The Rise of Microfame

Great Job Chris!

Well put. I like the daily goal you set out - being trusted, respected and worthy is always going to echo with those who are listening. Keeping 'microfame' in perspective is key.

Microfamous is a contradiction in terms. You are famous, or you are not. It's really a binary thing to me.

Famous in the truest sense means you have serious logistical issues. You need executive protection services, fraud and identity theft protection, and a whole host of things that come from a lot of people liking you, and a decent number of people angry and bitter enough to resent you or actively wish you harm.

If you don't need executive protection services, if you can show your face in public without getting mobbed, then you're not famous.

And for most people, that's probably a good thing, myself included.

Wow, microfame. I think it's a great term for the situation around each social media fishbowl. I know the Brogans and the Pulvers and the Verdinos and the Jaffes and the Penns and the Walls and the Garfields. But what's the next tier...and does it matter?

I'll eagerly share that I've gotten lots of value from Tweeple with 10 followers and little from Tweeps who have 20,000.

What it comes down to is the conversation, the sharing and the value you garner from particular interactions.

Tonight I'm headed to MIT for a Tech Tuesday event. Looking at the roster of people attending I see NOBODY I follow or recognize from Twitter. Does that mean they don't have microfame? Doubtful.

I bet they're big in their own circles as one of the big names on the RSVP list is Microsoft.

But to take it further, does it matter if you're famous or microfamous? I think it speaks to influence and reach.

I enjoy being respected for my journalism acumen and my social media perspective. But is that fame or just recognition in a tiny swimming pool of like-minded pro's?

I'm actually not sure. But I am anxious to read the comments as they're sure to flow in. There are many people with more fame and more grey cells from whom I'd like to learn.

Great 'starter' post Chris.

Jeff

More like niche-famous...it depends on what you, as an individual, represent to a given community. You can be well known and respected in one crowd and a nobody in another. I think this is what you are referring to.

Chris, I was just writing about this the other day. With today's technology we have even greater access to people we want to meet, know, and work with. We are more interconnected now than ever before in history, literally. If we want to meet the CEO of a company, we don't have to get through the gatekeeper, we can contact them directly through social media. People are becoming "famous" through offering value and exhibiting compelling reasons to be connected.

There has never been a more exciting time for true engagement and collaboration. More is possible through this collaboration. The old boundaries are disappearing. I think this is a worthy topic for discussion - thanks for getting it started.

Certainly, all fame is relative. I organize my life and my business contacts starting with 2 categories, "mets" and "haven't mets."

The pleasure of a compliment, a referral, a business request, an invite, even a complaint to handle, from a "met" makes my world go round.Fame grows from my "met" database.

The media platforms available to little old me now make me more famous and Chris, mastery makes YOU even more famous. Micro-fame starts with my "mets" and I stoke those folks as much as I can without being a pest. Think about David Hassellhoff when you think of a famous pest. Maybe OJ Simpson...

Micro-fame throughout the "haven't met" world grows daily now for many people just like me, and that's pretty cool.

Nice post, Chris. I sometimes feel that I am locally-microfamous. I've been quoted by me to me before- which I've always found funny. Keep up the good work.

Hey Chris,

In some ways I think your idea of 'micro fame' is a modern day extension of 'Think therefore I am' or more appropo, I blog or twitter therefore I am ;)

In our po-mo culture, it is instant validation that "you are" a function that used to be provided by your family, peers and church. But, after all - isn't that what its all about? Being somebody?

I think the disconnect comes where we might be micro famous in one milieu; but, unknown in another ;) we sort of, ya know, just expect that to transfer from one place to another. When it doesn't the 'noise level' from social media like twitter certainly increases as a proof of concept that we exist.

I certainly stand convicted;)

good piece.

Sure, there are many levels of fame, but you're only famous to the people knowing who you are. Truly famous is Brad Pitt, Obama , Britney or Jesus. Even other well known public figures remain unknown to many. How many 17 year olds know who Larry Flynt is? I suspect hardly any. But we can be microfamous in our little worlds and enjoy bathing in microlimelight :wink:

It's true. I follow plenty of "microfamous" people, mostly through Twitter, but also through blogs. But, it's not because they're famous in their niche, it's because they have value to me. For some, it is because I trust them to give me good information about marketing, writing, blogging, social media and such. Some, like "shoesonwrong" or "girlonetrack" just because they're entertaining writers and usually bring a smile to my face when I read their tweets. I'm not microfamous, but I do think I provide valuable insights you can trust to those who follow me or read my blog posts. I agree it's about trust. But it's also about the value you give those who follow you - whether it's knowledge, advice or just entertainment. Thanks, Chris, for getting my brain running this morning!

Hi Chris,

IMO, Microblogs helped people connect at a personal (informal) level than various other social media. The difference with microblogs is that people can actually listen and respond immediately, giving a sense of approachability. That helps build trust n fame (depending on what they share).

I'm 100% sure others would agree, if I say that you are worthy of our time, every min of it. Thx for all the time you take to help us with your blog posts n tweets.

Hi, Chris -
I thought the same thing last time I looked at Jeff's speaker list for SocComm - a really impressive, really niche-y group.
Then, yYesterday I was talking to Bill Sell about the Voices That Matter: Web Design Conference and mentally rolled my eyes that he didn't know Jesse James Garrett or Jared Spool -- and then I remembered these are rock stars in a different world than his.

I think a lot of us risk becoming legends in our own mind - we need to remember that we are mostly recognized in that tiny swimming pool to which you refer. And, of course, the tiniest swimming pool of all is "our own mind"!

Good post - I appreciate your willingness to look inward and to do it publicly.

For me it's always been about being a resource. Sometimes I use the resources I get for myself, sometimes for my job, sometimes for my friends. They also return the favor when the time comes -- like getting a job etc. At the OCC Kolkata meet I told people about being a "network point", someone who points to other resources be it human, articles, or tips on how to do certain things. What's the point of being famous if you can't help people right?

Considering that we are all sharing the limited space of this planet, sooner or later, somebody somewhere is going to know what you do.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Hi Chris

I think one of the best tools at your disposal is the avatar - mine is me - nothing more than that. (Ok i think it helps that i'm smiling). Those of you who change yours regularly do so at your peril. It's more than branding - its an instantly recognisable feature "Oh that's him - I'll read because i enjoy what he writes".

Most people have a better memory for faces than they do names? (well I do anyway).

Despite the age of the Internet, we still like to 'see' who we're dealing with, so I would consider writing from your own perspective and if you're a business blogger, then an 'about us' page helps fill in the gaps so to speak.

i do believe testimonials also have a part to play here in in-gendering trust in your audience.

Like any other communication, you won't always get on with everybody - that's human nature but perhaps it becomes a bit more bewildering when we're rejected or not recognised online?

