Klout, Peerindex and other social reputation measuring sites are constantly bombarding web users with statistics about their 'true reach', 'amplification' and 'influence'. It all sounds very grand. And yet what is the actual value of these metrics? What does it mean that I currently have a Klout score of 60? This number is calculated among other things, on an analysis of my recent web activity on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ over the last 90 days. But just how accurate is it? And what happens to all the other web activities I participate in on sites such as Flickr, LinkedIn, Youtube and Slideshare? On Peerindex my influence score is only 51, so Peerindex must be measuring different activities to Klout, or has a different scale. I have to ask - is a single figure adequate to describe all of the complex interplay and relationships we have on the internet? Some commentators such as Brian Solis don't think so and point out that Klout scores simply measure the capacity to influence, and cannot represent true influence.
My Klout score of 60 is based on my number of retweets (3.4 k), mentions (3 k), followers (12 k) and those I am following (1.5 k), as well as how many comments I have received (220), how many likes I have received (623) and how many wall posts (17) on Facebook. Just how accurate these are is not in question. What I am yet to be convinced about is what the figure actually means. Does it mean that I am an influential individual online, or does it simply mean that I tend to spend a lot of time posting stuff up onto Twitter and Facebook? To be honest with you, I'm not that fussed about Klout scores, and 'reputation' isn't that important to me either. Those who are connected to me tend to stay connected because we have an online affinity, and are interested in the same stuff. I send people links, people send me links, and we all read, and we all learn, together. That's the bottom line for social networks. It's about mutual support and sharing, it's about reciprocating with help when it's needed.
And yet in some corners of the web world, reputation seems to be very important indeed. Wired magazine is running an article (issue 06.12) on the power shift that is currently happening in the world of entertainment. Although most traditional modes of advertising are still hanging on for dear life, it seems that social media endorsement by celebrities is becoming the next big thing. Lady Gaga has a larger digital footprint than any individual on the planet, and the metrics are staggering: She currently has nearly 51 million Facebook fans, 21 million Twitter followers, and her Youtube video channel has to date received over 2.3 billion views. Cashing in on this huge fame monster is not going to simple, but if anyone can turn social media into big bucks, Lady Gaga will. But she won't be the only one.
The BBC News website suggests that gaining a significant score on your reputation may result in you receiving reward from certain manufacturers who wish their products to be endorsed by high profile individuals on the web. You don't have to be a celebrity, but it helps. Actor Charlie Sheen may have a poor reputation in one sense, but because he is famous he has lots of Twitter followers (nearly 7 million and countring). This means some companies are prepared to pay him a small fortune for a few well placed endorsement tweets. He has so far been paid over 50,000 US dollars for mercenary tweeting, whilst Kim Kardashian has received $10,000 and Snoop Dogg has already earned $8,000. These sums may be small beer if you are already earning millions from a TV or recording contract, but it's not bad for a few seconds of work each week on Twitter. These celebrities are invited to endorse products not only because of the size of their celebrity fan base, but also on the basis of their huge follower numbers on Twitter (the two tend to correlate). The advertising companies recognise that because stars are famous and have lots of followers, many fans are going to read the celebrity tweets, and many will also amplify the messages by retweeting them to their own followers. If you are a celebrity and you want to earn a living from social media, then it appears that social media influence, reach and reputation do count.
If on the other hand, all you want to do is your job, and to help you to do it, you network online with your colleagues around the world, does reputation really matter all that much? I choose to follow people on Twitter on the basis of their biography as well as occasionally checking out who else follows them. I may also visit their website to see whether what they are talking about interests me. But it's not that exact a science. I normally follow people on Twitter purely because they look interesting or are tweeting interesting things. Why do you follow people on Twitter? Is reputation to you?
Image source
The fame monster by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment