Up the Klout

I have just read an article by J-P De Clerck on how important or successful Klout is as a measure for social media influence (find it here). It got me thinking.

Before I start waxing lyrical on my thoughts on Klout, I should first stress that I do use Klout and check it a great deal — my reasons for this will be explained throughout this post.

There is no shortage of discussions surrounding Klout, which bills itself as 'The standard for influence' — notice 'the' not 'a', as far as Klout is concerned it is the only measure. This is important because if Klout can gain the monopoly in its field then it gains the coverage and measure needed to rank people more effectively. If half of people use Klout and the other half use PeerIndex, for example, then the measure is harder if they do not follow the same algorithm, which I assume they don't. This is a major flaw. Not everyone uses, or cares, about their score. Equally, people may use other measures. So the scores are not necessarily comparable, despite people's desire to make them as such — I have a higher score than the MD of one of the largest PR firms in the country, but I bet he's quite a bit more influential than I am! The score measures that I influence people (read 250 people) on social media more than he does, yet he is more influential than me. The score is within a niche area and not necessarily indicative or comparable to other people.

That's the fundamental flaw with Klout. That and the fact that it is a business, so has every need to maximise exposure and make more money by engaging more people.

But, I find Klout exceptionally useful for what I do, and here is my explanation. I am a job-seeker, looking to work in PR, in particular to work in digital. For this purpose I use Twitter a great deal to stay abreast of developments, discussions, topics, controversies, jobs, movements. And, more than that, I use Twitter to network and engage with the industry in a way I could not do any other way — see my previous entry on 'Tweeting you way to the Door'. I've even started taking a screen grab of my morning score to job interviews to show that I am aware of the ways in which the digital sector moves.

The reason that Klout is so useful for this is that I can see whether I'm doing it right. That is not to say my score reflects my successes, if it did I'd probably be writing this on a company blog as opposed to my own. But, it shows whether I'm using social media in the way I need to be using it: to network.

I know that to get noticed I need to be engaged, but engaged with the right people. If all I did was tweet about my lunch-time sandwich filling and was followed by fellow sandwich lovers then my score would potentially be huge but only within the specific area of sandwiches.  As it is, my area is digital and I tweet about it. For that reason, Klout works for me because I can see that I am engaged in the digital world by looking at my digital score. If someone was influential about digital but had a woeful Klout score...well, I can't fathom it, it isn't possible. If you are genuinely engaged with something and are influential about it then, were there to be a measure, you would rank highly on it. Klout, then, is relevant to me because it is a measure of what I want to be measured by: my engagement with the digital world.

I don't go lauding my score around as a way of saying 'look how awesome I am, hows about we draw up a contract and I'll start on Monday', I use it as a way of saying 'I tweet, and I tweet relevant, engaging content that shows a passion and connection with what it is I am here to talk to you about'. Is that such a bad thing?

If my Klout score drops by a few points it isn't a huge deal (though my vanity suffers). If it rises, again it isn't a huge deal. What is more important is the consistency. I got Klout when my score was around the mid-twenties, it now sits in the high forties and has done for nearly 6 months. This means more to me than the score now: the consistency of my score. If I tweeted something that went viral and my Klout score shot up to 76 for a day before crashing back down to wherever, that isn't helpful as a measure, it just says you said something a lot of people thought was great. But, if your score stays level it means you're consistently delivering relevant and interesting content for people to engage with, which is surely the foundation of digital media; not to do one great thing, but to do it on the foundation of consistency and reputation.

On this basis I find Klout a useful tool because it measures what is relevant to me: digital media. If there was a sandwich equivalent for the sandwich networking site 'FaceWich' then that would be great if you were searching for a career in sandwiches. Make sense?

Whether or not Klout is applicable to PR, Marketing, SEO in general is not something I could argue for or against. But, whether Klout is good for digital media, I certainly think it serves a very specific and useful, if not necessarily comprehensive, purpose that I buy into and use to support my hunt for employment within than industry. The point is, if you're passionate about something you should know enough to be influential about it too; therefore a measure of influence is a great tool when it measures the right factors.

Got another take on Klout? Think I'm as wrong as the idea of a sandwich networking site? Leave a comment and we'll see if we can't get a discussion going. 

Top 20 Twitter feeds for Wannabe PRs

As many of you will already know I am on a (currently unsuccessful) quest to land myself a job in PR. I recently wrote a post about how I have been using Twitter to network, engage, and secure interviews — and at some incredible companies too!

Something I neglected to mention properly during that blog post was regarding Twitter's other benefit: information. What we are so lucky to have access to is, quite simply, the world of PR at our fingertips. You don't need someone on the inside to be able to keep up with what is going on in the world of PR. With The CIPR Conversation, the many blogs out there (a few of which can be found to the right of this post), and the constant stream of Tweets all divulging information, opinion, debate, changes, and trends within the industry, we as career-seekers can be as informed as the most seasoned pro. But, only if you know where to look.

I decided to compile a list of the best Twitter feeds for wannabe PRs to follow as they continue the difficult task of securing their dream job. There are a plethora of 'top PRs to follow', 'top journalists to follow in ', and variations thereon, but from what I can ascertain this is the first list specifically for people wanting to break into PR — yes, I am making my own life difficult by sharing this information with "rivals", but share and share a like and all that.

I should stress that this list is a work in progress and I strongly encourage input from anyone and everyone who knows something this list would benefit from having added.

In no particular order:

1 - MediaComUK Publisher of the MediaComUK Daily, this is a great feed that condenses many of the major stories and information into one 'paper'. Tweeted daily without fail this is a reliable and informative feed to follow.

2 - Bill Stoller Essentially this is a relentless stream of useful articles and tips from social media to writing great copy. Very handy for keeping track of the basics.

3 - Steve Rubel Another feed of useful tips and articles on how to improve and in what ways. Also a reliable re-tweeter for insightful content.

4 - Brandon Hill Comms I follow a great many PR companies from all over the country, but if I had to single out one as being incredibly useful in this capacity it would be BHC. Their feed is awash with tips, tricks, information, suggestions, comment, debate, stats and everything else. They're also exceptionally polite and you'll always get a thank you for a RT and a reply if you @mention them — sometimes it's the little things. The reason I find them so brilliant is that their feed is only courtesy and content, they aren't too concerned with hyping themselves up with 'we just won this' etc. that other companies can sometimes do too much.

5 - PR Week News Rather does what it says on the tin. News from PR and reliable RT of great content.

6 - David Kirk Another one of these feeds of relentless tips and tricks. Very useful stuff despite its American origin.

7 - Brian Solis Yet another source of tips.

8 - Mexia Communications Another company akin to Brandon Hill Comms who share content, opinion, stats and info with little else around it to distract or dilute.

9 - CIPR Though regional feeds are just as important, the CIPR feed is definitely one to add to your follows. Need I justify this?

10 - The PR Moment Sharing information, discussing, debating, RTing, commenting, and everything else useful.

11 - Heather Yaxley Extremely interesting blog writer, educator in PR who seems to answer a wealth of questions every day. Definitely worth a follow even if you have nothing to ask yourself, you'll no doubt learn something you didn't think you didn't know.

12 - Wannabe Hacks They're the wannabes from the other side of the coin. The reason they get an inclusion here is because their website is an innovative and insightful look at the journalism industry from those who will one day (possibly) come to shape it. Following the discussions, opinions, and information will perhaps one day prove vital when you're selling in a piece to the journalist you were once a wannabe with. Also, they provide an unbiased and condensed look at the journalism world few other websites do.

13 - Sharon Chan As mentioned in a previous post, Sharon is a PR mentor who has been hugely influential for me. She shares great content of her own and of other peoples and is well worth keeping an eye on for digital comms information.

14 - Rich Leigh (GoodandBadPR) Sometimes inspiring, sometimes cringeworthy, Rich Leigh of Good and Bad PR shares the PR stories that have the world of Public Relations talking. A real lesson in how to do it and how not to do it when you finally get that job.

15 - Sarah Stimson Editor of esPResso and course director for the Taylor Bennett Foundation, Sarah Stimson is a feed to follow for any wannabe as she shares content for the many interns she interacts with.

16 - The PR Pearl As with Rich Leigh, The PR Pearl shares the stories that have the PR world talking. Well worth a follow, they also RT your interesting and insightful stuff regardless of your position in the industry.