We all obtain a level of microfamousness within our circles (or tribes). An added goal for us could be usefulness to our circles 1st because that's who we interact with on a daily. And if word gets out about our usefulness then maybe we can be useful to more people who may be outside of our circles as a result of our work within our circles. Someone complained to me about his job using him but who wants to be useless?

reminds me of something I'd written a while back on what i'd called micro ambassadors.. each of us have an equity (trust) we've created in a certain category/ies (social media/ entertainment/ sports etc).. a sort of long tail of twitter popularity.. i'd used the example of a movie to show how evangelists could work as micro brand ambassadors.. context bound, and so time bound... :) http://www.manuprasad.com/?p=972

Micro-fame is all well and good, but the ability to share ideas and personal truths with people whose opinions we respect (whether I agree with them or not) is the real miracle to come out of the changes occurring in media right now. Fred Wilson sums it up well in his blog this morning on Truth. http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/truth.html He is speaking about it this morning at the SoComm conference.

CB:
"What about you? Many of you are microfamous too, aren’t you? Admit it. It’s not bragging. What’s it mean to you? For those of you who feel (know!) they’re not YET microfamous, does it matter? Would you rather trust and attention?"


I'd rather gain the attention to be famous for trust.

Re: microfame -- I believe it has always existed; now, we're simply more connected, so (a) more people can become more (micro)famous, and (b) more people can become aware of others' microfame.

Re: This blog post in general -- I perceive it as an ego-stroking exercise. ("Look at all the famous people I met at a private dinner last night -- Google them if you must, because I don't have time to tell you how famous they are, other than to mention two or three times that, of course, they are famous. Oh, and here's also a half-formed idea that I don't really care to flesh out, because I'd really rather you focus on the important, non-you people I just had a private dinner with.")

I am seriously thinking about removing chrisbrogan.com from my feed reader.

When talking to clients about the potential benefits of employee communities, I often bring up improved ability to evaluate talent in an organization. Your idea of microfame seems like a global application of this same idea. We are able as a society to recognize valuable people in small spheres much more readily with the explosion in communication and interconnectness we are experiencing.

I disagree somewhat with your assertion that 'fame isn't trust'. It's not the best kind of trust, but there's something in the idea that having a reputation means you have to protect it. Therefor when I know someone has a reputation I may afford them slightly more trust than I would a random Joe (like me),

Mircofame = Popularity

Saying someone is microfamous or nichefamous is like saying the head cheerleader is microfamous at her high school. She's not really, she's just popular. All these microcelebs are not really celebrities, they are just popular on the web.

The sooner we realize the web is just an extension of high school the better ;)

One of my regular gigs is directing plays at the local community college. I regularly remind the young actors I'm working with that if "celebrity" is the job they think they're training for, they're in for disappointment in the long run. Personal melodrama isn't part of acting; in fact, the same things that make us dependable and desirable in whatever we do also apply to actors: work hard, be honest, know your role and enjoy what you do.

I tend to agree with Christopher Penn above. I think fame, like pregnancy, is binary: either you are or you aren't. There are certainly levels of fame, but they're all relative to the field you're working in. Despite all of his public acclaim, many (most?) people can't tell you exactly who Stephen Hawking is, but within his field, there are few more "famous" individuals.

So lasting fame (or microfame, if you will) is actually earned through the slow buildup of trust. Being well-known for anything else really isn't fame at all, but its poor cousin: infamy.

Young Che puts it very simply a few posts north of me: "We all obtain a level of microfamousness within our circles (or tribes)."

Instead of being micro-famous, I think that the simple act of being microknown by our circles and extended circles might be the way to go. As you said, Mr. Brogan, we don't brag - there have been many occasions where my "known-ness" has proceeded me.

Like you, and Young Che, I think that the target of being micro-famous or micro-known is: What are you going to do about it? How can you help others? What does your network do?

I like the term "microfamous," because I do think it fits. It actually reminds me of sort of small-town "fame" (if you will). I come from a small town in the south. I, and a few families from my hometown, were transplanted up here in Yankee country about three years ago. One of the wives that moved up here did NOT want to move - she was on the verge of divorcing her husband over the decision to move the fam' up here to CT. Her reason? Everyone knew who she was back home. Her dad was a well-known judge in the state (sits on the State Supreme Court, actually) and she could always pull strings when she needed to. When she went out in public, it was like Norm walking to the corner of the bar - everyone knew who she was and treated her with respect and honor.

She was "microfamous." Where she came from, everyone knew who she was, even if they didn't know *her*. I can think of several people, actually, who were like this back home. Well respected in the community (some not deservedly so), and if you mentioned their name to anyone, they knew who you were talking about.

I think the "microfamous" you are referring to is like that - in their community, everyone knows who they are. I can say "Chris Brogan" or "Eric Meyer" to my husband, and he'll give me a blank stare. (Although he *did* surprise me one day when we got a Maxim magazine and Matt Mullenweg was mentioned in it - I guess I talk a lot about WordPress LOL) I swear, it sounds silly, but if I ever did run into Eric Meyer, I would probably get flustered and all tongue-tied. To me, it would be as awesome as running into Hugh Jackman. To my husband, he'd think I was weird, and ask me what was wrong with me.

The difference, I think between "homegrown fame," "Hollywood fame," and this "microfame" word you're applying to the internet world IS that there is trust built up. People here don't become "famous" just because they're hot, or can cry on demand, or because they're popular in the same way the cheerleading captain was in high school. It's not "style" or "beauty" in the superficial sense, and it's not "cool" in that way people typically think of it. For me, even though it's virtual, it's a little more real than that. It's "cool" in the way that you're talking with a group of people who "get" you. It's "stylish" because these people not only know what you're talking about, but you are ALL discussing ways to make it better and more appealing, and advancing not only yourselves, but everyone around you. It's both self-serving AND selfless. It's "beautiful" because to do this dance, you don't have to know the steps - and he who welcomes in those who are willing to learn are the ones who have all of these awesome attributes. THEY are the ones who are famous in our community. THEY are the role models we wished we had in high school, and aspire to be. And even though they're a thousand miles away, they are extremely accessible - which is what's awesome about it. You don't have it anywhere else.

"Microfame" IS based on trust. If there's no trust, and if they don't deserve it, they will not be "microfamous." Because the more you give, the more you receive, and your "fame" is built up. There's a little bit of justice and honesty in that.

Difficult word: Famous.
Let's skip the "15 minutes of fame" aspect. By that I mean anyone who is recognized by a lot of people but never really did anything apart from getting some air time for their face.

Then there are actors that I don't really care about even though they are well known, and thereby famous. Maybe I just don't find their acting good. Maybe I don't care about their genre. I can't really remember who they are when I see their picture somewhere. They are famous to others. To me it's more like 15 days/months/years of fame. I don't respect, or trust, them.

