What’s in a name? Shakespeare’s Juliet mused that a rose would still smell as sweet if it had a different name. However, would anyone bother to smell a proffered object if they were told it was a ‘stick’? They certainly wouldn’t if told it was a skunk!
Words have power. They have meaning, and they can also evoke feelings and memories. Your choice of words can hold a considerable amount of hidden information—far beyond face value. That choice can say things about you, your organisation, your attitude, and even your audience.
It is therefore unsurprising that there is currently considerable debate about the ‘right’ term to use for subject matter experts leading organisational employee advocacy campaigns on social media. The marketers involved have been vocal about their preferred terms. However, we have heard rather less from the subject matter experts themselves.
Identifying the options
How might companies refer to their employees who are most influential on social media? The obvious option is ‘subject matter experts’—and, indeed, that was the term chosen by 44% in our not-very-scientific poll on the subject. This option has the advantage of being completely neutral. It is simply a description of the employees in question, and makes no judgement about their level of influence.
The second most popular option was thought leaders, chosen by 30%. On the face of it, this is not unreasonable, because the aim of much content marketing involving subject matter experts is to develop thought leadership. The problem, though, is that thought leadership is defined by other people. Thought leaders, by definition, are seen as the ‘go-to’ resource by others, not themselves. Self-defining your subject matter experts as thought leaders seems somehow presumptuous. Some also see the term as slightly Orwellian, though this view doesn’t seem to be widespread.
What about influencers?
It’s simple, straightforward, and sets out the role that you want your employees to play. This option was chosen by 23% in our poll, suggesting that it has clear advantages. However, it also has some downsides. The term ‘influencer’ is generally used for people with influence on social media—which would be accurate. However, there is also an association with a lack of expertise. In other words, influencers are influential, but not expert, and definitely not thought leaders. Some companies choose to use the term ‘internal influencers’, to distinguish this group from external influencers. However, this has potential for confusion, especially if used in external company.
We did ask about one other term: guru. However, only 3% selected that—and some of the responses suggested that any option is acceptable, as long as it isn’t ‘guru’. It’s not entirely clear why, although there is also no doubt that the term has some negative connotations. Perhaps it simply confirms the power of words again.
The elegance of ambassadors
There was a suggestion that an alternative term might be ‘ambassadors’, which would fit neatly in with the employee advocacy theme. However, it does have echoes of the 1990s Ferrero Rocher ‘Ambassador’s reception’ advertisement (if you know, you know…). Others suggested advocates—like ‘subject matter experts’, it’s neutral and non-judgemental—and the more enthusiastic alternatives champions and evangelists. We have also heard the term ‘spearhead’, often for those in a programme to encourage content creation and social media sharing.
One term which is gaining some ground in marketing circles is nano-influencers. This term does not refer specifically to employees, but rather describes the size of following on social media. Nano-influencers have between 1,000 and 10,000 followers (in contrast to micro-influencers, with 10,000 to 100,000, and mega-influencers, with more than 100,000). Research by Influencer Marketing Hub suggests that around 40% of brands are working with nano-influencers.
It seems likely that many of these nano-influencers are in fact employees. After all, the average LinkedIn member has 1300 connections. However, the term doesn’t really convey the nature of the influence, and especially the subject matter expertise. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that companies may be choosing their employee advocates based on their level of influence.
Over to you…
Our rapid and unscientific research suggests that there is a range of options for the title for employees who are influential on social media. It seems that it might be a matter of preference—so over to you. If you’re a subject matter expert who is active on social media on behalf of your company, what title do you prefer?