Does Social Influence really matter?

This is a guest blogpost by Dan Purvis @DanPurvis of Digital Musings: www.digitalmusings.net

The original blogpost can be found at http://digitalmusings.net/does-social-influence-really-matter/

 

 

The unveiling of Klout’s new algorithm last month prompted a lot of debate and discussion about “Social Influence”.  I particularly rated Neal Schaffer’s post on this in which he sought the opinion of 13 experts – balanced and packed full of common sense.

Personally, I don’t believe that influence has much value.  Particularly influence scores produced by free tools.  They’re flawed for two fundamental reasons: 1) the system can be gamed to artificially increase your social score, and 2) influence, I mean real influence, is relative.  Lady Gaga having a bejillion Twitter followers and a ludicrously high Klout score does not make her an über influencer.  What does she know about business?  Or social media trends?  Or football?

What’s relevant to you?

Think about it…think about the real world we live in – in your circle of friends you know who to turn to for a shoulder to cry on or to talk sport.  Similarly, in your work environment you know which colleagues to ask for advice.  In the media and blogosphere, you know who to follow to get breaking news stories or learn about emerging issues.  These are the people with influence.

To hammer the point home, Klout advises us what they reckon we’re influential about.  The top five topics I’m apparently influential about are: Public Relations, Social Media, Blogging, Media….and Travel & Tourism.  The first four I can live with, but Travel & Tourism?  What?!  Come on now.  I’ve tweeted a lot while on holiday or while travelling with work, but that does not in any way make me an authority on Travel nor Tourism.  This score can only be based on quantity not quality.  Likewise for other topics in my endless list: Investing, Markets and Surfing.

Yet people crave to have a high social score, whether it is on Klout, PeerIndex, Kred or one of the others out there.  Why?  To show-off and boast?  To prove their value to their business?  To get a job?  Hang on…surely a Klout score can’t get you a job!  Sadly, it seems some businesses (particularly in America) won’t give interviews to candidates who have a rating less that 50 on Klout.  Ridiculous.

Ok, I admit I check my social scores across Klout, PeerIndex and Kred from time-to-time.  But I stopped tweeting or broadcasting my scores a long time ago.  And I certainly don’t use them as a barometer of my “success” or “profile”.

Having said all this, there are some uses for such tools.  For example, in the media (and I mean traditional and digital media) it is useful for businesses to know which are the influential ones so they have an idea about who to engage with, educate and convert into being an advocate of theirs.

But come on now…if a business were serious about this, they’d use a PR agency’s expert knowledge of and close relationships with the relevant top tier media.

I predict a riot…!

Klout suffered a backlash (there was pretty much an online riot!) in October 2011 on launching its new influence scoring model, promising everyone it would be “the biggest step forward in accuracy, transparency and our technology in Klout’s history”.  They don’t appear to have learned, but sadly I don’t think they care.  They may proudly proclaim to be the self-titled “Standard for Influence”, but their business model is based on murky advertising and affiliate marketing partnerships through its Perks programme.

I’d like to end this post with something CEO and co-founder of Klout, Joe Fernandez, said in an interview last Summer:

“When you think about it, the idea of measuring influence is kind of crazy. Influence has always been something that we each see through our own lens.”

I think I will leave it at that.

Comments (0)
Think before you print! Save energy and paper! Do you really need to print this page?
Fee Income
X
Drag here
  • This field should only be completed by the individual with responsibility for your company's PRCA membership.
  • NB - Once you check the box to the left of this field and click update this figure is fixed for the entire year.
  • Fee income is defined as fees or income arising from time spent on carrying out public relations consultancy work plus any mark up and any handling charges or profits made on disbursement or expenses.
  • This figure
    1. will be used to calculate your membership subscription fee for 2009
    2. will be published on the PRCA website and in the yearbook.
  • This figure must include the fees from any subsidiary companies but not associated companies (see below).
  • If you are bound by Sarbanes-Oxley please select that accordingly, we will contact you individually about your fee income.
Holders of public office
X
Drag here
  • Please list any employees who hold any public office including members of House of Parliament, members of local authorities or of any statutory organisations or bodies who are full- or part part-time directors, partners, staff, special advisers or consultants retained by the consultancy
Subsidiary companies
X
Drag here
  • These companies are entitled to the same benefits as other PRCA members, they must abide by the PRCA Professional Charter and Codes of Conduct and their fee income must be included in the fee income field above.
Associated companies
X
Drag here
  • These companies are not included in your membership and as such do not benefit from PRCA member benefits. These companies are not covered by the PRCA professional charter.
Current clients
X
Drag here

The clients listed in this section are those which retain a consultancy on a continuing basis to deal with their public relations either in a specialised area or as a whole. One asterisk (*) against a client's name indicates that the consultancy has been retained by that client for three years; two asterisks (**) indicate that it has been retained for at least five years. Clients served on an ad-hoc basis are listed separately.

Adhoc clients
X
Drag here

Clients for whom you have undertaken work in the last twelve months on a project rather than a retained basis

Conflict of interest clients
X
Drag here

NB This will not appear as a separate list in the yearbook.