole thing.

  • AmberNaslund

    Thanks, Cathy! Unfortunately I'm on the road next week. But thanks for the invitation!

  • AmberNaslund

    I think if Fast Company had just called it what it was – a contest to get on the cover based on votes or something – I would have just tossed it aside and not paid much attention. But I guess I feel pretty passionately about the entire influencer discussion and what the true nature of influence is, and I felt like they were bastardizing a term just to get the attention of those desperate to be labeled as same. Maybe that was precisely their point. I dunno. But it just doesn't sit well with me.

  • AmberNaslund

    Is it just me, or does the term “stunt” have negative connotations? As if it's a deliberate attempt to dupe the masses into something that almost makes them look silly for falling for it?

  • AmberNaslund

    I wish I could find a way to pull my profile. Alas, not an option.

  • AmberNaslund

    yeah, but here's the reality. If it's one of the online nerderati, there might be finger pointing. But we live in a small little fishbowl here in social media, and the rest of the world loves popularity contests. Look at the success of all the reality shows. I've taken issue with this, but I guarantee that there are hundreds if not thousands of people perfectly willing to be labeled as a top influencer based on how many clicks they could wheedle.

  • http://socialmediamoves.com/index.html Glenn Raines

    Real influence drives substantive outcomes defined by consensus, detraction, evolving the thought, whatever. These popularity contests continue to dilute what influence can truly evolve. I've done extensive work in peer influence mapping in the pharmaceutical world. These influencers earn their stripes with unfettered commitment to advancing academic and bench research, or measurably improving the lives of patients as practicing clinicians. In most cases their influence on next generation therapies or prescribing peers impacts quality of life decisions. The analogy here serves any industry well. Influence is earned through heavy lifting and commitment. Not the result of a clickapalooza.

  • AmberNaslund

    HA! WTF Man. I'm quite sure that, like many things, it was at least in part a publicity stunt. Doesn't make me any more excited about how they've rather abused the idea of what constitutes influence.

  • AmberNaslund

    Thanks, Steve. I'm wrong plenty, and FC could certainly still make me eat crow on this one. We'll find out.

  • AmberNaslund

    It WAS worth a first pass, and there's no harm in having investigated. I did, too. I just can't help but think there were so many places they could have gone with this that would have highlighted influential people in specific industries based on their authority and credibility (not visibility), spread great ideas or content, raised awareness for startup companies or charities… I dunno. I'm just left wanting more, and wanting some intellectual ideas around what influence is. Maybe that's still coming and the November issue will surprise us all. I'm not holding my breath.

  • AmberNaslund

    Interesting take on the transparency part. Anyone know if the “early” influencers disclosed that they were such?

  • AmberNaslund

    We're a pretty superficial species. Taking a look at the stuff that's popular on TV, movies, books, and even YouTube bears that out pretty clearly. So I'm disappointed, but not surprised that thoughts like mine and others around the influence discussion aren't really going to make much of a dent in this.

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →