Paul Gillin's Trouble with Klout & the need for a true measure of social media impact

Paul Gillin, a columnist for BtoB magazine, has been at the forefront in terms of discussing metrics for social media.  I recently came across a five-year-old column by him that spoke to the need of being able to measure social media impact, made the case that we need to define commonly assumed social media metrics -- like circulation or readership are for advertising and PR.

Klout, a service that says it "measures influence based on your ability to drive action" online, is trying to be the new standard by which people and organizations can measure their online impact.  And in his blog today, Gillin points out the many flaws in Klout's approach and methodology, such as the limited transparency into how Klout generates its scores and the fact that having a Klout account will raise your Klout Score.  (Check out his blog, The Trouble with Klout for more.)

I've discovered two issues with Klout:

1. Klout's algorithm identifies the top three topics you are most influential about -- but Klout is not always accurate. According to Klout, I'm influential about three topics I don't remember tweeting about:

• photography
• parties
• friendster


(Ok, I once mentioned Friendster, but it was ironically. And while I actually might like to be influential about parties, doubt I am.)  Another person I know found out from Klout, much to her surprise, that she's influential about community management and wheelchairs. Both are worthy topics but not anything she addresses. 

2. It's possible to game the system and boost your Klout score just by tweeting a lot. Earlier this year, after my name was mentioned in some spammer's tweet, I checked out the person via Klout. I found that he had only 11 followers but a Klout score of 59. How was that possible? Because he had posted 9,156 tweets.

What that says is that it's easy to manipulate the Klout algorithm by tweeting a lot.  Doesn't matter if no one else replies or retweets what you've said.  I've been able to boost my Klout by posting more frequently -- talking about four or five times a day, not anything like 9,156 tweets. (The converse is true, when I tweet less frequently; my Klout score always drops over the weekend, when I tend not to tweet.) 

I understand why my score will drop during periods on inactivity, but just posting a lot should not be a way to boost a Klout score. If someone posts a lot in a short time, and no one responds, they shouldn't see their Klout score increase.  More posts do not mean you're more influential. Also, on an interesting note, I've noticed that when I tweet something negative about Klout, my Klout score drops within a day, even when the frequency of tweets has not changed. Coincidence -- I think not.

Meanwhile, five years after Gillin's BtoB column about the need for metrics, we still need reliable metrics. Klout is interesting tool, but it is hardly comprehensive or accurate. I also check out TwitterGrader.com from HubSpot.  I find that a more useful tool because I have not seen the same inaccuracies that I've seen with Klout.

Let me know if you're experiences with Klout and TwitterGrader are different.

The ROI of Social Media

There's an interesting article about social media in today's Financial Times. In "The Fickle Value of Friendship," reporter Tim Bradshaw looked at the concern regarding the return on investment (ROI) in accruing a large number of followers.

More than five years ago, blogger Paul Gillin identified the lack of social media benchmarks to be a significant problem for marketers. For example, we used to look at ROI based on circulation figures of print newspapers and magazine, which is why so many people like tracking the number of followers -- it's a figure that seems most like audience reach.

That concern about how to measure success and payback from the effort focused on social media has been one reason our clients -- until this year -- had been on the sidelines. We've seen a significant shift this year, and I'm not sure if it's because (a) the market seems like it's finally on the road to a real recovery or (b) Facebook's 600 million users validate social media as more than a fad -- or a combination of the two.

In fact, last year Gillin revisited the issue of social media benchmarks and ROI in an article, "B2b marketers still looking for return on tweets." Here's a point Gillin made: "The souring of marketer attitudes toward social media first became evident to me last spring when I worked on a survey for B-to-B magazine that found that nearly half of 400 marketers surveyed were disappointed with the results they were getting from Twitter. A little further exploration revealed that those expressing the greatest disappointment were using Twitter for business less than once a week. That’s like blaming your lawnmower for making your lawn ugly when you only cut the grass every other month."

On a very local level, we've found that social media can make a difference (you can see a case study of ours here) -- and that probably proves the point made by James Whatley, marketing director at 1000heads in Bradshaw's FT article. It's a point worth considering.

“To be completely up front about it: there is no ROI for any social media programme.  However, there is definitely provable ROI for social media programmes that are set up to do something. It’s all about setting a clear objective.”

It's not enough to be engaged in social media. You need to have a clear objective.

Stealth or Not to Stealth -- Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media" Panel, Part V

As we prepared for the "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," sponsored by the New England Venture Network (NEVN) and co-sponsored by Birnbach Communications, the four panelists -- blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- discussed the concept of startups and stealth mode.

A lot of startups operate in stealth mode because they want to to avoid alerting competitors or the marketplace before they are ready to "come out of stealth mode," usually when they have a product in beta.

The problem, the panelists noted, is that stealth mode is hard to actually maintain. For example, sometimes executives actually list their current company on their LinkedIn profile.

Oops.

Also claiming stealth mode is a way to make startups seem more important -- at least to employees and potential investors -- than the company might really be. They find out the bad news when they try to come out of stealth, only to find that there's still not much interest in them.

In fact, one panelists referred to this as the "idiocy of stealth mode."

Reporters may care about stealth mode if there's something of real interest but the perception was that more companies act in stealth mode than need to be. The problem: their products may be ready for customers, but they're trying to go from zero to 60 in telling their story, and reporters and bloggers need time -- as in any sales process -- to determine what the story is, if it's credible and viable.

The point: it's not always easy to operate in complete stealth mode and it's even more difficult to quickly exit stealth mode.

In fact, the panelists said they'd be interested in a panel discussion of VCs and CEOs talking about their experiences and perspectives on stealth mode.

The panelists also suggested one of the problems in exiting stealth mode is the tension between the VCs and the CEOs, especially in terms of timing and in terms of who is going to drive the message. They really need to message together, but that doesn't happen as much as you might think, one of the panelists noted.

What do you think about stealth mode? Does it make sense? Does it work? Let me know.

When Is a Press Release Appropriate -- Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media" Panel, Part IV

According to the panel of experts -- blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- at last month's "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," sponsored by the New England Venture Network, the press release is not yet.

I don't think they came to that conclusion because they're waiting for the press release that announces its own death to make it official.

The panel concluded that the press release is still necessary, but that the question now is when is a press release or a blog post or Facebook or Twitter update more appropriate.

Primack referenced an example where Microsoft announced a small acquisition via a blog post, not a press release since -- we assumed -- the acquisition was not material to Microsoft's stock price. The software giant never got around to issuing a press release about the news, but it still got some attention for it.

On the other hand, the panels concluded, the press release is not dead because there's a certain weight and formality to it. But it's seen more as a commodity once competing reporters and bloggers all get the release.

An important factor now is how unique is the information the reporter or blogger is getting. That discussion goes back to the question of exclusives and how and what information you spread around to meet the needs of different reporters and bloggers -- as well as to the other people you might want to reach.

On the other hand, Microsoft announced its recent quarterly earnings on its website, joining an estimated 11 other companies that publish their earning results directly on their websites. The SEC has provided guidance that companies can use the web to meet public-disclosure requirements. But there are critics that say small investors may be adversely affected because they then have to go to different corporate websites to get the information that otherwise is available more easily. Check out a recent WSJ article, "Microsoft Adopts Website Release for Earnings."

Three Ways Social Media Has Changed Media Relations & Journalism -- Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media" Panel, Part III

For those following the tips from the "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," sponsored by New England Venture Network (and co-sponsored by Birnbach Communications), today's report looks at how social media has been impacting PR and journalism.

Not surprisingly, the panelists -- blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- said their jobs and those of their colleagues have changed significantly.

1. Access to information has changed. A decade ago, reporters would check for a company's website. Now, they're also checking Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms and tools. While companies don't need reporters as much as they once did -- because social media provides another, faster way to communicate externally -- the same may be true for traditional sources. Reporters can find out a lot by monitoring what people are saying, posting, tweeting via social media. Yet because that information can be so fragmented, good PR people and sources still play a role.
2. Reporters and bloggers have more ways to connect to sources. They no longer have to count on running into people at a trade show. They can follow them on Twitter. While in some ways, the way reporters and sources connect can be more structured than 20 years ago, the panelists agreed that the importance of personal relationships and trust has not changed. In terms of social media platforms, Primack noted that you can more easily start relationships via Twitter than you can on Facebook. (He also noted, as did the other panelists, that he doesn't know many people who actually use services like Foursquare, much less use located-based sites to find sources.)
   
   
3. Reporters have new ways to communicate. Social media creates more questions and requires more decisions about what to do with information. This is true for companies as well as journalists. But journalists need to decide: do I tweet about the news? Do I blog about it? Do I write for a traditional print publication? There are positives and negatives for each different way to communicate. Primack, for example, said he might tweet about an article that he will be posting soon just so he can be the first to break news.

No doubt that social media has had more impact on PR and journalism. If there are other ways you think are significant, please let me know.

Exclusive Look at Whether or Not to Use Exclusives or Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media" Panel, Part II

One of the key discussion topics at the "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," sponsored by New England Venture Network (and co-sponsored by Birnbach Communications) was the use of exclusives to give a select reporter or group of reporters an advanced look at news that their competitors will get once the news is made public.

Though the panel was comprised of mixture of print and online, there were two distinct and contrasting viewpoints on whether or not companies should use exclusives. Blogger Paul Gillin, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack had very different perspectives.

Here's a rough play-by-play of the conversation about exclusives:

Gillin: Don’t think in terms of exclusives. Nobody cares now… The news is picked up by everyone, and people quickly forget who actually 'broke' a story. Don’t play favorites. I've never liked exclusives, and I like them even less now…

Primack: If you want to guarantee that someone writes more than a blurb, give ‘em an exclusive.


Galen Moore: It’s not a scoop when you get the release half an hour before everyone else.

Primack: If I care about it, if you want to get the story written, you need to kiss my ass -- I mean that in a good way (to get me to write about your news).

Gillin: Are we even that important anymore? You can take message directly to public. The media is less important to public. Companies now have the capacity to influence from the bottom up.


Moore: With some, getting an exclusive is a validation point.

Primack: (One of the questions I ask is) Did they get it (the news) to me in time? If you’re going to put out news, you have to make available the person who the news is about. (It happens a lot more often than it should that the person who can speak about the news is not available on the day the news is released.)

For more insight into Gillin's and Primack's perspective on exclusives, check out their blogs:

• "Are Exclusives a Good Idea? In a Word: No" by Paul Gillin
• "How and when to give a media 'exclusive'" by Dan Primack
  

Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup" Panel

As part of BREW Boston (Boston Regional Entrepreneurs Week), I moderated a panel, "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," on behalf of the New England Venture Network (which we co-sponsored).

The panel -- comprised of blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- was lively and entertaining.

Here are some key points from the panel:

New Mindset Needed

• It's still about telling stories but it's now about new ways to tell and communicate those stories.
• You don't need events and milestones to issue a press release -- and a press release may not be the best way to tell your story.
• This isn't to say the press release is dead.
• You can tweet or blog about stories, post photos, videos and audio, etc.
• The stories are there, but it's a matter of pulling them out, Gillin noted.
• If a picture is worth a thousand words, video is worth a million, Primack said. Using graphics or video to accompany a story can help reporters and bloggers as they cover the story.
  
• That said, many reporters and bloggers still don't fully use multimedia in their articles or posts, either.
  
  The panel covered a lot more territory. I'll report more next week.

How Has Social Media Impacted PR? Boston Panel to Discuss

It's obvious that social media has impacted PR, and a panel of expert journalists and bloggers will discuss the changes they've seen in their own work lives and in how their interact with companies.

Join me at "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," hosted by New England Venture Network (NEVN), the largest network of young venture capital professionals on the East Coast.

Panelists include:

• Paul Gillin, author of The New Influencers (2007), Secrets of Social Media Marketing (2008), and Social Marketing to the Business Customer (co-authored with Eric Schwartzman, January, 2011).
• Gregory T. Huang, National IT Editor and Editor, Xconomy Boston.
• Galen Moore, staff writer, Mass High Tech & Boston Business Journal.
• Dan Primack, senior editor, Fortune.com.

"Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup" is scheduled for Oct. 13 at the offices of Cooley, LLP at 500 Boylston St., Boston Cocktails start at 6:30pm, followed by the panel at 7:15pm. Admission is free, but attendance is limited.

To register, click here: http://nevn.eventbrite.com/.

The Reason Social Media Can be Difficult to Sell? It's the Indirect Nature of It, Part III

Guess this could be called Part II 1/2. Or the Need for Benchmarks.

