Remember your high school days? I guess a number of us would probably like to forget them. For the lucky ones that were popular, their secondary school years probably have given them a lifetime of fond memories to reflect on. But did it give them anything else? Did that popularity also empower them with influence?

Looking back I would say yes. Where the gang went on Saturday night hinged in large part on where the leader (most popular) wanted to go – their preference influenced the group. However, does that same reality exist in social media channels?

90% of marketing professionals responding to a recent survey from Vocus and Brian Solis drew the line between influence and popularity. According to the report’s comments the perception seems to be that influence is serious and popularity is fun.

Here’s an excerpt from the report:

Influence drives, motivates, is steadfast, and causes people to take action, while popularity is hip, perhaps amusing and wanes easily amid a fickle audience. “Liking you and listening to you are two different things,” wrote one respondent. “Popularity is an expression of volume while influence is an expression of value,” said another. Some felt popularity was simply not linked to influence. “The way I see it, Simon Cowell from American Idol had influence, even when he wasn’t very popular,” added a third respondent.

However, digging deeper, we find that the line between influence and popularity does have touches of gray – it’s not always a simple dichotomy between yes or no. For example, one respondent wrote, “Influence is the next level after popularity,” referring to a causal link between the two concepts, while another said, “You can be popular without influence and vice versa.”  - Vocus White Paper

Smaller and more tightly connected networks key in influence?

The report provides some balance for those gray areas by offering some scenarios and asking people to pick which person would have more influence. The results indicate that the majority of those being surveyed (56%) believe that someone with a smaller more tightly connected network has more influence than someone with a larger group of loosely connected people.

You don’t have to be popular to have influence. You could be the meanest person on the planet, but if you have made millions on the stock market and you tell people to buy a certain stock, that will carry influence.

The report uses a comparison between Lady GaGa and Bono to illustrate the difference between popularity and influence and yet, even here we have some fuzziness. No one would disagree that Bono is influential or that Lady GaGa is popular. But does she have influence? That really depends on measureable results doesn’t it?

Bono has proven he has influence by measurable results. Time will tell if Lady GaGa can also leverage her popularity to provide strong influence. For marketers this may simply mean that to be popular is good and to be influential is important and to have both you need to have something worthwhile to offer in the first place.

What do you think?