17 - Kindred Agency Along with Mexia Comms and Brandon Hill Comms, Kindred are an agency that share impartial information that isn't lost in tweets about other things. Concise and helpful, well worth following.

18 - Paul Armstrong Great guy to follow for anything digital as he knows his stuff. His blog is particularly insightful and his tweets tend to follow the same course.

19 - The PR Academy Another feed that shares debate and comment on the world of PR.

20 - Hugo the Office Dog With so many things to cover, places to look, people to contact, emails to write, CVs to polish, and smiles to put on, the job hunt can get incredibly deflating. Hugo is the office dog at 10Yetis and all round funny pooch. Expect a canine-insight into the banter of the agency office that will make you smile when inside you feel more like crying. The saviour of the wannabe PR.

This list is a work in progress, please leave comments with any feeds I have missed or haven't come across yet. Alternatively tweet me @JGOBunting and let me know to add something more.

I hope this list proves as useful to you as it has been for me and I'll see you in the boardroom next decade! #bigdreams

Tweeting your way to the door

It is hardly over emphasised just how important Twitter can, and sometimes does prove to be in the world of PR. In fact, some people have gone so far as to tell me that no Twitter = no chance of a job. It was this belief that got me onto the beloved blue bird and engaging with a world I have so much to learn about. But, Twitter went one step further than I ever thought it would. I thought no Twitter = no job. In fact, this isn't true at all; however, Twitter = opportunities!

Since embarking on this job hunt I've worked my followers up to a modest 200 people, and I follow a little short of 500 people — mainly PRs and journalists but with the addition of a few people of interest outside of my chosen vocation. I've read the lists of 'Journos all PRs should follow' and that sort of thing, and I've taken note where relevant and helpful. I also follow PR feeds that showcase the world of PR for newbies and pros a-like to engage with. Most notably 'Good and Bad PR' and 'The PR Pearl' , both of which are consistent and reliable distributors of great PR stories, events and campaigns.

It was from following all these PR related people that I got wind of the whole 'creative CV' ideas, including #airtaylor which I thought was brilliant, and inspired my own creative QR code made of coffee. Had I not been on Twitter I would have had no idea this was the way in the door, I would have spent years emailing blindly and cursing my luck.

The reason I say all of this is because I recently had a conversation with a friend about job interviews and how difficult it is to get them. In a climate of job shortages, the fresh-faced graduate is not always the most appealing candidate, and with most agencies asking for internships and work experience first — a curse if you don't live in London — then the constant silence from applications is all too real for us. But I've been lucky and have had a few interviews. How have I got these interviews? I'm sure you know the answer to that!

Simply by Re-tweeting great content, commenting on interesting tweets, sharing what you think and asking questions of the right people — put simply, engaging with the PR world — I've made the connections to at least unlock the door even if not open it and have secured several interviews and contacts.

Of all of these there is one contact who has revolutionised my career quest: enter Sharon Chan. To this day I'm still not sure how she found me, but she listed me and I DM'd her to say thank you. This simple exchange turned into innumerable emails, phone calls, texts and, ultimately, a meeting in London, all of which have proven more useful to me that I could ever have fathomed. Sharon has been incredible at helping me get everything together and do the right thing, and I think one day I'm going to have to have a life-sized Twitter bird made out of cake to send her by way of a HUGE thank you. As she says on her website, Twitter is God.

Of the interviews in particular, the beautiful girls of Truffle PR invited me in after some Twitter exchanges, and since the interview said exchanges have kept up —you can follow them here. It is a wonder what 140 characters can do for you and your job hunt in simply gaining you wonderful contacts as well as interviews.

As yet, I still haven't found a job, so this isn't a 'How to get a job in PR' type blog — the ones I read like a bible — but, all I'm pointing out is that Twitter is the way forward for anyone looking to work in PR, whether PR will move with Twitter or leave it behind.

Interestingly, there has been a lot of discussion recently regarding measures of influence such as Klout. I follow my Klout score to see how I'm doing in terms of engaging an audience, how I use my network, and also because I'm just vain enough to worry about it. However, I do agree that assigning a value to your influence is rather a risky game considering the fallibility of it all. It's not a sitting-on-the-fence opinion, I think measures do more good than harm in a complicated world where any indication is worthwhile, but I do find Klout very useful in assessing whether people are listening. If they aren't, my justification for claiming Twitter is the way to get interviews is completely flawed. Just a footnote to this method.

If we're going to make this grey into black and white, I'm not just suggesting, I'm asserting that Twitter is the way to connect with the company you want to work for in the industry you want to work in. Get Tweeting and have your interview suit dry-cleaned and ready to go at the drop of a tweet!

Early consensus on The Conversation?

The Conversation launched, buzzed, and now what? Made an impression? Filled a much needed hole in social media and online blogging? Changed the way the creative industry accesses and shares information?

I've bookmarked it, I check it most days as I do with many other blogs, and, quite frankly, I am far from captivated by it. Rather than let my tongue form too much of a barb I decided to bullet-point my impressions of it; keep it simple stupid, if you will.

• It seems to me that a lot of The Conversation is shameless self-promotion. Far from criticising self-promotion (as a graduate I need to jump on that band-wagon as much as the next job-seeker), I do, however, object to having to sift through the dust to get to the diamonds.
• The majority of decent blog posts from the big names are featured on their personal/company blogs anyway, so it seems The Conversation serves as a kind of character-limitless Twitter where people can promote their blog posts for the time they can keep them in 'recent entries'. Surely Twitter does a similar thing, right? In all honesty, I'd rather read a blog post that someone tweets about than puts on The Conversation. I say this because the people I follow on Twitter are people I follow for a reason; The Conversation has no such filter system. Is this too cynical/snobbish an opinion?
• I know there is mixed opinion regarding where the line is drawn between Marketing and PR; however, I feel The Conversation would certainly benefit from some such differentiation. Granted, I am interested in what both sides of the coin have to say, but I like to know which side of the coin I'm listening to before I engage. Could The Conversation be split a little into more specific field areas? Perhaps I'm naive, but would a tech PR really care what a marketer in finance thinks about stuff, or vice versa?
• It's a little cumbersome. Put simply, the website isn't the slickest I've ever seen, and is a little disappointing given the size and reputation of the body it serves. My main issue is the inaccessibility of past content. If I neglect to log on for a day or two, I may miss a wonderful article by someone unknown to me because it is not displayed and I cannot check up on the author since I am oblivious to them; ergo, opportunity missed.

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh. In fact, I am being a little harsh. The website is clearly still in the development stage and, no doubt, much consideration is being taken to improve it according to the feedback (positive and negative) they have no doubt received from many areas. But, I can't help but express the same concerns I first voiced upon hearing about the endeavour: should there be more exclusivity similar to a LinkedIn group, for example. More policing of content and marking of content that is irrelevant.

My last post on this topic got some great responses from a great mix of people, and one concern I particularly liked came from Lyanna Tsakiris who pointed out that exclusivity rather defeats the object of social media and networking. I agree, and realise my rather exclusivist stance wasn't ideal; but, The Conversation seems to have landed a little too close to my conservative worries. There are posts on there that bear no relevance to anything and are surely of little interest to many people. Do others share this concern?

I can't help but feel like the website needs to open up a little in terms of feedback from those who contribute. Similar to Tripadvisor, for example, where each contributor builds up a profile of involvement, if you will. If a post is irrelevant then people should be able to label it as such and put it up for verification. Equally, those contributors who most interest you should be able to be put into a kind of 'favourites' section for you to gain easy access to who you pay most attention to. Much like Twitter, you can choose to pay attention to the people who interest you, and ignore those who do not — and I mean that in the most liberal way where we are free to make those decisions ourselves.

The consensus upon launch was 'wait and see'; I wonder what people think after the initial introduction?

Getting your foot in or breaking down the door of PR?

I got wind of this when it was tweeted by award-winning agency Brandon Hill Communications; courtesy of PR Daily, this gem of an article giving tips to newbies might as well have my name written all over it. It got me thinking. As someone with at least part of a limb in the PR world through freelance work with Spear PR, and someone who is still trying to break in and get himself employed full-time, what is the best way to get ahead of the game?

