While we are busy racking up followers, friends or connections, getting a re-tweet or comment here or there, how much do we analyse the effectiveness of our social media output?

Probably for many it is based on just that: amassing a large number of followers, with some nods towards interaction.  How else can you do it?

One free tool available on the Internet is Klout.

Simple and easy to sign-up with and use, it assesses the power of an individuals or company’s social media through algorithms that give feedback on three key elements:

How many people you influence (True Reach)

How much you influence them (Amplification)

How influential they are (Network Score)

If we take Twitter (there are other social media that can be analysed such as LinkedIn, YouTube and Facebook) I have a Klout score of 37.88 out of a possible 100, up from 34.65 a few days ago.

My true reach is 286 (rather than the nearly 800 followers I have) although I am not sure if the lists I am noted on are included, there are about 50 and range from one follower to several hundred.  It is an important point as I have more followers on lists than the almost 800 cited.

Network influence is 41 and and amplification stands at 14.

I am also influential about “lawyers, journalism and Manchester.”

I thought I saw “Alan Carr” the other day in that list, but  it must have been my imagination.

It is quite fluid system, scores can go up and down.  When I looked at “I Love Manchester’s” scores, as a test, it went up straight after the riots when many wanted to show support for the city – so first test passed.

With a claim of over 85 million Twitter accounts assessed, you are free to compare scores, quite impressive as the majority of accounts are not signed-up to Klout.

I will mention two more features.

The first is a grid, reminiscent of a marketing or business matrix.  This is an account’s “Klout style,” mine is between “casual and listening” and “focused and consistent.”  As with the other indicators comparisons with friends or rivals accounts can be made.

It adds: “You actively engage in the social web, constantly trying out new ways to interact and network. You’re exploring the ecosystem and making it work for you. Your level of activity and engagement shows that you “get it,” we predict you’ll be moving up.”

I am getting falshbacks to school reports.

The other is “Klout perks.”  If you are an influential social media operative you can try or be given gifts,  with the aim of promoting the brand – being influential on journalists and lawyers might not be helpful in this regard, but Manchester might be.

So for any PR that has to justify social media or simply for interested parties who want the gratification that their hours of tweeting are changing the world, it is a fun, easy and perhaps a useful tool.

It is a bland unimaginative invitation, lacking any effort or thought, and for me  it is becoming the most unwelcome calling card in the social media world.

We all like to be liked, and in business we like to be generally viewed as being well-connected, and what better way of doing that than having vast numbers of connections on LinkedIn?

Yet, LinkedIn is surely about relationships, not just numbers.

The real strength of LinkedIn is that you can ask your connections’ connections for introductions – an immensely powerful tool for generating new business or sourcing suppliers or associates.

Yes you can use LinkedIn to broadcast news, but there is also Twitter and e-mails and newsletters and direct marketing and press releases and websites and blogs – better options than collecting names on LinkedIn to target.

The discussions, if you have time, can be useful – I have given referrals and gained pitching opportunities through such groups.  I am not saying LinkedIn is not multi-purpose, but to link up without any connection misses the point.

So if someone is allowed to enter into your LinkedIn realm, would you be happy to make an introduction or ask for one from somone you don’t know, like and trust, with perhaps, a valuable and highly regarded contact or friend?

Yet I continue to get the standard,  “I’d like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn” from people I have never met, who have sometimes the most passing things in common.

One contact – who somehow connected with me – even asked for a testimonial even though I had never done business with him nor indeed recall meeting him!

You might like to add me to your professional network, but at least tell me why.  If you can’t I am happy for you to follow me on Twitter no questions asked.

The issue of who owns social media and how it is best applied is still being grappled with by larger enterprises.  So the SAScon debate on social media on this issues was particularly interesting.

The panel was:

Will McInnes of Nixon McInnes

Phil Jones of Brother UK

Neil Hardy of Co-Operative Travel

Ivan Croxford of BT

And Malcom Coles

I will start with a Phil Jones quote: “Social media is B2me.”

Will McInnes followed with “sustained conversation is expected with social media.”

Quite simple pronouncements, yet many big enterprises get it wrong, perhaps it is years of pushing through messages through mass media channels and not having to interact as much on a one to one basis in their marketing:  Sainsbury’s being one possible example of how difficult larger businesses fail to grasp this.

Maybe smaller concerns are more geared at establishing a one-to-one relationship.

On the question of who owns social media and how it should be applied, well, there was a multitude of answers.

I was surprised, not that I should have I suppose, that customer services was a strong candidate for ownership (as Ivan Croxford pointed out at BT customer services had embrassed social media).

My vested interests said PR.  It could be marketing as well.   But it really depends on the application.

Neil Hardy looks on Twitter as a helpline for instance.  The conclusion surely is that it it is a versatile instrument and will be used as best fits purpose?

Phil Jones again: “Social media should be integrated, should engage and lead to “marriage.”  I agree.

Malcolm Coles: “Social media helps engagement with customers that do not use current channels.”   In this alone is must be seen as essential.

What came out of the debate was a recognition – as you would expect – that social media has to be applied and that its exact role is still developing.

I will leave the last word to Malcolm Coles about the need to experiment to find out social media can be best applied: “Getting it wrong is not a disaster.”

About two years ago I published a small piece commenting on the Manchester Evening News noting a drop of several hundred thousand Facebook members.

Well, as thought the demise of Facebook or even a small drop in its popularity did not last.  It now stands at 463 million worldwide users, up from 200 million at the start of 2009.  What’s more visitors spend 261.6 minutes (per a month) compared to 178.3 minutes just a year ago.

Some more Facebook statistics to amuse and hold you in awe click here.

At the same time Bebo looks as though it will be sold or shutdown by owners AOL who paid $850 million for the site in 2008.

Figures from marketing firm comScore show the dramatic shift – Bebo’s monthly users in the UK fell by 60% from February 2009 to February 2010 to 3.8 million, while Facebook’s grew 24% over the same period to 28.1 million. MySpace fell 50% to 3.5 million.

Eden Zoller an analyst at Ovum said: “The original motive to buy Bebo made sense at the time.  In 2008 it was up and coming, growing well and had targeted and attractive demographic.  Facebook  wasn’t the huge animal it is today either.”

Lack of investment, lack of leadership, lack of innovation are cited in The Independent as some of the main reasons why Bebo has been overtaken by Facebook, which “took risks and was very focused.” (Ray Valdes VP at Gartner)

Friends Reunited suffered a similar fate to Bebo, being sold in 2009 at a fraction of the £125 million ITV paid for it in 2005.

It seems as though constant innovation and drive in social media platforms is key to their slippery hold on social networking domination.  It makes communications all the more interesting – very little stands still.

David Edmundson-Bird is a well-known figure in the NW digital world, and probably far, far beyond.

David is the programme director for Manchester Metropolitan University’s Msc in Digital Marketing Communications.

I caught up with David at SAScon to lean more – click here to hear the interview.

Wednesday was the inaugural get together of SAScon – a social media and SEO conference.

I should say the online search conference for highlighting the strength and ability and energy of the northern digital scene.

When conceived there must have been a few worries – even if not admitted now – about how much support it would receive. The organisers needn’t have worried.

As you can see from the above image it was a  packed house: some 160 attendees with speakers from across the UK and Europe came to the Bridgewater Hall in the centre of Manchester.

There were essentially two streams of seminars / panel talks: the more technical SEO and social media.  I stuck with my prime interest in social media.

I will discuss in future posts the points of some of the talks I attended.  But for now I want to make a couple of points about why I attended:

First, besides continuing my social media education, there was ample opportunity to network.

However, more impotantly in many respects – and I suspect for many attendees – it was a chance to make a statement about the strength and potential of the online community in the North West to deliver: you don’t have to go to London to have access to top digital suppliers.

By attending, digital and non-digital, be it PR or marketing, those that lent their support by simply taking out a day from busy schedules to come along made that exact statement.

Simon Wharton of search marketing agency PushON talks about search and SEO – click here to listen.

The image: Richard Gregory commented in previous post where Simon’s swearing came in on the last post, well, I hope you are satisfied.

SAScon is about to have its inaugural conference launch on 28th April at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester.

The aim is to bring talented and knowledgeable SEO and search marketing experts, from Europe and the US, in one place to deliver informative and practical advice to marketing, PR and fellow digital professionals.

It is an exciting opportunity, especially as it is in Manchester and will promote the city as a centre of digital talent.

I spoke to Simon Wharton of search marketing agency PushON, and a driving force in organising the event, on why this is a must attend and what attendees will get out of the day.

Simon Wharton explains more, click here to hear the interview. (Is that alliteration?)

I have worked with Will Kintish for two and a half years now, promoting his networking wisdom in publications ranging from The Manchester Evening News to Legal Week to The Scotsman.

Will’s enthusiasm for his subject as well as his skill in delivering talks has resulted in a client list that includes HSBC, Deloittes, KPMG and The Bank of England.

Will is known for presenting on those key fundamental face-to-face skills that are essential to business success although increasingly his time is being used to train professionals on how to get more out of LinkedIn.

I interviewed Will recently to find out why we should all be on LinkedIn and how to use it better-  click here to listen.

Martin Bryant is the digital content editor of Marketing Manchester and the editor of tech and business blog The Next Web

I met up with Martin, at Social Media Cafe Manchester, and asked him what he thought of Foursquare and its potential, here is what he had to say:

Martin Bryant Foursquare interview click here