Cover of The Blob – Criterion Collection

The topic of influence is one that is discussed quite often in marketing and social media circles. The idea is that if you can find the right people to talk about your product, and they can influence others to try it, you’re golden. And because influence is so important, there are those who try to quantify it in some sort of amalgam of numbers and metrics, i.e. Klout.

Recently, my friend Jayme Soulati wrote a post about how those of us who are bloggers have a measure of influence. After I retweeted her post, another friend, Lindsay Bell, responded:

To which my response was:

And I truly do believe that. All of us are influencers in some way, shape, or form. And despite the fact that no two of us agree on a a definition for the term, we as marketers and business owners still want to tap into and harness the power that certain individuals seem to have over others. But regardless of how we define it, there are 4 truths that we need to examine before we seek to identify people as being influencers:

1. We are all influential about something – It’s true. Everyone is an influencer. One person might be influential about music, while another might be influential about tech products. We can be influential about multiple things at the same time, and at various levels.

2. Influence can be positive or negative – When we talk about influence, we focus on the positive, but there is such a thing as negative influence. There are times when an individual might talk about a certain product, but if I’m not fond of the individual, or I don’t trust their opinion in a specific area, it might color the way I feel about the product. A company might hire someone to endorse a product, but the association with that spokesperson might make me think less of the product.

3. Influence fluctuates vertically – If we draw influence for a particular individual on a graph, it ebbs and flows. At some points we might wield a great deal of influence, while at other times we may have very little influence. And those fluctuations can happen rather rapidly.

4. Influence fluctuates horizontally -Additionally, influence from one individual varies among influencees. Someone might wield a great deal of influence over me, and yet have no influence over you and your behavior. And when you take the first 3 points into account, this too can change rather rapidly.

So if we were to take all of these together and create a physical model of influence it would be some sort of ever-moving, multi-faceted amorphous blob which rotates on multiple axes, and which we all perceive differently.

This is why it’s so difficult to even attempt to quantify it.

Does this mean we shouldn’t seek to identify those who are influencers in relation to our businesses and products? Not at all. But we must take all four of these truths into consideration as we try to harness the power of influence. Identifying influencers, like most online activities, is a continuous process, not a once and done exercise.

How do you view influence? How do you identify your brand influencers?

Author: Ken Mueller    Ken Mueller on the Web Ken Mueller RSS Feed

Ken Mueller is the proprietor of Inkling Media, with 30 years of experience in the media industry.

Ken is an Inbound Marketing Certified Professional, after graduating from Inbound Marketing University with honors. He is also a certified Inbound Marketing Educator. He has… View full profile

This article originally appeared on Social Media, Inbound Marketing, & SEO Solutions for Small Business | Lancaster, PA | Inkling Media and has been republished with permission.

Find out how to syndicate your content with Business 2 Community.

The report came just as the Obama administration had been escalating its efforts to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease conditions for homeowners, including those who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

Last Friday, the Treasury announced that it would offer increased incentives to lenders to forgive portions of homeowner debt, saying pointedly that for the first time the incentives would be offered on loans held by Fannie and Freddie.

But Fannie and Freddie, which said they would review the increased incentives, have long declined to allow debt reduction on the loans it holds or guarantees, saying that it would create unnecessary losses for taxpayers. The companies, which are financed by taxpayers, have also maintained barriers to refinancing, like risk-based fees for homeowners, even as mortgage interest rates have dropped below 4 percent.

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama said a new refinancing program would cut through government red tape. He has yet to provide details of the program.

The Obama administration has tried, with scant results, to persuade Fannie and Freddie to ease refinancing restrictions and participate in debt forgiveness programs.

The Federal Reserve, which has made low interest rates a crucial part of its response to the financial crisis, has also objected to some of the barriers to refinancing, including fees it has said are unjustified.

On Monday, ProPublica and National Public Radio reported that Freddie Mac, which maintained slightly tighter restrictions than Fannie on homeowners’ eligibility to refinance, had a multibillion-dollar investment whose value hinged on borrowers continuing to pay higher interest rates.

Beginning in 2010, Freddie bought several billion dollars’ worth of “inverse floater” securities — essentially the interest-paying portion of a bundle of mortgages — for its investment portfolio while selling the far less risky principal portion. Fannie and Freddie are supposed to be decreasing the size of their investment portfolios.

There is no evidence that Freddie tailored its refinancing standards to its investing strategy, but “inverse floaters” make less money if the loans they cover refinance to a lower interest rate.

Freddie issued a statement on Monday defending its commitment to helping homeowners. “Freddie Mac is actively supporting efforts for borrowers to realize the benefits of refinancing their mortgages to lower rates,” it said. The company said refinancing accounted for 78 percent of its loan purchases in 2011.  

Christopher J. Mayer, a real estate professor at Columbia Business School who has been a proponent of mass refinancing, said he could see little reason for Freddie to use such a complex investment scheme. “Why are we three years into the crisis and some of the same kinds of complicated derivatives deals that brought down some of our biggest financial institutions are being done by Freddie Mac?” he said.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, Freddie Mac’s regulator, also had problems with the deals. Late Monday, the agency said it had reviewed the inverse floaters last year and had identified “concerns regarding the controls, including risk management.”

Freddie Mac had already stopped conducting the transactions, and only $5 billion of its $650 billion portfolio was held in inverse floaters, the statement said. It said that the investments had no bearing on recent changes, announced last fall, to the Home Affordable Refinance Program, in which Freddie maintained stricter controls than Fannie on homeowners who owed less than 80 percent of their homes’ value.

Some have advocated principal reduction as a better way to restore equity to homeowners, though it is more expensive. The Treasury’s offer on Friday would triple the incentives paid to lenders that reduce principal, to 18 to 63 cents on the dollar from 6 to 21 cents on the dollar.

Proponents say that reducing principal is the most effective type of loan modification and that it would help the housing market and the broader economy by reducing the $700 billion in negative equity that is weighing down growth.

But Edward J. DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has remained unconvinced that principal reduction is consistent with the goal of saving taxpayer money that was used to bail out Fannie and Freddie. Two weeks ago, he wrote in a letter to Congress that principal reduction would cost $100 billion if every single underwater government-backed mortgage were adjusted.

Mr. DeMarco noted that reducing principal could reduce losses not for taxpayers but for third parties, like the holders of secondary loans or providers of mortgage insurance. “F.H.F.A. would reconsider its conclusions if other funds become available,” he wrote.