I know that Brian Solis, who I have a lot of time for, is saying that Klout isn’t measuring influence in this slideshare  and he is absolutely right. And then I saw this article by Wessel van Rensburg  and I just had to comment. It went like something like this:

Thank god we are increasingly seeing that social science is behind all of this, not the technology and the number of followers. I’ve been shouting until I’m blue in the face about this and, to be truthful, I’m getting really bored of it. We forget that humans have been social networking for over 250 000 years. We really do seem to live in a time where no one remembers, we think we are where it starts. I heave a huge sigh at these moments.

The difference between a network and a community is that a community is about participation, engagement, collaboration and co creation. Networking is about the connections around a common mutual interest, that is all. Social networks tend to magnify whatever they are seeded with, yet they don’t necessary deal with depth and meaning. Klout can’t measure that simply just by the number of RT’s you have.

Klout and their equally tiresome competitors measure the volume of connection not depth of those connections. Klout measures social networking which is not, we know structured, or effectively arranged yet. Can they do this once we start arranging our networks into particular configurations that enables them to do more ‘real’ things? Klout rewards people still working independently or a disconnected group of people (that’s ok) but it doesn’t yet measure a specific set of connections. It seriously doesn’t.

We still have a long way to go. A social network is something that grows organically, once you start structuring that network it becomes a community and that’s a slightly different matter. Well actually, in our experience, its a whole different matter.

For me Klout, Peerindex and Kred don’t allow us to understand how the whole comes to be greater than the sum of its parts and I’d be very cynical about anything totally algorithmic measuring my influence when actually we know there are generally only ‘Three Degrees of Influence’ ie: the further you go from you at the centre of influence down your connection, tree the less influence you have. Go to any great University in the world who have a specialist social science department and they will blow Klout etc out of the water with their ability to really show you how you influence your network. But, of course that costs and we like free! We like free so much, we now believe that with free you get quality, even if it throws out the wrong stuff.

And, the big problem, yes the big problem is they only measure your activity on the ‘Big 4′ networks. Striking naivety that is high on the continuum of flabbergast! As we know this is increasingly irrelevant as people migrate to niche networks. That’s why you’d find me more likely to invest in the new ‘Friends Reunited’ site (only joking) than Facebook or Klout, because these influence sites are based on flawed science and therefore will ultimately fail. Why? Because humans eventually, even if it takes years, are good at catching on to crap!

Oh and on definitions of social capital you can’t do better than read articles by Putnam, Halpern and Burt. Klout measures connection not the depth of influence. Its just not sophisticated enough for me and never will be. Too much shallowness not enough science, as usual!

When I saw these shoes recently in Oxford Street in London, it occurred to me that all shoes do principally the same thing: they protect your feet from the pavement and keep them warm, although some also make a fashion and cultural statement. So while all shoes are different (these ones especially!) they basically do the same thing. It’s the same with humans. Seriously, I am me and no one else, which is how it’s meant to be. Unfortunately, too often we limit our knowledge and experience of someone by comparing them to someone else. It’s meant to simplify our thinking, but actually it complicates it and creates bad decision making.

I’ve been frustrated by the number of people who have tried to compare my new company to others. No, we are not the new Facebook, and we never want to be!  But why do people do that? A new band emerges and they are heralded as the next Oasis. How long will it be before the next diva is called the new Whitney Houston? We’ve all experienced older family members extolling how much we look like great aunt Freda (I made that one up, but you get my point.)

It’s no secret that I’ve kicked back against the major social networks marketing so aggressively recently – that’s my choice. I left Facebook not only because of that, but because I was bored of the relentless repetitive posts and the lack of publishing awareness of the people I was connected to. I know that’s harsh, but even I don’t want to know everything my friends are up to, especially when the posts tend to be utopian when in reality life is not!

However, there is nothing like a little break of a couple of days by the sea in the heat to get you to think differently and to accept that the honeymoon period is over and that the whole social media sector is not just fragmenting, it’s rationalising itself. Therefore, I am going to make some changes to how I approach my social media activity. Some people will find that strange, annoying, baffling and stupid, but others will be thankful, according to the feedback I’ve been getting. Making the change was helped by several clients and people I’m connected to, who suggested it in 2011. They lauded me when I shared my thinking and said, “Thank God,” and, “At last.”

So how will I use each channel in future? 

To make money you have to sell something, yet we seem to have become obsessed with the word ‘free’ on the internet – free content, free platforms, free products, free blogs, free uploads, free sharing and, well, just lots of free stuff. No wonder it’s a little noisy and we’re all wearing headphones. The SOPA debate about copyright, intellectual property (IP) and freedom of speech will run as long as the IP lawyers can make money out of it, and anyhow it’s not the focus of this article. Free has different meanings!

Let’s get a few things straight: free isn’t sustainable and doesn’t work in the long run. In fact, in some cases it’s just bullshit! People who complain that they aren’t making money out of their blog or social media activity are usually giving away too much for free. It’s time to put our capitalist hat back on and start monetising the communities we have grown. The market place is maturing and, thankfully, growing up.

‘Collaboration’ is a word that is being thrown around the global playground of work presently. As a word it is overused, but as a concept it is underutilised in many ways. Frankly, most of us mistake ‘collaboration’ for ‘partnership’ or ‘strategic alliance’. So why is this word that is difficult to say when you have had a glass of wine or two becoming common terminology in offices, laboratories, factories, studios and even whole fields across the globe?

Over the last 30 years we have slowly moved from organising and re-organising production systems, industrial relations, factories and procedures to understanding and facilitating ideas that are shared and developed using collaborative methods that we still do not understand the power of. The most significant catalyst has been mass adoption of the web, in the western world at least. Not only has it removed geography, it is enabling mass participation and mass innovation.

Its an ordinary day, but you’re doing something special; you’re meeting friends for a coffee in a store down town. You’re chatting, you’re gossiping, you’re catching up,  discussing the merits of disposable nappies or, the latest offering from a mobile network company. Suddenly, right there next to your table somebody starts walking up and down with a placard showing the brand name of those companies on it you have been talking about. You laugh at it, you try to ignore and after a few moments become irritated by it.

Then, even ruder, you’re having a conversation about your next holidays in New Zealand and up pops a message board right there in the middle of the table. It might be quirky to begin with, even fun, but eventually that interruption becomes nothing short of bombardment. That’s what and will happen on a fundamental basis in the future. And it won’t stop there. That person that was walking up and down with the placards with the nappy brand on it, was discreetly looking through your handbag taking data that will help that same person market to you when you’re sat on the loo and on the intercom in your new car when ‘social’ introduces itself to the driving experience. Welcome to in real life what Facebook and Twitter are doing to you online. Of course you know that.

Most of us would admit that when Facebook launched way back in 2004, it was a game changer. It stole the show and created demand for social networking, which individuals across the world didn’t know they needed. In the last year, though, Facebook has changed, as it becomes busy fulfilling the demand not of its users but of the brands that drive its revenue and shareholder value, other brands will see that the gate has opened and the horse has bolted! Opportunities are everywhere, and everything can be remade. Unthink is just one of the first out of the traps.

Facebook’s changes in the last few weeks are just tweaks. Seriously, they’re not revolutionary. When Henry Ford brought the first mass-produced motor car to the market in 1908 it changed the world, but since then the industry has just been fiddling with the original design. When James Dyson launched a snazzy new vacuum cleaner it was a game changer, but since then all they have been doing is fine tuning.