Klout Rating Change Hurts Their Credibility
Yesterday, Klout changed its secret algorithm in a way that altered many scores – and those whose scores appear to be most negatively affected are those who were on the higher end of the Klout spectrum. Not the 100-rated Justin Biebers of the Twitterverse, but those “regular Tweeple” in the 60s and 70s. I fell nearly 20 points. Hm. How about that. Do I care? Should anybody? Well, sort of.
I don’t measure my own social media worth in terms of Klout and its “cool kid” rating system. However, it is some sort of standard by which people can get a grip on how effective they are being in terms of engagement and influence. Others check out your Klout score to see where you are influential and to help determine if they should follow you on Twitter…and for lots of other reasons. I’ve heard major talent agencies talk about how Klout is replacing Q scores. So how do people feel about this unexpected change in Klout ratings?
I’ve seen many people who are quite angry, explaining that they had worked so hard to establish their Klout score. To me, that’s a huge mistake. Klout should be a measure worth reviewing but not a goal. More importantly, the negative impression of this new mystery scoring system may hurt the credibility of Klout itself.
Social media has forced brand honesty like no other form of communication, and I suggest Klout reveal its measurement criteria accordingly…before someone else creates a more transparent, effective social capital measurement site that takes its place. (Remember MySpace?)