Traditional Media Still Rules!

This article in the NYT yesterday shows that traditional media still leads the blogosphere in breaking news by an average of 2.5 hours.

Since the emergence of blogs, companies have developed paranoia that a blogger can create a crisis faster than you can type "meme". This study states that only 3.5% of the "memes" tracked originated on blogs.

In other words, 96.5% of the time, bloggers are talking about what they read in traditional media. But what is most interesting is how the blogs pick up a meme and propagate it, lengthening the news cycle and keeping attention on a topic well after the traditional media has moved on to the next story.

A couple of caveats about this study: it looks specifically at news (and only online news, not offline publications), and not mentions of brands or companies. The dynamics of how people talk about brands in social media are likely to be different.

That said, it suggests that it may be more important to reach out to bloggers to dampen a meme that is damaging or to give a push to one that is positive, than it is to try to get the bloggers to start the meme in the first place. But with only a 2.5 hour lag, you have to act fast.

The story summarizes a study done at Cornell University -- it's well worth a read!

Posted by Jim Nail on July 14, 2009 at 04:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Transforming Research, Step 3: Storytelling -- or tailoring?

  At the October 29 ARF Transforming Research conference, there was a strong theme that market researchers should weave interesting stories about how consumers interact with brands rather than present reams of data to induce a Powerpoint coma. But storytelling risks creating a fiction that loses touch with the carefully gathered facts in our research. Perhaps the better way to think about it is tailoring...

I've been meaning to write this entry for a while then this weekend a program on NPR's "Speaking of Faith", spurred me to do it. A cancer doctor spoke of her evolution from speaking with patients about the facts of their disease to listening to their life stories and how the cancer has affected them. She eventually followed this into a psychotherapy practice.

What does this have to do with the market research industry? One line in the interview really caught my ear when she said that the facts of the disease don't mean anything about the person and their struggle. Their stories held greater truth about the person than what stage the disease was at, how tumors grew or shrank, what the various tests tracked, etc

Isn't this the same with market research, especially when we are trying to understand concepts like brand engagement? The facts - the demos, market share, even time spent with a medium or a web site - don't really say anything about the nature of engagement. For that we need a different level of understanding, one that is more qualitative, one that looks not just at the interaction between the brand and the person, but broadens the view of that interaction in the context of the person's life.

That's the power of ethnography. And that is the kind of story that social media analysis at its best delivers.

The challenge for market researchers is to prevent the "story" from crossing the line into fiction. While stories need to put data in the background and bring the narrative to the fore, they must remain true to that data. To be storytellers, researchers must leave the safety and security of the survey tabulation and create a three dimensional being.

But perhaps storytelling isn't the right way to think about it. After all, Homer was free to create characters like Hector and Achilles, whether they existed or not because his concern was to communicate his ideals of courage, loyalty, patriotism, etc. He could shape his characters to make his point.

Researchers, on the other hand, must first draw the characters, then figure out the "point": the person's motivations, the relationship with the brand, the likely behavior.

So perhaps we should think of the evolution of research more like being a tailor. We have a set of measures -- waist, chest, sleeve length, inseam -- and we must now make a suit that fits the person. If we deviate too far from the measures, the suit won't fit. But if we stick to the measures and carefully stitch them together, the end result is something far more compelling than the numbers alone would suggest!

Posted by Jim Nail on December 1, 2008 at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Super Bowl Ads -- It's Not About the Game!!!

A WSJ article today says that many long-time advertisers are wondering if, in this tough economy, they should invest $3 million for :30 seconds on the game. The key is not the game: they key to ROI is the PR activity before the game.

Come to my ARF webinar tomorrow -- "Effective PR and Word of Mouth Strategies to Maximize a Brand's Investment in Super Bowl Advertising" -- to learn more but here are the topline findings from two years of analysis Cymfony has done on Super Bowl advertising:

• PR adds significant audience. The prospect of reaching 90 million people on February 1, 2009 makes media planners drool. But PR can add brand reach prior to the game: Doritos drove 40 million impressions prior to the 2007 Super Bowl.
• To get WOM, drive PR. Spurring word of mouth discussion after the game is a key goal -- that's why brands and agencies go to great pains to come up with breakthrough creative. But the brands that are successful in post-game are consistently the brands that get the most pre-game coverage in traditional media.
• Social media discussion is a good proxy for likeability. For the 2008 Super Bowl, we collaborated with our colleagues at TNS who conducted a classic ad likeability research survey and compared their results to the "favorability" of social media posts. The same10 advertisers were on the top of both lists. While the social media audience displays some unique characteristics, their opinions accurately reflect the broader population.

