Every year, TIME magazine publishes its annual ranking of the 100 most influential people. But today we've all become influencers, each one a potential opinion leader.
We live in an interconnected world, based on the exchange and sharing of views and opinions in a kind of multi-directional, totally anarchic traffic jam in which the latest IPCC report and the latest news item from around the corner rub shoulders as equals (when it's not the corner that wins). Everyone has the power to express themselves, alone or in a group, and conversely to consult and be influenced by others. Some people call this the "counter-power" of the consumer, as if to signify the need to be able to oppose influencers who are presented and experienced as manipulators.
In that world, with those people (i.e. us), listen more to your peers than governing or institutional bodies. Peer-to-peer, or horizontal, communication has developed as a result of the dual effect of mistrust of authorities of all kinds (who are caught in a lack of competence, in denial of reality and in flagrant individualism) and the technical possibilities of social networks. One of the most blatant illustrations of this peer-to-peer trust in recent years was the H1N1 flu. When the pandemic broke out, the general public consulted their friends or other parents of schoolchildren more than doctors or, even less, the Ministry of Health to find out whether they should be vaccinated. When it comes to choosing a car, a washing machine or a hotel, we now listen more to other consumers than to the brand itself; we are more likely to consult Google than a teacher, or a medical website than a health professional. We live in a world where a micro-trottoir of 5 people influences us more than a scientific study conducted over many months. The Internet and social networks haven't invented anything, but they have considerably amplified our barroom discussions and turned each and every one of us into opinion-formers, universal experts with opinions on everything... well, as Coluche used to say, "especially opinions".
Communication needs a cultural revolution
In this world, the official authority is no longer the sole holder of information, because its very 'authority' is often questioned. In terms of communication, we can consider that what the brand says about itself is often less important than what the public says about the brand. Potentially receptive audiences are changing; they are now both receivers and transmitters, and above all they are more informed and demanding; they are even often said to be 'over-informed', as if they were too informed. Listening to each client, consumer, user, constituent and voter to detect weak signals, some of which will become the trends and projects of tomorrow.
That's why it's particularly important to move away from top-down, one-way communication systems. These systems are no longer credible (have they ever been?), and we need to bring about a real cultural revolution in communication, one that moves away from making claims to sharing knowledge, from discourse to action, from monologue to dialogue, from verticality to horizontality. The idealistic, boastful prism has had its day. Today, the "courage" of the new way of communicating consists in considering that the weaknesses assumed will reinforce the credibility of the assets, when the weaknesses concealed - but decoded by all - reduce the assets to nothing. Communication that is sincere rather than "transparent".
A balance needs to be struck between influencers who need to regain respected and expected leadership (in both the political and business worlds) and populations who are now more willing to listen to their peers than their fathers. After the "arroseur arrosé", beware of the "influenceur influencée", who by the same token loses his or her influence (a phrase with a touch of Raffarinade about it that I can live with!), and of public opinion which, by dint of questioning everything, no longer trusts anyone except the first demagogue and populist to come along.