Influence, vanity metrics and other internet astrology

Influence, vanity metrics and other internet astrology

Summary: Science-free vanity metrics from Kred, LinkedIn, and all the rest are gamifying you and your business -- and you're the loser.

SHARE:
3

Both Kred and LinkedIn sent me congratulatory emails recently that were obviously meant to pander to my ego with "vanity metrics", as marketing automation expert Will Scully-Power would call them.

"Congrats! You are in the top 1 percent of Influencers on Kred. Share it with your friends!" wrote Kred.

"Stilgherrian, congratulations! You have one of the top 5 percent most viewed LinkedIn profiles for 2012," wrote LinkedIn. "LinkedIn now has 200 million members. Thanks for playing a unique part in our community!" they added, kinda ruining the effect.

Neither email worked as intended. Instead, they just reminded me that so much of what's done by these and other "social networks" and "influence" measuring sites — Facebook and Google+, Klout and PeerIndex, and all the rest — is designed to con us into handing over even more of our personal information, and that of our friends and colleagues, while offering stuff all in return.

"Sharing", it's called.

Why all the scare quotes? Because all of these words are being warped by the startup industry in subtle but important ways.

Social networks are made of people. Family, friends, colleagues, and lovers, through to the bartenders who remember which beers I drink and the accountant who prepares my tax returns — plus all the ex-folk in those categories that I've accumulated over the years. These networks exist independently of any internet-based company's attempts to map them and cash in on that knowledge.

Influence is the ability to cause people to change their beliefs and behaviour. Kred, and its competitor Klout and others, claim to be able to measure your influence through such things as how many Facebook friends you have, how often your tweets are retweeted, and how often you're mentioned online. The end result is a number that some people seem to take seriously.

"Kred, a social media influence scoring tool, has named Sally Falkow, CEO of Meritus Media, a Top 1% Influencer," wrote Sally Falkow in a media release that turned up in a Google News search just now. "Figuring out who is in a brand's social graph and who has influence in certain communities and subjects has become very important to marketing and PR success."

Really? Says what evidence? What Kred and Klout measure is activity. Buzz. Noise. "The Klout Score incorporates more than 400 signals from seven different networks," the company boasts — which to me seems much like claiming that your astrology is better than the next guy's, because you've added more planets. And, like astrology, there's nothing linking this pseudo-scientific measurement of online bleating and re-bleating to the real-world human behaviour that matters — people buying your product or voting for your political party.

In fact, there's plenty of evidence for the exact opposite, and that trying to target "top influencers" is a waste of time.

"Large-scale changes in public opinion are not driven by highly influential people who influence everyone else, but rather by easily influenced people influencing other easily influenced people," wrote sociologist Duncan Watts and his colleagues in their 2006 paper Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation (PDF).

"[Twitter] user activity and number of followers do not contribute strongly to trend creation and its propagation. In fact, we find that the resonance of the content with the users of the social network plays a major role in causing trends," wrote researchers at Hewlett-Packard's Social Computing Lab in Trends in Social Media: Persistence and Decay (PDF).

This whole idea that we pay more attention to "influencers" of high social ranking? Outdated thinking. "That's not how social influence works. In reality, it's much messier. It's not one or two interactions involving a recommendation. It's several interactions with a number of people that add up to influence," said Mark Earls, author of Herd: How To Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature.

All this pseudo-science sounds convincing because it's expressed as numbers, and, as Alfred Crosby pointed out in his book The Measure of Reality: Quantification in Western Europe, 1250-1600, numbers make things real, shape our worldview, and even persuade us to compete. Even if the numbers are meaningless. That's why "gamification" is a thing.

LinkedIn's number was particularly meaningless — top 5 percent isn't a big deal if the spread is narrow — all the more so, because I've done precisely nothing with my LinkedIn profile in more than a year. I stopped playing when LinkedIn committed one privacy outrage too many. So the real message is that "LinkedIn success", by this arbitrary pseudo-metric, anyway, has nothing to do with your activity there. Sounds like a good reason not to give the company more information.

And sharing? Well, both Kred and LinkedIn invited me to "share" these numbers. But that's not sharing. Sharing is a noble thing. As kids, we share our toys so others can play. As adults, we share a pint so we can enjoy each others' company. Tweeting that we have some arbitrary status is what we used to call "boasting", and it's not noble. It's even less noble when the auto-tweet includes an imperative voice instruction to "See what your Kred score is".

Still, Sally Falkow will be "sharing". "We're delighted with this recognition from Kred, and we will display the Top 1% Influencer badge on our website, our blog, and our Twitter feed," she wrote.

But even Falkow has doubts. "Influence scores are important ... but it isn't wise to rely on them as a final influence ranking. We work with a lot of brands who want to reach influential bloggers and tweeters, and it's only once you actually start interacting with people that you discover who really has influence and can move people to action. It's not always the one's [sic] you thought it would be."

Or, to put it more bluntly, it doesn't work.

Topic: Social Enterprise

About

Stilgherrian is a freelance journalist, commentator and podcaster interested in big-picture internet issues, especially security, cybercrime and hoovering up bulldust.

He studied computing science and linguistics before a wide-ranging media career and a stint at running an IT business. He can write iptables firewall rules, set a rabbit trap, clear a jam in an IBM model 026 card punch and mix a mean whiskey sour.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

3 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • But it does influence people to post

    So perhaps it is the "influencers" who are being influenced.
    John L. Ries
  • Influencer metrics still in infancy - transparency is key

    Stilgherrian - great post and from a fellow Aussie as well. Say hi to Sydney for me.

    What I will say is that the influencer industry is still in its infancy and there is no "perfect" solution - nor probably will there ever be while we are measuring human activity.

    What is different between the Kred and LinkedIn messages (and we sent ours a whole week before LinkedIn - make of that what you will...), is that we always explain how we score.

    In this instance, you can read about the data behind the email you received at http://lc.tl/elitekred

    I spent a good 2 hours with fellow ZDNet writed Eileen Brown a few months ago and she has a different take on Kred - see what she wrote at http://lc.tl/zdkred

    I believe the only way the influencer industry can and will evolve is with greater transparency, something we are working hard on every day - be it publishing how we score or how we defined the top 1%, to showing on every one of our Kred profiles the activity and how points were awarded.

    Indeed I actually posted some time ago on the "influence score myopia" at http://lc.tl/myopia and constantly advise my clients to use Kred and others as a guide, but look beyond the score to uncover those true authentic influencers.

    I would love to see my peers at the other platforms jump in and add to the debate, but feel like we're the lone voice on these issues.


    Kind Regards,
    Andrew Grill
    CEO, Kred
    @andrewgrill
    andrewgrill
  • it's no longer about quantitative influence, it's about QUALITY

    Couldn't agree more. Which is why I founded prollie, a social platform that evaluates users based on QUALITY of output and skill on social media vs. # of followers or retweets. It's not about about having 10,000 followers or 10, it's about the passion you put into your social media life and the interests you care about the most.

    if anyone is interested, we're nearing the end of our private alpha test and about to release our public beta. tweet at me (@mjfabbri) or head to prollie.com to request an invite, we'd love to see what you think, as we go beyond influence and we create network-agnostic social search for qualified individuals who want and deserve to be found based on your interests.

    Please try it out! prollie: social media above the 'influence'. The qualitative alternative to influence-scoring sites
    mike@...