I’ll preface this by saying I was young and foolish and when I started out in the ol’ marketing game I thought I needed to be on every platform and everywhere at once.
I listened to all those self-proclaimed marketing ‘gurus’ (I still hate hate hate that term) who ‘made their fortune’ off of LinkedIn and flew around the world selling out stadiums for conferences on how to make a fortune off of LinkedIn. Which ironically is how they made their fortune. But even though that was obvious to me, I still bought into the school of thought that biggest is bestest. And that unless I had 500+ LinkedIn connections and was a ‘Lion’, I wasn’t anybody.
I recently attended #DontSpyOnUs – Day of Action at Shoreditch Town Hall, London where I heard from
- Jimmy Wales (Cofounder of Wikipedia)
- Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty – The National Council for Civil Liberties)
- Alan Rusbridger (Editor-in-Chief of the Guardian and the man who broke the Edward Snowden story)
- Cory Doctorow (cyber punk author and activist)
- Stephen Fry
- A whole bunch of security experts
… and what they told me, scared the hell out of me.
We’ve all been there… you’re looking for something online and can’t find it. Then you ask for help over Facebook to a friend you’re chatting with and they find exactly what you want in two seconds.
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)?
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.