|
 |
|
|
|
| What questions should be asked of your CGM measurement provider? |
|
Brad Little
on asking the right CGM questions |
|
Consumer Generated Media (CGM) is a massive, largely unregulated dataset boasting few rules and regulations. Democratic participation, ease of entry, and freedom of content are advantageous attributes yet call for vigilance when imposing a measurement structure.
It is critical that the data underlying insights based on CGM is of the highest quality.
|
|
|
So how do you go about ensuring the data you get from your provider fits this bill? We believe there are four key questions that will help you separate the wheat from the chaff.
Where is the content coming from and how is it harvested?
Is the online content simply aggregated blog and board data from a handful of sources or does your provider harvest the data themselves? Is technology gathering the data or is there a human element to ensure important or relevant content sources are included? What tools are being used and how large is the content reservoir of CGM data? Does this reservoir contain current or historical data, or both?
How is the data cleaned and prepared?
How does your data provider clean and prepare the data for analysis? What rules are applied to systematically reduce irrelevant conversations (noise) and ensure relevance? For example, if you are interested in CGM insights on the telecommunications provider 'Orange', how do they ensure references to orange as a fruit or colour are excluded?
How is the data organized or segmented?
Is the remaining content relevant to the business questions being asked? What are the base, volume and discussion sources being included for classification? How is the data being segmented so it contains the most pertinent consumer discussions around your specific area of interest?
How is the data being analysed and are actionable insights delivered?
How is the information actually being analysed? Is it purely done by automated technology or by human analysis, or both? If technologies and software provide the information, how does this technology manage to measure things like sentiment of a conversation accurately? Can technologies help you determine what the important topics are that lead volume or drive a particular sentiment? Is there a consulting service so that information and data can be transformed into insight?
 For more info, help or insights on this path please contact Brad Little (020 7014 0597) |
|
|
|
|
| GuestColumn: Andrea Wilson, MD, White Stone Consulting |
|
Andrea Wilson
on WOM marketing
|
|
Word of mouth marketing in the eyes of senior marketers
For those following new developments in marketing, word of mouth (WOM) is a hot topic of discussion, with the most enthusiastic claiming it will replace all traditional marketing vehicles. To determine the true state of WOM marketing, we conducted a survey of senior marketing executives which revealed some very interesting insights, indeed. |
|
1. There is strong interest and investment
There is significant interest in WOM marketing - and most respondents (over 75%) feel positive about it . This is backed up by intentions to invest. Further, those who have experience applying it (41%) have the strongest intentions to develop and invest in it.
2. Yet understanding is limited
Few marketers (21%) claim an excellent or very good understanding of WOM marketing - even though this is a group that's generally confident of its ability. There is little agreement about what WOM marketing means, the tools needed to apply it (communities/ social networks were top of mind for 90% of respondents and blogs 86%, along with 15 other vehicles), and even its purpose.
3. It is innovative and effective, but challenging
Marketers who have experience in WOM marketing believe that it works (87%). It is also viewed as innovative and low cost. However, they are not sure how or why or to what extent it is effective. How do you systematically apply, control and measure it?
4. There are barriers to overcome
Marketers are not yet comfortable recommending WOM marketing to colleagues (-22 Net Promoter Score). Although there is high interest and investment is rising, it would rise further if there were better measurement, expertise and information.
Inadequate measurement standards is the number one barrier to investing further in WOM marketing (43%), and 77% say it is 'quite' or 'very difficult' to measure. This highlights the challenge (and opportunity) for companies like Nielsen.
5. Accelerating development
Marketers express a clear need for standards and knowledge of the fundamentals of WOM marketing. If these issues can be addressed, there is great interest in applying WOM marketing more systematically in the future.
Senior marketers recognise WOM marketing as an important new marketing discipline, influencing the dialogue between brands and consumers, and the
networks that connect them. Yet there are still great opportunities to develop
formal methods of employing it.
Methodology: White Stone surveyed 108 senior marketing executives in January 2008 in a qualitative-quantitative online survey. They represent established and emerging businesses across a range of sectors and geographies (with 76% from the UK).
Click here if you'd like the full survey report or more information from Andrea |
|
|
|
|
How Social Media Discussions Pointed to a Boris Victory
|
|
Social Media pointed to a Boris victory |
|
Some were surprised that Boris Johnson won the London Mayoral Election but not those of you who saw our press release the week before Londoners went to vote.
Our analysis of conversations in social media leading up to the big day showed that Boris was the most likely to win based on a combination of how many times the leading candidates were mentioned and the sentiment of these conversations.
|
|
Volume of Conversations
- Boris and major rival, Ken Livingstone, dominated social media conversation around the London Mayoral election - each accounted for around 40% of comments
- Liberal Democratic candidate Brian Paddick was third with 9% of comments, followed by the Green Party's Sian Berry with just under 4% and the BNP's Richard Barnbrook with 2%
Ken and Boris were the two leading candidates, neck and neck in the polls and the levels of conversation in the social media space reflected this. If conversation levels were a guide, Ken would have narrowly pipped Boris to win. However, by looking at the sentiment of these conversations a more accurate picture emerged.
Sentiment of Conversations
'Buzz' sentiment for five leading London Mayoral Candidates
Source: Nielsen Online, BuzzMetrics, 23rd March to 18th April 2008
- Controversy: Boris was the 'marmite' candidate - being the most likely of the top five to generate some form of opinion either way. Only 30% of posts relating to him were of 'no opinion'
- Positivity: Whilst Boris is most likely to generate positive sentiment, 29% of posts being 'positive' - Sian Berry had the highest overall 'net' positive score of 15% (positive sentiment % minus negative sentiment %).
- Brian Paddick was the only other candidate with a 'net' positive score (11%)
Of the three leading candidates in the polls it wasn't surprising that Paddick was the only one to have an overall positive sentiment score in social media. His campaign, involving a US web strategist firm, focused the most heavily on social media including a pioneering British political use of sites like Twitter, Facebook and UStream.TV.
However, judging from the sheer levels of social media conversation on the election, it wouldn't have been enough to grab victory over Boris or Ken. Social media, as a crystal ball, told us Boris was likely to get more votes than Ken.
To read the full press release click here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
