community | 2/3 | Ian M Rountree

Journalists vs News Items – The Twofold Law of Blogging

March 14, 2011 by Ian 1 Comment

Some people know what’s going on. Everywhere. All the time.

We call these people journalists. They’re the gatherers, the curators. Journalists present the facts, add value and perspective, conduct analysis.

Some people are what’s going on. We see them everywhere. All the time.

Most of the time, when considering these people, we call them celebrities. However, in the blogosphere, we call them link bait. Reference points. News items.

Which one are you?

And do you know which one is better for you? Which one is better for your blog? Not everyone who’s great at delivering information is good at delivering news for others. Not everyone who delivers news and commentary in a value-added, impossible to replicate way is worthy of news themselves.

This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it’s an opportunity to differentiate yourself. If everyone in your industry is trying to be well known – to be the news – you’ve got a clear opening to be the journalist, and report the news. If you can learn to do the analysis, add value, and build a consistent perspective on what’s going on in your industry – and, more importantly, deliver that news to outsiders in a voice and language they’ll understand – then you’re setting yourself up to win.

It doesn’t matter if El Bigname knows who I am.

It matters even less to anyone who doesn’t know who El Bigname is. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who in your industry knows how awesome you are – success comes from outside your fishbowl.

If you’re making yourself a news item, is anyone outside your fishbowl going to care?

And, if you’re reporting the news, are you reporting it to te echo chamber, or into the vastness of the outside world?

Your Klout Score Means Nothing

February 19, 2011 by Ian 8 Comments

It’s not that it doesn’t mean anything – it’s that it actively means “nothing”.

For something to have meaning, you’ve got to be able to use it. Meaning, strictly speaking, applies to what’s done with a thing, or a piece of knowledge. Anything with ‘meaning’ must directly apply to something else. So; a score, made by an algorithm, has no strict meaning until applied. This is as true of Klout as it is of your Twitter follow count, the number of Friends you have on Facebook, or the number of recommendations you get on LinkedIn. Meaning requires application.

Sure, according to my Klout profile, I’m a 58. That’s nothing to sneeze at… Or is it? Could it be that, even in this semi-limited, pseudo-meaningless platform, there are some indicators of how a person behaves, how they prefer to communicate, and how you can learn how they do their work so you can better yours?

Now, this week’s #usblogs topic is supposed to be about online and offline klout, but I want to focus on a few meaningful uses for the Klout score and it’s associated meta-data first, before we talk at all about offline klout (which is far less well documented, and thus harder to quantify). Offline clout may come later, or may not. Partly because real-space communities have far different parameters to online ones.

When I look at a Klout score, I see an aggregate that equates to the curtain behind which hid the Wizard of Oz.

When I look at a Klout profile, like my own for example, I see:

Klout displays a graph of activity to go along with the Score metrics it displays.

This is the base range of information that comes beside a Klout score. Most people pay attention to the three numbers beside the Score itself – I almost never do. Under these, the badges, are much more informative regarding a person’s real activity. Number of list memberships, unique retweet count, total retweets, total comments – these show not only the wattage of a person’s activity online, they show the depth and consistency of that activity over time.

Yes, these numbers contribute to the aggregate of the Klout score, but the mix of badges you see matches strongly the kind of person you’re looking at. For example, this graph shows an even level of “Total Retweets” and “Unique Retweeters” – this tells me that the individual messages I’m sending are getting some traction among a broad range of people, but that traction has little depth.

Based on this graph, and the information relationships within it, I can adjust my actions in the future, if I want to (for example) learn how to create messages that gain depth as well as width of interaction. In this way, my score means nothing, but my profile is a learning tool.

In addition to the activity graph, Klout displays an Influence chart.

Take a look at the people on this chart. Do they match who you’d expect to be influencing me? Better still, do they match who you’d expect me to have influenced? I mean – yes, Mark, Chris, Amber and Matt have an effect on me. They legitimately influence me. But David McGraw? Really? An outlier, clearly.

Klout believes I’ve influenced my web host, MediaTemple. That interests me. In part because it’s an outlier, like David is. In part, because it’s amusing.

It also tells me where on the social chart I fit against my peers. The little orange dot on the graph is me. I’m a socializer. If I got a little more broad in my topics, I’d be a thought leader. I take issue to the idea that thought leadership is measurable on a chart, but these are the terms they’ve chosen to represent people – and by and large, they’re accurate.

The Influence chart can be used to give you a sense of what kinds of relationships the person whose profile you’re reading has. Do they interact with highly professional people, or highly social ones? Is there a broad mix of specialties represented, or a wide mix of opinion? Is there a tendency to focus solely on their own area of expertise, and disregard anything else coming into the mix?

At the end of the day, what you do with any of this data is what gives it meaning. A 60 Klout twitterati is not automatically more influencial than a 45 Klout socializer – unless pure wattage is all you care about. And, honestly, if all you care about is a bigger megaphone, you’ve lost the social media game already.

Keeping focus on what’s important is a good idea when conducting research and analysis, whether you’re doing so before, in the midst of, or after any marketing or business activity. Focusing on the wrong data, like a Klout score alone, can lead to terminal myopia.

No matter the numbers you’re looking at, making sure the numbers match the need is important. Do yourself a favour and look beyond that big orange number at the top of the screen.

On Deciding Our Own Lessons

January 15, 2011 by Ian 2 Comments

You know what? I’m tired of talking about failure.

I’ve spent most of this month thinking about how to move on, to learn, to grow from setbacks – and that attitude hasn’t been helpful at all. Sure, I’m learning and growing, but I’d be really worried if I weren’t.

What we learn from our experiences is largely tied to how we treat them, both in the moment, and in hindsight.

We have this awful tendency to vilify the things that enact our setbacks, or to make golden the things that appear to have helped us succeed. Is this productive? Probably not, unless we live by way of avoidance – and that’s not productive. No matter how attached we are to praise, or unconcerned with whether people think we’re snobs online or not – retroactive adjustment is usually a bad idea.

Productivity – rather than just activity – is far more interesting, and far less tied to dedicated learn-by-failure kinds of work than one might expect.

I’ve been thinking about theory a lot lately. Applying theory to practice, adjusting our theories to match our work… These are all good things. But one of the things theory allows us to do – if we have a strong grasp of it anyway – is to conduct some analysis on our failures, and the failures of others…

But there we go again!

We need to shift our verbiage – instead of talking about our liabilities, let’s talk about our deliverables. Same thing, far different meaning. Instead of crossing things off your to-do list, highlight them – same action, entirely different mental trigger (and thank Susan Hurrell for that one).

It isn’t just how we react to our opportunities for improvement that impacts how we improve; it’s also how we react to our opportunities to show our strength, and opportunities to analyse whether it’s strength or improvement we’ve got.

Stop mitigating your weaknesses, and start bolstering your strengths.

On Setting Priorities

November 16, 2010 by Ian 4 Comments

We are so very digital lately.

Accessible everywhere, communicating ubiquitously, never shutting down, never stopping, always moving forward. We’re letting people in, engaging broader audiences, stretching Dunbar’s number to its very finite limits. We’re trading old tradition for new efficiency.

Is this a good idea?

Where did Sunday breakfast go? Sausages, scrambled eggs and fresh orange juice. Where are we hiding the time that used to be set aside for family dinner at the table? You know (I hope) – the time when everyone decompressed, together, shared their day’s experiences, and planned the week going forward?

I miss that. Don’t you?

I actually had a family breakfast this Sunday morning, for the first time in months. Sausages, scrambled eggs, mandarin oranges. An hour of sitting, quietly, decompressing with my family. At the table. With no electronics on.

It’s going to happen more often here – and I’d suggest you do the same.

Find some time to get offline, and put some perspective on your time – it’s not difficult, and I’d argue it’s part of doing better work. Supporting yourself physically, emotionally – and doing the same for your family and immediate community – is far closer to the base of Mazlo’s hierarchy of needs than writing your blog. I know, it’s blasphemy for some of you, but I’m serious.

How do we start? Here are a few ways:

Play with your family. Just you and a spouse? Pick a sport. Got kids? What do they like to do? Do it too. Got parents? Apply same as kids.
Re-learn handwriting. There’s power in paper journaling, and lots of people know it. Not a journal-maker? How about writing drafts on paper? Or developing non-digital creative tools like mind maps (there are some great tools out there to help with mind mapping) and so on?
Do something new. Whip up a batch of cookies from a new recipe. Organize your book shelves with the solemn intent of selling some dusty tomes. Anything, no matter how pedestrian – if you’ve never done it, try it once.

Go! Now! What are you waiting for?