So GM, Fedex, Monster, Pedigree, and others who are on the fence: tune in to my webinar before you make your final decision!

Posted by Jim Nail on November 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Learning from the Obama Campaign

Since Tuesday I've seen lots of stories and posts about what marketers and PR people can learn from president-elect Obama's use of social media. My main takeaway: wait. There's more to learn in the coming year as President Obama mobilizes his social media skills to use the power of "We, the People" to trump the lobbyists and legislators who will try to advance their own agenda over his.

There's no doubt that the Obama campaign masterfully used social media to mobilize new voters. There's no question in my mind that this race will mark a watershed in campaign media stratgy not seen since the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy campaign ushered in the era of political television strategy.

But the real story is just beginning. A savvy social media user like Obama won't disband it, in the way he disbands his campaign staff. In the coming year, President Obama will mobilize this network to help him drive change and repel the usual Beltway obstacles that are undoubtedly already plotting to drive the agenda their way.

This will be an even greater testament to the strength of American democracy than electing an African-American to the presidency, which is rightly hailed as a great moment in America. If he can leverage social media to offset the forces of money and special interests that drive so much of our national agenda, an historic election will be followed by an even more epochal change: a return to "We, the People" promoting the general welfare and not narrow interests.

Marketers and PR people take note: this will also signal the end of the campaign-oriented mentality of our current approach. It will usher in an era of understanding that a brand relationship doesn't begin and end with a purchase or a coupon redemption, any more than a presidence begins and ends on election day. It is a living, breathing bond that can now be nurtured in a way impossible before the advent of social media. Strong brand bonds will trump even the best advertising and promotions of brands without this relationship.

Can the marketing and PR professions make this change?

Yes, we can!!

Posted by Jim Nail on November 6, 2008 at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Announcing "Verismo" for PR Measurement!

PR measurement is a topic of hot debate and little agreement. Cymfony's new approach, Verismo, aims to tame the wealth of data spit out by a sophisticated measurement platform and give PR professionals a simple, clear way to explain the results of their work. Read on or click here to find out more.

A sophisticated content aggregation, analysis, and tagging platform like Cymfony's Orchestra system is a bit of a blessing and a curse to PR measurement professionals.

The blessing is that it generates rich data that were impossible with physical clips. The curse is that there is so much data, it can be a little overwhelming.

So in trying to tame this beast, Cymfony went back to basics and asked: what are we really trying to prove? There is a pretty simple answer to this because there are two key questions a PR professional must answer:

1. Did we reach the audience we wanted to?
2. Did we communicate the messages we wanted to?

The difficulty in PR measurement is in picking the right data to answer these questions. There is no simple answer and no general agreement across the industry.

But in looking at all the work we do for our clients, there were some common themes that became the foundation for Verismo:

• Visibility: When an article mentions a company or brand, how man people does it reach? And is the company or brand prominently discussed in the article?
• Reputation: What is being said about the company or brand? Is it the message the PR person is trying to communicate?
• Influence: Does this particular publication or journalist carry more credibility than average so that what he or she writes have higher impact on the reader?
• Sentiment: Is it positive or negative?

VRIS became our key variables. Then we developed a model to weight and calculate these variables into a score that represents the degree to which a communication objective is achieved.

VRIS Model, which became Verismo.

To learn more, read our new white paper. And to understand how Verismo fits into the musical theme of our company (Cymfony, Orchestra, etc.) read this Wikipedia entry ;-)

Posted by Jim Nail on October 14, 2008 at 06:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Doritos Super Bowl contest -- what do last year's winners say?

On Monday, Doritos announced the three finalists for this year's Crash the Super Bowl contest. I took that opportunity to talk to last year's winners, Dale Backus and Wes Philips of 5 Point Productions. The full podcast is on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog.

I talked with Dale and Wes right after their success last year, so I used this as an excuse to catch up on how that success drove their business this year, what they think of changing to more of an American Idol type contest vs. last year's ad contest -- and, of course, which of the finalists they were going to vote for.

