These are pretty strong words about the Influencer50 report. Have you commissioned one personally? The reason I ask is because Marqui was very involved in the process and the I50 team did quite a bit more than just “standardized market research.”

I’m also not clear on why you would say it “deliver[s] a set of recommendations without helping companies and the people running them understand how to keep those recommendations current.” Perhaps I neglected to write about this part in sufficient detail, but this was definitely included in the Influencer50 service.

Finally, although I wholeheartedly agree with your “teach a man—or woman—to fish sentiment,” I don’t see how commissioning a third party to get objective insight on all of the folks influencing a market signals a company’s inability/unwillingness to form relationships or throws into question its long-term viability. Frankly, the whole purpose of the project was relationship building. And while I like to think that Janet and I (a.k.a. the Marqui marketing team) have a pretty good handle on what’s going on in our target market, it would be foolish (and arrogant) not to seek a second opinion every once in a while.

Hi Tara,

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the contribution and the rebuttal.

You make some good points in response to my post. I’ve thought more since posting about the Influencer50 and I think you’re partially right about what I wrote, in the following way.

I have never commissioned an I50 report, so I based my impression on 3 things: (1) the information on the Marqui website about your experience, (2) the information on the I50 website about what they can do for your (or any) company and (3) my personal experience with market research firms.

When I say that the I50 is ‘a standardized methodology with standardized outputs’ I am making an assumption based on the information on the I50 website and my own experience with market research firms. They use standardized processes to generate their research, which makes sense for them to do so, for a few reasons.

- for internal workflow: they have learned what works best, what makes the most sense for efficiency and effectiveness
- for ease of communication: they have learned what formats are most easily accepted by clients, especially the managers of their clients, the arbiters of their success
- for continuity and scalability: they have to fit different people into a process not reliant, ensure the process, while ensuring the process is not reliant on those people
- for ease of replication and scalability of the business to meet demand

I don’t actually know how the I50 works but when they say ‘The methodology we use to identify and rank influencers is proven and has helped clients of all sizes (from multinationals to niche players) to understand their ‘influencer universe’ in both the US and the UK .’ it sounds to me like they have a standardized process to work from. Yes, they customize reports, as they must, but the assumptions built into the process create constraints on the outputs. Put another way, they can only tell you what they know how to tell you.

I don’t mean to sound arrogant about the whole thing, and I am being overly hard on the I50, using them as a straw man to criticize the market research industry. But the point I mean to drive home is that market research is used to supplement a lack of trust or lack of focus inside organizations; lack of trust manifest in needing outside corroboration to validate internal thinking, lack of focus in not attending to a core function of the business - knowing the people that make or break your sales cycle.

I think that the Marqui team knows it’s stuff. They have done some really great, innovative marketing online. Their whitepapers are top notch and demonstrate a leading understanding of web marketing (in the course of writing this reply I actually received one from a colleague saying, ‘This is an excellent whitepaper. Please read: What Every Organization Needs to Know in the Era of Blogs, Social Networks and Web 2.0.’).

So maybe what I’m missing from the original post on the I50 is why you were delighted with it? Did it uncover new influencers you had never considered? Did it make you rethink your marketing spends? Did it force you to change you key performance indicators?

You mentioned that the project was for relationship building but I’m not sure how you mean this. To build relationships with the I50 team or with (prospective) Marqui customers? Because if it’s the latter, I’m a skeptic. I haven’t seen many relationships built with customers from reading a third-party report.

(And of course, I’m as happy, maybe more happy, to teach a woman to fish as a man.)

Respectfully,
~James

Dear James

I work for influencer50 and read your post with some interest. In fact, in many ways we are in complete agreement – there is no point commissioning Influencer50 to do research if you don’t do anything with it! We would never advocate such an approach.

In order to utilise those who influence your market it is important to find out who they are. And the fact is that most companies only know a subset of these individuals. Our initial research has no agenda. We seek to understand influence in technology markets wherever it resides. In some markets our research reveals blogs are spectacularly un-important for instance (many more so than blogophiles would have us believe). But this research is but the smallest part of our engagement with clients. And, can I ask why you criticise us for having a research methodology?  Are you suggesting we approach our research **without** one?

I agree with the adage you quote “Give a man to fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. That’s our whole ethos. If I can stretch the analogy - the problem with marketing practice today is that the fish (prospects) are painfully wise to traditional fishing techniques and so we see more marketing spend with less effect. This is why the area in which you work, blogs and web strategy is growing – it’s seen as a new and promising way to fish. But whereas many approaches seem simply to say ‘let’s try a new way of fishing, regardless of its efficacy’, we say ‘choose your fishing strategy wisely, mix traditional techniques with new, align your marketing to your market and influence the right people the right way’. It’s not rocket science, but it is a science. We consult and implement strategies that make no judgement on marketing techniques in and of themselves, merely how applicable they are to the market in question. We help clients find the most effective mix, and our research efforts are simply a way to start that ball rolling. To return to the analogy, we promote excellence in fishing.

Your assertion therefore that “Influencer 50 … acts as a validator for companies who choose not to form relationships” is, if I can be harsh, entirely erroneous. In fact, our work is all about helping companies engage better, deeper and more effectively with their market. We work with internal marketing departments and thier agencies to help clients engage more productively with their markets. Who knows, depending on the client and their market we may recommend they use the services of a company like yours.

I hope this clears up a few things and also it is important for us to know that our web-site is giving an impression that we are in some way a ‘market research’ company. **That** will be changing shortly! Thanks for that.

Mark Stevenson