Last week, I voiced my concerns about the “Klout Perks” influencer outreach program, based on an experience with my “influential” @StadiumInsider Twitter account. To sum it up, I opined that if influencers accepted too many perks, or broadcast the idea that they were influencers, they’d eventually lose their influence.  I used my experience at Fox’s Lone Star premiere as an example and Megan Berry of Klout was kind enough to respond. Here’s what she said:

I’ve actually noticed the opposite effect here, so your thoughts are intriguing. For example, for those who participated in the Virgin America perk, all their Klout scores (almost universally) went up afterwards, not because of anything we did but because they got so much engagement from their audience about this event. They tweeted about getting the perk which got people interested in what it was and how they were chosen, then they also tweeted about the experience (i.e. flying Virgin America, visiting SF etc.) and people responded to that. The currency of the influence we’re measuring is, in effect, information and klout perks give you access to an experience or product before anyone else (or that not many other people have access to).

It’s interesting that you audience didn’t find your tweets about the event compelling — perhaps what this really says is that Lone Star was not properly targeted towards your audience — which is something we could do better in the future. I bet if it had been a sports related perk (i.e. meeting the team or something) you would have gotten way more engagement.

It makes perfect sense.  For Klout Perks to be successful, they need to be extremely targeted toward influencers of what Brian Solis refers to as “nicheworks.”

Great to see such a thoughtful response to this matter from Klout.  It seems like they’re really dedicated to doing influencer outreach the right way.

Lately, I’ve become increasingly intrigued by Klout.com and their Twitter influencer outreach program, “Klout Perks.”  Klout was on my radar for a while (I had checked my score and had been invited to a “Klout Up” in NYC once), but I really started paying attention once Virgin America and Starbucks partnered with them.  In achieving partnerships with two of the top brands in the social media space, Klout went from another random website measuring a made up “Twitter score” to a legitimate new media strategy tool.  

Shortly thereafter, I received a special invitation by Fox Television (via Klout) to attend a screening of their new show “Lone Star” at the social media-savvy Roger Smith Hotel in NYC. As a consumer of media, I found it cool.  I was somehow being targeted (the folks from Klout wouldn’t elaborate on why Fox wanted me) to see a show before other people. What’s not to like?

Then, as I became more immersed in the Klout experience (tweeting from the premiere, interacting with @Klout on Twitter, entering contests with the hashtag #Klout), I realized that the audience that I supposedly had “influence” over didn’t want to hear it. They tuned me out at best and at worst, some followers became downright hostile toward the existence of Klout.

In Klout’s haste to market themselves and get their name out, they’re running the risk of affecting the organic nature of Twitter influence. Bringing the idea of online influencers into regular conversations just doesn’t resonate.  Klout has a great tool on their hands, but at the core, it is a marketing tool. Nobody wants to talk about a marketing tool when they follow someone on Twitter to hear about baseball (my influential account is @StadiumInsider).

Here’s where I take out my crystal ball.  There is an “influencer bubble” that is bound to emerge, which I touched on in a previous post.  Regardless of the type of social network -online or offline - there are always certain people who are “tribe leaders” by nature.  The prominence of online social networks has made it easier for services such as Klout.com to quantify the idea of influence and find these tribe leaders. But what happens when people are made blatantly aware that they are influencers within an online social network?  Suddenly they have something called “klout” and businesses want to reach out to THEM instead of others. Will these influencers continue to act the same way that made them influencers in the first place?  Or will they subconsciously become marketing tools, influenced by whatever brand or business has reached out to them. 

The influencers who change their behaviors within their online social network will slowly but surely lose their influence - it wasn’t what got them there in the first place.  

This seems painfully obvious, so it was surprising to see Klout.com encouraging their influencers to shout their name and tell the world what they were doing. It is important for Klout to be transparent, but by encouraging everyone to talk about influence, the very concept they’re looking to measure is being manipulated. 

Virgin America and Starbucks got to where they are by blazing trails and testing out new “tools” such as Klout.  That doesn’t automatically mean that Klout is going to be a sustainable marketing tool, but it is certainly a player in the new media strategy world that people need to pay close attention to. 

Most would agree that we’ve reached the saturation point of major brand social media marketing immersion.  Fortune 500 companies are holding “digital days” for management, Twitter and Facebook are key facets of corporate strategy and every company wants to reap the rewards of social media involvement. Unfortunately, there are speed bumps ahead.

