Fame is not an affect on influence, fame is an effect of influence.
In an article by The Future Party entitled “TikTok is turning everyone into a micro-celebrity”, they quote Brendan Gahan, the chief social officer at creative agency Mekanism, as saying that TikTok has developed “inflation essentially within the creator economy.”
I love the fact that the word “inflation” was used for two reasons. Firstly because he’s making the connection between traditional economic forces and social media. And secondly, because what is inflation if not a reflection of entropy within social media?
Gahan’s, sentiment echo’s my primary thesis around the metaconomy. Legally speaking, if corporations can be viewed as people, then due to the Symmetric Property of Equality, people can be viewed as corporations. If this is true, then the same market forces that act on a for profit corporation should apply to people.
I’m sure I’m not the first to think of it this way but until the advent of social media, it was near impossible to measure the influence of an individual in a quantitative way. Well, it still is, and here is why, we have a consensus problem.
The ways that people can “react” to a social media post is impossible to limit, and every new platform that is launched uses their own forms. From likes, retweets, duets, and reposts, to follows, subs, bits, and emotes, there is literally no end.
I propose that we need a place for the general audience to set the value of a persona or brand through demand. And the best way to do that is to mirror a system that has been around since the 1600’s, the stock market.
A virtual stock market would then allow people to set the price(value) of a stock (persona or brand), giving us consensus and a way to measure sentiment. By treating a brand or persona as a stock, all of their social media links and all of their activity would be consolidated no matter what new platform they join. This system would be “non-entropic” or more accurately, “less-entropic”.
In the Future Party article they state “When everyone’s famous, no one’s famous”. This is only a problem if you want to ensure famous people stay famous and non-famous people stay unknown so you can predict the market. But in reality, this isn’t really a problem once we look at it from the correct perspective. Influence isn’t a measure of someone’s audience size, it’s the ability to influence their audience. You really need to think of influence like gravity, size doesn’t really mean anything, it’s all about density. In the world of social media, density is the engagement, not the audience size. In short, fame does not have an affect on influence, fame is an effect of influence.
So where do we go from here, I say let the market decide. “Let the chips fall where they may”. Join us on Influence.inc as we try to put this thesis to the test!