Actually, great minds (don't) think alike.

The greatest thinkers throughout history didn't offer the same ideas. Nope. They offered different viewpoints.

Just ask Columbus or Galileo.

Well, you can't ask them; they've long passed on. But one thought "round world" when others were 110% certain that it was square. And the other concluded that the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice/versa.

We earthlings didn't like being told that we weren't the center of the universe, so instead of being sent on a voyage to fall off the edge of the earth... Galileo was sent to his room (for a very long time).

And the voices that have started movements, led scientific breakthroughs and developed technological advancements were small at first. But they sure had big ideas that gathered momentum.

Gandhi fought for freedom not through mass weaponry, but through non-violence. Rosa Parks didn't follow unjust seating charts and inspired the civil rights movement. And JFK, with no assurance whatsoever, proclaimed we'd land on the moon within the decade--and we made it in the nick of time.

Instead of improving the "processing power" of individual PCs, Tim Berners-Lee thought of the "knowledge power" that could be generated from connecting all computers and gave us the language (code) to do so. Entire industries and professions have been produced as a result while old barriers and boundaries no longer apply.

Look at conventional wisdom, and how much has been rendered wholly unwise. Take the doctor who posited the unthinkable: that germs could be spread between patients by doctors who did not properly wash their hands. The other doctors? They laughed and mocked him. (Btw, he was right and, to this very day, millions of hospital infections still occur each year due to the very basic problem of poor hand hygiene.)

And how much innovation has been originated not from billion-dollar boardrooms but from garages (Apple, Microsoft, HP) and dorm rooms (Google)? Lots.

How about what Obama just did? Instead of concluding that the electoral map was unchangeable--he built an entire campaign around "change" and leveraged new technologies in his campaign, not just the same tactics as politicians before him. Whether you voted for him or not, the thinking and the strategy succeeded as in about 10 days he'll be our nation's 44th president.

Take brands. There's far more success to be had in divining new brand categories that companies can lead than competing in established ones where they're relegated to follower (yet still more follow than lead).

So why, when history proves us wrong--time and time and time yet again!--do we place more value (and more of our time) on BIG voices rather than small? Moreover, why, when people question popular opinion do we label them contrarian or cynical... instead of opening our minds to different views?

Here's one way that really helps me and I strongly recommend it to my fellow marketers: with the wealth of knowledge that is now shared through these tools and technologies, please don't just read the high-traffic blogs. Balance your time with voices at low-traffic blogs. Because they, too, have BIG ideas that will have you thinking in different ways.

And if history proves, it's more likely that the voices that may seem small or "fringe" will change the world, start new trends and better the profession.

In my blog's mantra, published back in '06, I advocated for listening to smaller voices, even to those who don't hold the title of marketer (my mantra is here, see point #2). And in the 3-minute video below--at about the 2:20 mark--I push for marketers to read and listen to blogs with smaller followings. If you cannot view the video, please click through to the blog--and there's an entire series of these videos, segmented by different discussion points, right here.

There are many blogs that have smaller followings on my blogroll on the left (at the bottom of the side bar) but I'd really appreciate it if you could point me to more in the comments. Because my strategy is to learn a lot of BIG thinking by reading a lot more small and listening to different viewpoints.

(I just hope, like Galileo, I don't get sent to my room for it.)

Comments

[Ed]

I had to tell you that this piece is absolutely wonderful. Even companies/bloggers at the forefront of everybody else find it difficult to adopt "change". And I certainly have to add that one needs a lot of courage to go where nobody else has and do things that not even some A-listers may be receptive be.

[Ben Kunz]

Nicely done, CK. Small blogs are worth reading because the goal of human communications is not only to *follow leaders* or to become *the best*, but really to create teams that build value.

That's important, and it is everywhere in our history. Humans aren't born as babies and grow up with the sole purpose of becoming the most popular person on the planet. Anyone doing so would be considered a narcissist -- and yet, online, the follower race in the initial immature phase of social media (now) is exactly that dynamic.

