So what is it? For me, Klout is a method of measuring who is popular in social media and why.
Lets use a few examples:
- Scott Hanselman – Technologist and promoter of Diabetic awareness
- Em Rusciano – Australian television host & blogger
- Cathie McGinn – Australian social media commentator & blogger
Three people I admire, and all with a Klout score of 60 or better.
The “score” is a percentile rank. 60 or above means you are in the top 40%.
This is very powerful stuff! It allows me to see how I compare to my peers, and provides me with intelligent data on what I can do to improve my social profile.
If I was being honest with myself, I’d say that I am focused, but not very consistent – the images above reflect this.
The lesson learnt here is that I need to create and I need to do this more often.
Back to Cathies’ tweet, it makes sense that she feels her most influential topics aren’t relevant to her – Klout describes Cathie as a Broadcaster – “She broadcasts great content that spreads like wildfire. An essential information source in her industry.”
Great! From that I can conclude that I should be connecting with people like Cathie more often. If what I write resonates with her, then there is a good chance she will tell her network.
Klout thinks’ Wil is most influential on kurt cobain, the royal wedding & miley cyrus. If you have listened to Wil’s podcast TOFOP, then you will have some idea of why the royal wedding was popular but also his material is very broad.
What can we learn from all this? 3 take home points:
- Don’t take the score too seriously! (Klout thinks I am influential on Unicorns…) It is a great tool to see what makes up a person with a score of 20, 30 or 40. It’s less clear on how you go from a 61 to a 67.
- It is a good way to see who is doing what in social media – what’s working and what isn’t
- Lastly, it is the only tool I’ve seen that allows you to compare yourself across a wide range of people
I like Rob Conery. But he is the sort of guy who just seems to go out of his way to cause trouble…
A good example is a post I wrote a couple of years ago.
What’s funny is that Rob even commented on the post. But unfortunately he missed the point. Rob is a classic “Ready, Fire, AIM!” type of person.
Case in point, I recently purchased a 12 month Tekpub subscription. (Tekpub is an online technical education resource).
Now a 12 month subscription for a little under $300 is good value. It’s competitors are either Youtube videos or companies like Plural Sight.
Last week, Rob posted this tweet:
Awesome! So why did I pay full price?
But that’s ok, Rob’s a good bloke! So I pinged him, asked if I could get a 29% extension, sent my Order Number (twice), followed him up…
And then? Well not much!
I don’t know what to make of it. Maybe he has updated my subscription? Maybe he hasn’t. Funny thing is that Tekpub doesn’t show when your subscription ends, just when you signed up.
I’ll keep you posted…
To summarise, Seth suggests that regardless of what you do (crystal clear instructions, ALL CAPS) 2% of people will still stuff it up!
He finishes with:
Technologists hate this choice, but it’s true. We have to plan for human failure and part of our job is to have the resources and back up to allow these people to remain in our tribe even though they’re unable to follow a simple instruction.
To me, you can read this one of two ways. Put your Microsoft hat on. Windows Vista has 15 different ways to turn off the machine.
Now put your Apple Mac, iPhone or Facebook hat on. What is the 2% there?
How do they plan for failure? What does “failure” mean for a Twitter user?
The difference here is that the “barrier” for use is so low (open a web browser, make a phone call, update your Facebook status). 2% for a Facebook user seems very very high…