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.

In some ways it is surprising that the Syrian uprising is being covered to the extent it is in the UK broadcast media.

Yes, the events in Syria are marking a radical shift in thinking and politics in the Arab world.  Yet with so little substantiated news it is surely very hard for this story to dominate news agendas as it should.

There have been no iconic images such as the one of Neda Agha-Soltan, the young women who lost her life protesting against the almost certainly fraudulent Iranian elections results two yeas ago.

And with next to no verifiable footage taken within Syria, independently minded journalists banned by the Assad regime have to rely on the accounts of refugees streaming across international borders.

In Turkey, President Erdogan, who has been building up strong economic and political ties with Assad’s regime has offered refugees from the town of Jisr al-Shughour – which has been the target of a concerted military assault – protection on the understanding they do not talk about their experiences to journalists keen to update reports.

So when the established media cannot report there is a vacuum.

It is left up to citizen journalists such as Amina Abdallah Arraf al-Omari, a 25-year-old gay woman in Damascus to tell the world what is going on.

Amina, within a few short months, was able to give an insight that no journalists could.

The blog was attracting hundreds of thousands of hits, and no doubt was used as a source by many reporters.

Then Amina was abducted, but by whom?  No one was sure although one of the many branches of the Syrian secret police or security services must have been involved – an online campaign to free her resulted.

However, it has been unmasked as a hoax, a complete fraud.

It was the work of a US student residing in Edinburgh, Tom MacMaster and possibly his partner Britta Froelicher (although MacMaster now claims it is his work alone).

Even the pictures of Amina were stolen from the Facebook page of a Croatian girl living in London who had no connection to the material being used on the blog.

MacMaster had the gall to explain his deception:  “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground. I do not believe that I have harmed anyone – I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about.”

There are many issues raised by such behaviour but I want to concentrate on just one:  The reliance of news sources where there is no legal or editorial safeguards to ensure a commitment to follow standards of integrity and professionalism.

Of course no news outlet is free of bias, but the issue with Citizenship Journalism is that those basic standards we expect from a news source might be there or not, through design or lack of it.

This is one reason why established media outlets such as national newspapers do not have to feel threatened when there seems to be others with greater access, speed or credentials disseminating news.

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.

I managed to blag myself for my blog into a Manchester Digital Development Association / Pro-Manchester meet at Halliwells this week.

The title was earning a buck in the digital age and the subject was the misunderstanding / better ways to co-operate between the professional services and digital sectors.

The panel included:

Coral Grainger – Manchester Knowledge Capital

SimonWharton – PushON

Phillip Hemsted – Psycuity

Shaun Fensom – Manchester Digital

Steve Kuncewicz – Halliwells

Nick Rhind – CTI

And was hosted by Nick Jaspan of How-Do

I want to concentrate on how professionals services view digital suppliers.

However, the opening of the debate was about digital agencies using professional services firms. 

Nick Rhind of CTI I think summed up by saying that there is a lot of good information freely available online, however if you take shortcuts and rely on it you can get burnt – sometimes it really pays to have professional services advice in more ways than one.

Fees can be exorbitant and Steve Kuncewicz of Halliwells did point out that to work with digital agencies that law practices would have to “cut their cloth accordingly.”

Paul Jefferson also of Halliwells also made it clear that it is common for lawyers to offer fixed fees, so the perception that fees are an unknown quantity is essentially untrue in many cases.

Onto professional services firms hiring digital agencies:

Simon Wharton made a strong point that there is a “huge disjoint” between PS and digital.  Simon continued that many lawyers and finance professionals see digital as a “passing fad” and do not see the “threat from others that understand digital.”

Nick Rhind and Simon Wharton both said it was important to talk to people, off and online, before engaging them to build trust – digital being a way of starting this key part of the buying process.

I have to say I echoed Simon’s points in a question I made, which brought the attentive eyes of the gathered legal fraternity fixed upon me.  However on reflection I now know both sides have their cultures and issues and there is misunderstanding of each other’s standpoints – I have changed my views accordingly.

Paul Jefferson stated that the legal profession was very risk averse and that is how it needs to be: engaging in social media needs to be carefully considered.

After the debate I had a bit of tea in a nearby establishment and discussed the issues with Pauline Rawsterne of Turquoise PR.  I was roundly but gently told that anyone seeking higher level legal services would seek out advice from trusted legal professionals that had been used for years or were given the highest recommendations – not through Twitter or a blog!!

She continued that lawyers – and this met Paul Jefferson’s point- are risk averse and social media does not tally in with that, how can you let someone tweet or blog in case they give away key information unintentionally.  It has to be carefully controlled.

Pauline said that lawyers often wanted PR and marketing, they know their own minds, and they are acting with a thought out rationale in relation to marketing services.

So – deep breath – there is a chasm of understanding between both sides and one which I appreciate a bit more now.

I have worked with a tax accountancy on its PR and social media successfully, but perhaps this is a more unusual case in terms of what professional services practices are prepared to be engaged in.

