Whoever indulges in the decadent pleasure of attending a theatre performance or - only slightly less decadently - listens to a public speech may know that tenth of a second of intent silence preceding the applause. It must be remarked rather maliciosuly that this tiny span of time is the climax to some of these performances. Looking at it naively, that spontaneous emergence of order within a heterogeneous mass might be a source of permanent amazement. Persons who do not know each other are sitting in a dark room and suddenly clap as if by command. A trimph of the only partly Invisible Hand, for basically everybody is waiting subconsciously for somebody to make a start and then joins in a reflex action. All that happens beneath the threshold of perception, and that is why the first applauder is not authorized to issue directions. Only because his reaction time is abbreviated, he is like a primus inter pares, thus a random product. Who makes that start, reveals the observers' self-observation who do not merely watch the stage or rostrum event but also the event's effects on their peers. Needless to say, bright theatre managers comprehended that mechanism early enough and placed paid first applauders in the front row to make the unsuspecting audience well disposed. Whoever is irresolute about what to think about the performance will fare well at observing one's environment. Discoveries such as laughter is infectious are due to that strategy of behaviour.
As for that, second-order cyberneticists talk about the absorption of uncertainty and of the reduction of complexity, psychologists prefer the term pithiness in a diffuse situation. It boils down to ignorance what things are like and waiting for clarification. In cases like this, it is a good thing that - as is the case with an audience - there are sufficient clues to observe. This is much more comfortable than examining the coffee grounds, telling fortune by the cards or adding birthday numbers..
Personified human absorption of uncertainty is called opinion leader. These leaders are at the era of PR and Marketing the crucial factor which is constantly persecuted. The advantage they promise are too attractive, for instead of addressing each member of a target group individually, one counts on the domino-effect and tries to convince that group member crucial for the forming of an opinion. Besides increased efficiency there is maximized effectivity, since, as any customer advisor's creed says a content customer will be the best salesman. All one has to do is find the right inclined ear and then leave the field to next-door propaganda.
But of course the snag is right at the interface between person and function. It is one thing to praise the opinion leader's role in abstract terms, it is another to find the appropriate person in the single case. At first, in the 1940s empirical communication researchers concentrated on as it were natural influentials in a social group - after they had accidentally found there are opinion leaders; persons held in high regards in towns or professions. It was them to pass their formed opinions on. However, then it turned out these communicative activists' opinions had not emerged from out of the blue, had not been a case of transcendent inspiration. Step by step the insiduousness of the whole concept revealed itself. Those persons who have just been identified as opinion leaders form their opinions when communicating with other people. In short: Opinion leaders follow opinion leaders. And the thought cannot easily dismissed that these opinion leaders again follow further opinion leaders and so on.
Gradually discovering that there is a multi-step flow of communication rather than a two-step one involves two things: firstly that society as a conglomeration of social groups is organized as a heterarchic network, not a hierarchic order. Different groups can interact differently concerning different issues, but need not do so. Secondly, two characteristics of opinion leaders determining their influence must be distinguished, namely their factual competence and their social competence. Both types can, but need not either be embodied by one single person. Only duly to that groups will not cut themselvesoff forever, but now and then open up to other ones. And here lies the problem: looking for opinion leaders is like opening Russian dolls - a reflexive procedure, for within each doll there is another one. The only difference is that in the case of the dolls we will some time come to an end. The opinion leaders' trace disappears in the network nirvana. So merely perceiving them guarnatees their attractivity.
Now what is the opinion leader's function, mark you, not his or her person? As has been mentioned, the opinion leader reduces complexity by ridding the followers of the molesting duty to form their own opinions.
Factual component
At best the opinion leader is endowed with a presentable knowledge of facts which distinguishes him from the others. This again involves two things; for one thing he must have a feasible strategy to gather useful information - maybe because he is an expert in the issue at stake, maybe because he is the only one to know such an expert. For another he must be capable of conveying that kind of expert's knowledge to the laymen, the other group members. In this case he serves as a kind of link between two groups, the experts and the laymen.
