[photo credit, flickr: loco.rites]
Why has there been such a backlash against Klout’s new influence scoring model?
On the 26th October Klout launched a new influence scoring model that promised to be “the biggest step forward in accuracy, transparency and our technology in Klout’s history.” Those who read my Musings on Influence blog post will know I have a healthy scepticism about free tools that promise to give you a “score” based on your digital profile.
I called for more accuracy of the scoring algorithms being used, and for more focus on measuring quality over quantity. Klout’s announcement even said: “Influence is the ability to drive action and is based on quality, not quantity.” Excellent news!
Since then, Klout has integrated other social media data sources – Google+, YouTube, Instagram, Tumblr and WordPress being just some, with more to follow as well. That’s a whole load of data to track and analyse – 2.7 billion pieces of content and connections daily, according to Klout.
This is a great step in creating a more accurate picture of a person’s influence and digital value. But it is only a step. The change that Klout introduced, however, was much more than just adding more social media platforms.
The backlash to Klout’s announcement, however, was intense. Many people who had strategically increased their scored through time, dedication and hard work, felt cheated. I thought there was going to be an #OccupyKlout demonstration at one point! Tweets were flying around from the humorous to the depressed, to tweeps soul-searching and those who were clearly outraged.
Now hang on a minute. Ok, so a lot of our Klout scores dropped but if it’s in the interests of more accurate digital footprint profiling then surely it’s a good thing, right? For a start, it will make it much harder to game the system and artificially inflate your Klout score.
So what did Klout do?
CEO and co-founder, Joe Fernandez, wrote a blog post describing his vision behind the changes being implemented. It was a fairly bland statement but made all the right noises about how deeper analysis of people’s social media actions and interactions would create richer and more accurate scores.
To be fair to Joe, he’s come in for a lot of stick but he adhered to the golden rule of PR when hit with negativity – come out and talk about it. Be transparent. He has taken the time to respond to the criticism, as you can see in this Q&A with Social Media Today’s Rohn Jay Miller.
For me, the algorithm change is a good thing. The scores are going to be more accurate as the focus is now on what impact an individual’s interactions create, not on volume.
This, however, does not sit quite so well with me – when someone who is deemed influential by Klout engages with someone who is less influential, it negatively impacts on their score. Surely this can’t be right – influential people are, by nature, going to interact and help those less influential by responding and offering advice. An odd paradox, it seems.
I’m not qualified to analyse the algorithm change but fortunately our very own Sebastian Spier is. Sebastian was previously the Managing Director of our Research and Development centre in Hungary and is now the Technical Lead for Meltwater Press. Recently he was even asked by PeerIndex, one of Klout’s competitors, to write a guest blog post on their API. Sebastian will soon be writing a post on the algorithm change – how it works and why it’s important – in the coming weeks. I personally cannot wait to read it!
Klout’s dilemma
Klout proudly proclaims to be the self-titled “Standard for Influence”. Quite a bold claim. And to an extent, the sheer popularity and scale of users of Klout would support this. However, Joe himself said in an interview over the 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.”
Interesting thing to say when you consider what his business is built on.
And the big problem for Klout is how the buzz about their algorithm change has encouraged people to look under the hood to see what makes Klout tick. And not everyone likes what they see.
Truly transparent?
More probing questions are being asked of Klout’s commercial aspirations and there are privacy concerns (New York Times) too. Are other motives behind the Klout scenes at play that are less about the user and more about them making money through affiliate marketing partnerships? Yet how else would they make money and continue analysing the huge volume of content and connections?
Klout told its sizeable fanbase they were doing this for their own good and to enhance digital transparency. Some (truly influential) people may have rumbled this ruse…
Highly respected and influential UK blogger, Neville Hobson, is one such example. He has discussed and written about Klout since its change – from tweeting his scepticism to writing a blog post for the highly respected UK PR industry body, CIPR, about why he’s deleted his profile from Klout. His concerns stem from a deepening mistrust around the brand and how its model is based on advertising and affiliate marketing via the ‘Perks’ programme.
I also recently read on Techcrunch what I thought was a parody about Klout. It is actually a tongue-in-cheek influence tool called Flout.me that plays on the vanity of many online players out there. Their founders summed it up as follows:
“Sites like Klout try to tell you how important you are. That’s ridiculous! Only you know how important you are. Flout lets you flaunt it to the world.”
These sort of developments will only create more ‘Klout doubt’.
Summing up
Klout certainly must be worried about this reaction, but only time will tell. It’s a controversial issue, and one that will rumble on for a while yet.
This post has got me thinking…are we merely ‘e-people’? Is an ‘e-person’ merely a digital commodity for a brand to leverage (or should that be: use and abuse) as it sees fit? Looks like we’ve another topic to tackle in a later post…
I’m sure this will create some reactions – positive and negative – so do please share with your peers and leave comments. We’d love to learn more about what everyone thinks about ‘influence’.
