I’m certainly not the first person to write about using social influence measurement scores as a recruiting tool:
- Forbes wrote about it in May (“Will Your Klout Score Get You Hired? The Role of Social Media in Recruiting”)
- Last year Adrienne Sheares over at I Heart Social Media DC discussed it (“You’re Only As Good As Your Klout Score”)
- The Washington Post wondered if job seekers should list their scores on their resumes (“Klout scores: Do they belong on résumés?”).
Recently, I found two different community manager jobs that listed a Klout score of over “x” (25 and 35 in the case of these jobs) as a desired skill. These listings were the first I’ve seen to actually list a specific numerical preference, rather than “social media proficiency,” or similar. I thought inclusion of a specific number was interesting; these companies are aiming to make what’s sometimes a subjective judgment (being skilled in social media) objective and measureable.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think skill in social media, like public relations or marketing talents, can be measured objectively. There aren’t many social media campaigns that exist without analysis of metrics to see how efforts compare to pre-set, often quantifiable goals. Even a goal of increasing positive sentiment about a brand can be measured with the right tools (how well is a debate for another time). In the same vein, marketing professionals’ abilities are measured against sales goals and public relations people are assessed on the quality and quantity of media placement.
But, measuring someone’s Klout or other social influence score isn’t necessarily measuring ability to run successful social media campaigns for a brand, so should it be assessed as part of a hiring process? I asked my Twitter followers what they thought about such a requirement and sparked some interesting conversation, most of it against such requirements:
@sosarahsays Umm…that’s ridiculous. Klout is a joke, and easily manipulated.I wouldn’t even bother applying as HR doesn’t get it— James (@VTjawo) July 25, 2012
@sosarahsays i think it’s a little ridiculous, especially since the # of social networks involved in doesn’t seem to increase your score.— Janelle Siegrist (@LeeMaeMarie) July 25, 2012
@sethsklar@sosarahsays@ebuzzedge I guess I just feel like looking at my actual page is the best way for them to evaluate – not some #— Sara Lang (@SaraLang) July 25, 2012
At first, I was inclined to agree with my followers, but I’ve since thought about it further and think looking at Klout score for potential employees, specifically those applying to social/digital/community engagement jobs, might not be such a terrible idea, especially if a candidate’s Klout score is linked to social feeds they run professionally (these should also be mentioned in your resume).
The Forbes article I linked above quotes Klout spokesperson Lynn Fox saying, “similar to an SAT, the Klout score can be used as one of many indicators of someone’s skill set.” At first, this probably sounds ridiculous, but let’s compare the SAT to Klout. According to the CollegeBoard website,
The SAT [is] … designed to assess your academic readiness for college [in the United States]… in a way that’s fair to all students. The SAT … keep[s] pace with what colleges are looking for today, measuring the skills required for success in the 21st century.
I am well aware there is a lot of criticism that standardized tests like the SAT are culture, gender, and/or income biased but it’s still a measurement tool many American higher education institutions use as a predictive assessment of ability. It’s an attempt to even a vast playing field by assessing it on one scale.
Companies are turning to Klout scores to assess candidates for social roles for the same reason colleges look at the SAT, to predict ability and success. Klout scores can be viewed the same way universities assess an applicant’s math score when applying to a physics program; high proficiency/score in math is likely to highly correlate to success in the program. Along that line of reasoning, I see no reason why someone who claims to communicate online for a living shouldn’t easily have a higher than average Klout score, especially if accounts they run professionally are included. (According to Klout, the average score of a given user on their scale of 1-100 is 20.) A higher than average Klout score, like the 25 and 35 desired for the jobs I found, should show you know how to use social media to communicate personally, professionally, or both. A higher score is an indicator of success and ability online.
Having a solid, measureable social media presence shows someone is savvy about how we communicate digitally and is illustrative of skill in the field—the same way a track record of high impact media placement or consistently surpassing sales goals is for a PR or marketing professional. Like the SAT, Klout scores aren’t perfect, they might not be fair, and they are certainly subject to criticism. But right now it’s one of the best tools hiring managers have in their attempts to even the playing field and assess probability of success in social media and digital communications professionals.
I know from Twitter conversations that my opinion probably isn’t popular. What do you think? If you were a hiring manager, would you hire someone for a social media role if they had a low social influence score? What if their accounts were locked, or you couldn’t find them in a Google search?
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
This proves people are still completely misunderstanding measurement and influence in social media. Klout is far from an accurate measurement to show one’s ability to influence or craft influence online; it misses the mark. Klout measures popularity, not influence. There is a BIG difference. Further, Klout is far to easy to game. Much like the SAT, the score has little significance in the bigger picture.
Scott, a few things:
1. I’m not saying Klout is a perfect measurement. Far from it! I think it’s completely biased and whacked out, personally. All I’m saying in this post is that it’s an attempt to even a really wide playing field. You can’t blame hiring managers for wanting a “simple” way to do that.
2. I don’t think you can truly separate popularity and influence; they aren’t mutually exclusive. Someone may have awesome content, but if they have no friends or followers to see it or help spread the information, it doesn’t really matter. Likewise, if someone has tons of friends or followers but never post anything worthwhile, I think they will eventually slip in Klout rankings.
3. The SAT is easy to game, too. Isn’t that what they teach you to do in SAT prep courses? How to “best the test”?
Thanks for reading!
Absolutely – SAT can be gamed, too. Which is why I believe the better argument would be “like the SAT, Klout has little significance in the bigger picture”.
While popularity and influence cannot be fully separated, they are different. Popularity does not equate influence. One can have 6000 plus followers who occasionally re-Tweet, like, etc. But what does that do in the bigger picture? Influence is about who follows you, who engages with you, etc. Not the fact that 600 bots do. Its not about numbers and Klout is too much about basic numbers – which is why it is easy to game.
