People tend to use stereotypes because models are easy to use "little machines". From those you can extract some knowledge, some predictions. When this little machines work well, they are accurate. When they don't, they make mistakes.

When you use those things, you are the one in control, so you are the one that gets credit when the experimentation's results tells it's working fine. Of course that also means that you are the one to blame when sh*t happens. 

This also means that when you chose not to use it, you aren't going to be a protagonist. Your visibility will remain exactly the same.

For movements of people, here is the draft of the "little machine" I'm using these days:
Descriptions:

1. Leader. He (or she), it's the man. The common denominator for the group. The excuse to make people to be connected to the alma mater of the group. Is a person that everybody have as reference. A link to the main reason they have to get connected. This person has simply decided to embrace and lead an idea and do his/her homework. People feels guided by the way the leader shares the idea. It's the epicenter of the movement.

2. True fans. Advocates. Movement's assets (in so many levels). They are always wanting the movement to be good or better. Never worse. You can identify them because their persistence in showing in public a positive attitude towards the movement. They are hope for the movement. No movement can exist in the long run, if it hasn't true fans. Obviously fan should not be taken literally because people can be fan of a movement as long as they indentify with the leader (content and form, ends and means).

3. Geeks. Specialists. They "got it", and they love to show off the fact that they got it. They can answer the questions that veterans may find too boring. Helping them to do that is clever.

4. Enthusiasts. They have seen, in a blink, that something (that they judge) fundamental in the movement is good. They easily engage in conversations where the movement is involved. They love to show what they "know about it". They have a shallow understanding of the idea but a positive attitude by default. 

5. Sympathizers. They are more or less aware of how convenient the movement is for them. Still, remaining more or less unreactive. Sympathizers can have the leader, geeks, enthusiasts or fans among their connections.

6. Neutral. This group has the people that currently is not reacting at all to the movement activities. They are non-consumers. They are unpolarized. Unless the leader, and the movement itself, do something remarkable that is connectable to them, they will not care about it.

Thinking loud:

This model is like a photograph. It's an image taken. Represents well a moment of the movement. But the movement is dynamic by nature so, the forces that break frontiers between classes are the really interesting things to study and experiment with.

1. Leaders should be aware of the Louis Cheskin main discovery: sensation transference.
The most widely know example of this, was the Cheskin's request to change margarine's color to look like butter instead of the margarine's original color: white.

Two equations to remember, four parameters to always keep equalized:
  • form and content
  • ends and means
The way leaders communicate ideas will make the audience to resonate (or not). Trying to sell white margarine is already proven that won't work. It doesn't matter if you think you sell a product or a service. You sell an idea in the first place anyway. Designing how to vehicle the idea will dramatically define its spreadability.

2. True fans have to be able to make their own movements. If the leader makes that true fans find impossible to build its own reputation "standing on the shoulders of the giants" of the movement, then it's screwed in the long run. Think of key people that collaborated in the creation of a new industry. This sub-group needs regular attention but not all the attention. Teaching your true fans how to make its own reputation to shine without screwing all in the try, is an interesting idea.

3. Geeks, they are convinced they know a lot. They haven't too much experience. The best is to help them to get good experiences and connect them to the true fans and enthusiasts. 

4. Enthusiasts they are positive but not compromised (otherwise they would be geeks). Help them to get deeper in the subject of the movement. Blogs are perhaps the best tool to communicate with them.

5. Sympathizers. Their opinion is the most volatile of all and their compromise is the lowest. This is unintuitive: if your communication is well designed, you don't need to pay attention to this sub-group. If you find ways to increase their reputation at the price of some compromise or help to your movement, you can make them to react favorably.

6. Neutral. Huge sub-group. Very huge. Bigger than that. Formed by people that's not consuming the ideas of the movement (not to mention its products). Biggest source of wealth. The hardest in obtaining a reaction from. If you find ways to make something that non-consumers can start to buy, then it has the chance to be remarkable.

Conclusions:
  • If you want a movement, the only thing you sell is ideas.
  • If you don't sell ideas, your chances of selling anything else are compromised (or going to be).
  • There is a cycle, very dynamic in its nature, that makes people come and go from classes.
  • The leaders role, is to connect and be persistent in being the common denominator for the group.
  • If you aren't getting better at connecting people, you aren't going to gain visibility. 
  • If you are going to ask what people want you are going to be confused.
  • If you don't embrace an idea and lead it somewhere, you'll never know if it matters to anybody.
  • Confusing who is in which class at a given moment creates a mess.
  • Being a hub is an interesting idea.
Synthesis

Being a hub, connecting people among each other instead of only to you,  is an interesting idea because if you do it you get connected anyway. The easiest way to do it is by out-teaching it while doing it. Seth is probably one of the most known and best online examples of this. Being perspicuous: being good at "getting the message", being good at reading body language and other signals that people provides all the time, and helping the members to get the movement unstuck in a given moment could make you a little bit more indispensable?

What about you? 
Can you extract something for you or for your movement from that little machine?