By Laura Petrolino
The article called out casting directors, directors, and producers for using the “social proof” provided based on the size of an actor’s Twitter following as a qualification for casting them—a qualification which might usurp the actual skill level and best fit of the group of auditioning actors.
As communications professionals, we think about the value of social proof in our daily operations.
The good, the bad, and the ugly it provides.
We know it’s an important part of everything we do—whether that be media relations (we’ve had reporters tell us they wouldn’t write stories about clients unless they had a strong social media presence to help distribute the story), content distribution, influencer marketing and relations, or simply as a trust factor and superficial measure of who and what is valuable and trustworthy.
Social Proof as an Indicator of Value
The #TwitterCasting article made me think about how deeply threaded social proof is in everything we do and the decisions we make.
Whether we like it or not, it is used as a primary indicator of value—often inaccurately.
Think about it.
I’m willing to bet you do it yourself.
How often have you read or (possibly more likely) shared (with or without reading) an article simply because it was widely shared?
Does the amount shares indicate the quality of the article?
Sure, it might….but it might mean the title is good clickbait, the author has a large following, or the social shares are fabricated.
Does the size of a person’s social following (on Instagram or Twitter) indicate their level of influence?
It might….or it might mean they are a big name without a trusted community, it might mean they bought a bunch of fake likes, or it could mean (especially on Instagram) they post a lot of half-naked pictures (often accompanied by motivational quotes and messages).
The problem is—as the #TwitterCasting article suggests—we assign value to these people and things, simply because of social proof.
And, by doing so, we put them in a position of influence.
This can be a dangerous dynamic.
Creating False Idols
Think about what happens when you assign influence to someone whose biggest qualification is social proof?
You have a bunch of social leaders who are unqualified or lack the depth of skill and knowledge to properly lead.
Let’s take an example from bodybuilding and fitness world.
There is an epidemic of “Instagram Trainers,” who perhaps have done one show, or maybe have only mastered booty posing and Instagram filters…and have somehow built large followings.
They then use this following to gain clients and lead athletes (or inspiring athletes) down a very dangerous physical and mental path because of their lack of expertise and knowledge.
But their clients follow exactly what they say, no matter how outrageous and absurd (and trust me, some of the advice I hear out there is ABSURD) because someone with 100,000 Instagram followers MUST know what they are doing, right?
This same thing happens in every industry—even in our own. And it can be disastrous for both unexacting clients, and the industry reputation as a whole.
You add in brand endorsements and sponsorships and the false sense of influence simply multiples, until you create demigods—unprepared (or aware) of the responsibility of the influence provided them.
Social Proof throughout History
The use (or misuse) of social proof in this way is nothing new and isn’t just based around social media—although social media makes it more omnipresent. You can see examples of this same idol-making dynamic of social proof bias throughout history—in big ways and small.
- Canned laughter on sets of TV shows and theater events.
- McDonalds signs that let you know “Billions and Billions” have been served.
- The mere act of signing-up for waitlists.
Not to mention larger social movements and political events.
When we are uncertain, we look to popular opinion.
When we want to reaffirm our own opinions, we look to influencers who do so.
This is a part of human nature we will never change.
As marketers we must accept social proof affects everything we do and look to how we can work with it or around it. As humans we must acknowledge the bias and be aware of how it affects our decisions (so we can evaluate them based on additional factors).
How do you see social proof affect how we assign value? How have you overcome misplaced social proof in your communications campaigns?
(Also…HAPPY BIRTHDAY to my amazing father, who doesn’t need social proof to be awesome.)