Social component
The opinion leader is highly acknowledged by his group; his opinions count for something and not for an eccentric's muddleheaded fantasies who should be disregarded. For that reason, no opinion leader is a nerd. But he might know one. That is, the opinion leader has access to two different groups; he will be appreciated in at least one. since he is the only one to cultivate contact to the other, as it were importing suggestions, alternatives, differences serving, because irritating the group spirit. By that he releases the group members of the duty of dealing immediately with the others. For instance, we do not drink coffee because the Turks liked it but because the elites from this country vouched for its enjoyable consumption, thus generating imitators. In this particular case opinion leaders fall together with preemptive tasters..
Tempral component
Usually the opinion leader relies on a common history of communicating with the other group members. He maintains a reputation he has acquired over the years. In his function past and present cross, for because he has contributed useful information and advice for the formation of opinion before, the members invest confidence he will do so the next time. In other words, he disposes of a prognostic advance he is paid. His opinion will be taken into account, because it worked so well in former times.
A typical example of the concept's complexity is the continuing differentiation in the expert language. It was a long time ago when it sufficed to talk about opinion leaders in general. Instead recently terms such as opinion fomer, VIP, testimonial and multiplicator inhabit the discourse.
By common definition, an opinion former is a prominent opinion leader possessing a high factual competence and credibility. In contrast to the common opinion leader unknown to the broad public the opinion former exerts a visible mass influence. And this is just the way it is meant to be. He intends to influence the formation of public opinion. Therefore especially political and economical elites can be potential opinion formers - if their status is not thwarted by lacking credibility.
They share the aspect of prominence with the VIPs; but the latter do not intentionally propagate their opinions are exemplary. VIPs do not influence; they are perceived. Against this background it is obvious there might be transitions, whcih means a VIP might gradually acquire enough respect to be actually an opinion former. Last but not least there are the testimonials who have recently become the focus of public attention - especially during those times when advertising was booming that complacently. We are mainly talking about paid celebrities displaying their faces for adverts or spots to sell a product or an idea. They differ from the opinion leaders in so far as their recommendations even dispense with a minimum of subtlety.
The fact that journalists on the one hand disseminate opinions, on the other insist on objectivity as a professional creed shows they are different opinion leaders. In case of doubt they merely report other people's opinions (or think so). That is why media research prefers to call them multiplicators who secure the quantitative rather than the qualitative aspects of influence.
Nonetheless we should not lose sight of one thing; in the end everybody wants to believe his opinion is his property. Influence will be especially high when unnoticed. Only then the most crucial, because unanswerable question arises whether there actually is influence. Advertising experts contradict themselves by answering in the affirmative; opinion leaders by answering in the negative. Meinungsführer dadurch, dass sie sie verneinen. Still, any successful campaing depends on both of them.
As for that, second-order cyberneticists talk about the absorption of uncertainty and of the reduction of complexity, psychologists prefer the term pithiness in a diffuse situation. It boils down to ignorance what things are like and waiting for clarification. In cases like this, it is a good thing that - as is the case with an audience - there are sufficient clues to observe. This is much more comfortable than examining the coffee grounds, telling fortune by the cards or adding birthday numbers..
Personified human absorption of uncertainty is called opinion leader. These leaders are at the era of PR and Marketing the crucial factor which is constantly persecuted. The advantage they promise are too attractive, for instead of addressing each member of a target group individually, one counts on the domino-effect and tries to convince that group member crucial for the forming of an opinion. Besides increased efficiency there is maximized effectivity, since, as any customer advisor's creed says a content customer will be the best salesman. All one has to do is find the right inclined ear and then leave the field to next-door propaganda.
But of course the snag is right at the interface between person and function. It is one thing to praise the opinion leader's role in abstract terms, it is another to find the appropriate person in the single case. At first, in the 1940s empirical communication researchers concentrated on as it were natural influentials in a social group - after they had accidentally found there are opinion leaders; persons held in high regards in towns or professions. It was them to pass their formed opinions on. However, then it turned out these communicative activists' opinions had not emerged from out of the blue, had not been a case of transcendent inspiration. Step by step the insiduousness of the whole concept revealed itself. Those persons who have just been identified as opinion leaders form their opinions when communicating with other people. In short: Opinion leaders follow opinion leaders. And the thought cannot easily dismissed that these opinion leaders again follow further opinion leaders and so on.
