Comments on: In the Trust Economy, are the @ChrisBrogan’s the bourgeois? http://wordpost.org/2009/11/in-the-trust-economy-are-the-chrisbrogans-the-bourgeois/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=in-the-trust-economy-are-the-chrisbrogans-the-bourgeois Snarky Remarks on Biz Today. A blog advocating better customer relationships and greater transparency in business. Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andrew Swenson http://wordpost.org/2009/11/in-the-trust-economy-are-the-chrisbrogans-the-bourgeois/comment-page-1/#comment-772 Andrew Swenson Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:57:37 +0000 http://wordpost.org/?p=521#comment-772 I certainly agree that follower count is not tied to the level of influence one has. But mathematically, when someone like ChrisB has 34K+ blog subscribers, his message is certainly getting heard above the rest of us who are happy to have 34 people stop by our blog in a day.<br><br>And I think my illustration that the more you're popular the less you have to do to convince people to follow you fits right in line with your contention that "the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present."<br><br>It will be interesting to see how the role of celebrity works its way out on the internet. In real life, only those with the power to be in mass broadcast media are the celebs (e.g. actors, rich people of interest picked on by the media). But on the internet the very idea is that we can all have an equal voice. <br><br>Somehow though, we don't all have an equal voice because we choose, whether based on relative value or marketing or peer pressure or whatever, to give certain people more attention than others. <br><br>What I'm trying to work through is how and why certain people get and keep more attention than the masses. Because after all, if attention is the first step to creating the relationships we all keep talking about.<br><br>Thanks for commenting Jason. I certainly agree that follower count is not tied to the level of influence one has. But mathematically, when someone like ChrisB has 34K+ blog subscribers, his message is certainly getting heard above the rest of us who are happy to have 34 people stop by our blog in a day.

And I think my illustration that the more you're popular the less you have to do to convince people to follow you fits right in line with your contention that “the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present.”

It will be interesting to see how the role of celebrity works its way out on the internet. In real life, only those with the power to be in mass broadcast media are the celebs (e.g. actors, rich people of interest picked on by the media). But on the internet the very idea is that we can all have an equal voice.

Somehow though, we don't all have an equal voice because we choose, whether based on relative value or marketing or peer pressure or whatever, to give certain people more attention than others.

What I'm trying to work through is how and why certain people get and keep more attention than the masses. Because after all, if attention is the first step to creating the relationships we all keep talking about.

Thanks for commenting Jason.

]]> By: Jason Markow http://wordpost.org/2009/11/in-the-trust-economy-are-the-chrisbrogans-the-bourgeois/comment-page-1/#comment-771 Jason Markow Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:27:20 +0000 http://wordpost.org/?p=521#comment-771 Another great post. I question weather the "guru" will hold as much weight in the future as you state. You wrote that the "decentered" nature should eliminate the "rockstars" and I think in time it will. It will not be visible on the surface, but I think our perception of the number of followers a user has must take into consideration that (as social networks age) the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present. Case and point, if ChrisB stopped using twitter today, he would still project a "rockstar" status for a time. His message would cease, but his follower count would still increase (for a while at least). What do you think? Another great post. I question weather the “guru” will hold as much weight in the future as you state. You wrote that the “decentered” nature should eliminate the “rockstars” and I think in time it will. It will not be visible on the surface, but I think our perception of the number of followers a user has must take into consideration that (as social networks age) the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present. Case and point, if ChrisB stopped using twitter today, he would still project a “rockstar” status for a time. His message would cease, but his follower count would still increase (for a while at least). What do you think?

]]> By: Andrew Swenson http://wordpost.org/2009/11/in-the-trust-economy-are-the-chrisbrogans-the-bourgeois/comment-page-1/#comment-510 Andrew Swenson Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:57:37 +0000 http://wordpost.org/?p=521#comment-510 I certainly agree that follower count is not tied to the level of influence one has. But mathematically, when someone like ChrisB has 34K+ blog subscribers, his message is certainly getting heard above the rest of us who are happy to have 34 people stop by our blog in a day.<br><br>And I think my illustration that the more you're popular the less you have to do to convince people to follow you fits right in line with your contention that "the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present."<br><br>It will be interesting to see how the role of celebrity works its way out on the internet. In real life, only those with the power to be in mass broadcast media are the celebs (e.g. actors, rich people of interest picked on by the media). But on the internet the very idea is that we can all have an equal voice. <br><br>Somehow though, we don't all have an equal voice because we choose, whether based on relative value or marketing or peer pressure or whatever, to give certain people more attention than others. <br><br>What I'm trying to work through is how and why certain people get and keep more attention than the masses. Because after all, if attention is the first step to creating the relationships we all keep talking about.<br><br>Thanks for commenting Jason. I certainly agree that follower count is not tied to the level of influence one has. But mathematically, when someone like ChrisB has 34K+ blog subscribers, his message is certainly getting heard above the rest of us who are happy to have 34 people stop by our blog in a day.

And I think my illustration that the more you're popular the less you have to do to convince people to follow you fits right in line with your contention that “the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present.”

It will be interesting to see how the role of celebrity works its way out on the internet. In real life, only those with the power to be in mass broadcast media are the celebs (e.g. actors, rich people of interest picked on by the media). But on the internet the very idea is that we can all have an equal voice.

Somehow though, we don't all have an equal voice because we choose, whether based on relative value or marketing or peer pressure or whatever, to give certain people more attention than others.

What I'm trying to work through is how and why certain people get and keep more attention than the masses. Because after all, if attention is the first step to creating the relationships we all keep talking about.

Thanks for commenting Jason.

]]> By: Jason Markow http://wordpost.org/2009/11/in-the-trust-economy-are-the-chrisbrogans-the-bourgeois/comment-page-1/#comment-509 Jason Markow Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:27:20 +0000 http://wordpost.org/?p=521#comment-509 Another great post. I question weather the "guru" will hold as much weight in the future as you state. You wrote that the "decentered" nature should eliminate the "rockstars" and I think in time it will. It will not be visible on the surface, but I think our perception of the number of followers a user has must take into consideration that (as social networks age) the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present. Case and point, if ChrisB stopped using twitter today, he would still project a "rockstar" status for a time. His message would cease, but his follower count would still increase (for a while at least). What do you think? Another great post. I question weather the “guru” will hold as much weight in the future as you state. You wrote that the “decentered” nature should eliminate the “rockstars” and I think in time it will. It will not be visible on the surface, but I think our perception of the number of followers a user has must take into consideration that (as social networks age) the number *might* be more of an echo of the past than a reflection of the present. Case and point, if ChrisB stopped using twitter today, he would still project a “rockstar” status for a time. His message would cease, but his follower count would still increase (for a while at least). What do you think?

]]>