Razorfish has published the results of a survey and analysis they did jointly with TNS Cymfony. In their report entitled Fluent, they explored the links between brand affinity, purchase decisions, and the impact of people and social networks at different stages of the consumer buying cycle. No big surprise: they found that “traditional top-down branding will become increasingly impotent as social media grows” in importance. However, the impact of social influences on purchase decisions varies considerably by product category, industry, and the stage of the buying cycle.
Types of Influencers
The Fluent report identifies 3 different categories of influence, based on the nature of the influencer’s relationship with a given consumer (see Razorfish’s diagram below). According to their survey, the relative impact of these different types of influencers varies both by the stage of the buying process, as well as the type of product or service being considered. (IMHO: this passes the common sense “sniff test.”)
Key influencers – people who have almost celebrity status in the social media world – in some cases can exercise considerable influence on purchase decisions throughout the consumer’s buying process. Rarely does the consumer actually know these key influencers in real life.
Social influencers are people whom the consumer follows on Twitter or FaceBook, or whose blogs and product reviews appeal to the consumer. Their influence is greatest during the earlier phase of the buying cycle: awareness and consideration, but wanes during the action phase. Although the social influencers are likely to be within the consumer’s social graph, they may not actually know each other.
The greatest impact occurs through known peer influencers: colleagues, friends and family. How much impact these “known peers” exercise varies by product category and how much the consumer respects the person’s insight and expertise in that category. For example, my husband can influence my brand and model decisions when it comes to auto purchases or leases; however, he has no impact on purchase decisions for yoga classes, mats and accessories, or other yoga-related items. This is because I don’t believe he has an informed opinion in this arena.
There’s interesting food for thought in the 50-page Fluent report, at least for consumer marketers in the industries that were studied by Razorfish and TNS Cymfony. I found the thought-leadership contributions by Razorfish execs and specialists to be the most helpful part of this report.
What About Social Influence in B2B?
Unfortunately for B2B marketers, the Fluent report does not explore the impact of social influencers on considered purchases in the business arena. Their data sources and perspective are squarely centered on the consumer brand environment.
It would be risky to draw conclusions from the Fluent report and apply them to business buyers, unless the product category is one with relatively low risk and the buyer acts like a consumer throughout the buying process. For example, when the business buyer is selecting a smartphone and has discretionary funds or purchase authority over that brand/model selection, without having to involve IT or purchasing. In this example the buyer is behaving like a consumer.
Compared to Fluent Forrester Research offers more relevant research and better insight into the different sources business buyers consult or pay attention to throughout their buying process. They have begun to examine the impact of social media, social networks and online communities on several product categories and industry sectors, particularly the technology sector.
Where the B2C and B2B buying environments are similar is the impact of word of mouth. According to Forrester, 84% of B2B buyers pay attention to what they hear or read from peers and colleagues. By way of comparison only 45% of the B2B buyers surveyed by Forrester turn to discussion forums, online communities or social network sites to inform themselves during their purchase process. [Forrester Research, B2B Marketers: Tap Into Social Networking Sites to Energize Community Marketing, June 17, 2009.]
Quantity versus Quality
One of the key distinctions between the consumer and business worlds when it comes to social media and social networks is quantity versus quality. As soon as you start talking about metrics in the consumer marketplace, quantity comes to the forefront.
Case in point: Razorfish proposes a new metric for assessing the value of social media and social networks for marketers: the “SIM Score.” The two key components of a SIM Score are reach and likeability (AKA consumer sentiment). Reach, of course, is a quantity metric.
Fluent defines reach in this context as “the total share of consumer conversations your brand has online.” Likeability is “the degree to which consumers like or dislike your brand when they talk to each other about you online – consumer sentiment.”
Said otherwise, a SIM Score is heavily influenced by the sheer number of conversations or mentions of the brand that take place online. Reach-related measures have always mattered to consumer brand marketers, so it’s not surprising that the quantity of conversations or mentions online plays such an important role within the proposed SIM Score.
On the other hand, in the B2B considered purchase arena, quality matters more than quantity. As Forrester reports,
But community size and traffic matter less in B2B. Technology decision-makers we surveyed say that the quality of the discussion and the expertise of participants factor most into their decision to join community activity for work purposes. The importance of editorial [and conversational] quality, coupled with their preference for gated community membership, will become a critical factor in building successful online business communities in the future.
In order of importance Forrester cited the following as the factors most likely to influence a B2B decision makers’ willingness to join or participate in an online community for work-related purposes. Note the high importance of factors relating to quality:
| Discussion quality, comment relevance | 54% |
| Demonstrated experience and thought leadership | 50% |
| Topics discussed | 38% |
| Originating issues or concerns | 23% |
| Visibility inside my industry | 18% |
| Volume of activity | 15% |
| Diversity of views, breadth | 14% |
| Community size | 10% |
| Longevity | 6% |
Implication
Given the tension between quality versus quantity in the B2B arena, the SIM Score introduced in Fluent may be relevant for consumer marketers, but is unlikely to fly in the B2B arena for complex buying processes.
It will be interesting to see if a universal metric will emerge in the future that works for both B2C and B2B marketers who need to assess the relative import of social media and specific social networks.
