chrisbrogan.com - Latest Comments in The Rise of Microfame

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Raymi Lauren — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:44:05 -0000

I've been microfamous forevs and still people micro-care.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

curtisbuilder — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:36:37 -0000

Great job, sounds like you are on the right track.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

cluetrainee — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:32:47 -0000

"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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Agitationist — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:52:23 -0000

Interesting new concept, I came up with it last year:
http://agitationist.com/tag...
"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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Jillian C. York — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:10:54 -0000

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...

Re: The Rise of Microfame

claudio alegre — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:52:34 -0000

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

Spot On Chris!

Re: The Rise of Microfame

williamarruda — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:15:46 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

linda m lopeke — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:30:41 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Tim Kilroy — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:29:08 -0000

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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Mari Smith — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:45:36 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Barbara Martin — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:21:21 -0000

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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Beverly Bergman — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:19:44 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Art Mama — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:17:07 -0000

"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/...
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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

newmediaMike — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:48:06 -0000

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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Rich Becker — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:16:12 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Michael Durwin — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:53:25 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Nicholas Chase — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:52:34 -0000

Chris,

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

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Amy Lauren Young — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:44:52 -0000

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!!

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Jenifer Olson — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:45:46 -0000

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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Jim Holbrook — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:15:31 -0000

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!

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Rita — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:08:14 -0000

"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

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Michael Long — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:03:05 -0000

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!

Re: The Rise of Microfame

The Writer Mama — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:51:19 -0000

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. :)

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Rick Wolff — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:50:46 -0000

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.

Re: The Rise of Microfame

Malcolm Bastien — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:39:12 -0000

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.