$50,000 Won't Buy You Klout

by on November 27, 2010 · 39 comments

Don’t laugh.

Yesterday, our biggest #UsGuys conversation was wether we should buy a social media metric service, which advertised itself as “for sale” with a $50,000 asking price. Quid pro quo aside (we thought it was the uber-metric dashboard Twitalyzer, when in fact it was the somehow lesser known TwitterAnalyzer), this got me thinking about how crowded this space has come to be, in a matter of months.

Klout flaunts itself as the Standard for Influence. But it faces scores of direct competitors all fighting for a slice of that pie with their own metrics and underlying algorithms. It’s not good because everybody – bloggers, brands- would truly benefit from a single universally accepted measure of online influence.

Of course, this raises bigger questions around the nature of inluence, reputation and trust. Starting with the difference between influence put to use (what Klout measures through proxys such as clicks and RTs) and latent influence (what a truly respected individual has even if she choses not to engage today). Or the “lamp-post bias” of a metric that only looks at Twitter and Facebook just because it’s easier to measure. Or how easy it is to game the system to get to a higher score.

Yes, this whole business is flawed. Easy target for critics. Yes.
But I still think it has value. Big value.

Back to my title – of course, it’s worth more than $50K, which is why little envy sparks fired up in our eyes (or tweets) yesterday night.And the one social influence metric I would pay the most for is still… Klout. Way more than the metrics-crazy Twitalyzer. Or Edelman’s cleverer stream-lined TweetLevel.Or even that colorful Dutch alternative epenis (Not joking. Look it up. I don’t really know how good 73 is on Klout, but boy, that 16 inch Twitter penis is big, no doubt. Although I would not tweet too much about it).

Klout’s algorithm is a mystery to me. I don’t understand half the labels. It’s not stable: my label jumps every day from ‘thought leader’ to ‘explorer’ to ‘socializer’ with no visible logic. It’s buggy: my true reach still reads as 10 even though I have past 1,000 followers and engage daily at least 50 people, if not more.
It’s flawed beyond belief.

But contrary to its competitors, Klout is not a tool or a dashboard, it’s an iconic brand. Klout’s marketers have turned numbers into glamour, by spreading word about Las Vegas and Virgin perks. They have turned the score into bragging rights, by rating everybody higher than they think they deserve and making every small achievement worth sharing. And they did not fall (yet) into the trap of complex dashboards where your eyes don’t know where to go to start – there is a clear fact-hierarchy in Klout.

They have romanced their metric.

As a result, they are creating an army of fans spreading the word. It works. With a less debatable metrics engine behind it, it would be unstoppable (hint, hint, Klout and Twitalyzer: don’t fight, merge).

As to whether businesses should use it as a tool to target “influencers”, I think the answer is yes. Anyone active enough to care to register a Klout account, do what it takes to raise the score, and spread it… is worthy of being targeted more than the average joe. As long as it’s not the only tool – remember, Klout is not Influence, it’s a proxy.

So, social media metrics – are you a lover or hater? what’s your favorite?

Related Posts:

  • http://www.CouchSurfingOri.com Couch Surfing Ori

    Pretty good post. I agree wholeheartedly. I guess you could say that Klout has Klout…. they engage with their users rather than just being a tool. They walk their own walk.

    Google has been trying to measure influence long before I ever heard of Klout. While everyone is talking about Kloud and all the other analytics, remember that Google and FB are measuring their own… and FB is embedded into everything these days it seems.

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Thanks for both the response… and for posting the FIRST comment on my new blog! :-)
      I agree with you – Twitter’s own analytics are around the corner – biggest threat for Klout as Twitter won’t hold any limits to the number of server requests used in their own metrics engine. Potentially much more reliable from a “Twitter” perspective. I’d say Klout’s challenge is to build more reliable metrics, go across multiple influence arenas, not 1/2… and keep the ‘magic” !

  • http://circleofignorance.wordpress.com Karen E. Lund

    It’s good to know I’m not the only one who’s confused about Klout. For a while my score was 19; then it jumped to 30 and now 36. Not half bad for someone who only joined Twitter in August!

    Tom, if mine is accurate yours should be higher. If yours is accurate, I should still be around 19 or low 20s. *shakes head*

    Some things are not measurable. It may be interesting to try and compare, but it doesn’t capture the whole picture.

    (PS: As a woman, I’m not going anywhere near that Dutch site you mentioned. No! Not me!)

