What Your Klout Score Really Means

With his jaw still clamped shut, recovering in his Lower East Side apartment, Fernandez opened an Excel file and began to enter data on everyone he was connected to on Facebook and Twitter: how many followers they had, how often they posted, how often others responded to or retweeted those posts. Some contacts (for instance, his young cousins) had hordes of Facebook friends but seemed to wield little overall influence. Others posted rarely, but their missives were consistently rebroadcast far and wide. He was building an algorithm that measured who sparked the most subsequent online actions. He sorted and re-sorted, weighing various metrics, looking at how they might shape results. Once he’d figured out a few basic principles, Fernandez hired a team of Singaporean coders to flesh out his ideas. Then, realizing the 13-hour time difference would impede their progress, he offshored himself. For four months, he lived in Singapore, sleeping on couches or in his programmers’ offices. On Christmas Eve of 2008, back in New York a year after his surgery, Fernandez launched Klout with a single tweet. By September 2009, he’d relocated to San Francisco to be closer to the social networking companies whose data Klout’s livelihood depends on. (His first offices were in the same building as Twitter headquarters.)

Photo: Garry McLeod

Photo: Garry McLeod

Last spring Sam Fiorella was recruited for a VP position at a large Toronto marketing agency. With 15 years of experience consulting for major brands like AOL, Ford, and Kraft, Fiorella felt confident in his qualifications. But midway through the interview, he was caught off guard when his interviewer asked him for his Klout score. Fiorella hesitated awkwardly before confessing that he had no idea what a Klout score was.

The interviewer pulled up the web page for Klout.com—a service that purports to measure users’ online influence on a scale from 1 to 100—and angled the monitor so that Fiorella could see the humbling result for himself: His score was 34. “He cut the interview short pretty soon after that,” Fiorella says. Later he learned that he’d been eliminated as a candidate specifically because his Klout score was too low. “They hired a guy whose score was 67.”

Partly intrigued, partly scared, Fiorella spent the next six months working feverishly to boost his Klout score, eventually hitting 72. As his score rose, so did the number of job offers and speaking invitations he received. “Fifteen years of accomplishments weren’t as important as that score,” he says. Leer más “What Your Klout Score Really Means”

The Creative Monopoly

See on Scoop.ithuman being in – perfección

As a young man, Peter Thiel competed to get into Stanford. Then he competed to get into Stanford Law School. Then he competed to become a clerk for a federal judge. Thiel won all those competitions. But then he competed to get a Supreme Court clerkship.

Thiel lost that one. So instead of being a clerk, he went out and founded PayPal. Then he became an early investor in Facebook and many other celebrated technology firms. Somebody later asked him. “So, aren’t you glad you didn’t get that Supreme Court clerkship?”

The question got Thiel thinking. His thoughts are now incorporated into a course he is teaching in the Stanford Computer Science Department. (A student named Blake Masters posted outstanding notes online, and Thiel has confirmed their accuracy.)

One of his core points is that we tend to confuse capitalism with competition. We tend to think that whoever competes best comes out ahead. In the race to be more competitive, we sometimes confuse what is hard with what is valuable. The intensity of competition becomes a proxy for value.

In fact, Thiel argues, we often shouldn’t seek to be really good competitors. We should seek to be really good monopolists. Instead of being slightly better than everybody else in a crowded and established field, it’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally dominate it. The profit margins are much bigger, and the value to society is often bigger, too.

Now to be clear: When Thiel is talking about a “monopoly,” he isn’t talking about the illegal eliminate-your-rivals kind. He’s talking about doing something so creative that you establish a distinct market, niche and identity. You’ve established a creative monopoly and everybody has to come to you if they want that service, at least for a time.

His lecture points to a provocative possibility: that the competitive spirit capitalism engenders can sometimes inhibit the creativity it requires.

