Polly Wanna Cracker

This article originally appeared in the now defunct “Amwriting” blog, on October 20, 2011. Some of the references have been updated to replace those that have failed since then, but none of the salient facts have changed.

It also rehashes some of the earlier essays here, in case you missed them.

It’s the cliché that defines the talking parrot, right? Along with the foul-mouthed fowl and the pirate’s pal, everybody knows “Polly wanna cracker?”

But here’s the thing. Parrots just…well…parrot. They’re just repeating the sounds without understanding the words. They may or may not actually want a cracker, even though they can ask for one.

The problem: parrots don’t buy crackers.

This probably seems like a strange way to open an article on social media and marketing, but it’s actually driven by an exchange I had recently about social media and numbers. It underlined an important reality in marketing that I think a lot of people — authors included — keep missing. It’s the difference between “old media” and “new media” marketing. It’s such a common phenomenon that it even has its own name — The Million Follower Fallacy[1].

Common wisdom says that if you want to have an effect in the social media space, then you need to have a lot of friends and followers so that a lot of people see your stuff — like the link to your book. Ideally they’ll share your link, helping to promote you work to their friends. Most marketing advice for authors involves strategies for getting bigger numbers — more followers, more re-interaction, more friends, etc.

That’s the problem.

Take that idea to the logical extreme. Assume you could get a million followers. Will you have a marketing juggernaut at your fingertips? Will you join John Locke and Amanda Hocking in the Million Sold Club?

According to the research, probably not. More people does not result in greater influence. Researchers named that error The Million Follower Fallacy.

The notion is counter-intuitive. We’ve been trained by advertising and marketing to accept some basic concepts. You need to get your message out to as many people as possible so that you’ll find those who are interested in whatever it is you’re selling. You need to get your message in front of them multiple times before they become aware of it. You must have a clear call-to-action. And if you do all those, the world will beat a path to your door, a better mousetrap will be yours for the taking, and world peace.

Yeah. Not so much.

Those notions — which are perfectly valid, if somewhat oversold — are based on a broadcast model of communications. An ad on a TV show has some limited demographic targeting based on the program content, but the audiences must be huge in order for the fractional percentage of people watching to be a significant number of potential customers. A bill-board ad on the side of the road — or a header ad on a web page — targets whoever happens to pass by. Ideally some small fraction of those viewers will be interested enough for the message to register. The better the message targeting, the more likely you’ll reach an interested buyer.

It’s a broadcast model — that is, the communication occurs in only one direction, from the seller to the audience of potential customers. It’s the foundation of all modern advertising and promotion. It works, but it’s ridiculously inefficient. It’s also the root of the Million Follower Fallacy.

The problem lies in the nature of social media with its emphasis on interaction rather than engagement[2]. Treating social media as a highly targeted broadcast channel misses the fundamental nature of social media. Social media isn’t a broadcast. It’s a two-way channel. Blog posts represent slow motion conversations between writer (me) and commenters (you). Mastodon conversations are just micro-blog posts and comments. Those interactions form a social bond which helps overcome user passivity.

The degree to which you perceive the people participating in the conversation as “real” or “being there” is called “social presence.” The greater that perception, the more engaged you become and the stronger the connection between us. The stronger that connection, the more likely you’ll listen to my messages. Mastodon and Facebook and all the rest work under the same set of umbrella principles. All are prone to participants failing to recognize the Million Follower Fallacy.

The good news here is that big numbers are not the goal. Close connections are.

Forming those connections is a process that’s much easier — and a lot more fun — than building big numbers. There are only two rules.

  1. Be real. Don’t try to be something or somebody you’re not. Don’t sell. People want to connect with interesting and talented people. If you’re here and reading this, you’re already in with the cool kids.
  2. Be there. Participate in the conversation. Whether it’s Mastodon, blogging, Facebook, or whatever comes next, play along at home. If you can’t be there, don’t pretend you are.

That’s it. If you’re genuine and responsive, if you’re interesting and engaging, then people will find you. When they find you, they’ll click your links and explore your world. Engage them and encourage them to become part of your world. They’ll support your work, if they find it interesting. They’ll tell other people and promote your work in ways that you cannot.

According to an ABA survey of book-buyer influence, two factors account for the majority of influence on a book buying decision.[3]

  1. Author reputation.
  2. Recommendation from a trusted source.

They either know you or they know somebody who likes you. Focus on getting liked — not “likes” — and the rest will take care of itself. If you simply focus on getting big numbers of followers or friends, then you run the risk of collecting people who may repeat what you say, but who don’t actually believe in what you’re saying. You wind up with a flock of parrots.

As I said in the beginning…

Parrots don’t buy crackers.

Up Next: A Rising Tide

Learn more about the Million Follower Fallacy and the factors of influence in social media:

  1. Meeyoung, C., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., and Gummadi, K., (2010) Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/download/1538/1826

  2. Romero, D., Galuba, W., Asur, S., and Huberman, B., (2010) Influence and Passivity in Social Media retrieved from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.1253v1.pdf

  3. ABA (2011) 2010 Survey of Book-Buying Behavior. Presented at BEA, 2011, and summarized http://write2publish.blogspot.com/2011/04/2009-2010-reader-survey.html