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Thanks Karen! I agree with your point on the “whole picture”.
      Don’t know about our respective scores :-)
      Tom

  • http://jasonmikula.com Jason Mikula

    Hey Tom!
    I discussed my own feelings about Twitter stats in a post on my blog here – Twitter Stats Don’t Tell You Anything You Don’t Already Know – and the title neatly encapsulates my view.

    Your point about Klout giving everyone a high score is well received — seems like everybody has a score above 50. Since Klout’s algorithm is both flawed and non-transparent (I thought social media was all ABOUT transparency?) – it’s hard to know what this number means. That’s why today on Twitter I suggested to @Klout they include a percentile rank — this would show your relationship to other users.

    You’re also right that this is a crowded market space right now — there are way, way too many Twitter analyzer/analytic/Klout/clout numbers floating around. I’m guessing with the introduction of Twitter’s official analytics product & some time, we’ll see a narrowing of the field.

    Salut!
    Jason

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Thanks Jason! Will go to your post now :-)
      tbc…
      Tom

  • http://www.southfloridafilmmaker.com Dan Perez

    Tom,
    Considering that the founder of klout is, as you call him, a “mutual friend” (bragging?)i, it’s hard for me to take your views on klout very seriously. Your post fails to explain why you would actually pay $50,000 for a service that, as you yourself put it, is unstable, “buggy” and “flawed beyond belief”. Huh?

    I guess it must be about the “glamour” and “bragging rights”, yes? Well, I’ll personally let you all fight over who’s got the bigger one. I leave you with the immortal words of Charlie Barret (Christopher Walken) in “Suicide Kings”: “But I come from out there, and everybody out there knows, everybody lies: cops lie, newspapers lie, parent’s lyin’. The one thing you can count on – word on the street… yeah, that’s solid.”

    Nuff said.

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Ha-ha-ha! I love that your style scales up from 140 to longer comment format!
      Thanks Dan for your perspective, I always appreciate a bit of roasting :-)
      That said, you’ve answered your own question. The reason I’d buy it – assuming it was for sale at this ridiculous price – is for the glamour of the brand.
      A better algorithm is easier to create than an iconic brand. Klout is clearly up there.
      And it’s somehow fitting that you’re find quotes in the world of entertainment for this – YES, it IS entertainment!
      PS – Joe from Klout is a mutual “twitter-friend”, not such an influence on my writing that you should be concerned. And ‘yes’, that was bragging ;-)

      • http://www.southfloridafilmmaker.com Dan Perez

        Tom,
        Unfortunately, even if it was for sale at $50,000, it’d be the equivalent of buying a condo here in Miami three years ago – a bad investment. Those individuals (and brands) that use Social media most effectively, succeed in getting people to grasp at shadows, not substance. Klout just looks like a shiny diamond, but at closer inspection, it’s only a Cubic Zirconia with little real value. But it makes for great blog fodder, right? It won’t be long before people wise up and move on to something else…

        At the end of the day, a klout score of 80 and $3 will still only get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, yes? You call that glamour? Don’t be fooled by the rocks that they got, my friend.

        PS – you’re gonna have to do better than Joe from klout to impress me…a lot better ;)

        • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

          Seeing the number of responses, you’re right, it’s great blogger fodder!
          And I do have much better than Joe from Klout – I have an award winning filmmaker making not one, but two comments on my blog in its first week end ;-)

  • http://twitter.com/solete Anne Saulovich @solete

    They say numbers don’t lie, but ironically I don’t think the true value of Klout scores lie in the numbers. The real gold is the ability to discover who are your influencers. So not so much about a number, but rather, the person behind the number.

    True reach, amplification and network are important data points, but what ties it all together for me is the Content Analysis. This section publishes users’ most influential topics– topics users tweet about frequently and get the highest engagement. Now *this* is interesting.

    Knowing an influencer’s most influential topics is powerful for marketers. Topics seem to be limited right now (tech, marketing, media, design, etc.) which isn’t surprising since Klout has a Twitter-heavy user base. However, recent Facebook integration and other online social sites to come is good news.

    Yes, Twitter Analytics is just around the corner, but the advantage Klout has is the integration with other social sites, which will only make Klout data more relevant. I wish them good luck!

    @solete

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      I agree with you – the score in itself is almost meaningless for a marketer.
      OK, this guy has a 60 Klout… maybe he’s influencial on key topics, but that does not mean he’s trusted on everything!
      Tom

  • http://www.webtraction.net Joe Bencharsky

    I agree with @solete, the main strength of Klout is that it takes into account several social networks rather than being Twitter-centric. The algorithm may be buggy and their charts confusing (yes they are!) but these can be tweaked. Remember Google is a work in progress as well! Expanding Klout to other social sites and presences as well as fine tuning their tools will make it a much more effective metric than a Twitter-only solution.