Many see the warning signs.  Eric Fulwiler at Social Media Today calls it the social media bubble, describing the inevitable backlash of “inauthentic and unoriginal presences and promotions.”  There is a bubble, and it may burst, but what will lead us to that point?  I have some ideas. 

Businesses Are Involved In Social Media For The Wrong Reasons

These days, corporate entities and businesses get involved in social media without stepping back and understanding what they’re getting themselves into.  Anyone even remotely involved with social media or digital marketing would stand to benefit from viewing this presentation by Nicolas Christakis, professor of sociology at Harvard University (h/t Simon Mainwaring). At the heart of the fascinating presentation is the idea that humans form social networks to do good. He refers to social networks as living things or human “superorganisms.” These “superorganisms” are “governed by the collective” and the sum is greater than the individual parts. He concludes by saying “overall we form social networks because the benefits of a social networks outweigh the costs.”  

Social networks have always existed in society, but they’ve never been as prominent as they are in the digital age. With each passing day, it becomes easier to find like-minded people.  It has also become easier for profit-seeking entities to force their way into social networks. They see groups of people that might be interested in their services and they see dollar signs.  Unfortunately, far too many of these entities will fail in their attempts at social media immersion when they try to force their way into social networks without offering benefits to the collective.  

Failures are in it for the wrong reasons. Potential profits will overwhelm the ideals of engagement and innovation.  The power of social networks is the wisdom of the crowds and the successful brands will leverage that power.  In short, if a business is getting involved in social media, it better be for reasons other than increasing profits. 

The Rise And Inevitable Fall Of The Online Influencer

There is no buzzword quite like the online “influencer” these days. Savvy brands are quickly realizing the power of these social media influencers and are working to isolate them and use them to their advantage.  Services like Klout are measuring online “influence,” and it speaks volumes that leading brands such as Starbucks and Virgin America are partnering with them to connect with influencers.  

The idea is that consumers have become wary of brand messaging and fellow consumers are more likely to sway their opinions. In general, online influencers are individual entities who have an engaged audience but don’t have a profit-seeking agenda. More than ever, brands are reaching out to these influencers in order to reach their highly engaged audience.  This is positive when brands do so to open up lines of communication with their target audience, but there is also a dark side.  As this strategy becomes mainstream, brands will do more and more to win over influencers, and the influencers will lose their credibility.

We’ll call this the “influencer bubble.” The most successful brands will seek out influencers who have gained a following because they have valuable ideas and insights.  The key to engaging these influencers won’t be money or gifts, but transparency and idea sharing. On the other end of the spectrum, so-called “influencers” will get greedy and will leverage their power with lazy brands that don’t take the time to understand the power of an influencer relationship. They’ll quickly be exposed as shills and their influence will diminish, leaving the brand worse off. The “influencer bubble” will have burst. 

Misunderstanding Of The Shifting Privacy Paradigm And Societal Norms

We’re getting to a point in society where a new paradigm of “privacy” is being created. People are slowly but surely seeing the benefits of an open and online social graph (what Facebook is doing with their “like” button and partnerships across the web). There are some obvious benefits to a decreased level of what we formerly considered “private” information, but there are some pitfalls as well. 

New societal norms are being established based on social media and the digital world. We’re all actively participating on Twitter and Facebook and other digital forms of communication.  Whether we realize it or not, we’ve also established sets of rules for what is OK and what isn’t OK to say and do in the digital world.  The most savvy social media users are able to manage their online presence without a set of privacy controls instituted by the service they are using.  

As much as social networks are working to “govern by the collective” and form new sets of rules for a digital world, profit-seeking entities threaten to slow the process.  Brands are understandably monitoring social media, but the bubble risks being popped when brands actively invite themselves into online conversations without observing newly founded societal norms in the digital space. As much as a cable company thinks that they’re helping by barging into a conversation on Twitter or Facebook to tell us about an upcoming network dispute, they’re not. All they’re doing is being rude.  

If we were in our local Starbucks with a friend talking about ESPN, we wouldn’t expect a cable company representative to randomly interrupt our conversation and tell us that ESPN might not be carried on our cable provider soon.  It would be creepy.  It just isn’t what is accepted in society. The privacy paradigm is shifting and digital norms are being ingrained into society as a whole.  Successful brands are adapting to these cues, but as more and more become involved in social media the nuance is lost. Brands see potential consumers to influence and pounce on the opportunity without thinking of the ramifications.  

 ——

As brands harness the power of social media, marketing and engagement opportunities will inevitably arise. Stepping back and understanding the broader idea of social networks and digital communications is the key to avoiding pitfalls and setbacks.