The Rise of Microfame

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
http://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-2454199
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.

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
http://www.williamarruda.com