How Fast Company Confused Ego with Influence

We're curious people, so we're drawn in by things we think might be interesting. I was intrigued at first, even thought it looked cool. My disappointment hit when they told me my goal was simply to pimp my personal link and get others to sign up.

Nope, wasn't able to, so didn't. I would have, though.

I think that's what drew so many of us in. Influence IS a really fascinating topic. What's it comprised of? Who can inspire action, and how? How does that huge social map overlap and intersect? Trouble is, we're not going to get there this way, especially when gaming the system is so much a part of “winning”. The prize is almost what spoils the effort.

Wouldn't that be rich? Well, if that's the case, I'll gladly eat crow when the time comes.

Clickapalooza. I like that one. And thanks for sharing your real world experience around influencer research. It's an area that fascinates me at its sociological roots, so perhaps that's why I take such issue with how it's being used in this context. Influence to me has existed long before the rise of social media and the web, but the online ease of information spread and “look at me!” syndrome online has really taken that idea and stripped out much of the substance. That's what I'm grinding at, I think.

It is also weird that you can not delete your profile and/or change it. I have registered via Facebook and I am unable to add some informatie or change the photo.

You nailed it Amber! Nice job!

Ego drives alot in social networking, FastCompany's influence project is leveraging the end users ego. But for how many eyeballs see it. I don't see the benefit for me or the use for my time or anyone's valuable time.

As you well know ego is an illusion and as a result the only influences or noises that will be made is for the benefit of Fast Company. Good for them! However, the end result is throwing a profile link about doesn't really get the essence of the individual and any contribution they may offer.

I see fast growing but faster burnout maybe worse off than the Wave. Certainly not as big but at least wave allowed you to author your contribution and the value of that was from you efforts.

Though, lets not forget, the Wave was ego hyped, too..

So, if the purpose of the click would have been to raise funds to cure cancer, would that have been a measure of influence? Do you think I would raise more money than Guy Kawasaki? Popular people inspire others. You clicked on the link and followed it blindly because you trust and respect Tac Anderson. Would you have clicked on the link if I sent it? That is what FC is measuring. The time that Tac has put in to making you trust him up until this point and his lingering influence over you to do something, anything. Could they have used their power for good over ego? Yes. You make a damn good suggestion. They could have used this as an opportunity to make a difference in people's lives. But just because this exercise isn't meaningful doesn't mean that they aren't measuring influence.

OH, and Disclosure: I write for Inc, sister publication to Fast Company, but I have no “influence” on this or any other article in FC.

I saw someone's tweet on it and checked it out. But there was no explanation of what it was trying to accomplish, so I didn't register.

Totally agree. I think we change the terms of the project to be about real influence. So, we connect, and create a project out of the connection that makes a difference, that is truly about influence. In essence use their platform for making a contribution. They have a blog, where some of this could be addressed.

Guess it was only a matter of time before someone worked up a MLM plan for ego boosting. I agree with your sentiment – I too, expect more from FastCompany.

The weird part is it doesn't even look like they are using it for lead generation for the site or magazine or business in general.

Why does everything have to be a “popularity contest”? To speak at a conference, you have to hammer your network for votes. To get listed in a magazine for the good work you're doing, you have to hammer your network for votes. To get a donation for your favorite cause, you have to hammer your network for votes.

I realize that those votes bring in eyeballs, which look good on a spreadsheet for advertisers, but they are having ripple effects beyond that. Currently, there is a lot of drama happening between two organizations I support. One is in line to win money from the latest Chase Giving program, but the “national foundation” is upset that it's not them. Even though they are way down on the list with no hopes of winning any money, they are guilt-tripping those voting for the other organization. The money is going to support research, but it's all a mess.

All some of this voting proves is that some people are willing to pimp out their networks to get ahead and some aren't.

Maybe they believe that bad PR is still PR. Any way you slice it,as you mention, it's lame and will leave many of to spread bad word of mouth for Fast Company.

Yeah, I'm not sure why they designed it that way. But I guess it doesn't matter much if I'm not putting my link out there.

Sorry, Ari, not quite catching what you're getting at re: them not contacting you. They didn't contact me, either. Sounds like they had a predetermined list they reached out to, if you're referring to the “pre” coverage/outreach. Is that what you mean?

We need to be objective enough to step back and look at how the rest of the world uses and measures success using these applications. You are telling me that Twitter IS NOT a big popularity contest? I have read a lot of qualitative comments about the value of twitter, social communication, etc. but I just can't buy that. It does not mean anything outside of the choir.

Why is this a failure again? We are all here discussing it, yea?

Wouldn't that mean that it's a success ( if penetration into the social sphere was the success metric, then its a win )?

Im not sure I get why people are upset about this ( unless they are H8TRZZ )

Hey Amber, I'm late to the party here and I've read Fast Company from the very first issues, back before the Internet, and I remember rolling my eyes when I saw this and thinking, really, this seems beneath them,

But (because I feel like being the lone voice of disagreement) one of the things that's lost from your post and some of comments here is that getting someone to decide to take an action is influence – even if it's clicking on a goofy link.

I'm not participating (partly because I fear I might fall short in my influence) but let's not be so quick to dismiss those that do as not having influence just because it's not what some define as such. Doing so is to be equally guilty of what's being charged here.

Getting people to click on a link is hard work, no matter the means and what people learn along the way in doing so will be valuable if only to themselves.

So, who's to say what constitutes influence – just don't spread the link or call it a best practice if you don't like, but nobody should claim to know what influence is and isn't and what the rules for wielding it are and are not. That's a relationship between two people and they are the only ones that get to decide.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything said here, only cautioning that the reaction is just as dangerous.

Problem with reading your posts from my phone in my inbox – sometimes I forget to come *post* the comment.
But since it's just a “Hell yeah! What she said!” comment, I probably could've skipped it. Still. Hell yeah!! What she said!!