  • http://www.mitchneff.com Mitch

    Great post, Tom. And thanks for beating me to posting part one in my series on Klout;-) You make a great point in in your argument of influence/proxies. I would argue that the “Kloutification” of Twitter is good for engagement overall by creating a contest that is won only by actively engaging and growing your sphere of influence.

    The major downside is that this blog post -as well written, thought provoking, and soundly reasoned as it is- will do as much for my Klout as yours. Why? Because I am going to Tweet it and promote it. So will you. Everyone who RT’s and follows the link I send raises my Klout score off of your influence.Good for me – unfair to you as the original influencer.

    The other point of contention is the fact their data is usually errant. I agree with @Solete that as a marketer I would love to know the top influencers by topic. The problem is that Klout rarely hits this one square (personally, I have no idea what the hashtag #smatl means, nor do I remember using it – yet it ranks just below #UsGuys).

    I agree that Klout is here to stay for now. They are constantly improving the engine. The fact of the matter is that this is such a nascent space that the true metrics that matter are still being defined. Anyway, I better wrap this up before Lou figures out how to beat me to a Klout rating of 70.

    Great post!

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      “creating a contest that is won only by actively engaging and growing your sphere of influence”
      I like that a lot, Mitch! I think that’s why I like Klout and others, as they encourage some of the right behaviors.

      Of course, it has an implication and a downside:
      - implication is that you need to really design the contest around the “right” behaviors.
      - downside is that you discard some key behaviors (blogging for instance), which are “in scope” of the objective of the contest (growing your score of influence) but are not measured by it. If this sends the wrong signals to the users and discourage some key influence behaviors, it’s bad… if it’s used by third party to “judge” influence only on the contest metric, then it’s worse.

      Tom

  • http://www.mantywebdesigns.com Jill Manty

    Can I be a lover and a hater of social media metrics?

    I love the fun and competition of a number assigned to my social media efforts. I like watching my Klout score go up (not so fond of the downward trend some days). And, believe me, if I ever get to the point where I get any perks from Klout, I will be singing its praises far and wide.

    On the other hand, I confess that I don’t really pay that much attention to anyone else’s Klout score. I’m more interested in my interactions with social media users than how influential they may be, according to an algorithm. Of course, I’m not a major brand trying to spread the word about my newest product, and I have no “perks” to offer so I’m not really the target end user of Klout, I suppose.

    Metrics, such as Klout, can be overwhelming for users new to social media. I’d hate to think that someone who might, ultimately, be a true influencer or just a lot of fun might be scared off by a “score”. And as I hear rumors of Klout being taken incredibly seriously in the “real” world, far beyond giving out fun perks, I just shake my head.

    So, to the extent that Klout is fun and interesting, I like it. When I hear people start talking about hiring being based around Klout or raises, it turns my stomach a little. Are we really approaching the point where social media, arguably the most human of marketing tools, is about to be relegated to number crunching? Ugh.

  • http://smartel.posterous.com Sylvain Martel

    Great post Thomas! Good blogging start hey?

    So many clever people (including you) expressed in parts my opinion ih the previous comment so i’ll stick to this:

    You say “this got me thinking about how crowded this space has come to be, in a matter of months.” Wait a few more weeks, when Twitter themselves will be coming with their own dashboard. Crowded you say? Well, Twitter is about to clean it up.

    SM

    • http://twitter.com/solete Anne Saulovich @solete

      I think the Twitter Analytics tool will great, in fact I’ve heard people say it’s good, but Twitter influencers not matter how they’re measured represent a very limited subset of the population.

      I stick to my point that the advantage Klout has– if they do it right –is the integration with other social sites (FB and others), which will only diversify their user base and make Klout data much more relevant.

      • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

        Yes, and yes!
        Depth pitched versus Breadth. Let’s see who wins!
        Tom

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Sylvain,
      I would make the same bet as you… unless current players manage to broaden their scope beyond just Twitter (or Twitter & Facebook). See @solete’s comment :-)
      That said, a key player in this business DM’d me this week end and told me that in fact the business had consolidated in 2010 – it was more fragmented last year.
      It felt to me like it had become more crowded, but it turns out the opposite may be true!
      Tom

  • Claudia Jackson

    As someone who uses analytics on a daily basis, I fully appreciate the efforts of the various social media metric companies. It is a monumental task to create the correctly balanced algorithms to data mine and report meaningful ratings. Yet to wait for a perfect product before entering the marketplace may mean so late an entry as not to be able to gain meaningful market share. Further, over the years, Americans, at least, have shown a great willingness to be ‘beta’ testers when it comes to technology (whether introduced as a beta product or not). So from a business perspective, it seems worth the risk to enter this field with an imperfect product. So I don’t fault any of the companies for this. Yet.

