Adweek writer Erin Griffith looks at a sad fact of our times.
Quantifying one’s Internet popularity has real world corollaries. Klout scores are showing up on resumes, for example.
How one’s supposed influence on Twitter and Facebook is relevant to the hiring process, it’s hard to say. I can see how it might be relevant to brands, for brands will want to “borrow” some of that influence. Klout, in fact, is all set up to facilitate that transaction. Which is fine, what’s upsetting to me is the idea that people need to score themselves and judge their social media prowess in the first place.
I’ve said before, and will say again, that Klout’s scoring system is insulting. Which is a double negative. The idea is lame and the execution is poor.
[UPDATE] This is also a topic we explored during the taping of this week’s BeanCast. Host Bob Knorpp noted that many of these conversations happen offline, not in the social space and “just because someone speaks a lot about a particular topic doesn’t make them an influencer, right?” Darrell Whitelaw of MIR replied, “There will never be an algorithm for human conversation.”
