Being Influential

Social media influence is the new black.  Who’s got it? How to get more of it? Whether it matters? All of this is endless debated, dissected and discussed (well, within the walls of the social media echo chamber anyway).  Indeed, an entire industry  has sprung up with the sole purpose of showing who’s the popular/unpopular kids in the school yard exploring the notion of influence and helping brands to ‘connect’ with key influencers.  Klout, PeerIndex and newbie Kred will all tell you how influential you are and about which topics (amongst other things).

To be fair, and despite my sarcasm, although I’m sceptical about measuring influence in this way, I do see a value in it.  But today it looks like Klout have updated their topics and this is where the system starts to fall apart. In the past I’ve been deemed to be influential about Rugby (despite knowing precisely nothing about it), bacon (no idea) and free stuff (again, whaat?) and from today ladies and gentlemen, I am officially influential about… typos.   Now of course I’m as selective in my scorn as the next person, I’m happy to claim some of my other ‘influential’ – topics, PR, Manchester, Marketing, Social Media.  But really, if you’re a bacon maker and you want to connect with me, let me tell you, I’m not the blogger you’re looking for.

Seems I’m not alone in seeing this randomness as many friends in my twitter stream shared this afternoon.  From Octupi to birds, tea to soup, there was an endless list of odd topics.  Maybe someone needs to have a tinker around with that algorithm because while there’s no doubt that it can be useful to know who is (genuinely) authoritative on a subject.  It only works if it, well, you know, works.

3 Responses to “Being Influential”

  1. Great post Katie.

    I would agree with Klout’s assertion that you are influential on the subject of Typos, but I’m not sure about Pluralisation.

    I think Klout derived the Octopus topic from some of my retweeted gobsmacked tweets whilst watching “Mega Shark v Giant Octopus” on TV whilst Klout was tinkering with its algorithm.

    According to Wikipedia, it should have been “Octopuses” rather than “Octopi” which is used for describing Octopus for food rather than oversized fighting semi-fictional sea creatures.

    Klout, rather suprisingly, hasn’t picked up on the fact that I am an expert of 30+ years on the subject of Scampi and Scampo (singular)….. I best get tweeting ;-)

  2. Jas Dhaliwal says:

    A great post! I wonder if I’m a lonely voice who doesn’t really care about being labelled an “influencer” in the social media world. Don’t get me wrong, its nice to be recognised, but I really don’t have time for it.

    Call me old fashioned but people define influence and not algorithms.

    P.S. If I have questions on Scampi, I coming straight to you!

  3. Katie says:

    @Michelle You so didn’t know that Scampo was the singular form of Scampi

    @Jas it’s all nonsense really isn’t it. But if you were a bacon maker, you might really want to know who was influential in bacon…

Leave a Reply