Further, Klout or any other score requirement on a job description is ridiculous when it comes to finding a a qualified candidate. I know many very qualified very intelligent digital practitioners and strategists with low or no scores, or who use social media very sparingly in their private lives. Having a score in the job requirements would limit the applicant pool, likely worsen it as people game the numbers to gain a false advantage.
I agree with you completely. I think a lot of candidates could be severely disadvantaged (and a lot of companies disappointed) if ONLY applicant Klout score is taken into account, without viewing their actual pages. As far as qualified digital practitioners and strategists who use social media sparingly in their personal lives and have low scores–that’s why I think it’s important to list accounts you manage professionally on your resume. I think it’s only natural for someone’s personal account to fall by the wayside when they are managing a business account. In fact, I’d be amazed if it didn’t.
I think Sarah Oyungu (@mizdiva) said it well in a tweet, “It’s only natural that people are trying to find metrics for a totally subjective field.”
Like college admissions staff, hiring managers are struggling to find ways to figure out who the best candidates are, and so far this is one of the quickest ways to compare them. Is it accurate? No! That’s why I compared it to the SAT. I think it’s ridiculous to judge anyone on the basis of one number but, again, people are looking for ways to quickly assess, so they’re looking for a scale that “standardizes” the applicants.
Again, though. I think we are 100% on the same page.
I think we are on the same page, initial blog post inferred otherwise but comments helped to clarity.
I fear to many in the HR world however fail to recognize the poor quality of the metrics. This is the primary concern – both for companies and applicants.
It would be great if their were a magic score to sum-up digital influence. But, I do not believe it is possible. Sure, we can grasp a few indicators – but much will be left out. There are a great deal of hard to quantify qualitative factors at play.
Agree. Hopefully any poor candidates brought in for interviews by HR on the basis of Klout scores will be quickly weeded out by interviewers who know more than an HR person about the way social networks and digital strategy works. (In other words, “I don’t care if your Klout score is 80. If you are impersonal and can’t answer interview questions well, you’re out.”)
From my college application experience, this happens at some schools, too. I remember having to interview with alumni at some universities in addition to just sending in application materials. Like good job interviewers, these people can presumably see beyond the numbers and get a better, more complete picture of applicants.
And yeah, I don’t think there will ever be a perfect, snapshot number to assess candidates, for jobs or for college. Like you said, there are too many qualitative factors.
I agree – just like with any standardized test/measurement, someone is going to feel like they’re getting screwed, or at least misrepresented.
And yes, it’s definitely about learning how to beat the system – I think there’s value in that. If you can figure out how to “game” the SAT, that displays a certain level of sophistication and logic. I think it’s the same way with Klout (or any other kind of standardized measurement tool). If you can figure out how to “beat” Klout and get a higher score, you can probably figure out how to effectively engage and influence.
As social media has become a serious sub-field in the area of advertising, marketing, and branding, there needs to be a way to measure it effectively. I wouldn’t want to dig through someone’s Twitter feed ad nauseum if I was trying to hire a community manager. A simple score like Klout helps expedite that process – although it shouldn’t be the only metric.
I recently blogged about Klout and how in my opinion it doesn’t matter:
http://toddmpost.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/fans-followers-and-klout-dont-matter/
I see people on PR flack email lists asking how to increase their fan, follower, or Klout numbers but they don’t engage the people they are connected to. In his estimation, Socialbakers founder and CEO Jan Rezab believes that 70% of all fan questions posted on social media channels are not responded to.
Communication has always been and continues to ultimately be about action. Whether it convinces someone to purchase a product, influences them in a voting booth, or changes their behavior, communication is about the number of people it causes to act. It is not about how many people you who were potentially exposed to your message or your popularity, er, Klout score.
I love your last paragraph, Todd, and think it’s right on point. I also agree with this sentence from your blog post, “People like the illusion of quantitative success in social media. Numbers are meaningless though without engagement.” I agree many businesses (and individuals) still have a hard time separating quantity from quality. Many seem to think that the more people who are exposed to a message, the higher likelihood people are to act in some way. Maybe so, but being able to get people to act THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO is, to me, what separates the okay community managers from the great ones.
Say two non-profits sent out tweets asking followers to sign a petition, with a link to the petition and the words “please RT.” If one account had 10,000 followers and 60% RT’ed, some people would say this was a great outcome and offer praise for having so many followers and such a big network of supporters… But the real goal is to have people sign the petition. If the other non-profit twitter feed was only followed by 100 people, 60% of which RT’ed AND signed the petition because the community manager was better able to engage with them (thank them for their RT and time, etc.), I’d say this was a better outcome. Unfortunately, the account with the 10k followers and 6000 RTs would probably have a higher Klout score at the end of the day, even though the quality and benefit to the organization may be lower. It’s really hard to get people to see the difference between quantity and quality, though. I think it really works on a bell curve for most brands. (Though where this bell curve lies can likely be managed with adequate staffing!)
As far as Klout for hiring purposes, I think while a score may get you in the door, a skilled interviewer would be able to separate the “okay” candidates (the ones who can get 6000 people to RT you) from the great ones (who can get fans to ultimately sign the petition). And, like I said, it really shouldn’t be that hard to get your score past “requirements” if you’re using social media WELL (engaging) with a small network. I have countless friends who have less than 100 followers and have Klout scores in at least the 40s. As far as I know, none of them have actively been trying to “up” their scores… they are just naturally skilled at socializing and engaging, which I think, too, is ultimately what brands should be looking for in community managers.
Thanks for reading and for your comment.
Get example Sarah! If you don’t mind, would you consider reposting to my blog to share with my readers…in the spirit of engagement and a “call to action”…
{ 1 trackback }