“The folks at Klout have done a good service to the industry, but I must warn against blind enthusiasm to note that a single metric is not sufficient. In fact, a single metric, like Klout’s 100 point scoring system applies well for *Absolute influence* (global influence) it’s unable to provide Relative influence, or influence related to a specific market, like baby diapers.”
—“Klout for Business: A Useful Metric –but an Incomplete View of Your Customer,” a post by Jeremiah Owyang, taking a look at the benefits and insufficiencies of Klout.
As someone who spent a good deal of the last few months tracking down local Twitter users who actually tweet about local things (yes, for this here Tumblr account), I can say that relative influence is all that really matters. So for my purposes, it didn’t matter to me when Klout told me @twittsmcgee is an influencer in New York City — if she’s not actually tweeting about what is happening in this fair city, her 60+ score was useless to me.
And this will always be the case. Influence is always a relative thing. (Does anyone outside of a newsmagazine want to argue whether, say, Joe Biden or LeBron James is more influential?)
Klout’s CEO and co-founder Joe Fernandez points out in the comments that “Behind the scenes we have much more granular data that we use to target for the campaigns we work on with brands.” And that’s for the brands who pay for their proprietary data to decide. But if Klout keeps that data to itself, I don’t see how the front facing score really has much meaning to people who are trying to pin down an individual’s “influence.”
One last quick hit: In response to a tweet about using Klout to identify local influencers, the man most frequently hailed as an influencer (Chris Brogan), responded “I’m not a fan. It only identifies Twitter users who get lots of retweets.” Amen.
-LB
[web-strategist]