I rounded off talking to Coral Grainger of Manchester Knowledge Capital and Richard Simpson of Tayburn, which in itself  makes such events worthwhile.

Anyway, thank you to Halliwells for their hospitality, to MDDA and Pro-Manchester, and to the panel and all participants.

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

Wow!: a cross between techie, photo-journalist and Sgt Bilko (in the nicest possible way of course – he is one of my TV heroes) Christian Payne, AKA Documentally, gave us an insight into how to get the most out of Twitter.

I thought it might be a run through and at a level for beginners (although Phil Birchenall had of The White Room had tried to describe how amazing Christian is in conveying the power of social media).  It did turn out to be a tremendously interesting hour.

Alright onto business: What did I learn?  Where do I begin?  Let’s see.

Christian is a one man media kit: he carries around a range of items to record photos / video / audio and this content is transmitted with almost immediate unhindered effect to Twitter.  From there an interview, for example, will be re-tweeted from his lists and followers.  The viral effect sounded tremendous, if not a little frightening in its potential.

Christian said that 75% of his activity was through Twitter, which he said was the most powerful and cherished tool he has because:

• Of the feedback loop as alluded to above
• Easy to access (no barriers like Facebook)
• The potential for conversation

If you add the fact that Twitter is growing at 1382% a year (and these figures he quoted are 3 months old) then the potential gets more exciting; Facebook by comparison, if I have remembered properly has 182% growth.

Christian gave the following advice on using Twitter:

• Lists are most important than followers because they help identify your interests and put like minds in contact – so check out your followers’ lists
• Nurture your followers
• Christian was very enthusiastic about using the iPhone, particularly Audioboo, to further how you harness Twitter.  His interviews are conducted through the phone although he puts a prop on it to make it look like a microphone.

And communication technologies to look out for in the future?

• Augmented reality
• Changes in search – but he didn’t expand on this point
• Google deep-tagging for video and audio tagging – if you produce content you will be able to see who has infringed on copyright.

If my piece seems a bit confused, perhaps piecemeal, well the hour was a whirlwind. I think you can only get an insight into how Christian uses social media – it takes a little longer to take it all in.

If I could spend a day with Christian I think I would grow in my understanding of social media techniques at the rate comparable to what I could learn in a month of being self-taught.

Thanks to DMEX and North West Vision and Media for organising.

If the branding and page tool bar has gone on this page please let me know, it could just be my browser.

I had to do this, if only to use the image.

(Unfortunately I do not have the skills to airbrush myself – never mind).

The election will be almost upon us and as sure as summer used to herald the thwack of willow on hippy or crusty, the election will have that most weary of images: senior politicians pointing up at unconvincing posters, surrounded by photographers clicking away as though the public could not wait to read about it next day in the papers.

There are exceptions.  Saatchi and Saatchi’s Labour Isn’t Working had a touch of genius and was devastatingly effective.

But even I hoped this specimen might have dampened enthusiasm for the thrusting billboard campaign, I am disappointed:

I prefer:

Back to the serious point after these cheap jibes.  The conversations online are affecting the effectiveness of the traditional billboard.  This can be seen no more clearly than with my www.davidcameron.com

Within the time it takes to make a spoof, a campaign in “the real world” can be derided and scuppered, indeed work against the party in question.

Suddenly communications are more integrated and multi-channel than some imagined.

I expect when a political commentator asks will the election be fought online the answer from the “expert” should be it will be fought everywhere, and especially online.

You might know this quote from Dr Zhivago – the film version, not the novel; I believe the novel does not contain that phrase. (Uttered by Pasha Antipov played by Tom Courtenay in the film if you want to check next time it is on TV, which is every Easter or Christmas).

That was about the Russian Revolution,which I am not sure  ever succeeded in its aim to dominate all aspects of an individual’s life.

The social media revolution seems to be inadvertently achieving it, or at least blurring the line between private and working lives as soon as you engage in it.

My opening is a little journalistic but a few days ago a business contact asked to be accepted onto my Facebook circle of friends.  I have not replied.  I don’t like saying “no” but this is not the place to engage with someone you know only in a business context: I really do use it for informal personal communications by and large.

I didn’t think much more of it until Matthew Goldsbrough a marketing consultant was speaking at a recent Manchester Chamber meeting about social media.

Matthew made the exact point that our work and private lives cannot be compartmentalised anymore, certainly not as we might wish.

We all know stories about someone misbehaving on holiday or saying something a little too frank about their boss on their Facebook or Bebo page and losing his or her job, or indeed having an offer for one withdrawn.  These stories having been doing the media rounds for years, so there is little surprise to be really had.

The realisation that “I am a brand” – a concept I do not like or completely agree with seems to be being imposed upon me.  But there it  is, if you aim to use social media for work you have to accept that your marketing, image and reputation do not get put on hold when you leave the office after a hard day’s work.