    But I would agree with Jason Mikula that the lack of transparency in the scores presents a challenge to understanding just what they measure or truly mean. Take the concept of “true reach”. Is “true reach” a combination of who clicks on your links and how many re-tweets you get times a percentage of your followers? What if your content is often original and contains links only 50% of the time? What if you are sharing information from an important conference where there are no links, just your willingness to share information? 1000 followers could be hanging on your every Tweet from the conference they couldn’t attend without a single click-through since no links exist. Does that mean your reach is less? Is “true reach” the number of people who re-tweet you? What if someone wants to comment on your tweet so it doesn’t go out as a re-tweet? Or when there are so many names in a re-tweet that the next sender doesn’t want the message to get lost, so they put the names of previous senders at the end of the tweet as “from”, viz, or just a list of @ppl? How are companies who create the metrics compensating for all of this? Or are these just lost efforts? We don’t know. This lack of transparency makes it very challenging to put these various scores into a meaningful context.

    And if you have “clout”, “influence”, “Impact”, etc, in what field is it? As Anne Saulovich notes, the “influential topics” on Klout seem limited in scope. Twitter Analyzer seems to measure this by the hash tags you use. But hash tags take up some of those 140 characters, so many do without. It would seem this category – where your influence lies – is essential for any marketing purpose. More work is needed to define and identify one’s true area(s) of influence.

    I don’t think you throw out the idea of measuring reach, influence or relevance because there are still unmet challenges to scoring these characteristics. But I would, Tom, disagree with your premise that it would be more useful to have one company creating an overall score based on one standard of measure. Competition keeps us sharper in any field, this one included. As social media continues to evolve, we need competition to ensure the companies scoring our interactions keep up. Competition will also ultimately root out those companies providing inflated scores and improve the validity of the measures. Instead, I think what is needed is standardization of the various concepts being measured. Let’s define what true reach or amplification is, what “klout” or “influence” or “Impact” means, what “engagement” means, what is “relevance” in different arenas. If we standardize the terms, then each company can still develop their own algorithms to obtain their scores. Perhaps some companies would specialize in measuring influence in particular fields, like healthcare or marketing or technology, regardless of the social media used, while others find their niche in a particular social medium (like Twitter), and yet others find a way to incorporate blogging measures. There are many niches to be filled in the marketplace of social media metrics, and I, too, wish all of these companies good luck!

    For now, I plan on accepting that measuring influence on social media is a work in progress. I’ll explore, question and enjoy what we have now, just like any new technology, and look forward with anticipation to what lies ahead.

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      WOW, Claudia, awesome comment… better than the post actually :-) !
      I agree with your POV, very well expressed, on why it’s good to have metrics, even if they are not perfect. I could not agree more. I can’t think what would happen in war if generals dismissed intelligence because it’s not 100% perfect. It won’t ever be, and can always be criticized. That’s a fact.
      I respect your POV on the value of competition in any category, this one included. This is true. I stand by my idea that users and businesses would be better off with a dominant player, if only to create a common language and destination. Today’s fragmented metrics companies don’t yet cover enough of the user landscape. Now, obviosuly competition is what keeps those companies on their toes, and keeps them to push their brand and algorithms.
      Tom

  • http://www.margieclayman.com Marjorie Clayman

    Wow, well look at this! I’ve been waiting for you to start blogging and it looks like a lot of other people have as well :)

    I’ve said about all I can say about Klout and other analytics systems. I’ve gone in and looked at my score on occasion but I find that the addictive nature of checking stats – whether it’s Klout, your blog stats, your followers number – can really get in the way of what I feel is the most important aspect of Social Media -engagement. I think Jason (@mikulaja) and I agree that if you are engaged, you can tell when you are serving your community well and when you’re not. Why?

    Because they tell you. Either via silence or via compliments or some combination of the two.

    Congratulations, by the way – your first spat in comments right here on your first post ;)

  • http://dannybrown.me Danny Brown

    People that actively seek to be influential always remind me of politicians – not to be trusted.

