By Andy W
I was quoted this week in PR Week postulating on the importance and usage of online social media monitoring off the back of a report that said 46% of respondents do not use reputation or any form of social media monitoring. And having reviewed three such systems very recently, I have to say I am not surprised.
While there is no doubting the importance of monitoring online reputation, the experience of reviewing left me wondering how ‘market-ready’ the technology for measuring the ‘buzz’ really is. It’s true to say that all of the various methods, algorithms, charting and analysis approaches failed to meet expectations. As might be expected, there were high points and low points in each firm’s offer but overall, the reviewing panel was left confused at best and disillusioned at worst. We were left wanting more. So were we being too idealistic or is the discipline of buzz monitoring not yet up to scratch?
There seemed to be a lack of consistency in definition for example. One of the firms (who shall remain nameless) contradicted itself when it came to defining the difference between a blog and an online media site. A certain advanced analytical service also failed to convince when its algorithm for ranking influence and popularity was challenged. And while accepting that sentiment measurement will always be less than accurate due to the inability of machines to understand irony, the results, when examined closely, seemed inconsistent.
So is the science of buzz monitoring realistic or should we as PR practitioners reset our hopes and expectations? Without doubt, elements of each service we saw yesterday had merit. The workflow functionality that allows customer complaints on social media sites to be routed to appropriate people for action was compelling. This is an accepted approach practised by many large and enlightened companies today. It was also interesting to see what sites and individuals ranked as influential, even if the underlying methodology caused some consternation and debate among the panel.
There can be no doubting the importance of monitoring what’s being said about a brand online. There have been too many examples, all well documented, of customer or brand crisis starting from the humble beginnings of a disgruntled individual. But as one member of the panel observed, is the integrity of the data that is produced by these systems robust enough to base critical decisions on? Many brands today do just that. But what of the more cautious brands out there? Can they / should they trust the data? Is it a case of information overload given the huge volume of chatter out there in the online world?
I think as with all these things that the data is only as good as the eventual human interaction in terms of the final interpretation. And as with all research, the end result can always be manipulated to say what the user wants it to. So I went away from the sessions with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. Excitement at the potential to monitor, harness and possibly leverage the chatter for the benefit of my client’s reputation but trepidation at the risk of misinterpretation, inaccuracies and dare I say it, inexperience that could lead to wrong decisions being made.
So the research quoted in PR Week for once is probably accurate. I can well understand the reluctance of clients to spend on this area given it is an inexact science. But equally I can see, as Will McInness asserts, that through 2010, the importance of monitoring will grow so let’s measure adoption in a year’s time to see if the technology is ready.
To read Andy’s personal blog please click here
