The measurement of social media, or rather the lack of it, is a topic that promises to be carried over to 2009 too. I shared this article last week on Twitter, because i felt it voiced most of what I felt on ‘authority’ in social media. Coincidentally, I was also checking out Twitority – an ‘authority based Twitter search’ engine, at the same time. The first article lead me to Chris Baskind’s post on the same topic. Though I’m sorely tempted, I’m going to refrain from using block quotes from that post, because its an excellent read and you should make the effort of clicking the link and reading it all yourself. 🙂
The new search engine has used the number of followers as a measure to decide authority. TechCrunch promptly suggested the number of RTs (ReTweet) as a better indicator. But while it does place more importance to the tweet than the tweeter, I agree that the number of RTs is just a function of the number of followers. IMHO, we’re barking up the wrong tree – popularity instead of authority. Are they connected? Yes. Are they the same? No.
If they were the same, Twitter users should still be cheering newspapers and television and all those thingies which we call mass/traditional/heritage media, because they obviously have more ‘followers’ than the aggregate of all Twitter users. But yes, you noticed that Twitter did add a bit of value during the Mumbai events (most recently). So there’s something that’s different about this social mechanism. There’s a uniquely customised experience that we build for ourselves on social media over a period of time. Like Chris Baskind says so wonderfully in his closing “the ad hoc nature of social media atomizes traditional concepts of authority. We may establish trusted networks, but it’s the relevance of information which really matters.”
Shefaly threw a good pointer when she replied to my article share with a link to a post of her own. Among other things, she discusses the ‘quality of interactions’, and a four point selection criterion that she uses to ‘follow’ people, but the most important part of the article to me, was the reference to the strategic intent behind what we do on social media. (I’d argue with her on the finer points she raises on this, primarily because of the geography independence that separates virtuality from reality, but I’d completely agree that intent should drive everything else)
A personalised, trusted network that gives me contextually relevant info (among other things) is what I get out of social media, and to me, ‘authority’ somehow just doesnt capture the way I feel about this very human network. And its not just the term. It makes me feel that maybe we are guilty of taking the term ‘follower’ a tad too literally. In trying to be ‘thought leaders’ and such, the human ego is perhaps trying to thrust upon social media a set of metrics which don’t belong. Authority reminds me of circulation, readership, listenership, viewership, and so on. Maybe its just me, but haven’t we walked that path before? Lets try a different path please.
until next time, desperate measures?
PS. Check ‘Mumbai’ on Twitority and you might get a clue on where ‘authority search’ will lead us
PPS. 2009 (for now) will see this blog with an altered content strategy. The 3 posts per week are being cut down to 2 – one each on Monday and Thursday, but I shall try to post a few interesting links in addition to this. Please don’t sulk 🙂
…and on the blog today, a post on twitter and authority http://tinyurl.com/9cjt83
There is ‘ad hoc’/ ephemeral and there is the permanent.
I would say issue-based high profile (without naming names, some people on Twitter took it as a licence to self-promote and broadcast all their MSM work, post-Mumbai! An inelegant exercise in hustling does not make one an authority) is very different from reputation which transcends ephemeral issues.
Although in my peer group (barring self-described social media ‘experts’) I am unusually active in social media, I would say that 9 out of 10 my clients do not care for my ‘Twitter’ authority at all. They care for my authority on issues of concern to them. In other words, the ‘internet people’ can get a bit too navel-gazing for their own good. Yonder lies an unexplored world, the kind that pays and makes big bucks which has no truck with web-based authority at all. Such is life!
PS: Thanks for the hat tip. Those 4 criteria for ‘following’ were cited yesterday in a Twitip post too; apparently Problogger retweeted my tweet announcing those criteria (now there is an unsubtle plug – deriving authority from being cited by one of the most respected bloggers and Twitter users!) 😉
Hmmm, i agree on the mumbai part.. disgusted me to see usually sane people out to milk the event…. but unfortunately, the real world is taking social media seriously, and it is easy for the self proclaimed authorities to carry this tag on to the real world at least in the case of social media… and there lies my fear.. i had better hopes for social media, its citizens and its proponents… too much of idealism, i guess 🙁