Gradually discovering that there is a multi-step flow of communication rather than a two-step one involves two things: firstly that society as a conglomeration of social groups is organized as a heterarchic network, not a hierarchic order. Different groups can interact differently concerning different issues, but need not do so. Secondly, two characteristics of opinion leaders determining their influence must be distinguished, namely their factual competence and their social competence. Both types can, but need not either be embodied by one single person. Only duly to that groups will not cut themselvesoff forever, but now and then open up to other ones. And here lies the problem: looking for opinion leaders is like opening Russian dolls - a reflexive procedure, for within each doll there is another one. The only difference is that in the case of the dolls we will some time come to an end. The opinion leaders' trace disappears in the network nirvana. So merely perceiving them guarnatees their attractivity.
Now what is the opinion leader's function, mark you, not his or her person? As has been mentioned, the opinion leader reduces complexity by ridding the followers of the molesting duty to form their own opinions.
Factual component
At best the opinion leader is endowed with a presentable knowledge of facts which distinguishes him from the others. This again involves two things; for one thing he must have a feasible strategy to gather useful information - maybe because he is an expert in the issue at stake, maybe because he is the only one to know such an expert. For another he must be capable of conveying that kind of expert's knowledge to the laymen, the other group members. In this case he serves as a kind of link between two groups, the experts and the laymen.
Social component
The opinion leader is highly acknowledged by his group; his opinions count for something and not for an eccentric's muddleheaded fantasies who should be disregarded. For that reason, no opinion leader is a nerd. But he might know one. That is, the opinion leader has access to two different groups; he will be appreciated in at least one. since he is the only one to cultivate contact to the other, as it were importing suggestions, alternatives, differences serving, because irritating the group spirit. By that he releases the group members of the duty of dealing immediately with the others. For instance, we do not drink coffee because the Turks liked it but because the elites from this country vouched for its enjoyable consumption, thus generating imitators. In this particular case opinion leaders fall together with preemptive tasters..
Tempral component
Usually the opinion leader relies on a common history of communicating with the other group members. He maintains a reputation he has acquired over the years. In his function past and present cross, for because he has contributed useful information and advice for the formation of opinion before, the members invest confidence he will do so the next time. In other words, he disposes of a prognostic advance he is paid. His opinion will be taken into account, because it worked so well in former times.
A typical example of the concept's complexity is the continuing differentiation in the expert language. It was a long time ago when it sufficed to talk about opinion leaders in general. Instead recently terms such as opinion fomer, VIP, testimonial and multiplicator inhabit the discourse.
By common definition, an opinion former is a prominent opinion leader possessing a high factual competence and credibility. In contrast to the common opinion leader unknown to the broad public the opinion former exerts a visible mass influence. And this is just the way it is meant to be. He intends to influence the formation of public opinion. Therefore especially political and economical elites can be potential opinion formers - if their status is not thwarted by lacking credibility.
They share the aspect of prominence with the VIPs; but the latter do not intentionally propagate their opinions are exemplary. VIPs do not influence; they are perceived. Against this background it is obvious there might be transitions, whcih means a VIP might gradually acquire enough respect to be actually an opinion former. Last but not least there are the testimonials who have recently become the focus of public attention - especially during those times when advertising was booming that complacently. We are mainly talking about paid celebrities displaying their faces for adverts or spots to sell a product or an idea. They differ from the opinion leaders in so far as their recommendations even dispense with a minimum of subtlety.
The fact that journalists on the one hand disseminate opinions, on the other insist on objectivity as a professional creed shows they are different opinion leaders. In case of doubt they merely report other people's opinions (or think so). That is why media research prefers to call them multiplicators who secure the quantitative rather than the qualitative aspects of influence.
Nonetheless we should not lose sight of one thing; in the end everybody wants to believe his opinion is his property. Influence will be especially high when unnoticed. Only then the most crucial, because unanswerable question arises whether there actually is influence. Advertising experts contradict themselves by answering in the affirmative; opinion leaders by answering in the negative. Meinungsführer dadurch, dass sie sie verneinen. Still, any successful campaing depends on both of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment