Even the Dead Have Klout

Ok, I've been messing around with Klout, the site that tries to tell me how much I matter and how much of a shit people give about what I say on social networks. After joining and posting a Klout-generated tweet, I quickly deleted it, realizing the implicite narcissism behind such a notification. My friend Mark Loiseau quickly intercepted it and rightfully replied, "I saw your awful Klout tweet so I logged in since it's been a while and it says 'Klout believes you are influential about Moms.'"

I'm currently in the networker tier, with a score of 45… six points higher than NYC Taxi and Limousine Commissioner David Yassky – originally responsible for publishing a coherent breakdown of NYC's budget on the net. (If you're a New Yorker, you might recall his face popping up those TVs in the back of cabs.)

Klout will be three years old this September, and having just announced 2,000 additional partners in its past year, I scratch my head as to why they're still in beta.

The graphs on Klout's site frame individuals in a similar style of credit bureau reporting. But while Experian, Equifax and Transunion charge monthly fees to track that all-important number which can greatly affect consumers, I want to think that watching my Klout score rise shouldn't produce the same endorphine rush I get from seeing my FICO score heal.

Klout scores range from 1-100, and in the earlier stages of membership, it gets arbitrary: When you first log into Klout – unless you're a celeb, social media queen, or public figure (in which case the score is predetermined higher) – you are given a set of 'quests' to help up your score and win freebies (quests include linking your Twitter and other social media accounts).

Klout graphs data a la 'Facebook-Wall Street,' reporting 30-day highs and lows. But how can these measurements happen in such real time? As the old saying goes, any publicity is good publicity: So, when Justin Bieber might throw a slug and Chris Brown will shut down a club overnight, print media alone should theoretically curate a swarm of new visitors and followers – not the same 15-year-olds – to their Twitter accounts, thus boosting scores by the number of people they supposedly 'influence.'

So, it's not as if Klout is validating virtue or greatness, but contagiousness. Charles Manson would probably go into a K-hole with Bieber if he could somehow sell his string puppets by tweeting about his Etsy.

Can real monetization be made of someone's 'influence?' Apparently so. Here's a report of how Klout scores affected candidates in a job hire process, which is mostly surprising in that Klout was actually being used in the vetting proccess.

Last fall, NYTimes took readers past the velvet rope, introducing glitzy socialites who were sourcing the site to create VIP lists. Now, I don't share these to down Klout's clout; social influence can't be an easy measurement, especially when you're tossing K at people just for linking up a stagnant Google+ profile. I see hope for better accuracy and dynamism with Klout. (It should at least be easier than having IBM's Watson tell us how Francis Bacon paintings make him feel.) But until they bounce out of Beta, and more people feel like opening accounts, let's check out what Klout Beta has to say about influencers, dead or alive:

I wonder how Klout would look on the Bloomberg Machine.

• Thank You Klout.com For Giving My Life Meaning
• Your Online Influencer Score Is Your New Credit Score
• Propaganda Posters For the Social Network War