Sword and the Script

Confluence: Kredibility, Social Scoring and Marketing


social scoring

Image credit: Kred

by Frank Strong

Social scoring is a polarizing development in social media.   It’s a label that boils the value of a person down to a number.

Numbers can be positive like the #12 of a quarterback, or negative, like a prisoner number.  I’ve spent a long time in a military uniform — we all get numbers — but in that case its a means for equalizing the playing field.   As the famous line in Full Metal Jacket (NSFW) goes, “Here you are all equally worthless.”

With numbers comes comparison and contrast — and a difference that’s akin to the argument over the have’s and the have not’s.  I believe people should be paid for performance and promoted for potential.

However, within social media circles, a few words of late have given me pause.  For example, in an interview with Geoff Livingston, Andrew Keen, the self-titled, “The Anti Christ of Silicon Valley” said:

In my book I write about Robert Scoble who epitomizes this new class of influencers. It’s a very sort of Darwinian world where has a tiny handful of people on Twitter and on Facebook and on Klout and all these other networks with huge amount of influence and then everybody else. So, we have a new kind of aristocracy in our reputation economy.


One Problem of Social Scoring

One problem with social scoring is that it can be gamed.  “Thanks to some social scoring sites, anyone can appear influential. Increased activity on Twitter and Facebook can see your score on the likes of Klout skyrocket,” wrote Danny Brown in a post titled, Social Influence and The Marketer’s Dilemma.  There’s a lot of merit to Danny’s point and in fact, and he’s well studied on the topic; he’s written and entire book on influence marketing.

However social scoring sites like Klout, Kred and PeerIndex have increasingly responded to this criticism and indications are, they’ve made gains in rooting out gaming.  For example, Jim Tobin, of Ignite Social Media, a firm that has done influence marketing work for brands like Chrysler,  conducted a gaming experiment.  He purchased 10,000 Twitter followers and yet it made virtually no impact on his social scores by any of the major scoring services.

Kred Trends

Google Trends comparison of searches for Klout, Kred and PeerIndex

 

A Problem that Social Scoring Solves

In a post themed Why Klout matters, Mark Schaefer acknowledges both the challenges and possibilities of social scoring.  He points out the service can be gamed, it breeds discomfort and has difficulties with precision, but he also says “content is power.” By this he means the following:

The ability to create and move content is the absolute key to online influence.  So think about this — To the extent that you could actually measure that, wouldn’t you also be creating an indicator of relative influence?

That’s what Klout is trying to do.  They are finding the people who are experts at creating, aggregating, and sharing content that moves online. Nothing more.

Schaefer is also a published author with his own book on social scoring and influence.

With millions of users creating and sharing content on social networks, it’s pretty challenging to manually discover new influencers.  Sure, we all have our favorites — I’ve linked to mine in this very post — but that’s personal affection.  I follow these folks for a mix of learning, work and recreation.   For a business, or an organization, it may be different and social scoring provides a starting point for branching out and discovering those you might not otherwise have discovered.

 

Kredible Marketing

andrew grill

Andrew Grill’s engagement in blog comments

Earlier this week, Kred sent emails to who it says are the top 1%, 5% and 10% of influencers on its network.  The emails looked like this and consequently  Twitter lit up.  The number of followers did not appear to be a factor for the top x% label, since Twitter users with ranges of followers from as few as 5,000 to more than 500,000 both received a 1% note.  Many recipients tweeted, published blog posts and even press releases announcing Kred’s nomination.

Kred CEO Andrew Gill explained Kred’s social analysis and motivation in a post of his own that concludes “humans still crave recognition.”

As might be expected, the emails certainly produced debate in the process of understanding the context. Andrew was quick to personally chime in, earned praise for being direct, and noted later in a reflective post, “My style has always been to be open and honest when commenting publicly on any company I represent, while of course keeping the interests of the company at heart.”

There’s no doubt the emails are part marketing, as Andrew noted in the comments, “Any outreach is marketing,” but I also think it’s savvy for two reasons:

  1. Kred is demonstrating it’s belief in its own product by using it for marketing.  Given how prone social scoring is to criticism, the company clearly knew it was vulnerable to criticism, but it took the risk anyway.  It put its money where it’s mouth is and I tend to admire boldness.
  2. Kred’s New York influence summit is next week.  Timing is everything, and though it’s conjecture on my part, I suspect the company timed these emails as a lead into the summit.  The summit currently counts social media heavy weights like Peter Shankman, Jeffrey Hayzlett and Augie Ray on the attendee roster.  In my view, it’s smart marketing.