I do respect and trust quite a few famous people. Dustin Hoffman is one of them. I appreciate him not only for being a good actor (in my opinion) but even more for appearing only in certain movies. Each one a bit different and challenging to him as an actor. Each one from a different perspective of being a human, and thus widening my perspectives..
(If you don't get what I mean just think the opposite of Rocky 37 :-)

So I think famous is strongly related to trust and honesty and skill.

If you are (micro)famous it has its advantages and its drawbacks. Your opinion counts and your opinion might count for more than it's worth. The latter is "in the eyes of the beholder".

It is nice to have a say. If you use it to learn more, think wider, advance your skills and never fall in love with your mirror (or other peoples view of you), if you continue to share, you continue to earn trust and attention and we will all grow with you. Thats why we recognise you/your name and consider you worth paying attention to, i.e. famous.

Microfame has always existed. I used to be WAY into to 3-wheeler racing when I was young, and the leaders people I knew of in that sport were the same thing - no one needed to know about them other than those interested in their little vertical niche.

This is no different, there really is no such thing as microfame... unless its created by people who think they should be microfamous ;)

Admitting to be micro famous? It's sort of like being a legend in my own mind and ......maybe yours? (Especially the micro part. :>)

Chris:

Famous, courtesy of the Merriam-Webster folks, is defined as - widely known or honored for achievement.

Taking it literally, one could arugue that you, Chris, as well as others who stand out in the Social media scene are famous. Our standard, contemporary notion of famous is skewed, however, to applying in a much broader sense to those in the public eye - celebs, sports icons, politicians, ...

I think the notion of micro-famous simply applies context to the broader notion. Within a given "community" people that stand out and achieve are famous. Where I really agree with you is that it's not about the fame - micro-fame implies many people know you. How many of those people have a "relationship" with you? Have you exchanged ideas, conversed in a meaningful way, or did you simply help them out when they hit a problem.

Being well-known is one thing. Beyond that comes respect, and ultimately, trust. There, I think you hit the nail on the head.

I have done some fun stuff in my life, and probably qualify as microfamous, but I actually feel like when someone doesn't really know *me* and they laud me for being exceptional, they are engaging in this pervasive cult of personality/celebrity that erodes our critical thinking. One of the things I love about the last decade is the emphasis on conversation over preaching, crowdsourcing over authority/celebrity. If I am microfamous, I hope it can be for educating people how to abandon the institution of smoke-and-mirrors fame (or "reach") for authentic reputation.

I have a subscription to your feed and i read it everyday. I read it every time because of the incites that you provide. It's like seeing things with your eyes.

As for the microfame concept, yes it exists at least from where i come from. I believe it can also be likened to Influencer Marketing. It is where we present some idea, a concept, a brand or a cause and if this famous person likes it, talks about it, embrace it, then most likely it will have followers or believers.

Yes, in my own way i can say that i am microfamous at least in my field of endeavor, which is digital/activation. I use it to influence people in making their efforts more worthwhile. Make the experience genuine and enjoyable. I am usually known for the standard of excellence in implementing a certain project. So when they know i am on board, people involved will step up and i am happy to say a lot have embraced the standards and have in their way earned credibility in their field. And yes I am one who considers you famous. Thanks for posting and letting us have the opportunity to tell our stories.

Funny, my friends who aren't in the social sphere that we're in, always say "You're gonna be famous one day!" because of the work I do online that shows my face for the world to see and know. I just laugh and brush it off but in the back of mind I do think about it sometimes. Not because I want to be recognized by every internet user in the world (though that would be cool, no?) - but more so, what I think it means to have that type of 'status'.

It's not the 'rockstar' image that most people talk about when given this type of topic but the value that comes along with it. What have you done to earn the title of being even remotely famous (or microfamous)? That's what I ask myself and I understand that there has to be a lot given on my part before that type of word can be thrown anywhere near my direction. I want to provide value, someone people can trust and help them as much as I can - it's just my nature. Only when I'm confident that I provide that with almost everyone I come in contact with, will I consider myself microfamous.

Thanks for putting a spin on the ever cliché, 'rockstar' topic.

"Microfame" is a term that attempts to define a particular state or condition in the in the evolving nature of human connection in the Internet Age. The use of Web 2.0 and Social Media is all about The Three Ds: democratization, decentralization, and disintermediation. Anyone with access to a computer has access to a global audience. That means that the fame pie is being sliced into increasingly thin pieces as more and more people compete, consciously or not, for the attention of an increasingly fragmented and distracted audience. Ultimately that means that Andy Warhol was right about fame, but he was wildly optimistic in his prediction of how long each of us gets to be famous. In the end, microfame is the flattening of fame. It's what happens as Web 2.0 and Social Media continue to transform fame from a vertical to a horizontal phenomenon.

"Microfame", in one sense, could be the moment your name becomes a keyword.

You aren't simply "Mr. Anderson" anymore, you are "The Mr. Anderson"; when the person who is referenced requires no disambiguation given a context. Context being the driver of the "micro" part of "microfame". I'll bet very few people have trouble establishing context for a reference to "Britney Spears", or perhaps even "Britney".

I've been doing a bit of exploration in generating topic maps for communities online, and from time to time a person crosses over from being one of the many to "one of the named"; refer to this image, just northeast of the "marketing" bubble at the bottom: http://is.gd/j2ds

I'll agree with the algorithm -- in this particular slice of community, it seems you are decidedly "the Chris Brogan".

So then, how does one become [micro-] famous? One way might be to become a "topic" -- get people talking!

Seems like microfame has virtually always existed--I wrote a piece on it in journalism school nearly ten years ago--and we're just seeing the social media instance now.

Once you put aside the "traditionally famous," you very quickly enter the micro- or niche-famous. Rock climbing was the example I used a decade ago: there are people who are absurdly famous in the climbing world but can walk through an airport without turning a single head.

These are people who regularly appear on magazine covers, have endorsement deals and do appearances...basically all the trappings of traditional fame, except that its a very limited sphere. If you're a climber you know of these people, but if you're not you'll probably never hear their names.

If you don't like climbing take your examples from academic disciplines, niche music (I play the bagpipes and there's a world of micro-famous people there), or what-have-you. Every community has its share of contextually famous people.

Chris,

Great blog and interesting thought.

In the past, it was said that "...it's all in who you know...", while today I believe it's more like "...it's all in who knows YOU!"

So whether you refer to it as microfame or I refer to it as "being known", we all have a personal sphere of influence, or "community" that we interact with. Sometimes that "community" may only be friends and family; sometimes it might also include colleagues and peers; sometimes also civic and/or charitable organizations...but everyone has some form of community. Whether you're active in these communities, or just a by-stander is another thing.

