As I have mentioned before, my thinking with Klout it could be viewed as providing an opportunity to build credibility in respect of a particular topic. The theory is that a high number of +Ks in “Brain Tumor” demonstrates at least that you are vocal on topics related to brain tumors and perhaps even influential.
Now, I will the first to admit that Klout can be gamed – lot’s of people trade +Ks such that the determination of whether a +K should be awarded is not based on any substantive or qualitative content. So, Klout alone is not a particularly accurate measure of influence, but, when added to other things, forms one of the building blocks needed to build credibility. In other words, in terms of assessing a person’s expertise in a topic on social media is one touch point.
Everyone on Twitter has a profile and an influence score on Klout.com. My approach to things like this where there is no apparent way to opt out is to embrace it and learn best hoe to use it to some advantage, no matter how small.
Why do I even care about credibility when it comes to #BrainTumorThursday tweets? Looking at some of the key purposes of the twitter brain tumor awareness effort, we try to promote awareness and educate. Anything that can improve my influence and credibility makes my tweets more compelling and less the rants of a single twitter user. In short, I don’t want to be dismissed as someone who has anything of value to add to a brain tumor discussion.
So, to the extend that claims of influence about brain tumors can be validated by Klout pronouncements, I see managing my Klout profile to suggest a high level of influence with respect to brain tumors. If one has influence over a topic, it follows that they are credible and authoritative. To me, this means that Klout provides an important support role for anyone interested in leveraging Twitter and other social media tools to promote a cause.