Therein lies the real problem with Klout. While its Topics feature is an intriguing attempt to add a much-needed contextual layer to its linear scoring and might have some long-term potential (most likely as acquisition bait, to complement PostRank or Radian6?), overall, it's a pretty useless, Foursquare-style gamification of the worst aspects of Social MEdia.
In publishing, every day it seems there's a new upstart or three that's going to disintermediate (or even better, KILL!) traditional publishers, but with the exceptions of Open Road Integrated Media and, possibly, Ruckus Media Group -- notably, both are run by major publishing veterans and have partnerships with a variety of "traditional" publishers -- you'd be hard-pressed to name too many others that have had any truly notable impact to match the hype surrounding them.
Basically, Amazon one-upped Barnes & Noble's Read In-Store feature that allows Nook customers to "read NOOK Books FREE for up to one hour per day" in any of their 700+ stores, and put the exact same feature in every Kindle customer's living room via 11,000+ public libraries, without the physical and timing limitations.
Most magazines, print and digital, are little more than advertising platforms whose readers are defined as “targets”, valued in quantity over quality, and when the advertising revenue stream dries up, the magazines usually fold, readers be damned.
In the pre-digital days, influential media brands like Cosmopolitan and Vogue were one of the primary gateways for marketers to connect with consumers. They offered an attentive audience that would have been difficult for most marketers to gather without investing heavily in staff and infrastructure. Today, those media brands are no longer primary gateways, and marketers aren't nearly as reliant on them to reach their desired audience as they used to be as they now have cost-effective tools at their disposal to engage directly with consumers.
Book publishers, on the other hand, have traditionally either focused on "digital" as a secondary medium, or worse, not even as a distinct medium at all, simply a fascimile or marketing channel for their print products. In doing so, they've effectively positioned themselves for easier disintermediation, being seen as container manufacturers instead of content curators and community organizers.
"Editorial control" is a four-letter word in my book. It's a legacy of the pre-participatory era, and journalists, editors, authors, etc. who fight to maintain it, or the illusion of it, are spitting into the wind that should be filling their sails. Credibility is more important than control, and that comes from your community.