When the personal computer became popular (circa 1996), if you knew a tiny bit more than the "average joe" about them, you were a genious when it came to computers and everyone saw you as "the dude". Now, if you have any social media skills, you're seen again as "the dude", but just for the current trendy item.

Adding long-term value to others and helping others succeed, regardless of what you receive out of it, to me, is the personal measure of fame and success. If fame & wealth, per your own personal standards of them, come along with that, then so be it.

I love the scene in "City Slickers" when Curly tells Mitch what the secret to life is...and ultimately is the secret to each person's own path: "One thing!" So true.

I do agree with you that trust, integrity, and character are all part of a person's ultimate fame, maybe more importantly their legacy, and most who don't have these characteristics are ultimately doomed to only their "15 minutes".

Keep up the great blogs! Thanks for letting me contribute.

Thanks, Chris for this interesting post.
It raises good questions.
I'm jumping in as I add two more ideas to what has bee said alrady, including in the comments.
Reading it I was reminded of Andy Warhol's well known assertion that in the future (this is the future) that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. That's a kind of micro famous.
When Warhol's idea is added to Seth Godin's Tribes and then social media a new paradigm comes to view. In a tribe a person can be quite well known or famous. If that tribe itself becomes important, then the person becomes better known to more people.
As social media grows and becomes more important the people who have pioneered and led within it grow in importance and fame. Clearly that would be based on earned trust.
Perhaps there is a difference between fame-- just being well known or recognizable-- and being renowned, which, I think implies more trust and prestige.
Judy Rey Wasserman
On Twitter @judyrey

I wasn't really going to address this, figuring my Twitter response would be enough, however; Sometimes, we need more than 140 characters.™

Okay, now that I've gotten the legal stuff out of the way, CS Penn got me to write. I saw his tweet, which led me to his comment, which generated this response....

He really didn't address the central question, seeing it as an either/or proposition. You're famous, or your not. Well, I reject that totally, based on your post, Chris. In my field, I call it “Too Much Casting Syndrome” meaning, I see a face that I should recognize, but I can't attach a name to it. Those people are quite possibly, famous in our field, which is acting, as someone else mentioned above. I believe there is a third option, as seldom anything in life is truly binary, except of course, well, binary code.

You may have keyed on the difference between fame and celebrity. I'd be willing to wager that most in your field, or vertical market if you will, know who you are, because of your transparency. At the same time, if we were to pass by walking down the street, I might do a double take, but wouldn't stop you and say, “Hey, aren't you Chris Brogan?” If you were a celebrity, you wouldn't necessarily need the protection of the secret service to walk down the street, however, I'd be willing to wager that most would stop you and say, “Hey, you're Chris Brogan!!! I read your blog entry last week!!!“ Then you might have to fumble for some words, because you have no idea who that is....

So, yes, I will probably run with this. More on my blog. I think :)

Chris, what is the point of this post? I am lost. Microfame because of microblogging? I mean come on dude. I am not microfamous and neither are you. Having dinner with other well-known people means what?

Chris Brogan, the tee shirt. You're describing Seth Godin's new book, "Tribes" quite well here.

Nice post Chris. I disagree with Chris Penn that microfamous is a contradiction. Id dont think fame can be measured very well so its not binary IMO. I agree you can be famous on certain scales and its certainly true that fame doesn't equate to trust. However I think you can use fame to get trust or at least the perception of trust. Think about celebrities, news anchors, politicians they all do it but in most cases its the mere perception of trust. Seems like fame and trust contradict to some extent - the more people you know or that know you the more diluted those relationships or your 'average' relationship and therefore diluted trust if you assume that trust can only be developed through relationships that require a lot of time and effort and mutually shared experiences.

Dont forget Justin Siegel of MocoSpace who was at the dinner with you last night and who yes is microfamous for sure.

riffing on Matches' thang

And I think mico-fame it's not only contextual; but, also transient: - in that I can go play a show with 10K people in the audience and as long as I have my guitar people will know who I am ;) When I get back into jeans, t-shirt and cap and not only am I not recognizable I can virtually anywhere un-accosted, unknown "un-micro famous" even ...

You must be psychic.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit for the past few weeks (though I wasn't using the term "microfame"), as it is especially apparent to me in niche blogging circles.

I spend a lot of time perusing fashion and graphic design blogs (my blog attempts to integrate both), and noticed that there are certain names/blogs that are well known in each genre--though interestingly enough, the "stars" never overlap. I think that points to the community aspect of blogging, though the fact that the communities are so... isolated (?) leads me to question just how famous one can really be on the interwebz.

On the other hand, I've seen bloggers receive job offers, model in advertising campaigns, go on to edit publications, etc. because they achieved a certain level of microfame--which seems to reinforce the importance of trust, especially when leading a tribe.

I'm doing something I never do: I am skipping over all the other comments and going directly at the post with what hit me in the gut immediately after reading it. I'll probably go back to the other comments and respond to them too in the future.

My thought upon reading this is that we each already have a sphere of influence, or as it were, a circle of trust. For me at least, fame really has nothing to do with it - these folks don't care about how many people follow me, read my 'stuff', call me a contact, "friend me up", etc. My sphere includes my friends and neighbors, immediate and extended family, my boss, my coworkers, my barber, my mechanic, and a few other people in my "real world", as well as all of the people I have worked with in some capacity via the internet. The common link between all of these folks is that they expect me to deliver something - a real world result - and they know that if I say I will, then they can relax in that expectation. Trust, not fame.

I love the idea of microfame and I think it is very real, but I also love that you sort of distance yourself from it. I don't know if you mean to do this or not, but you give me the impression that you consider internet fame on the same shelf as reality program fame. I get that, anyway, from reading you consistently.

For what it's worth, fame, macro or micro, has little to do with my own sphere of influence. From my point of view (is it accurate?), I'm addressing an audience that is largely lacking the industry insider mindset of the web world - my colleagues and friends are users of Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and the rest, but they aren't that impressed by the tools themselves, they aren't trying to develop tools based on these technologies, and they also aren't trying to build record numbers of contacts (followers, friends, whatever). Rather they want to just use these services to connect, for whatever reason, with the people already in their lives. They (we) don't care what is just around the corner, but we will probably use it too, when it gets around the corner.

The tools I'm using here allow me instant and asynchronous (slap me, I hate that word) access to those folks who share my penchant for technology, and to a lesser extent it also allows me the same communication access to the 'real world' people who are maybe less interested, albeit still willing to take the time to connect in this way. While I have used this to effectively enlarge my peer group, my real sphere of influence hasn't increased at the same rate.

Microfame just seems like a social media flavored way of saying you're a big fish in a little pond. And there's nothing wrong with that; it's a pretty universal idea with a social spin. Yeah, it works.

But I think to be microfamous just means you're "one someone's radar". You are not famous by the real definition, but you are known because of something you do in a small space. And you cannot be famous or microfamous if your listeners/followers/fans/"friends" don't think so.

Microfame only happens when you get posts or emails or texts or something else from your followers confirming you are microfamous TO THEM.

But I'll trade all my microfame - yes, ALL OF IT! - to convert my followers into true friends, and I'm very lucky to say that I've been able to do that. And once you become friends, you're no longer microfamous to them. You're "just" friends, and that's a more intimate and stronger connection. And that's pretty cool.

Microfame is a great term. I think it speaks directly to Seth Godin's tribes concept. Many people may not know who you are, but if you're well known in your tribe, you're doing something right.

Once again, great job at articulating something that's out there, but many of us haven't considered yet.

Ron Miller
by Ron Miller blog

If someone had suggested that I was microfamous two weeks ago I would have laughed. However, I just attended a conference where I was speaking on beginning blogging and had many people come up to me who felt they "knew" me via my blogs. The important thing for me was not that they knew me, but that I had helped them by sharing information and making it accessible to them. What they were telling me is that they couldn't have done it without my help. I think that points to trust and respect and that's worth everything to me. When I set my goals for blogging and business, the bottom line is always helping someone find the answers they need.

BTW: Did you just love Katja? She's a friend of mine and I have to point out that she's a rock star--personally and professionally. ;)

I love being microfamous. It helps me to realize that I'm bringing value to the world, that life has meaning. Others have the luxury of finding that in different places. For me, microfame is where it's at!

Rebecca
@modite / @alice

Chris, you asked "What’s it mean to you?" I suppose I'm "micro" or "niche" famous in the library world.

What's it mean? I largely try to ignore it (once in a while, it's sorta hard to ignore :-) ). Sure, I think it's pretty cool when people approach me and say they love my blog ... but I work REALLY HARD to have my main focus be on these three things: thinking out loud, sharing stuff I find interesting, and asking for other opinions.

These three things have grown my readership, my conference speaking, my writing, and has influenced my main job, too. The micro-fame thing? Just an outgrowth of what I do, I guess... ?

Good post, Chris. And I, for one, appreciate the lack of links -- so nice to be able to read from beginning to end without feeling the pull to click on something and be gone.

As to your point about fame v. trust, I'm with you, I think trust is a more rewarding goal. I have tended to think about it this way: I just want to be helpful and know I'm doing something that is meaningful to more people than just myself. A little attention to acknowledge that I hit that goal is very satisfying, I'll admit, and it motivates me to want to help again. I think fame is out of reach of most people anyway, but everyone can be helpful.

Microfame to me is the idea of being famous in a locale. That locale could be within your neighborhood, your town, your community, your vertical market etc. It's a person's "recognizablity" within one of the aforementioned locales. When you walk into a room in one of those locales are your recognized? Your ability to be recognized and the amount of people that recognize you constitutes your degree of microfame.

The funny part is - I don't know these people. I know Chris Brogan (he even tweeted me once!) but microfame sits within the long-tail niches of society - which is where we are headed with our social media.

As you point out, it's what you do with your "fame" that is important. By 6 degrees, we are all connected somehow. But how have you helped those in your immediate circle to improve their lives?

Most of the "famous" I know of do little except celebrate their own fame. I spent over 20 years in Hollywood and had some connection occasionally with these. A lot were great people. However, the guys on either side of me did more for their associates, in general, than the famous did for their "many adoring fans". "Getting press" isn't a reason for living.

As Penn points out, fame is really a distraction and an expense. So does one want to become even micro-famous?

Chris, per usual a spot on post. Becoming “microfamous” should be at the core of any business’s marketing strategy. Put another way, “lead generation to establish brand and grow your business.” It’s using these new platforms to do the same ole, same old … building strong relationships by establishing trust and credibility. This should be the goal behind every resource spent on marketing.!

As you state, social media or new marketing (I dislike both terms bc they are misleading in many ways) are really “tried and true” marketing approaches using novel platforms and communication channels. Social media provides an incredible opportunity to become microfamous and thus create that inbound marketing vortex that every business seeks.

While I'm with Rita (and Steven Hodson) in noting that microfame has always existed, I'm also in agreement with Sheldon Steiger (and you) in noting that respect is more important than fame. Or, to put it another way, it's better to have microrespect than it is to have microinfamy.

Is microfame that you are famous among a niche group of people? Most people I know would not know of a single name you cited. It's a bit like everyone knows you in the small town you grew up in. This is just an internationally synchronously connected small town.

My heart would warm more to a discussion of growing future micro-leaders with more micro-impact -- using some of this micro-fame to make creative change in the world instead of talking about the tech changes in a micro-inside-world. I'm seeing this actively in the micro-connected worlds of education, social engagement, using digital tools for monitoring the Aussie fires, etc.

I think that's a good way of expressing a phenamenon I've felt socially, with nothing going on professionally otherwise. Imagine writing your article again from just a social angle. The more people interact about it, online or off, the higher the fame (in the micro view). The goals are still the same...some are networking, some are aiming for long-lasting interaction, which only trust can bring.

I can easily see arguing with myself over this, but the feeling of microfamous seemed like it struct a chord.

I am far from microfamous, but I am grateful to be considered in expert in my field of fitness and nutrition by high-powered people. That being said, I want to share my knowledge with everybody, not just the rich and famous. That's why I'm entering the world of social media, in the hopes of reaching, helping and educating the most people possible. I hope to one day be microfamous, as it will say to me that I've done my job right and reached out to as many people I could.

I personally like the annonimity blogging offers, it's what I write that is being recognised, not the writer.. As much as mine is a personal blog, with other bits of 'stuff', like the bushfires in Australia or a book or movie review thrown in, I can walk down the street, past some of my readers and I would not be recognised.

The internet provides a platform to express knowledge, opinion, thoughts, creativity, and create community.

To be recognised in my community for what I do, be it where I live or where I blog, does not leave me considering my fame or microfame. I just lets me know that I am recognised in my community. My goal as a recognised member of my community is not to achieve fame or microfame but to be valued and respected.

Andy Warhol said "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes."

Thanks to the internet we have Microfame: everyone is famous to 15 people.

Two things spring to mind for me:

Firstly, from your post, at what point does anyone become famous? Most of us are well known to a few people, some to more than others. So, how many people have to be in your group of "fans" before you can be considered famous, or even microfamous?

Secondly, from that and from several of the comments made, I think there is a mistake here as to what famous is. It is not being well known or liked (or even disliked), it is being a familiar name or face to a lot of people and at a very superficial level at that.

Being TRUSTED, on the other hand, is having a solid reputation for what you do, or how you behave, and that's a very different thing.

