Comments on: Social Influence: reach vs affinity

By: Scott Drummond

Scott Drummond — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:16:01 +0000

Oh snap – wish I had read this before I posted much the same sentiment over on my blog

Seriously though, there has been way too much focus on weak ties for my liking over the last decade and not enough promotion of the depth of relationships forged.

I have a post on this exact topic in the pipeline that gets all academic on yo’ ass.

Nice one mate

By: Jye Smith

Jye Smith — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:38:10 +0000

Hey Ben,

I believe it’s demonstrating some of the differences in influence between reach and affinity.

Broadcast messages have proven results, so I’d never begin to dismiss them.

Our ROI modeling is becoming more sophisticated as we work with more clients, based on some careful analysis.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:30:09 +0000

Am i getting this right that this basically says ‘a message given to you by someone you trust or have a bond with is more likely to be passed forward’?

Do we really think this can be influenced?

Sure R&F isn’t a silver bullet when it comes to success but it does have a fair wad of science that pegs it back to awareness-consideration-intent which can give it a ROI model. Be careful to not dismiss broadcast advertising as if we’re honest and not trying to sell most of us know it’s not as black and white as being about spray and pray. There’s more to it.

I reckon we need less powerpoint builds, more solid return modeling.

By: Jye Smith

Jye Smith — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:31:18 +0000

Some great words, Mark.

By: Mark Ruthenberg

Mark Ruthenberg — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:51:26 +0000

Excellent post, I have long observed that the success of advertising is not based on frequency & reach (old style metrics), but on proximity, the number of steps (the fewer the better) from Impression to buying Action. Adding Affinity to that equation speaks to the stength of a buyer’s motivation to act.