We also spoke with a reporter at Ad Age yesterday, so a story should be out soon. Dale and Wes revealed one other bit of history I hadn't known before: they had only started 5 Point Productions a month or so before entering the contest.

Take a few minutes to listen to the podcast -- Dale and Wes tell the story of how they used word of mouth marketing to drive the voting that made them a finalist and have some advice for Doritos about how to overcome some of the potential limitations the music video format may have in delivering strong brand messaging for Doritos.

Posted by Jim Nail on January 9, 2008 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Road to Super Bowl XLII

With the Patriots steamrolling through the NFL this season, many people here in the Boston area are thinking a lot about the Super Bowl coming up this February.  But here at Cymfony, the Super Bowl has become a year-round obsession – but for a different reason:  It is the perfect example of Influence 2.0.

We tracked discussion of last year’s game and conducted several studies on the audience impact of the media coverage and consumer discussion of last year’s Super Bowl advertisers. Over the past month, these studies have been published in a variety of publications.

• Visibility vs Surprise: Which Drives the Greatest Discussion of Super Bowl Ads?  To be published in the 12/07 issue of the “Journal of Advertising Research” from the ARF.

• What This Year’s Super Bowl Advertisers Can Learn from Doritos. Published in the 11/07 issue of Media Magazine

• Is There No Such Thing as Bad News? - How controversy drives word-of-mouth around Super Bowl advertising and how it can bite the brand. Published in 11/07 “Measuring Word of Mouth Vol. 3” from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association

I encourage you to buy the WOMMA and JAR publications for the full story (and other great research as well).  We've also compiled some of the insights from each of these studies in a brief informational abstract that is available for download on our site now.   

The gist of our findings: Last year's success of advertisers like Doritos and Nationwide changes Super Bowl advertising -- it's no longer about great buzz after the game, pre-game media coverage is just as important, maybe more so.

(Disclosure: shameless plug coming) In response to this change, we are stepping up our analysis and launching a new product: the Super Bowl Advertising Audience Impact Report. Check it out at www.cymfony.com/superbowl.asp Clients will get a timely, in-depth analysis of the media coverage and consumer discussion of Super Bowl advertisers each week leading up to and immediately following the game on February 3.

This report will address:

• How much coverage is each advertiser generating? 
• Which ads are consumers discussing online? What are they saying?
• What is the quality and tone of the coverage?
• How is the event impacting consumer engagement with the brand?
• How are pre-game promotional strategies influencing coverage?

After the post-game coverage peaks on Monday after the game, our Super Bowl analysts will lead a detailed online briefing Tuesday afternoon to discuss the ad winners and losers as reported by consumers and the media. This will all get wrapped up in a comprehensive report a couple weeks later when the coverage is complete.

Some of us around here are as excited about this new report as we are about the steamrolling Patriots.  (OK, we admit it, we're social media geeks!)

Posted by Jim Nail on November 30, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I'm not the only one thinking Bubble 2.0...

Maurice Levy, Chairman of Publicis echoed my concern that social media is gaining the inflated expectations we saw in Bubble 1.0. Am I worried? Actually, no.

While one lesson of Bubble 1.0 was that zillions of start-ups cannot live by hype alone, the other lesson was that while investors and even marketers may get disillusioned, consumers pay no attention to the trials and tribulations of the VC community. People look for tools and things that bring value to their lives.

Just as consumer adoption of the internet was unfazed by the bust of 2001 - 2002, adoption of social media will be equally unaffected should we see a social media bust take place. They'll just keep connecting to one another, creating videos, making virtual friends....

What should marketers do if the bloom comes off the social media rose? Ignore the anguished cries of VCs and even the doomsday blather that the media may put out. Keep your eye on the people who buy and use your brands. Stay involved with social media because your consumers will be involved with it.

Posted by Jim Nail on November 14, 2007 at 01:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

An Example of Confused Terminology

A recent article published in the PRSA's new PR Journal provides a example of how poorly the terms "output", "outtake" and "outcome" are understood in the industry, even in this peer-reviewed publication which features articles from the leading academics and industry practitioners.

