| Listen and learn |
| Monday, 23 February 2009 15:08 |
|
The rise of social media has presented communicators with a fresh challenge: how to monitor what’s being said. Neil Gibbons reports: "I am going to expend significant energy over the next three weeks trashing Comcast.” A cynic might suggest Arrington received unusually attentive treatment – he is, after all, editor of the hugely influential site TechCrunch –but the fact is, he was heard. If nothing else, the case signals a determination among corporations to keep a beady eye on social media, and respond to what’s being said. But is it really necessary to engage with the geekosphere? Has social media evolved to an extent that opinions expressed online can influence perceptions in the outside world? “Yes,” says Nigel Middlemiss, knowledge director of reputation analysis firm Echo Research,“because this is where a lot of the sentiment round companies now aggregates. It’s where reputations are built or damaged in a more granular way than is typical of conventional media.” It wasn’t always this way. Paul Miller, head of digital strategy at communication intelligence firm Cision UK, says that, as recently as two or three years ago, it was only really the technology, politics and media sectors that needed to take social media seriously. “That’s now changed,” he says. “Now it is easy to address almost any idea relating to your business across any kind of social media.”
What characterises social media is its fluidity.Content posted on a social network such as facebook can be picked up by a blog, which might link to a photo sharing site, which might be linked with a micro-blogging site. “This is similar to the way a news story might have gone from a local paper up to a national then over to TV and radio news,” says Miller. “The difference is that it is far “Companies should ask four questions,” he says. “What are people saying? Does it matter? What should I do? And then, did it work? At the moment, social media is under-utilised because companies don’t quite have that comfort factor.” Eyes wide open: (left to right) Fergus Hampton, Monika Maeckle, Tom Nixon and Paul Miller keep a close eye on Web 2.0
What’s to be gained? While there are those who only monitor web chatter to fight fires and ward off danger, Middlemiss suggests that smarter players can make use of what they find. “Web 2.0 is effectively an unmoderated and free focus group, with a huge mix of comment If this sounds like a nightmarish addition to your workload, it needn’t. ere are tools to crunch, nalyse and understand all the data, says Chris Reed, head of the digital and social media team at PR firm Fishburn Hedges – some more useful than others: “As with any infant industry, some offer gold dust, and others just fools’ gold.” As a starting point, he suggests spending some time getting familiar with the free online tools Of course, the market is also awash with paid-for services. For a comprehensive low-down on what’s on offer, Reed points to ‘Online Reputation and Buzz Monitoring Buyer’s Guide’ by e-consultancy. He proposes key questions to help companies sift through service providers: how big is their data set? What blogs, messages boards and media do they check? Over what timescale can they look back? How often do they update their service? How quick are they to innovate, and offer new tools? How easy is it to drill down from top-level information to get to the individual blogs which might illustrate what the data is telling you? Just don’t expect miracles. The technology,while workload-slashing, can only do so much.“Regardless of how sophisticated the software,there’s no substitute for intelligent professionals who understand your business objectives,” says Reed. “They will be able to estimate the importance of the sentiment and irony, and identify the misidentification of a brand name in a way that even Keeping perspective Getting hold of the data is relatively easy. It’s making use of it that requires a cool head, says Monika Maeckle, VP of Media Services and Product Strategy at BusinessWire. “In the book Wading into the fray is tempting. But a common error, says Tom Nixon, director of Brighton-based social media agency Nixon-McInnes, is responding to opinion without understanding the rules of engagement – if your reply is too defensive it can be Naturally, this reply – said to be the work of a summer intern “caught up in the emotion” – was copied and pasted around cyberspace. “Wading into the fray is tempting, but a common error is responding to opinion without understanding the rules of engagement – a defensive reply can be worse than none at all.”Best practice Things are very different now. Dell has set aside budget for a large, dedicated team of social media monitors. Now, buzz about the company is closely monitored and a traffic light system operated to determine how urgent it is for a piece of Dellrelated He cites the example of car hire firm Avis. Monitoring online opinion, it learned a number of common concerns – such as the absence of sat nav devices in cars and hard-to-find pick-up points at airports. Armed with this knowledge, the company If you know what’s being said and have a strategy for engaging, you can manage your reputation, even reversing negative perceptions. As Comcast-bashing Michael Arrington exclaimed in his blog: “Wow, Comcast are doing at least one thing right."
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |












