Mark, thanks for the shout-out. I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I also appreciate the dissent but would appreciate more specifics. you cite "evidence" that contradicts my research, but what is it? My book is thoroughly documented and there was additional research that was not particularly cited. There is abundant research that "super influencers" can move markets and that their impact and content is long-lasting compared to us regular folks. I would suggest that this is not only academically supported, it is intuitive. I would also correct your point that I suggest that narrowly focusing on individuals is the key to success. That is not accurate, and in fact, the business case studies in the book nearly always involved dozens, if not hundreds, in their outreach programs. Certainly there are cases where individuals are making their impact felt, but I do not necessarily prescribe this as a best practice in an outreach effort. Again, thanks for the great review and the opportunity to clarify.
Thanks for taking the time to respond Mark. The sort of research I had in mind (and is buried a few links away from the blog post!) is from Duncan Watts - https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/facseminars/events/marketing/documents/mktg_03_08_dodds_paper1.pdf "Under most conditions that we consider, we ﬁnd that large cascades of inﬂuence are driven not by inﬂuentials but by a critical mass of easily inﬂuenced individuals. Although our results do not exclude the possibility that in- ﬂuentials can be important, they suggest that the inﬂuentials hypothesis requires more careful speciﬁcation and testing than it has received." and Jon Steinberg http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/content-shared-close-friends-influencers/233147/ Be very interested to know what you make of it.