I don't know why I was thinking of this while running, but for whatever reason I was thinking about Facebook, and 'liking' things. I like 'liking' things that people post on Facebook. And it dropped into my head that the power of the 'like' for the person receiving the like is:
You see me.
I make sense to you.
Which is a powerful gift to give someone.
I just had a conversation with Brent Mills, a friend and new information professional, about Klout and the whole Klout score thing. (Justin Bieber has a "perfect" Klout score, did you know that? And I am childishly not going to link to him. Nyah.) Brent was asking, "as a social media guru" - a phrase I cringe at - "what do you think about Klout scores?"
And the guru's opinion is - don't worry about it. Don't give it a second thought.
A disclaimer: I looked at Klout a while ago when it was first emerging, and I haven't really seriously looked at it since. I haven't found it worthwhile to look at, to be honest.
And in looking at Klout on my Chrome browser this morning, I see their tagline is "The Standard for Influence." Which is exactly the key to why you shouldn't worry about it.
Klout REALLY WANTS TO BE the Standard for Influence. So does every other social media property, measurement method, marketing firm, etc. etc. etc. Why? Because everyone is chasing the Holy Grail of social media measurement and is obsessed with finding some kind of "standard." Ultimately, the goal of these companies is to MONETIZE that.
And as far as I can see, there is no current standard, and there never will be one standard. I can't see how one number can capture ANYONE'S social media presence or influence. Because there IS no one way to use social media effectively. That's exactly the beauty of it. It's a creative space. Some people use it well, some don't. Two people or companies in the exact same industry can use social media very differently and still both be equally "influential" and effective.
I'm sure the Klout people would have a rebuttal to this, and I would be open to hearing that. But what I encourage YOU to think about is this:
Would you want someone to put some kind of number on your social skills? Do you want someone to assign a ranking to you as to how "influential" you are in the community? What the hell would that even mean?
Social media is first and foremost about people. And I will always stand up for people first. I'm for compassionate, fun, interesting, open, and thought-provoking people, and I expect the same of my social media. A number will never, ever capture anything like that.
If a company is going to discount you in some way because your Klout score is too low, well, you're probably a whole lot better off not working at that company. Period.
End of guru lesson for today.
Last week, along with my fellow Division and Chapter Cabinet Chair-Elect candidates, I got to participate in a call with SLA unit leaders. It was a really good session - great questions from the moderator, SLA President-Elect Cindy Romaine, and from the participants. I continue to be impressed by the quality of all my fellow candidates. No matter who wins this election, you're gonna have excellent leaders!
A question came up around the difference between networking in-person and networking online, and I wanted to share my reflection on this. It's a thought-provoking question.
Typically, the opinion is that "nothing beats in-person networking". I would agree that in-person networking is a unique experience. As we were talking on the call, though, I realized that in-person networking and online networking really compliment each other.
Let me share two examples:
I've been connected with a person on the Board of the local Rocky Mountain Chapter of SLA for several months. I hadn't met this person locally - we only met in-person for the first time at the conference in New Orleans in June. What was striking was that, when we did meet in person, it was as if we already knew a lot about each other. It felt as if I was meeting a long-time friend, and meeting in-person was icing on the cake.
On the opposite side, I met many people in-person at the conference. Afterward, we quickly connected via LinkedIn, Facebook and/or Twitter. These tools, in many ways, have allowed us to continue the conversation we started at the conference. We've gotten to learn more about each other. We've gotten to know each others' interests more.
Previously, I may have only interacted with my new connections at the next conference - if we both attended, and if we connected beforehand, or if we were in the same place at the same time. Maybe we would have exchanged a few emails, but likely many of those connections would have grown cold. Social networking tools are keeping our connections "warm", so to speak. We may not be talking directly all the time, but I know what's going on in their world, and they know what's going on in mine. It's pretty nice!
I don't think online connection replaces in-person connection, or vice versa. I think the two compliment each other nicely. I'm glad I had a chance to reflect on this, because it has had a real effect in my life. My SLA membership, and my connections with SLA, have made my personal and professional life richer.
How have social tools complimented your life?
Just back from New Orleans and the SLA Annual Conference. It was a terrific conference in a variety of ways - more to come! - but I wanted to get this information out sooner rather than later.
You can view my share of the presentation with the wonderful Kim Dority at SlideShare.
A few questions that came up:
TechCrunch: A Map of (Social) Network Dominance
Global Web Index - data
100 Best Blogs for Librarians of the Future (Learn-gasm)
Recent Comments