Think about the traits that creative people possess. Creative people don’t follow the crowds; they seek out the blank spots on the map. Creative people wander through faraway and forgotten traditions and then integrate marginal perspectives back to the mainstream. Instead of being fastest around the tracks everybody knows, creative people move adaptively through wildernesses nobody knows.

Now think about the competitive environment that confronts the most fortunate people today and how it undermines those mind-sets.

First, students have to jump through ever-more demanding, preassigned academic hoops. Instead of developing a passion for one subject, they’re rewarded for becoming professional students, getting great grades across all subjects, regardless of their intrinsic interests. Instead of wandering across strange domains, they have to prudentially apportion their time, making productive use of each hour.

Then they move into a ranking system in which the most competitive college, program and employment opportunity is deemed to be the best. There is a status funnel pointing to the most competitive colleges and banks and companies, regardless of their appropriateness.

Then they move into businesses in which the main point is to beat the competition, in which the competitive juices take control and gradually obliterate other goals. I see this in politics all the time. Candidates enter politics wanting to be authentic and change things. But once the candidates enter the campaign, they stop focusing on how to be change-agents. They and their staff spend all their time focusing on beating the other guy. They hone the skills of one-upsmanship. They get engulfed in a tit-for-tat competition to win the news cycle. Instead of being new and authentic, they become artificial mirror opposites of their opponents. Instead of providing the value voters want — change — they become canned tacticians, hoping to eke out a slight win over the other side.

Competition has trumped value-creation. In this and other ways, the competitive arena undermines innovation.

You know somebody has been sucked into the competitive myopia when they start using sports or war metaphors. Sports and war are competitive enterprises. If somebody hits three home runs against you in the top of the inning, your job is to go hit four home runs in the bottom of the inning.

But business, politics, intellectual life and most other realms are not like that. In most realms, if somebody hits three home runs against you in one inning, you have the option of picking up your equipment and inventing a different game. You don’t have to compete; you can invent.

We live in a culture that nurtures competitive skills. And they are necessary: discipline, rigor and reliability. But it’s probably a good idea to try to supplement them with the skills of the creative monopolist: alertness, independence and the ability to reclaim forgotten traditions.

Everybody worries about American competitiveness. That may be the wrong problem. The future of the country will probably be determined by how well Americans can succeed at being monopolists.

See on www.nytimes.com

Introducing the Google+ Share Button – Google+ Developers Blog

See on Scoop.ithuman being in – perfección

When your visitors come across something interesting on your site, sometimes you want to encourage a simple endorsement (like +1). Other times, however, you want to help visitors share with their friends, right away. Today’s new Google+ Share button lets you do just that.


See on googleplusplatform.blogspot.com.br

Google Analytics & Webmaster Tools Now Track the Impact of Tweets, Likes & +1s

Google is getting more social, and its web analytics tools are no exception; Google Analytics and Google Webmaster Tools have added new tools for tracking the impact of tweets, likes, +1s & more on your website’s traffic.

Google Webmaster Tools now has a “+1 Metrics” section, which provides reports on the impact of the +1 Button on search. The new analytics show how +1s affect your website’s clickthrough rate (CTR). It tracks the amount of +1s on a given page, the CTR with +1 annotations and the CTR without +1 annotations. The new tool also graphs out the amount of annotated impressions and annotated clicks your website receives over time. Leer más “Google Analytics & Webmaster Tools Now Track the Impact of Tweets, Likes & +1s”

Analytics medirá el impacto de Google + Twitter y Facebook

See on Scoop.ithuman being in – perfección

Para los administradores de páginas web y aquellos que se sirvan de las herramientas Google Analytics y Webmaster Tools, el sistema se ha optimizado para registrar el impacto de los tweets, los ‘me gusta’ de Facebook y el botón +1. A partir de ahora la influencia de estos servicios sociales se verá reflejada al medir el tráfico de un site.

Cualquier administrador de un sitio web se verá beneficiado de esta mejora ya que así será más sencillo valorar la importancia que tienen las rede sociales en nuestra web. En muchas ocasiones el número de tweets o las veces que algo se comparte en Facebook no son indicadores claros del estado del tráfico de esa página.

Para que el impacto de tweets, ‘me gustas’ y el botón +1 quede reflejado en el tráfico del site Google ha mejorado sus herramientas de monitorización. En el caso de Google Analytics el nuevo Social Plugin Tracking permite medir cómo la presencia social en una determinada página.

A partir de ahora Google Analytics puede verse enriquecido con tres secciones más. Social Engagement sería la primera, que se centraría en los cambios de comportamiento de los usuarios, como las páginas vistas, la tasa de rebote o el tiempo en el sitio, provenientes de las redes sociales.

Social Actions cuantifica el número de acciones sociales, tanto por parte de Twitter, Facebook o Google +1, que tienen lugar en la web. Por último, Social Pages realiza una comparación basándose en la actividad social que han recibido cada una de las páginas del site.

Webmaster Tools también se ha optimizado para incluir el impacto del botón +1 en una web. La sección ‘+1 Metrics’ muestra datos sobre cómo Google +1 incide en el CTR (proporción de clics), haciendo una comparación de cómo estarían las estadísticas sin el +1.

See on www.ticbeat.com

Google y Facebook lanzan nuevas herramientas de medición – Noticia – Internacional – MarketingNews.es

See on Scoop.ithuman being in – perfección

Los dos gigantes de internet han anunciado novedades referidas a las mediciones de las campañas publicitarias de sus anunciantes.

La semana pasada, durante la AdAge Digital Conference, Google ha presentado la llamada Brand Activate Initiative, que de momento consta de dos nuevos servicios para los anunciantes: Active View y Active GRP. El primero de ellos, con el que algunos expertos piensan que Google quiere establecer un nuevo estándar digital, mide no solo cuando un anuncio es mostrado o clicado, sino cuando realmente es visto por un usuario del sitio. Google espera que los anunciantes paguen en breve solo por impresiones vistas.

Por su parte, Active GRP es como una versión web de los GRP’s que usan en televisión. Combina resultados de un panel de medición con datos de usuarios anónimos para decirle al anunciante cómo está funcionando su anuncio. Esta información esta pensada para que el anunciante cambie sobre la marcha detalles de su campaña.

Para acceder a más información sobre estos dos nuevos productos, entra en este blog de Google (en inglés).

En el caso de Facebook, el product manager de Pages Insights David Baser, ha declarado en la revista Adweek que en las próximas semanas tienen previsto lanzar herramientas para ofrecer más detalles sobre el funcionamiento de sus campañas en la red social a las marcas anunciantes.

Si hasta ahora, los anunciantes solo podían acceder a datos sobre los enlaces a la página y las descargas de aplicaciones, Facebook quiere añadir datos sobre “me gustas”, los comentarios, las veces que se comparte un contenido, las que se usa una oferta… 

See on www.marketingnews.es

Are sociable people more beautiful? – Barking up the wrong tree

See on Scoop.ithuman being in – perfección

Stereotypes ascribe positive social traits to attractive individuals. Such stereotypes are viewed as erroneous. However, these stereotypes may have a kernel of truth if more sociable individuals present themselves in a manner that increases their attractiveness, a plausible idea given social engagement goals. To examine this idea, two studies involving 217 participants used a zero-acquaintance design in which unacquainted judges rated the attractiveness of participants in impromptu photographs. Participants high in the self-reported traits of agreeableness or extraversion, the two Big 5 traits most relevant to interpersonal behavior, were rated more attractive. Further results indicated that personality–attraction relationships were mediated by a well-groomed appearance. The results suggest a kernel of truth to the idea that sociable individuals are also attractive.

Source: “Are sociable people more beautiful? A zero-acquaintance analysis of agreeableness, extraversion, and attractiveness” from Journal of Research in Personality, Volume 44, Issue 2, April 2010, Pages 293-296

See on www.bakadesuyo.com