    People that gain influence through action, deeds and expertise – and consistently deliver and walk that walk – are the real influencers. Automation will never be a good reader of human qualities.

    Thanks for the chuckle re. “iconic brand” ;-)

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Danny, thanks for the response!
      I agree with you that you can’t automate readings into human qualities.
      Is it a reason not to try?… taking results with a pinch of salt? How about the automated metric as a first”triage” tool?
      Tom

      • http://dannybrown.me Danny Brown

        Definitely not a reason not to try, but a big reason not to promote as being authority-led as well ;-)

  • http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com Olivier Blanchard

    I’ve been doing this all wrong. I know that I should be manipulating my activity to tweak my klout score, but I don’t, just like I don’t tweak my SEO or anything else.

    The problem I see with a lot of these systems is that they are systems. Once you figure them out, you can game them to your advantage. Personally, I can’t stomach it. I wouldn’t do it for myself or a client. The question that nags me then is this: As cool as Klout and others like it may be, and as kind as their algorithms are to me without my back-end involvement, I still find them to be essentially empty of purpose. Do I need to quantify the value of someone’s conversations, “feed” or contributions to my general body of knowledge with a scoring system? Do I follow people because of their klout scores? Do I need something like klout to gauge their influence, integrity or value to my network?

    More importantly, knowing that the system can be gamed, can I have any faith in this category of product? You are right about the romancing of klout’s metrics. Its entire relevance is in fact nothing short of marketing genius.

    If only klout had existed when I was in high school, maybe i could have paid someone to help me game the system to tell the popular kids that I was a lot cooler than I really was. If only…

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Ha-ha! Thanks Olivier for honoring my first post with your thoughts! This reminds me of something I said on Twitter a while ago, when you posted your McDonald’s Foursquare piece: “remind me to always run my campaign reports by @thebrandbuilder first”. Maybe I should have taken my own advice for blog posts ;-)

      Now, I love how you’re elevating the discussion to a whole different level.
      My post was about the “value” of a company that managed to leverage strong branding and clever psychology to turn consumers into advocates.
      Your response questions the underlying relevance… and purpose… of the entire business category. From “value” to “values”.

      I’ll give it some more thought and will probably post a follow up.
      I’m not sure I have a definitive POV on this yet: Klout and others measure influence by proxy through observable behaviors. Once you figure this out, you can game the system, but it does not mean everybody does. But take two people: one who wants to be influencial, another who wants to be seen as influencial. If the way to both objectives is through the same behaviors, then what’s the difference? and what’s the problem? The French in you will probably remember the joke about the good hunter versus the bad hunter.

      Maybe the difference is that one registers a Klout account and the other does not even care. There is clearly a vanity aspect to it… and an associated “Too Kool For Klout” backlash.
      One thing is for sure seeing how there’s about 10 times more “comment” than “post” on this article, Klout and other clout metrics are a hot discussion topic… I’m glad I picked it for my first post.

      Thanks again Olivier!

  • http://fredmcclimans.com Fred McClimans

    Tom – It’s Monday morning, my belly is still full from Thanksgiving, and yet here in front of me is something else worth devouring – a debate about the value of clout (and the value of the brand Klout) that highlights a very important point: Always target those with clout.

    Personally, I’m not sure exactly what the value of Klout or epenis (I’m still trying to get that image out of my head) really is at this point in the game – these are just early attempts to quantify something in a very narrow and still extremely nascient market (and some of the most influencial people I know would probably score a 1, because Twitter and Facebook aren’t their “game”).

    And while I do agree with you that the brand value of Klout is something that can/should/might be monetized, I think there is a long way to go to before any automated system can fully measure the value of a person’s clout or “real-world” influence.

    It’s clout with a “C” that always counts (like the clout that Dan Perez used to say “hey – read this post” – granted, he used Social Media to do it…).

    Most importantly, however, I’m glad to see your blog up and running. 140characters are great, but now you’ve given #usguys another window into the gears in your head. Congrats on the new blog.

    @fredmcclimans

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Thanks Fred for the encouragement on the blog!
      I’m thrilled at the number and quality of responses I’m getting. Definitely pushes me to continue, and challenge my thinking upfront: I have clearly attracted a really smart audience :-)
      On Clout, Klout and influence… of course I agree with you! I’m still wow’d by how Klout managed to create such momentum through branding and clever metric design (I’ll stay neutral on the “is it meaningful?” debate).
      Tom

  • http://www.twitter.com/galactic Cristian Gonzales

    I remember back in 1993 when Madonna was being burned at the stake. She had released her ‘Sex’ book and ‘Erotica’ album a year before, and a huge mainstream backlash against her had been born. The media and many of her pop following had turned against her. She was doing an interview for MTV where the interviewer brought up the backlash. Madonna’s response went something like this: “If I’m so ‘over’, if my career is so ‘dead’, then why are they still talking about me? If I’m just so unworthy of being talked about, then just stop writing. But they don’t do that. They keep talking about me, even if it’s just to say that I’m old, or I’m untalented, or whatever.”

    This reminds me a bit of the situation with Klout. There’s a lot of talk on the web right now about whether Klout is relevant or not. There’s been some terrific pieces that argue Klout doesn’t have much relevance when you actually break down how it calculates its score because (as your piece also points out), its “buggy”—so “buggy” that certain people who *should* have strong scores don’t, and others who’s scores should probably be lower, are not.

    But for all of Klout’s questionable algorithms, metrics, ratings, etc.—people still talk about it…and they talk about it *a lot*. Personally speaking, I say “I don’t care” about its ratings, and to a certain extent I don’t, but I’m not going to deny the fact that I still look at my Klout score, see where it’s at, and continue to cross my fingers that it’s going to continue rising. I wouldn’t go as far as to call Klout “iconic”, but I would definitely say that for now, Klout is probably the top “measuring” system in social media when it comes to “online influence, relevance”, etc. for personalities and brands on the Twittersphere.

    Is it full proof? Absolutely not. As Morgan’s excellent piece (http://t.co/1vAmzPA) points out, it can be incredibly inaccurate sometimes. But in the world of social media where ROI is still something marketers have an incredibly difficult time measuring (and presenting), I don’t expect Klout to get it 100% right, at least not right now. Social media is one big ocean full of waves and tides that are sometimes predictable, but often not, and Klout is just as vulnerable to that as every other social media measuring system out there.

    Great piece Tom. Certainly sparks a reaction.

  • http://wevivify.com David McGraw

    Mystery? What mystery? The people I influenced stopped following me 6+ months ago and I never really had any interaction with them. Similarly, I am influence by people I have not followed in months if not years. My favorite hastags? Well, let’s just say they were thousands of tweets ago. What’s behind the closed curtain, stays behind the closed curtain. No mystery here. :-)

  • Pingback: Unhand me you Klout! Influence Metrics ends the revolution

  • http://www.knowledgebanks.com/b2b_data Knowledge Bank

    Hi Tom,

    We have done a post about this and the recommended tweeters given to us by Klout, and strangely, since we tweeted about them on the blog, our influence score fell 4 points in one day! This is a lot considering we have 24k followers and increasing every day. How could we become so much less influential in a single day?

    Feedback from others says that this also happened to them after blogging.

    Here’s our blog post.

    http://www.knowledge-bank.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/11/klout-scores-and-their-measure-of-influence/

    Thanks

    Jim at KnowledgeBank
    http://www.knowledge-bank.co.uk

    • http://tommoradpour.wordpress.com tommoradpour

      Funny reco indeed!
      to tell you the truth, I’m still really curious how my score could reach the mid seventies with just a thousand followers. I know quite a few have big followings of their own, but still… I’d love a peak under the klout-hood ;-)
      Tom

      • http://www.knowledgebanks.com/b2b_data Knowledge Bank

        I had a look at the ‘metrics’ and these are designed so that you shouldn’t lose influence if you are absent for a day or even a few. I can only assume that there must be a defined total number of points in the system and therefore they needed to borrow some from us to give to someone with greater need…

  • http://www.exponentialedge.com Adrian Ott

    Tom -

    Thanks for a very candid and relevant article. Your comment that Klout is a proxy and not a complete measure of influence hit the nail on the head. My blog articles at Fast Company drive significant Twitter and LinkedIn Group activity, but because these Tweets don’t call me out by name and pick up on my timeline, I don’t get credit for them in Klout.

    In addition if one has LinkedIn contacts who are SVPs, CEOs and Board members that are too busy for social media, it seems that a person may not rank highly because they are not followed by “influentials.”. As you know, such executives wield incredible power and control over budgets, yet rank low in social scoring. In addition to being a proxy, social scoring doesn’t correlate to power.

  • Pingback: Bringing Down the Thunder with Klout!! | LTTLEWYS'S

  • http://duinsomnia.com Cathy Lefebre

    The most difficult thing is to find a blog with unique and fresh content but i think you offer something different. Bravo.

Next post: