The concept of digital social proof is not a new one. It\u2019s been around since the 90\u2019s as a\u00a0quantitative\u00a0data point such as number counts for posters on forums and boards (users used to have the \u201cnumber of posts\u201d they had under their name on a forum or board).<\/p>\n
Post count would help act as a proof point for long-time community members and show their dedication to the forum. It wouldn\u2019t\u00a0necessarily<\/em>\u00a0indicate that person is trustworthy, just more active in that community (trust can\u2019t yet be put into a neat number in an automated fashion). And of course, qualitative proof points have been around forever, think: \u201cas seen on TV\u201d or \u201cas seen in the New York Times.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019ve written a previous post sharing\u00a0different types of social proof. Those types haven\u2019t changed. But what has happened is the number of people that are attempting to game social proof such as\u00a0snake oil agencies,\u00a0consultants and even some brands.<\/p>\n The thing about social proof is it has to be legitimate for smart people to take it seriously. And I think the web as a whole has gotten a lot smarter. But that hasn\u2019t stopped many from building\u00a0entire businesses\u00a0around Potemkin numbers and exploiting those still easily manipulated.<\/p>\n I think the Potemkin number concept as described in\u00a0Charles Seife\u2019s book\u00a0Proofiness\u00a0is the perfect descriptor of false social proof.<\/p>\n What exactly are Potemkin numbers? The name is from a legend about\u00a0Russian Prince Potemkin. The prince wanted to convince the empress that the Crimea was a vital, thriving area. So he built\u00a0Potemkin villages, elaborate facades in the shape of villages and towns that appeared real from a distance. But they were fake and insubstantial. Potemkin numbers are the same thing\u2014meaningless numbers designed to look real or authoritative.<\/p>\n As far as false social proof goes, I thought I\u2019d list some of the items I\u2019m inherently\u00a0skeptical about. Please note, not all of these may be Potemkin numbers on their own, but read through the descriptions on how each could be gamed and think critically if a person or brand is legitimately deserving of social proof or not. It\u2019s pretty easy to pull back the curtain with some digging.<\/p>\n Number of followers in any single platform<\/strong><\/p>\n You can automate the growth of these with tools or via outsourcing. Platform specific followings (probably the most classic of which are Twitter followers) used to be extremely game-able and so many have. Some sites have made it more difficult but I seriously question anyone who used automation to build a low quality following in the first place. That act itself signals you\u2019re trying to hide something and actually hurts your reputation.<\/p>\n \u201cAs seen in\u201d citing known media brands<\/strong><\/p>\n This one used to be more difficult, but with a sprawling tail of media brands and blogs, even popular sites like Forbes are allowing guest content. It wouldn\u2019t be terribly difficult to fake this and in fact many do. If a person or brand is using this, look for legitimate editorial endorsements from trusted writers. This should be obvious, but you\u2019d be surprised.<\/p>\n Influencer scores<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh wait,\u00a0we\u2019ve already written\u00a0about this one so it has a whole post dedicated to it. Be skeptical. My friend Alex\u00a0has the math, but I don\u2019t even think you need it as I outlined in my post.<\/p>\n \u201cSocial media certified\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Another\u00a0we\u2019ve also already outlined. \u00a0Social media certification is absurd: do you think much has changed since I drafted that post 2 years ago?<\/p>\n Email \/ RSS subscribers<\/strong><\/p>\n To fake a large numbers via the chicklet counters like those in Aweber or Feedburner which shows off subscriber count is likely possible but it would be more difficult. Besides, if you\u2019re going to game this why even bother with the widget when you can make up a number of subscribers and show it as text.<\/p>\n Legitimate comments<\/strong><\/p>\n Real comments from a community like the kind we do in\u00a0our wrap ups\u00a0\u2014 the kind that are well thought out by intelligent readers \u2014 would be difficult to game. Comments can be used as part of a brand\u2019s social proof about a product or even on an employee\u2019s resume. Check links and make sure comments are not just smart, but left by real people.<\/p>\n Alexa Rank, Compete.com \/ Quantcast traffic<\/strong><\/p>\n OK, so these aren\u2019t the most reliable metrics in the first place, but certainly you can use them as\u00a0indicators<\/em>\u00a0to gauge if a company is successful. Note it\u2019s possible to inflate these with social traffic (i.e., a brand that makes Reddit bait purely for traffic is not necessary trustworthy) or spammy ad buys so look for longer-term trends rather than spikes.<\/p>\n Speaking at multiple, credible industry events<\/strong><\/p>\n It would be pretty difficult for a single individual or brand to gain consistent speaking slots across major industry events in any category. Too many chances to be called out by attendees or organizers interested in keeping a high quality event. Now \u2013 that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean a talking head is qualified to, say, provide consulting for you. But it does show they have put forth the effort to be credible at the industry level. Still vet these people\u2019s actual talent and case studies as you should anyone if you intend to hire them.<\/p>\n Multiple cititions by media (not just guest content)<\/strong><\/p>\n Through serendipity of social or the power of search, one or two citions as a trusted source by media are certainly possible for anyone. But an ongoing, consistent list of quotes in a variety of publications (national \/ across verticals beyond their own) would be quite the feat to achieve without being a legitimately qualified individual behind a subject. Also goes for brands too. It\u2019s unlikely even a high quality PR firm could fake such relationships long term: it would get noticed \/ called out.<\/p>\n Contribution to research from major analyst firms (like Altimeter, Forrester, Gartner)<\/strong><\/p>\n Having facilitated many briefings with top analysts over the years for brands \/ employers and personally contributed to several research reports, I\u2019ll say the best ones always do their homework. They\u2019re in the business of having a high quality reputation so they\u2019re unlikely to risk quoting\u00a0charlatans as this is potentially a\u00a0reputation\u00a0management\u00a0problem that could cost them\u00a0significant\u00a0revenue.<\/p>\n Well-read blog<\/strong><\/p>\n I still think\u00a0you should have a blog, especially those in marketing and PR. Yes, be on other platforms too (we don\u2019t live in a 1-thing world) but a blog is\u00a0platform agnostic, plugs into the rest of the web (social, mobile and email too) and demonstrates a high degree of dedication.<\/p>\n Putting aside the mechanisms of why a blog is still a great platform for a second, the story my friend Eric Friedman shared prior to being hired by Union Square Ventures in NY\u00a0illustrates why\u00a0in a simple example:<\/p>\n One of the things that stands out to me the most during a pivotal second round interview I had at Union Square Ventures. I sat down with one of the partners Brad Burnham, and presented my resume. He told me to hang on to it and he just wanted to chat.<\/p>\n When I pressed him as to why, he responded with something I will never forget which went something like this; \u201cYou can work really hard on crafting a well written, organized, resume with bullet points of accomplishments \u2013\u00a0but you can\u2019t fake 500 blog posts.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n I was struck by this because I had never thought of things this way before. He was more interested in how I viewed the world (and subsequently the companies in it) rather than my list of things I think went well. Furthermore, he had already done his own homework seeing my previous employment history on the web (on LinkedIn)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, in many cases the numbers above\u00a0can<\/em>\u00a0be true indicators of success. But everyone should be adept at seeing through obvious Potemkin numbers. It\u2019s not that difficult and if you don\u2019t have this ability chances are you\u2019re going to be manipulated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The concept of digital social proof is not a new one. It\u2019s been around since the 90\u2019s as a\u00a0quantitative\u00a0data point … <\/p>\nEasily gamed (be skeptical until proven otherwise)<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Tougher to game (but still certainly possible)<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Really difficult to game (probably legit)<\/strong><\/h2>\n