I ask this because I recently got rejected from the Lexis PR grad scheme — a disappointing outcome given the effort I had made/am making — and would be particularly interested to know what the successful candidates did that I didn't. Obviously I lacked something and it would make the world of difference to me to know what that something is. I don't begrudge Lexis or the candidates who got through, after all they were asked to stand out and that is what they did, I'd just love to know how for future reference. But, the whole idea of standing out is changing at a rapid rate. No longer do you just need a degree and some decent social skills, for example. Now it seems you need to CV to end all CVs, your own website perhaps, maybe even someone on the inside. The point I'm getting at is, in the grander scheme of things, are you more likely to get employed by getting your foot in the door with internships and placements, or is breaking down the door with presents and personal websites?

I should stress, I'm not suggesting that it is so black and white that either of these is a direct route, nor that you require either of them, but there is a sense in which you have to be special to stand out in a saturated graduate market.

It was this very thought back in September that lead to the incorporation of Spear PR. Stand out from the crowd, show initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, throw yourself in the deep end. It seemed such a brilliant plan. But there are times I question it; not the (ad)venture, which I've relished, but whether it is enough. Since incorporating Spear with Isobel I have got myself some swanky business cards, I have been slogging at boosting my Twitter, I fixed up myLinkedIn profile and joined various relevant groups which I participate in, I blog on here and on The Conversation, I even got myself a flash website with a downloadable CV, case study and every possible route of contact information. In summary, I'm not sure how much more I'd be able to do to boost my online presence and show the world that I have what it takes and I'm working to the ends of showing that off.

Would an infographic CV help?

I'd love to get myself one because they look great — which would certainly be better than this hilarious, but a little wide-of-the-mark effort! However, I also have a sneaking suspicion that for PR it might not be quite as effective as it is for other creative industries. Perhaps I should write a press release of myself? (This is actually something I'm going to do).

The PR Daily article I started this post with was helpful because it gave me a measuring stick to hold up against what I do, what and who I am, what I can achieve, and what I still need to do. Conclusion? Well, that has yet to reached. But I can certainly say I'm on the right track. Sadly, on the right track is the careers-guidance equivalent of not wanting to dishearten a decent candidate, which is why this question still plagues me: get my foot in the door or just break it down?

I'm thinking of doing a cost/benefit analysis of this: sending cupcakes to Brandon Hill Comms, Flowers to McCann Erickson, Barbershop Quartet to Palamedes PR, shouting my name from the rooftops followed by 'employ him'. Alternatively, I've got some work experience with Haslimann Taylor and, among other things, they will hopefully show me a way to get my foot in the market door. How to keep it there is up to me, as is how to get the rest of my leg in, but the opportunity is a great one and I'm really looking forward to showing them what I can do. Show them my toolbox, as the PR Daily article advises.

Until you've crossed the river it is impossible to give the best advice as to how to get to the other side, and I'm still walking up and down the bank waiting for the flow to subside enough, or some perfectly positions rocks/tree trunk/beaver dam to present itself as a crossing place. Until I'm on the other side looking back I, sadly, won't be able to offer an answer to this. Maybe someone who reads this can? How many careers are planned and how many are happy accidents? Or, I hope, many are happy accidents you plan on happening. Either way, I'll keep on working away and hope that the hard work pays off without the need to send a hundred red roses to the HR department of a comms company; and if I get there deliberately or through some happy accident, I'll be sure to write a letter to send back across the river to the thousands of others still waiting to cross. Hell, maybe I'll make them a youtube video and hope one of them sends me a cupcake or two — strawberry, if you please.

Will a meerkat's ambassador have Diplomatic Immunity?

It is almost impossible that anyone has escaped the whirlwind of fur that is Aleksandr Orlov. Since first appearing on our screens in January 2009, the Russian meerkat has since been given the kind of back story that makes the well-documented life of Prince William look relatively empty. He has a family tree going back generations — each meerkat in turn also having a back story — a fictional, autobiographical film about the company he is the face of — The Journey of Courageousness, The Battle of Fearlessness, and The Streets of Ambitiousness — and, as if that wasn't enough, a comprehensive website about the town in which he resides, Meerkovo (no prizes for spotting the pun). In light of all of this, and the incredible number of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter followers, I was a little short of gobsmacked to see them offering £40k for a 6 month position as the official Ambassador of Meerkovo.

Why? I found myself asking. A brand image that, to many people, is pure genius must surely be sailing along quite nicely without needing to wave a cool forty grand paycheck under some one's nose to boost the already sky-high profile. To give you a humbling statistic, the fictional Aleksandr Orlov has almost three times as many followers as ex-PM Tony Blair. I'm not saying Tony Blair should have a sizeable following, but he did run the country for a decade!