Fame and infamy are different sides of the same coin. They are both often worth money to the individual. They both involve a lot of people knowing OF you, but neither requires anyone to truly know anything at all ABOUT you, or what you do.

I really liked in this post how you talked about your end goal of building relationships and trust. With niche markets being such a field of opportunity it's cool to see people who deserve it receive "microfame." I also liked what Gary Vaynerchuk had to say about microfame: http://garyvaynerchuk.com/2009/01/16/i-am-a-tri....

My goal in social media is to stick to relationships while adding value, so I'm right there with you with developing trust and genuine relationships.

Great thoughts as usual!

That sounds like an interesting dinner. I used to go to a lot of those, but usually only as a bodyguard...

I think everyone is getting their "15 minutes" these days. It takes some real blogging "skills" to capitalize on it longer term though. Awesome work Chris!

Chris. I'll have you know that I am famous-famous in certain circles.

Oh wait, that's what you said. ;)

Joking aside, it's not about the "fame" micro or macro though it may be.

I think that everyone probably measures the success of their influence based on how much good they can effect in direct ratio to their intended goals.

You shared at TOC that you feel that certain qualities are important. I feel that certain qualities are important also. We even share some.

I'd say, for me, it's more about how much positive influence I can have in one day. That might be with one person, a group of students, an audience at a conference, with readers of my books or serving as a reporter at TOC, as examples.

I don't think any one of these things makes me "famous" per se, but when you work hard enough, long enough, it all starts to ripple out. And eventually good things start to come back to you. That creates the resonance that lets you know you are on the right track.

I'm not sure that size of the audience matters as much as quality of the relationships. And the fact the everybody in the relationship gets to maintain their authenticity, integrity, and power.

Fame is fleeting. But to make an impact on even one person...that's pretty much forever.

BTW, I think you should bring up topics for discussion whenever you want whether they are fully formed or not. It's your darn blog, anyway. Nite!

It's funny how we fit micro into so many terms now. Micro-blogging, micro-famous, micro-niche - are we diminishing the word micro itself by overuse?

Fame (any kind of fame) is only really relevant if the *famed* person is known or not. That star pitcher on the high school baseball team? Hey, that's so-and-so's son. They guy that crashed and burned while trying to copy a Jackass stunt? Yep, that's so-and-so, you might remember him as a decent pitcher on the high school team...

Youtube, Facebook and Flickr have afforded anyone the chance to be *famous* - anyone on the public view has the potential to be famous to someone.

The question is, how many of the people in that certain person's niche actually know about them? Or, more harshly perhaps, care? Fame's fleeting; real life is where it's at.

Fame takes work to maintain. Trust builds on itself.

Thirty plus years ago, when I started I thought I wanted to be famous. I achieved fame in a very small circle. It took work to manage that fame.

The prospect of honor from trust is much less work and more rewarding. If I am serving a need, I will create trust. That trust will create recognition. All I need to do is live my passion, the rest happens. Life is much easier and more rewarding.

Serving a small sector well is much more satisfying than fame in a big circle.

Chris, I'm new to the blog scene, but your post made me stop and think...and add your feed to my list (of 2). Maybe one-day I could grow up to be "micro-famous" too. Cheers mate!

I wouldn't even consider myself to be nano-famous. And it is quite obvious that our audience is a very tiny niche (Muslims), it has occurred to me that the IslamCrunch brand has been getting recognition. At conventions, people come up to me and say: "Aren't you the IslamCrunch dude?" Strangers ask me of the status of IslamCrunch and we get linked to on various websites.

This can easily lead to arrogance. In Islamic belief, this was the downfall of Satan: his arrogance; and he was cast out of Heaven, forever cursed.

Our scholars teach us that we are here to serve the Creator as well as humanity. So I completely agree that building relationships based on trust and serviceability is of utmost importance.

Without sounding too cliche, building bridges is what we need. Recently, an Internet Economist, Cameron Peron, who is living in Israel wrote an analysis of IslamCrunch. This is a real-life example of microfame expanding it's circle of influence. An Analysis of IslamCrunch by Cameron Peron.

For me, all joking aside..., it's all about respect. No matter how 'famous' or 'appealing,' I come back for more of you because I respect you. That to me is the key to everything.

Chris,

You have earned my trust.

Thank-you and Take Care,

Kevin

There's is a whole new spin on Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame for everyone" remark. A year or so back, I began to--half-kiddingly the very first time--tell friends I was "a marginally famous" book designer. And then the whole discussion of the Internet changing our notion of fame. Twitter has made it somewhat less-than-half-kidding.

My http://www.3screens.net blog has resulted in my recently being in The Wall Street Journal, an appearance on Good Morning America and on Monday, an interview on NPR's Marketplace.

My premise is simple: specific blogs on certain subjects (mine is a consumer facing blog covering AT&T) can be found and covered by leading journalists.

I've been getting lots of press lately on how I managed to reduced my triple play phone bill by 40% and how it's working for others since they are hearing about this in mass media and paying it forward.

Chris, I trust you, because you say interesting, provocative things, day in and day out. You have earned my trust by working hard at this.

At the same time, I don’t have a “relationship” with you. I have tried to contact you numerous times -- through @’s, dm’s, emails, blog comments, and you’ve never once gotten back to me. This is because you are famous. (Or micro-famous, I don’t believe there is a difference). Your reputation is bigger than your reality. And you are on my radar but I am not on yours.

Two questions. If it really is about the trust, why are you continuing to grow your sphere of influence? Why not stop now?

And two. Will I trust you forever if the relationship is always one way? Should I?
@lisahickey

There's no way I can comment back on all the great and thoughtful things you've all said individually, but you've taught me a few things.

1.) Some people are really edgy discussing fame or popularity or celebrity or whatever these things mean. There were a few folks who thought I was attempting to simply namedrop or toot my own horn. If you've yet to meet me, I can see why you might have thought that. Once you meet me, you'll see that I'm a bit different than that.

2.) Lots of you said this is "big fish, small pond" with a new name. Yes and no. The small pond now has amplifiers, and it's now a cloud community (a name I stole from Ripple6).

3.) For those of you who asked whether I valued microfame for myself, I thought that my end piece in the article would point to the thought that fame isn't my goal. My goal is more interactions and more value exchange. There's nothing about Brad Pitt's lifestyle (why do we always say Brad Pitt? Isn't that weird?) that I want. (Well, you know, besides the obvious.)

4.) I liked Owen Marcus's comment: Fame takes work to maintain. Trust builds on itself.

What do you think?

Thanks for the thoughts Chris, I just recently started following you on Twitter, and have enjoyed the posts. I am generally uncomfortable with publicity, but very comfortable with trust. Trust will spread itself without the baggage of having to worry about how fame occurred (micro or otherwise).

