« RSS worse than Graphics | Main | Bullshit »

Klout...mmm...not so much

So a good friend talks about yet another Twitter analytics tool: Klout. (Right there, they lose me. Spell.correctly.motherfucker.)

Now, if Mike was only talking about the tool itself, it would be a mildly interesting read. Mike's a social media marketer, among other things, we work together, so when he talks about stuff like this, I pay attention, because he knows his shit. But because Mike is a nerd about stuff, or as he puts it, a meta-nerd, he talks about the larger picture of Klout. Here, the 2.1 paragraphs that really nail what's wrong with Klout, and other tools of its ilk:

What concerns me is there is an inherent bias in the textual descriptions that it's important to move to "higher" categories. The implicit statement is that everyone should aspire to have more followers and more engagement. I see this over and over in different tools, and I see it discussed among social media professionals and marketers. It's complete hogwash.

Most people using social media are not marketers. They don't really care about gaining large numbers of friends or followers. They want to connect with friends, family and people with similar interests. They share information about their lives and the things the love. They don't look for analytics on their profile.

They shouldn't.

Right there, he nails what all the Scobles, Winers, Arringtons, and Calcani miss: Social Media is not about marketers, it's about people.

So I put my profile into Klout, and what comes out, along with the requisite meaningless graph is this:

bynkii is a persona
You have built a personal brand around your identity. There is a good chance that you work in social media or marketing but you might even be famous in real life. Being a persona is not just about having a ton of followers, to make it to the top right corner you need to engage with your audience. Make no mistake about it though, when you talk people listen.

It's allllmost right, but like a lot of tools that only care about numbers it misses some things.

True, "bynkii" is a persona. A D&D character to be precise. Originally a Ranger, now a Monk. Really, I'm on DDO. So's Melissa. The reason I use Bynkii on da intertubes is because back in the early days of AOL et al, it was either "bynkii" or "john90872348". Yay common names.

Have I built a "brand" around it? Shit, I dunno, that's for others to decide. If I did, it was unintentional. This blog, along with Twitter, are just outlets for me. If anyone other than friends and family read either, I'm glad, although I feel bad for you. (Really, there are better people to read.) I happen to work in marketing, but I'm an IT Director, not a marketer. Really, you don't want me designing your marketing. Your network, sure. Your advertising campaign? Not so much. (If you want to hook up with people who are good at that, email me. But seriously, I'm the IT guy. It's what I'm good at.) So while it's teeeeechnically right that I work in social media/marketing, it's not really right. By that logic, I was an insurance guy, and a weather science guy too.

Do I engage with my audience? I suppose, although I doubt it's in the way they mean. (I doubt "full contact combat" applies in their world.) Do people listen to me when I talk? I dunno, maybe, but if so, I'm not sure why. I'm not always right, and even when I am, I'm certainly not in possession of the *sole* right opinion. I like to argue, it's an enjoyable sport for me.

See, that's the problem with shit like Klout: It's just numbers. For the most part, when I write stuff here or on Twitter, there's not a lot of thought. It's me, in the moment, venting. There are exceptions. AppleScript articles, the SNMP article, the Cacti article, the Nagios article. That's me planning what I'm saying, and I hope the difference shows. The rest? That's brain hooked to internet via keyboard, and very little filter. The fact that anyone reads what I have to say at all is nice, and flattering. The fact that people throw me money to offset bandwidth bills is astounding and really appreciated, but neither are why I do this. Really, all of it are just outlets for me. I suppose without the Internet, I'd have a stack of paper journals. That's really all this kind of stuff is for me.

But Klout can't get that, because it can't interpret data. If you read Klout's interpretation of my Twitter account, you're going to get a really different, and quite honestly, wrong, idea about what I'm on Twitter for, even though it does get the facts mostly right. I'm doing stuff here, on Twitter and other places for personal reasons that happen to intersect my professional life, not because I think I'm all that fucking interesting or smart. There's little I do that any one of a million other smart guys with similar backgrounds can't come up with, and a good chunk of them will do it better.

If you want to get an idea of what someone is about, don't use shit like Klout. Try actually talking to them. The results may surprise you.

Categories: Other, Technology

Posted by John C. Welch at 21:17 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar charachters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

So a good friend talks about yet another Twitter analytics tool: Klout. (Right there, they lose me. Spell.correctly.motherfucker.)\n\nNow, if Mike was only talking about the tool itself, it would be a mildly interesting read. Mike's a social media marketer, among other things, we work together, so when he talks about stuff like this, I pay attention, because he knows his shit. But because Mike is a nerd about stuff, or as he puts it, a meta-nerd, he talks about the larger picture of Klout. Here, the 2.1 paragraphs that really nail what's wrong with Klout, and other tools of its ilk:\n

What concerns me is there is an inherent bias in the textual descriptions that it's important to move to \"higher\" categories. The implicit statement is that everyone should aspire to have more followers and more engagement. I see this over and over in different tools, and I see it discussed among social media professionals and marketers. It's complete hogwash.\n\nMost people using social media are not marketers. They don't really care about gaining large numbers of friends or followers. They want to connect with friends, family and people with similar interests. They share information about their lives and the things the love. They don't look for analytics on their profile.\n\nThey shouldn't.

\nRight there, he nails what all the Scobles, Winers, Arringtons, and Calcani miss: Social Media is not about marketers, it's about people.\n\nSo I put my profile into Klout, and what comes out, along with the requisite meaningless graph is this:\n

bynkii is a persona\nYou have built a personal brand around your identity. There is a good chance that you work in social media or marketing but you might even be famous in real life. Being a persona is not just about having a ton of followers, to make it to the top right corner you need to engage with your audience. Make no mistake about it though, when you talk people listen.

\nIt's allllmost right, but like a lot of tools that only care about numbers it misses some things.\n\nTrue, \"bynkii\" is a persona. A D&D character to be precise. Originally a Ranger, now a Monk. Really, I'm on DDO. So's Melissa. The reason I use Bynkii on da intertubes is because back in the early days of AOL et al, it was either \"bynkii\" or \"john90872348\". Yay common names.\n\nHave I built a \"brand\" around it? Shit, I dunno, that's for others to decide. If I did, it was unintentional. This blog, along with Twitter, are just outlets for me. If anyone other than friends and family read either, I'm glad, although I feel bad for you. (Really, there are better people to read.) I happen to work in marketing, but I'm an IT Director, not a marketer. Really, you don't want me designing your marketing. Your network, sure. Your advertising campaign? Not so much. (If you want to hook up with people who are good at that, email me. But seriously, I'm the IT guy. It's what I'm good at.) So while it's teeeeechnically right that I work in social media/marketing, it's not really right. By that logic, I was an insurance guy, and a weather science guy too. \n\nDo I engage with my audience? I suppose, although I doubt it's in the way they mean. (I doubt \"full contact combat\" applies in their world.) Do people listen to me when I talk? I dunno, maybe, but if so, I'm not sure why. I'm not always right, and even when I am, I'm certainly not in possession of the *sole* right opinion. I like to argue, it's an enjoyable sport for me. \n\nSee, that's the problem with shit like Klout: It's just numbers. For the most part, when I write stuff here or on Twitter, there's not a lot of thought. It's me, in the moment, venting. There are exceptions. AppleScript articles, the SNMP article, the Cacti article, the Nagios article. That's me planning what I'm saying, and I hope the difference shows. The rest? That's brain hooked to internet via keyboard, and very little filter. The fact that anyone reads what I have to say at all is nice, and flattering. The fact that people throw me money to offset bandwidth bills is astounding and really appreciated, but neither are why I do this. Really, all of it are just outlets for me. I suppose without the Internet, I'd have a stack of paper journals. That's really all this kind of stuff is for me.\n\nBut Klout can't get that, because it can't interpret data. If you read Klout's interpretation of my Twitter account, you're going to get a really different, and quite honestly, wrong, idea about what I'm on Twitter for, even though it does get the facts mostly right. I'm doing stuff here, on Twitter and other places for personal reasons that happen to intersect my professional life, not because I think I'm all that fucking interesting or smart. There's little I do that any one of a million other smart guys with similar backgrounds can't come up with, and a good chunk of them will do it better.\n\nIf you want to get an idea of what someone is about, don't use shit like Klout. Try actually talking to them. The results may surprise you.