A few weeks ago, I introduced a San Francisco startup company (four words that I can’t seem to escape) called Klout, which describes itself as “the standard for influence.” To recap, Klout uses complicated algorithms to generate a numerical score that is meant to describe a social media users’ influence in online communities. While I described what it is, upon further research I’ve found that there’s a lot more to this idea of Klout than meets the eye, and the ramifications of your Klout score can have lasting impacts on not only your online life, but your offline life as well.
When Klout first launched in 2008, many balked at the concept (perhaps because they were afraid that they’re Klout would not measure up). In his article on Forbes.com, Reuven Cohen condemns Klout for creating a new social order within the Web 2.0 environment “that is based solely on your ability to tweet.” In the piece, he envisions a future (which might be closer than we think) in which an individual’s social and professional value is decided by an “arbitrary” algorithm which analyzes seemingly random and inconsequential posts, responses, replies, follows, likes, and hypes. This brought up a whole slew of questions for me: is this algorithm truly arbitrary, as Cohen says?
The more I learn about Klout and online influence, the more the whole situation seems to resemble a high school lunch room popularity pecking order. Now, not only can your Klout score earn you goodies from companies looking to be promoted by savvy tweeters, but it can earn you preferential treatment and access to places that only those with a high enough Klout score may enter. Many events/clubs/companies will have special VIP areas/treatment reserved for only the highest Klout earners. Cohen specifically cites the example of Klout’s partnership with Cathay Pacific Airlines, which will admit anyone with a Klout score over 40 (regardless of whether you are a Cathay Pacific patron or not) to their First and Business Class Lounge in the San Francisco International Airport. I don’t know about you, but this feels a whole lot like “the cool table” in the cafeteria, where only the most popular kids could sit.
But social benefits aren’t the only perks to high Klout scores: more and more frequently, business are using Klout as a way to hire “the best” out there. In her piece on Klout in the job market, Jeanne Meister quotes Klout spokeswoman Lynn Fox describing Klout as an “SAT Score” in hiring—one of many factors, but still a very important component to the hiring decision. In communications industry, Klout is becoming as standard as the dreaded high school aptitude test.
The idea of social influence is not limited to these upper bracket marketing and relations positions; according to Meister, Best Buy now lists “reputation capital” as a requirement for hire at almost all levels within the company. New startups such as Reppify create “job fit scores” for job seekers as well as employers based on social media presence, influence, and overall ability (in essence, using Klout to determine which jobs would be acceptable for job seekers based on how influential they are). It is becoming more and more clear that micro celebrity strategies of self-marketing and branding are crucial aspects of landing jobs and maintaining/advancing careers. Not only do those seeking marketing jobs have to be skilled in marketing products, they have to be skilled in marketing themselves.
While many are jumping on the influence bandwagon, still many are skeptical. Tony Greenberg, founder and CEO of RampRate Sourcing Advisors, a company which provides tools for buyers, sellers, jobseekers, hirers, and outsourcers, also weighs in on the conversation on Forbes.com asserting that Klout and clout (see my definition of the original term in my last post) are not the same. He names some of the biggest issues with the omnipotence of this “one score to rule them all.” For one, as I already mentioned, the scoring algorithms are shrouded in mystery, and their accuracy cannot be completely pinpointed. Second, because the scoring is algorithmic, one can abuse the system and artificially create high scores using bots. Finally (and this one’s the biggest) Klout does not incorporate off-line influence (clout).
Mathematics and social influence aside, Greenberg raises a very poignant question: why do we care? Is it for the social prestige, in other words the ego boost? Is it because of our professional ambition? What motivates us to care, and why does it matter? “To put it another way,” as Greenberg writes, “is the most influential and powerful person in a room the one with the most keys (or most widely shared social-media posts), or the one who can get the most doors opened for him/her?” This goes back to one of Cohen’s qualms about Klout and Social Darwinism.
Cohen for one believes in the traditional characteristics that employers look for in new hires: “I can’t help but think the true value of a person isn’t in their ability to game social networks. It’s instead what you create, who you inspire, and what you leave behind once you’re gone.” Which is definitely true: while Klout-obsessed influence seekers micromanage their online interactions and earn business and social perks offline, does Klout truly improve offline professional endeavors?
In the Web 2.0 environment, the origins, methods of obtaining, and very nature of, power is redefined. While I asked a lot of questions in this post, I have very few answers: primarily because these concepts are still changing and developing every day. As I begin my case studies, these concepts and questions are ones that I will continually reform and continually re-ask as they apply to the psychology and behavior of microcelebrities and the people who follow them. At the end of the day, these words from Greenberg are ones that I think I must continue to remind myself of:
“At the heart of these rather cosmic questions is a really important truth that a Klout score can’t quite capture: other people grant power and influence to you. You only have influence when someone else gives it to you.”
I think this is what scares people the most about Klout—no matter how well you command social media and manipulate others’ perceptions of your persona, you are ultimately not in control. The microcelebrity is at the whim of their following. Michael Q Todd puts this into perspective: "Online influence is a very fluid thing and especially please consider the case of Tumblr. This a very content driven place and a great photo or post can be spread far and wide extremely quickly. Content is still very much King."
Here is another article which explains Klout—the graphics give really good examples of how one might accumulate Klout.