Earlier this week Klout, the current “hottest thing” in social media metrics, changed its algorithm. The change sparked a firestorm, mostly from the people who saw their Klout scores drop, for some as much as 20 points. I, however, am not complaining, because I’m still considered an “influencer in cupcake” (no, seriously–isn’t that the coolest title ever?–I think I’ll have business cards made up…).
What’s that? You don’t know what Klout is? Well, have we got a video for you… fair warning: there is one swear word toward the end of the video.
Hi Kat –
I think that Klout is fine if you are a person who is influential in the media world but for 99% of the population (forgive the Occupy Wall St ref) this doesn’t matter as I truly only care about what people think within my own social networks. I have a site called Cliqsearch.com and we care about influential people in media in order to get coverage but the greatest benefit to our consumers and businesses, products and places that are on our site is to identify those ‘normal’ people who are the biggest influencers. My friend who has been to a restaurant or used a local service such as a contractor is infinitely more valuable to me than Robert Scoble suggesting the same thing.
I haven’t crunched the numbers but for the <1% of major influencers out there, how many people do they truly influence vs the influence that comes from their close ties in their social networks? My guess is that ultimately the opinion of the <1% doesn't influence much (lest say people such as Steve Jobs).
Interested in your thoughts.
Hi Jason,
I very much agree with you–one’s own personal sphere of influence is vastly more, well, influential. There are numbers to back that up in communications studies, but it is pretty common-sense, really.
I think that Klout’s recent algorithm revision is an attempt on their part to actually take into account that quirk of human nature, and more accurately portray digital “word of mouth.” Those who were simply working on a model of re-tweets and broadcast posts were the ones who saw their scores drop dramatically, while those who actually inspired discussions with real people benefited. In effect, Klout was trying to recognize the power of the social media 99%ers you talk about.
I also think that there is a backward influence which hasn’t necessarily been taken into account. While I joke about being a ‘cupcake influencer,’ that tag on my name actually made me feel responsible–the fact that someone, somewhere might actually use me as a reference for which cupcake was better made me think about what I was saying about the subject. I even sought out a different brand than my easily-accessible norm, to perform a comparative taste test.
So while the video this week is definitely a jab at social media metrics generally, and Klout specifically, there is obviously a viable, monetizable model here. I really am very interested to see how Klout and their competitors fare, and if they are able to influence, and even create, their own markets.
I too am a 99%er who mainly relies on the advice of people I know, or look at how many have the same advice on sites like Yelp.
I’m glad to hear that Klout changed their algorithm to stop measuring only straight tweets in favor of weighting ones that inspire conversation. That is so much more useful. Honestly, I find it somewhat annoying when people Tweet and/or Facebook all day every day about nothing. Not that I don’t love seeing what my friends are up to, but you know who I’m talking about. The person who Tweets about everything they do, everything they think, eat, dream, see, really everything and anything, all day long. Maybe Klout will inspire some of those people to put more thought into their Tweets? I’m not sure but I will be curious.
That being said, it’s a fine balance and hard to know. At the end of the day we all have a different perspective on what is too much or too little. I’ve found that since I just started my own blog, I am trying to figure out where the line is between learning and gaining readership by commenting and interacting with other bloggers and sites and being dishonest in my reading and commenting on other blogs only because I hope that it will inspire them to read mine. So far, I have only commented on things that are interesting, but I have been tempted to go to sites just to try to gain readership. For me that feels unethical. There has to be an honest way to get readership and to become an influencer, without being dishonest about your real motivations. It’s tricky! And I thought when I left reality TV my ethics wouldn’t be too challenged… but here I am, challenged to find a solution without compromising my ethics. Fun stuff!
I’ve only recently become familiar with Klout and started adding my social network sites in hopes of raising my score, but I wasn’t really sure why I was doing it.
I think the Klout people are smart in that they created a game out of scoring online engagement, but if there are no rules to how the game is played, and the algorithm keeps changing, I think users will eventually loose interest and become frustrated (like the backlash you mentioned in the post).
At first glance Klout seems to be a cool concept and could really help to sift through and identify true online influencers. But unfortunately right now I see the service more as a marketing ploy that taps into “influential” users to act as spokespeople for brands and new products (see perks tab when you login in Klout).
It makes me wonder what Klout’s B2B model is. Has there been any coverage on that side of their business yet?