The ink on the contract hasn't dried yet, but the owners of luxurious shops on the Champs Elysées are popping their best champaigns already, for they expect massive increase of their sales: the Beckhams are moving to the city of light! David Beckham has signed an 18-month deal with Paris Saint Germain, for €800 000 a month. The majority of his income however, comes from sponsor deals. Good for €17 million a year. 3 million from Adidas alone. Not bad for a 38 year old who 'cannot kick with his left foot, cannot head a ball, cannot tackle and he doesn't score many goals,' according to George Best.
Is Becks worth it? Sportively? No way. PR-wise for PSG? Peut-être.
But is he worth 3 million for Adidas? Let's check.
Bend it like Beckham
A simple equation would be: if people buy Adidas gear because of David Beckham, and they buy so much of it, that Adidas can get a 3 million profit out of it, Becks is worth his money. Think of it: a €3 million profit.
Problem. We simply don't know. When people buy a pair of football boots, the cashier doesn't ask him what influenced his decision. The soft metrics from traditional media don't help us out either. Adidas might be Top of Mind, likable and what have you, that still doesn't tell us if Beckham sells shoes.
In other words: we can't really know whether David Beckham is influencing the decision process in the buying of sporting gear.
Or can we?
Yes we can. Or at least, we can compare value for money when it comes to influence.
Meet Klout.
The crowd has klout
Klout measures influence on social networks. What's more: Klout has a hands-on definition of influence. They define influence as the 'ability to drive action.' They express that influence in a number between 1 and 100. They even try to define the areas in which you're influential. It's based on retweets on Twitter, likes on Facebook, number of followers etcetera. You can connect up to 12 Social Media platforms.
So let's check: what kind of Klout has Becks got?
The score is a disapointing 44. That's better than average (20 is the average score), but it's nowhere near the starfactor you'd expect. To put things in perspective: yours truly has a Klout score of 54. So George Best is right again: scoring isn't Becks fort. But how come? I mean, I'm flattered and all, but I don't think a lot of teenage girls have a poster of me in their bedroom. And there's no spice girl in my bedroom either. So Klout is flawed?
Simple answer? No.
The social media manager of Becks should be fired. The reason David has a rather low score, is that only Twitter is taken into account. And David doesn't even have an official twitter page.
On the other hand: he has nearly 15 million fans on Facebook. That's comparable to Britney Spears. And she does have a Klout score. La Britney had a mind-boggling Klout score of 88. But what does that mean? Where does the score come from?
3 factors determine your Klout score: True Reach (the number of people you influence), Amplification (how much you influence these people), Network (not your immediate influence, but that of your network).
Typically, celebrities have an enormous True Reach, and a low Amplification. Britney influences 769 000 people, but only influences them for 11%. Again, to put things in perspective: I influence 1000 people, but for 44%. (We leave Network out of the equation, because we don't know their Amplification.)
Let's suppose Beckham is not an exception to the celebrity rule. Meaning big True Reach, low Amplification. Say he influences 800 000 people for 10%. That equates to 80 000 people at a 100%. For €3 million. Meaning those 80 000 people would have to generate €37,5 in profit per year.
Do they? That is something Adidas probably does know. I think they might. So maybe David Beckham is worth his money for the brand. But the brand might wonder if investing in its 11.453.672 Facebook fans wouldn't be a better investment. The combined Klout of that crowd will outscore Beckham anytime anywhere.
Even George Best would agree.