I think Michael Shearer's term of "niche-famous" is the best way to describe it, and I don't think it's anything new. We have always been driven to be recognized by our peers - whether it's an industry award, a newspaper article or a ton of comments on our last blog post. The world is made up of bodies of water - ponds to oceans, with us everyday folks trying to break out of our ponds to a larger body of water to movie celebrities, rock stars, sports heros and political titans being the biggest fish (sharks?) in the oceans. As long as I maintain trust, I wouldn't mind being famous - to a certain extent. What I wouldn't want to be: however, is infamous!

Many ponds. Many fish of all different sizes.

I think trust is really important because of what it means to and how important of a factor it is in strong relationships. Trust is built off a base of a couple things, such as communications and shared experiences. What I always try to reveal to people when I talk to them about Facebook or Twitter is that the platforms themselves are unimportant compared to how they enable that foundation for trust to be built.

Relating to your point 2, "Big Fish, Small Pond," you come close to using the dreaded word "fishbowl". As is evidence by things like this post and its many comments, a lot of your fellow travelers are sometime collaborators, sometime audience, sometime suppliers, sometime clientele. Depending on one's message — that "passion" one blogs — these circles of people will overlap less and less. When my DutchNewYork.com effort is running on all eight cylinders, the community (tribe?) will likely be people whom Jeff Pulver's dinner guests have never heard of, except for me. (This is a very good thing; I'm not complaining!) In a way, Chris, you have it easier, since your circles of micro-fame share many of the same people.

I must have deleted this line last night, thinking it sounded too preachy but at the end of the day, for me, all this work is about making good things happen. Then Tim O'Reilly said it in his keynote at TOC (which he kicked btw, wish you could have been here for it). So, I've come back to say it. It's not about fame, for me, it's about making good things happen. I sign off my message to readers that way in my newsletters.

Trust and all the rest happens for those who make good things happen. It's basically just karma. Fame or lack of it has little to do with it except to create a bigger platform for making more good happen, which is almost always a good thing. Thanks for thinking out loud.

I'm not edgy about it, I just want to strive to be clear. :)

Yes... this is very interesting. In fact, I just had a conversation with my sister-in-law who has a bit of a following on her scrapbooking blog. I used to think that this concept was funny, but it's starting to make more sense. Truth be told, look at the hundreds of thousands of people that we can all choose to follow online... not just "follow," but literally gain a snap shot into everything they are doing. It's like our own little personalized People magazine. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that followers are gaining a much more sophisticated understanding of the values and perspectives of the people they follow... I would see this as progress. Let's face it, we're talking about a big opportunity for us to value people on qualities other than there attractive physical features - imagine that!?

So who is the #1? Megamicrofame!

"There were a few folks who thought I was attempting to simply namedrop or toot my own horn. If you’ve yet to meet me, I can see why you might have thought that. Once you meet me, you’ll see that I’m a bit different than that."

But doesn't this demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of how the internet works and how we're internetworked? Or at least a temporary lapse in best practices?

I only had three or four blog posts -- I think this was the fourth I've read -- to get to know you; I just started following your blog after someone re-tweeted something you said. Your excuse of "That's not who/how I am" rings hollow if all I have is the snapshot that I have. And how many of your readers have met you in person? Not a great percentage, I'm guessing.

To me, this is as basic an error in understanding the internet as the one made by @keyinfluencer -- committing a social-media faux pas and then hiding behind rookie excuses that a person regarded as a social-media "thought leader" (famous, microfamous, or otherwise) should know to avoid.

Edgily yours, ;)
Rita

I would describe "microfamous" as an 'abundance' term vs a 'scarcity' term. It seems to me that today I can easily find very talented people and connect with them. No more velvet rope. The world is open to me to find 'famous' people who can help me in my pursuits. They may not be famous as in Andy Warhol's 15 minutes, but they are famous to me when I need them. Said another way, it's celebrity with chops - - people who are great, who can be easily 'found', who will respond, who you can have a meal with, who will help. That is powerful! In fact, I reached out to Chris to put me in touch with a social media expert, and he did so immediately - Reem Abeidoh - she is micro famous on her way to being just plain famous!

Hi Chris,

I'm here because I want to be engaged and educated...not to be microfamous. Twitter is a wonderful platform for continuous learning where I can absorb and exchange ideas to filter back to my own tribe, my own circle of professional and personal influence. Being relatively new to Twitter, I'm grateful for the leaders who have evolved -- not for their rock-star status -- but for their wisdom and thought-provoking conversation regarding social media and more. However, I'm also grateful for the opportunity to connect with and learn from the diverse assortment of Tweople who may or may not be microfamous by Twitter standards, but who shine brightly within their own spheres of influence.

Having said this, I do think there's probably room for increased social integration on Twitter, more of a bottom up mentality. One idea might be to create categories of consistent recognition to spotlight contribution -- no matter the Twitter ranking. Shining the light on a variety of people in the network, I think, only broadens the value.

Thanks!
Jenifer Olson

I think you appropriately highlighted the main issue on the Internet...quantity vs quality...celebrity vs trusted confidant. As I am working to build a long-term business on the Internet, I want visitors to trust me who come to my site and my clients. It is critical to have credibility and it takes a long-time. Pitching a tent and saying I am a builder is easy, but building a skyscraper is another story. However, much of the Internet is about becoming a celebrity for a second, spammers, frauds, etc. The Internet is completely challenging to differentiate good from bad. Your blogs are very interesting. But more importantly, I think you are a decent person so what you say matters more. You have made yourself 'real' on the Internet. I think that is very difficult but what all the quality people behind the web site businesses need to do. I would love for you to do more blogs around this issue and provide views on becoming more trusted. Thanks!!

Chris,

'Microfame', I am experiencing this now as my web presence slowly increases through Twitter.com, SocialSpark, Plaxo, Facebook, FriendFeed, and my blog: http://donotreadthisblogunless.blogspot.com/

I need more opportunities to get out and meet people, BlogWorld Expo and Affiliate Summit West and East are good but separated by many months of non -event time.

I continue to reach out to the 'thought-leaders' like you who appreciate honesty, integrity, and good citizenship as daily prompts to help other like-minded folks.

I appreciated your starting this conversation, and look forward to those "LINKS!"

Respectfully,

Nicholas Chase
www.twitter.com/nachase

Chris,
I'll take microfamous and/or trusted and worthy, as long as one of them pays!

Chris,

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Fame is one insult I haven't had to endure.

Seriously, whether the numbers are 100 or 10,000, I really wouldn't consider social media any semblance of micro fame, unless we want to start calling brides and grooms famous for simply showing up to their own wedding.

All my best,
Rich

Not two seconds before I read this post I said to my co-worker - "Did you know Chris Brogan is coming to Podcamp Toronto next week."

Co-workers response - "Who?". When I explained you were well known (microfamous) in social media circles he still didn't know who you were. Maybe not so microfamous for social media to everyone then. BUT when I said you were one of the co-founders of the Podcamps, the light went on.

So even if you are not microfamous within some "tribes" with smaller "families" you could be microfamous.

But doesn't it all boil down to being a big fish in a little pond vs. a little fish in a big pond?

BTW - I look forward to seeing/hearing you at Podcamp Toronto.

"a bevy of mommy bloggers" ?????

When I read that, I thought "What are they? The nameless micro-famous?" Am I one (having been blogging since 2005 in my own humble way) or am I giving myself airs and graces? Haha, definitely airs and graces.

I just thought how perfect blogging is for moms, or mums as we call them in this neck of the woods. For me it is less about fame (although last week there was a small peice about me and my work on national TV
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/coming-up-close-up-2...
which was also not about fame) than about the compulsion to just create. And the reason I think that blogs are the perfect platform is that they are set up so that one can express oneself in small convenient bites of time (which is sometimes all mums have to themselves), and to keep a public record. Oh, and occasionally someone might find the blog and give feedback. But in my case, that is definitely not even microfame, but it hasn't stopped me creating and blogging about it.

As for you though, Chris, as I write you have 88 comments, which means that you have had at least that many readers, possibly more. I guess that is a fair measurement of microfame by your definition.

Would I rather have fame or trust? I agree, it is relative. But here's the deal for me: FAME may feed my bank account; but TRUST feeds my soul.

Fame may make me FEEL important (I'm guessing, I'll let you know when I actually achieve it) even if the substance behind it were questionable (I would hope not). But I'd rather BE important to my clients (or anyone) because they TRUST me and because I have actually helped them, thereby earning their trust.
If one has to think about which is more important to them, I would pose this question: "In a life or death situation; do you want someone famous or someone trustworthy to come to your aide?"

How does one become trusted? It starts with being authentic. And then there has to be substance, a reason to trust. And that has everything to do with having a "giving" spirit rather than a "taking" spirit. So I'm not afraid to give.

Beverly Bergman
The Coaches' Rainmaker

For me, it's well-known within the field, aka "Big Fish, Little Pond" famous. Not the same as being a household name. :) I'm also wondering about the famous vs. infamous distinction. That might be interesting to explore.

Yes! This is quite simply one of the best posts I've read in awhile. Of course, I love pretty much everything you write, Chris! ;)

"But fame isn’t trust, and the real goal, in my estimation, would be to develop trust, build relationships, and earn the attention of people in our circles of interest. That’s what matters."

Amen. This is why people gravitate towards *you*, Chris. I agree 100% with what you say. It's one thing to have lots of people know you - to be "well-known." It's another to have lots of people love you, trust you, respect you, send business to you. And that doesn't just happen on its own. There's a process of what could be called "earn the right" by demonstrating. By showing that your words are in alignment with your actions. Showing that you care. Genuinely.

@Owen Marcus. I love this nugget: "Fame takes work to maintain. Trust builds on itself." Well said.

I think my new acronym for FAME is Feeling Abundant More Everyday. (Okay, not the best grammar!). But what microfame means to me is the ability to reach more people and have more opportunities come my way than I can possibly handle such that I get to refer those opportunities to other people. For sure, it takes more work. But it's rewarding and a reminder of how abundant the world is.

Cheers,
@marismith

Isn't this really a case of "localized respect"? We've created this virtual community that has guides and seers (the "microfamous" perhaps) who have been elevated to their posts by their actions and information. It isn't that they are famous on a small scale, but rather well-respected in a community. Imagine our virtual community as a small town. The "microfamous" folks that we talk about are the same as notable people in a small town. These folks have a great deal of influence over the lives in their community. In the social media world, there are folks who have a great deal of influence over the socila media sphere. The difference between "microfamous" in the social media scene versus being a big fish in a small pond is that elevation to point of "microfamous" or well-respected in our community is that merit and respect in our community come from what you know, what yu share and what you think rather than parentage, wealth or stature. Microfamous, well-respected, community leader, whatever you call it, it all revolves around sharing, respect and sense of community. I am happy to have all of you as a part of my little virtual town.

I have never chased fame of any kind; there have been a few times it found me though -- as a singer, as a writer, as a speaker and even as a management consultant. It has not changed me. I've never had an interest in being famous at all. In fact, many times it has been inconvenient and a couple of times even scary. In find fame uncomfortable because I'm a very private person. I certainly do not envy those more famous than I.

There have been lighter sides to it though. For example, it was funny to see my kids reaction when we were chased through the streets of Kingston following one of my lectures at the Queen's School of Business. I remember them asking me if I was some kind of a rock star and if this always happened when I appeared in person. (The answers were no and yes respectively.)

And they looked on in amazement as students' rushed the podium to touch me and speak with me after my talks. (That kind of shocks me too actually.)

I'm always happy to share my way of thinking and it pleases me when the message gets through to others. But what pleases me even more is knowing people trust me.

I work hard at building trust in every interaction and relationship. I'm the same with everyone I meet. If I accomplished nothing but being trusted (and I know I am but it's something you can lose easily if you're not careful and mindful in your interactions) -- well, then I could die a happy successful person.

Thanks for shining the light on this important topic, Chris!

Linda M. Lopeke
The SMARTSTART Coach

Hi Chris,

I prefer the term - selective fame. It's about becoming famous with a specific target audience. I think the fame often comes with trust and respect. We become known by some - who stay connected to what we say because they believe in it. They refer others because they respect us... and that adds to the 'fame.' That is how I am connected to you. I read your posts and see the value, appreciate your persepctive, etc - so I see the fame and connect it with the fact that I trust what you write and respect your POV even if I don't always agree with it.

Best.
William Arruda
www.williamarruda.com

I tweeted on this piece already and I liked it so much now I'm commenting!

Spot On Chris!

I don't know that you've come up with anything new here. To me, it sounds like you're trying to label "Internet famous" as "microfamous." As many others mentioned, microfame already exists: within the hip hop community, the skateboarding community, the horse jumping community, your university, your small town, your workplace...

Interesting new concept, I came up with it last year:
http://agitationist.com/tag/micro-fame
"The word of 2009: “micro-fame“. You heard it here first. It’s somewhere below reality show fame, and just above getting your mug shot on the Smoking Gun."
Or perhaps great minds think alike. Hmm.

"We Are All Britney" is a title I've toyed with for over a year for a new book - it's the effect that Fame, MicroFame, are real phenomena. Most importantly in the worksple, the impossible maangement challenge of managing MicroFamers - thinl about it. Havoc. Take it further Chris.