One of the obstacles we're hearing from clients about engaging in social media programs is the lack of metrics.

Paul Gillin, a longtime journalist who has turned himself into a B2B social media guru and has a blog worth reading, was one of the first to point for the need to establish benchmarks -- and has written that several years later, we still lack benchmarks.

Traditional media has several established benchmarks, including circulation and the average time spent reading a magazine or newspaper. While time spent on a page is the basic equivalent to the second metric, it's doesn't provide the same snapshot overall.

In other words, the challenge remains: how can companies determine if they're getting any value from the social media initiatives.

In reading Charlene Li's new book, Open Leadership (disclosure: I received a review copy of the book), I came across another useful quote:

"In the absence of established metrics and benchmarks (for social media) you'll need to create them for yourself."

That's no silver bullet but the point is that companies have to experiment to determine what metrics make the most sense for them. If social media is about engaging with your stakeholders, it is also about the need to test -- and perhaps fail at first -- different approaches to reaching stakeholders.

I know that in the New Normal, getting budget or approval to experiment can be a challenge. Last night I talked with a very smart expert in small businesses, and she expressed concern about social media. But even as social media continues to evolve, it's not a fad that will fade away the way CB Radio did in the '70s.

And I know social media is not the answer for every client or organization. But at the same time, I think organizations should be asking the questions to see how they might benefit from reaching out over a new channel. Once you start doing so, you can start collecting metrics, and start figuring out which ones make sense for you.

Survey Design Tips

There was a time when everyone:
A. Issued press releases whether or not they had news.
B. Asked about getting on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
C. Conducted surveys that all too often did not contain news.
D. All of the Above.
E. Didn't think this was a cute or clever way to introduce a blog post about surveys.

Ok, the answer may be D & E, but since organizations still conduct surveys, I thought it useful to cite some good points from Paul Gillin:

• Validate assumptions -- surveys should be a fishing expedition.
  
• Match the survey type to your objectives -- online surveys are good for some purposes, focus groups for others. Make sure you understand the benefits and risks of a survey type before fielding it.
  
• Make the survey interesting -- seems basic, but many surveys are not.
• Keep it simple -- again, seems, um, simple, but many surveys are not.
• Avoid the most common questionnaire errors -- such as "leading the respondent with questions that mention your product name or use your marketing language."

Gillin's article is hard to find, but I found a version of it here.

Measuring Social Media ROI, According to Paul Gillin

Journalist-turned-social-media-guru Paul Gillin provides some good advice for addressing the Holy Grail of social media.

Well, one of the Holy Grails.

The first Holy Grail is the viral video: that cheap-to-produce video that generates millions of downloads.

But the second Holy Grail, and the one with a greater likelihood of success is finding appropriate metrics to measure the impact of a social media program.

In my (old-fashioned-now-recycled-paper) files, I came across an article from 2006 that said social media (then comprised only of blogs and podcasts) was great, but that the big challenge was to measure the impact of a social media program.

Three years later, that still hasn't changed.

The need to measure continues to be the big challenge. Especially for client organizations headed by people who don't think social media is right for them. (And, by the way, I think there are some organizations for whom social media is not the right solution.)

So, back to Gillin's metrics, in "You CAN measure social media ROI." He lists 10 variables and details, but here are the ones I think most important:

• Focus on the business goals and five metrics that matter most.
• Know what works. This isn't always easy, but with experimentation, it can be easier to determine what doesn't work, and go from there.
  

The rest seem like guidelines or recommendations. For example, he says, "It's not just about your site." And he's right: there can be important sites for your company that are not your website. But that's not really a metric.

He also reminds us of what I call Gillin's Law: Successful programs build affinity over one or two years. Ditch the 13-week thinking." That's very important, but more of a guideline than a metric.

So, alas, the quest for this Holy Grail continues.

Paul Gillin Offers Social Media Case Studies

Paul Gillen, who has transformed himself from a journalist to a social media guru, has some advice for B2B companies in BtoBOnline magazine. His "Tap into social communities: 5 tips for marketers seeking to connect with prospective customers online" doesn't provide new ideas. But it does provide come interesting mini-case studies -- and that can be useful when talking with clients or others who might be reluctant to jump into social media.

Lead generation continues to be a big issue for many clients, and Gillin does provide a good case study of using social media to generate leads.

It's worth reading.