A naive question I know, but interesting to read that Richard Holway - formerly of Ovum and the eponymously named Richard Holway Ltd - now regards himself as an influencer not an analyst. And that he aspires to be a trusted influencer.
I've paid to get Holway's views on the tech sector for a decade or more, and without question would describe him as 'influencer royalty' within the UK software industry.
But the example of Holway also brings into focus why it is so hard to define what makes an influencer. Is it because he is an analyst, or a blogger, or trusted counsel, or a non-exec participant in boardrooms, or simply because he gets to engage with key people, speaks to them, informs their opinion and thus drives the marketplace?
How much of that authority comes fom his company and how much is attributed to the individual?
If in the pit of my stomach I instinctively know he is a significant player, why does any of this matter?
Well, because I have to measure his 'influence' in order to justify his inclusion in our client's relationship programs. Then I have to measure the impact of those programs to prove their value. Interestingly if he is to monetize his voice, as per his post, Richard too needs to find a mechanism for measuring influence.
Turning the measurement of influence among a new generation of influencers from an art form into a science is one of the biggest challenges facing communications professionals today. Yes, I have seen the different ranking tables, which mashup (if Excel counts as a mashup tool) various ranking sources in different proportions to suggest an uber ranking of influence but there are too many subjective leaps of faith, and too much underlying distrust in the measurement mechanisms and data sources to vest complete confidence in these tables.
Right now, there is no satisfactory answer. If you have one - a proper one that bears detailed review and doesn't feature the achilles heel of subjective ranking. I'd be interested to hear about it.