Klout-Why I Give K and What It Means


Because I am interested in all things social media, it seemed natural to sign up for Klout.  The premise seemed simple enough: I would link my various social networks to Klout, and it would give me a 1-100 score on how 'influential' I was through those networks. Of course I was skeptical about the accuracy of their algorithm, but since everyone on Klout was being rated by (presumably) the same metrics, the scores would at least be consistent within its own reality. 


Since that time I have read articles about people with moderate-to-low Klout scores being unsuccessful in job interviews for social media positions, something I found both puzzling and concerning. I also have seen a certain amount of gnashing of teeth and wailing in the (inter webs) wilderness about the (in)significance of Klout scores, and in some cases actual anger about them.


Instead, consider a simple way of viewing Klout: through the prism of authenticity. I interact with persons of interest, gather information and wisdom, and put out messages I believe are important. Since my networks reach across multiple social media platforms anyway, I chose Klout as a sonobuoy of sorts, pinging away to let me know when I was neglecting my interlinked social network activities. The key is to be authentic and let Klout reveal things to you rather than manipulating it simply to increase an already-suspect rating. Remember, by observing something, you may change it. 


On Twitter I follow people whose thinking and writing interests and challenges me. As I wrote before, I use Twitter to engage with thought leaders and others with whom I have no venue other for interaction. When those people say things that move me, I keep them in mind when I log into Klout. Part of the Klout experience is being allotted X number of "Ks" that I can award to others on Klout and which they can in turn award to others. I 'give K' to those persons as an expression of my appreciation for what they bring to the Twitter experience. The problem lies with people who 'give K' with the expectation that they will in turn be given K by those persons. As with anything authentic, it is best to give K as a gift: no strings attached and no expectation of reciprocation.


How do you choose to give K?

The Problem of "What's Next?"


In a meeting today, colleagues voiced concern about our organization lagging in the use of social media. They remarked upon what they had heard anecdotally about the 'un-coolness' of Facebook and describing how young users supposedly were fleeing it in favor of "places their parents don't go".


As I listened to them and then told them of our expanding Twitter footprint and the success we are beginning to garner, I was struck by the problem (perceived and real) of "What's next?". Our organization's focus is not social networking, but it is a tool that I believe is vital to accomplishing parts of our mission. The amount of resources we can devote to it is minimal, though, so any idea of being ahead of the curve is moot. Following clientele from network to ever-more-fragmented network is likely not a wise use of time and resources.


That said, mature social networks with a strong foundation and large following (Twitter, Facebook) are an excellent place for us to reach our audience. By leveraging our use these social networks, we can multiply our messages and gain the attention, trust, and partnership of our followers. In my opinion, we gain nothing by pursuing the latest and hottest, rushing into social networks we do not yet understand fully. It is better that we lag slightly, let the early adopters figure it out, then decide if it fits our ethos, image, and mission.


It is crucial that we be aware of and understand the latest and most influential sites, platforms, apps, and social networks. We can achieve this by scanning the environment and investigating these things on an ongoing business. I believe we can solve the problem of "What's next" by observation, tracking, and slow adoption.


What's next for you?