Klout's future gives me the creeps.

As ususal there's even more discussion of influence flying around the social sphere these days, some of which started with David Pakman's gushing endorsement of his newest investment.

Pakman states "Klout’s algorithms score the actual influence of people as they share on the social web. They attempt to measure your influence by observing interactions on the social web. As we all work to build and manage our online identity and profile, Klout helps measure our reach and topics of influence." 

The problem with his premise is that it mistakenly equates  social activity with influence.  Nathan Gilliat brilliantly dismisses that argument.

Pakman's premise is that it assumes that people who are active on Twitter and Facebook somehow DESERVE to be treated better by restaurants airlines etc. I don't disagree that social media helps give consumers more power and makes brands more accountable, but lets not forget that all Klout measures is activity, mostly on Twitter. So if I am on bereivement leave or vacation, and my Klout score drops because my I'm away from electronic devices, I no longer deserve good service or a good meal? That sounds like a new version of the caste system, but one based on one's access to social media.
This isn't measurement, it is discrimination.

The uncivil society that Pakman proposes is one in which someone with a smart robot can game their way to a high klout score and then leverage that score to muscle their way onto planes, doctor's offices and restaurants. Can't wait to see what the 99% does with that.

Comments

[Bob LeDrew (@bobledrew)]

typo in the first line, Katie (As USUSAL?!). Otherwise, a VERY useful post.

[Chris Syme]

I, too, am not a big fan of Klout. I am always concerned about any measurement of influence that cannot be scaled (it thoroughly punishes small organizations that have deeply engaged, but small fan bases). However, I did read Dan Zarrella's latest free ebook from Hubspot about debunking marketing myths and #6 was "Klout is worthless." I think it's worth a read for perspective. http://www.scribd.com/doc/77906109/6-Deadly-Marketing-Myths-Busted

[TechAlly]

Klout gives me the creeps also, though my reasoning is grounded in the fact that Klout, which purports to measure social media influence, is losing clout because of its failure to follow social media best practices. It seems illogical to me that so many of us are measuring our social media success based on standards developed by an unsocial organization. Also, it's widely known that Klout is easily gamed. Interestingly enough, Klout seems to be gaming its own system by setting up profiles for people who haven't agreed to sign up, including children, in an attempt to boost its own clout. I, too, recently wrote a blog post about this, if you care to take a read. Great blog, Katie. I'm an avid reader. http://francis-moran.com/index.php/social-media/klout-should-not-be-regarded-as-the-standard-for-influence-online/