 

The Future of Social Scoring 

Kred-North-Carolina

Kred says 10% of my engagement stems from North Carolina, which is meaningful to me.

Marketers, I believe are going to have to get past the moral dilemma of social scoring.  Though it’s easier to see online, there’s an element of social scoring that’s existed our entire lives:  how do kids get popular in kindergarten or even high school?  It’s why football players, rock stars and politicians get privileged treatment.

I’m not arguing whether this is right or wrong — I’m pointing out it’s a fact of life.

In looking at the analysis Kred has done on my own social activity, I was intrigued to note that 10% of my social media interaction — the second highest on my chart — came from North Carolina.  That’s positive news for me, because there’s no doubt I’m interested in engaging the community in that region.

Shonali Burke, I think summed up social scoring nicely when she said,

“But the fact is that social scoring is here to stay, so we may as well figure out how to live with in a world that, more and more, is moving in that direction. Tools like Klout and Kred (and numerous others) may give you a starting point when it comes to determining relevant influencers, but it’s just that – a starting point. Your brain needs to do the rest of the job.”

In the meantime, Andrew, I admire your risk-taking, openness and candid conversation.

If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:
Ode to the Contrarian 

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted In: Social Media
Tags: , , ,

Be Sociable, Share!
Leave a Comment
9 comments
Danny Brown
Danny Brown

Fantastic overview, Frank, and love the examples you give. One thing I would have loved to have seen from the fake followers experiment is what would have happened had the accounts been set up on something like Twitterfeed, to share Jim's blog posts. The bots aren't any more authentic, because they're simply there for fake amplification - but it'd be interesting to see how the various algorithms would have reacted...

 

Cheers, sir!

Latest blog post: Welcome to ArCompany

annelizhannan
annelizhannan

The number of posts from individuals boasting about their @Kred scores, as a result of those emails, certainly lends some (humorous) credence to the statement 'humans still crave recognition', deserved or not. So I am going to give myself full credit for your increasing influence in North Carolina.

AndrewGrill
AndrewGrill

Frank - great post, thanks for the great analysis.

geoffliving
geoffliving

So, truth be told here, I don't have a book to pimp, or a dog in this race. I did research a book that was submitted with Danny's to the same publisher, and asked that it get pulled because I did not want to write a tactical how to influence book. But I would consider myself knowledgeable on the topic.

 

All I can say that based on this research and my work with nonprofits in grassroots fundraising, is that generally speaking I am not a proponent of the current scoring path, and influence scores as a whole.  Danny's theory (from what I have seen) seems to be on the right path, that influence is contextual on subject, timing, and relationship. In many ways this is what I know as the Science of Networks.  The problem with scores is they cannot gauge these relationships solely based on public social data. So no matter how much tweaking occurs, there will always be a hit or miss element.

Frank_Strong
Frank_Strong moderator

 @Danny Brown Great point Danny. Something like IFTTT on a fake accounts.  They are out there!  Thanks for the comment, Sir. 

Frank_Strong
Frank_Strong moderator

 @annelizhannan  Well, Victor Hugo ostensibly said, "A compliment is something like a kiss through a veil."  There was definitely a lot of Twitter smooching going on!  And that was obviously part of the objective. And full credit for you!  I'll send you a badge later. ;-)

Danny Brown
Danny Brown

 @geoffliving Great points, mate. The overriding problem for scoring platforms is once you introduce the concept of being able to increase your score, the ideal of influence goes out the window in lieu of gamification and the race for freebies.

 

Some are attempting to counter this - @AndrewGrill and his team at Kred, as well as the guys at PeerIndex, are doing good things to try and stop this from happening. But it's still an uphill battle while the importance of a score is promoted.

 

Cheers, mate.

Latest blog post: Welcome to ArCompany

Frank_Strong
Frank_Strong moderator

 @geoffliving No doubt about it, as of now, no tool is going to capture influence.  There's a great book written about this long before social media took off called, "The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations."  

 

In addition, there are clearly a lot of senior executives with a commanding authority on budgets and spending and yet have virtually no social media presence. Clearly, their influence is not measured in these tools. 

 

That said, to the extent that social scoring can move the needle for a business, it merits consideration.  In this case specifically, I like the fact Kred used their own product to this end -- and they took the flack graciously. 

 

As you know I've read two of you books in Now is Gone and your co-authored Marketing in the Round -- and recommend them strongly.  Clearly you've influenced me. Thanks for your comment Geoff.  

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Confluence: Kredibility, Social Scoring and Marketing (swordandthescript.com) [...]

  2. [...] Confluence: Kredibility, Social Scoring and Marketing [...]