The job is advertised very simply, and one would assume it will be a very high profile brand ambassador position, being a presence at all manner of sporting and cultural events (I can't help but hope the successful candidate might be invited to the royal wedding). But, other than gallivanting around, tweeting a little bit, and living the high life on such a tidy wage for just 6 months work, what will this person bring to the brand? One suspects it is a drive to convert Compare the Meerkat followers into Compare the Market followers — ironically the meerkat's problem generated the same problem for the brand.

In the world of social media there is a colourful history of corporate blunders, the sort of blunders than can set back a brand's image years in a matter of seconds. The beauty of Mr Orlov is that, as a CGI animal with a suspicious Russian dialect, he is largely immune to social blunders — there isn't much chance of catching him with his trousers down at any time soon, so to speak. So, why would a company bring the fallibility of a human ambassador into such a successful campaign? Could this all back-fire in a moment of blissful stupidity? The speculations are endless.

But, is it possible to 'fault-proof' the lucky candidate in some way? The possibility is no doubt there, but removing the humanity from what is perhaps a ploy at enhancing humanity would be rather short-sighted for any business. Perhaps the best solution to this risk then is to hire someone less fallible than your average joe, but surely this isn't possible? The thought of a successful marketing, PR, brand ambassador leaving their job for a 6 month jaunt into the world of CGI mongooses and dodgy, if infectious, catchphrases seems a little unlikely to me. Maybe I'm too negative. If I were to put my positive hat on I might be inclined to say they will hire a graduate with some flare, some drive, and a great deal of acumen (probably more than your average graduate); after all, the deadline and interviews seem to coincide with most other creative industry graduate schemes and it would be a great opportunity for anyone starting out in that vocation. But here the problem lies: gamble on a graduate, or try to poach a professional? Tricky stuff.

The questions remain open, and maybe someone will be kind enough to answer them, but for now I've decided to find out the answers the best way possible: I've filled out my application. Ultimately, I'd be glad to be a CGI meerkat's right-hand man; he can't be more intimidating than some other bosses and, who knows, maybe that invitation to the royal wedding will come pretty soon after my first pay-check. Here's hoping.

Saturated Social Media and The Conversation

It was with a great deal of scepticism that I found out about the CIPR's new social networking venture 'The Conversation'. It is going to be the social network du choix for PRs everywhere as it compiles all the best blog posts from professionals, students, agencies, freelancers and, quite frankly, anyone who wants to join in. They claim also that it won't require the tedious task of 'friending' everyone all over again either, you simply enter your Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn/obscure social networking site details and 'The Conversation' does all the hard work in linking you up.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Well...

The reason I cited my scepticism earlier is that every time a new social networking site comes out or gains popularity I find myself wondering how helpful this actually is. Part of the brief for this new site is that it will be 'your one-stop shop' for PR practitioners. But, surely no PR is foolish enough to rely only on one site for all they need? If they did, it would be putting the blinkers on to a business that is all about the bigger picture. Granted, trawling blogs for relevant and interesting articles will now only be one click away, but isn't Google doing a rather good job of putting the world at your finger-tips anyway? If anyone can join 'The Conversation' then how do they intend on filtering the good from the bad any more than Google is able to? The mind boggles.

When I log on to the internet I check all the sites I know it is worth my while checking. Sometimes this will take two minutes, sometimes two hours; it depends entirely on what I find on each site. Surely having one more site to check is going to bring businesses to the stage where you need to employ someone to simply sit there and read post after post on 'The Conversation' and decide whether it is of any use to anybody at all.

It's not to say I don't think the CIPR are doing something worthwhile in bringing everything together into one neat package; but one has to question how useful this will prove to be in a world where everything you read must be taken with a pinch of salt. What I'm getting at is that there needs to be a filter to prevent anyone just posting rubbish which isn't helpful to anyone. The internet is already filled with pseudonyms and invented personas, so how will The Conversation avoid the problem these people can cause?

It is no surprise how many questions I pose in this entry. I find myself treating this great idea like one would treat a yacht with a hundred leaks: great to look at, but not something I would necessarily be investing time or money in.