But this is not efficient. In any brand ladder, including popularity, there are only a few rungs at the top. A brilliant tech blogger starting tomorrow will never displace Robert Scoble, because he has already secured one of the rungs of "top tech blogger." Recent books such as "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" show that success is often happenstance -- someone has to win, and so a few always do, regardless of whether their talents are really better than the masses of humanity.

So how should people use new social media? Creating *teams of knowledge* is a better goal, just as offline humans form businesses or nonprofits or government enterprises each with their own objectives. Clans, families, and churches are all examples of self-forming groups that build value for individuals and society. I think the next trend in online creation will be the formation of similar small groups, in which the brilliant and moderately talented and silly folks all seek each other out.

The power of communication networks does not reside in individuals fighting their way to the top of a single exponential curve of popularity, but rather efficiency self-selecting similar -- or challenging -- minds to hone ideas and create new wealth for the world's economy.

So it's not the power of one -- it's the efficient of finding others. Gems are all around us, not just at the top of the mountain. Remember that next time you hear someone brag about their follower count.

Thanks, CK, for provoking such thoughts ;)

[Csalomonlee]

CK - this is a good post for many PR professionals out there. The tendency is only to focus on the influential bloggers who have large followings. The thought is that only these bloggers have the "numbers" that will be impressive to and have impact for their clients.

However, I've found that you never know who the next Scoble will be. Also, the blog with a targeted, yet smaller, audience may be more relevant for the client. By taking the long-term approach, PR professionals can develop meaningful relationships for one's client regardless of the blog's audience size.

[Brigit]

I'm no marketing expert,in fact I don't work in marketing, but I find your blog thought provoking and informative.

The beauty of the internet is its two fold information system. You are a voice to be heard and you can find other voices and hear. It is very much a give and recieve system. With the amount of information now at our finger tips, the internet inspires and nurtures innovation, change and growth.

[gianandrea facchini]

Ck, this post is 100% right.
I raise this point several time with clients and prospects: the top dog is not necessarily the one to follow. But how many agencies try to sell the monitor of the top bloggers, because it is easy to implement and it not take too much time?
We have to eventually understand that a lateral thinker may arise all of a sudden from scratch and you better be good to him.

[Peter Korchnak]

CK,

I just got a ping from Mark Goren at PlantingSeeds.ca, making an introduction between you/your high-traffic blog and I/my low-traffic blog. Goes to show your voice is heard, rings true, and has an impact. So, pleasure to meet you (I do read your blog, never had a chance to comment), and please keep up the good, thoughtful writing.

Best,

Peter

[Alan Wolk]

You and I have had this conversation many times and you know where I stand: the most popular voices are almost always the ones that shoot for the great vast middle. There's rarely anything insightful said in that space-- most of what's put out there merely repeats what the audience already knows and so hearing it played back to them makes them feel smart.

The voices you refer to, the voices on the fringes, scare them. They're saying things that don't jibe with the neat little view of the world they have (the way the popular voices do) and that threatens them.

This is not confined to blogging either: look at literature, film, music, theater: the most popular voices are rarely the most influential. But they're always the safest.

PS: Who is that really dashing looking guy on the right hand side of the video- the one pointing at you? He's really got a presence about him. Wow.

[Imran Anwar]

Great article, ummm, blog...errr Galileoisms :-)

I endorse fully to be on the lookout for smart, even if under the radar of the masses, blogs.

Not only may you find gems there, the even bigger question is... just how much "strategic competitive advantage" can you squeeze out of a blog that you and everyone else, including your most direct competitors, are reading and following?

Imran
"Live, Forever" - http://neternity.org

[Beth Robinson]

Dipping into different more fringe viewpoints is a lot of fun. I do it because I'm looking for connections and multiple perspectives that aren't immediately obvious to me. Sometimes I blog about them.

[Simonn]

I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I'm looking forward to reading more from you.