Okay, so I’ll preface this post by saying that this post is about a guy who dresses up like Grimlock from Transformers and gives advice on startups. Now that we have that out of the way, I’ll you about more about him (in a bullet point fashion).
As an advisor to a Twitter tool that uses Klout, Peer Index and Kred to augment influence in a marketing setting, I’m all too familiar with engagement scoring and it’s real-world ramifications (which are rare, and usually tell you a lot more about the person asking ‘What’s your Klout score?’ than the actual score itself). But there are still hundreds of articles about how influential your Klout score can be in daily life (here’s a particularly poignant one about someone missing out on a job opportunity due to having a low Klout score). Social aspects aside, that’s not my huge concern right now. What I’m most interested in right now is WHY IS MY KLOUT SCORE DECREASING (from a high of 47)?
Measuring and defining the ROI of a social media campaign has been for many, the most daunting aspect of investing in social. This task requires clear definitions of functions and goals measured.
We’ve seen a staggering increase in the amount of data being shared and created on the internet. This phenomenon has even been described as a ‘Sharepocalypse’ or massive information overload. This is the result of millions of pieces of content being shared billions of times per month, which has led many to speculate on whether there is a ‘choice overload’, such as Sheena Iyengar has described in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000. But I don’t see this as being the major problem that we are facing today, rather the main focal point of this post will skim over the points of the dissemination of information and rather look at the information itself, namely whether the information being shared is of pertinent, or a qualitative nature or rather of a more temporal, quantitative nature- that of information being shared for sharing’s sake.