My recent post, "Outputs, and Outtakes, and Outcomes Oh My!" lamented how frequently I see these terms misused. In addition to the comments I got on the blog, I had email exchanges with several people. One member of the IPR's Measurement Commission said "I'm extremely puzzled how anyone could possibly misinterpret outputs (which only relate to mentions) with outcomes (which must relate to attitude or behavior reinforcement or change)."

I didn't have to look far for an example.

In this paper titled "The Application of "Best Practices" in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation Systems" published in the first issue of the PR Journal, EchoResearch's President David Michaelson and CEO Sandra Macleod, noted as "two of the world's leading experts in communications research and measurement", ouputs and outcomes are used incorrectly if you take, as I do, the IPR's Guidelines for Meauring the Effectiveness of PR Programs and Activities authored by Prof. Walter Lindenmann as the standard definition. (Note: David Michaelson is on the Institute for PR's Commission on Public Relations Measurement & Evaluation under whose aegis the guidelines were published.)

Before I address the misuse of the term, let me say the paper is useful and, for PR practioners unfamiliar with conducting market research it should be a "must read" to understand the basics of constructing a valid research methodology. However, IMHO, it falls short of delivering the "best practices" by skimming over the tough issues of how to isolate PR's impact from other marketing/communications/sales activities and how to link PR to sales. But this is a topic for another post, perhaps.

Back to the example. On page 3 of the paper, Michaelson and Macleod write:

"Companies specializing in public relations measurement and evaluation have traditionally focused on evaluating only the outcomes of public relations. These outcomes are most commonly the media or press coverage that is a direct result of media relations activities (outputs)."

These two sentences say that outcomes are the number of clips or impressions while outputs are the number of press releases issued, perhaps the number of reporters called or who attended a press conference, etc.

Here are Lindenmann's definitions on page 7 of his paper:

"...PR outputs, which are usually short-term and surface (e.g., the amount of press coverage received or exposure of a particular message)..."

"...PR outcomes (e.g., did the program or activity change opinion and attitude levels, and possibly behavior patterns?)."

If the experts and members of the IPR Measurement Commission don't use the terms accurately, the rest of the industry will be confused, as I believe they are today.

Why do I rant about this? We all know words are important -- that's why we do what we do. We also know that words come with certain associations and connotations from everyday usage and I believe the terms "outputs" and "outcomes" are commonly used in ways that are dramatically different than what the IPR intends. (Outtakes is just a strange word that only exists, perhaps, in the world of film editing.)

Michaelson's and Macleod's misuse of outputs above is an example where common usage gets substituted for the official definition. If someone asked me what my output was today, I'd probably answer "a blog post, 35 emails, and 3 meetings" or something. When a CEO thinks of outputs, he probably thinks about how many widgets come off the assembly lines of his factory, not the number of his widgets on store shelves. Thus when a CEO (or other non-communications exec) hears the term outputs in association with communications activities, she probably thinks in terms of the activities of the PR staff as Michaelson and Macleod describe them, and not how many articles the company was mentioned in. And, as I have said before, I believe the only "outcomes" C-level staff are interested in are those that contribute financially to the firm's performance.

It is natural for people to apply their common understanding of terms when they hear them in a new context. It is a lot of work to try to wrap new meanings around them and have those new meanings widely accepted. The IPR and PRSA need to either step up efforts to educate the industry on the correct use of these terms or consider changing them to terms that are understandable based on their common usage.

I believe change is the preferred course. My nominations for new, more readily understandable terms are:

• Media Influence: clips, impressions, message pick up that indicate that PR activities and programs influenced the media to distribute the intended information
• Audience Influence: perceptual or attidudinal changes that indicate the intended audience saw the information, paid attention to it, and that the desired change took place
• Business Influence: sales, stock price, or brand equity valuation increases that are linked to these activities

What's your vote: change or stick with outputs/outtakes/outcomes?

Posted by Jim Nail on November 5, 2007 at 07:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Outputs and Outtakes and Outcomes -- Oh My!

In my experience, the terms outputs, outtakes and outcomes are not well understood among PR professionals. And if they are not well understood, building a PR measurement program will get derailed by using incorrect approaches and flawed reporting. Therefore, I propose an alternate framework of Media Influence, Audience Influence, and Business Influence.

Since the Institue for PR published the paper "Guidelines for Measuring the Effectiveness of PR Programs and Activities" in 2002, these terms have gained currency in the industry. Almost every presentation I see includes the terms "outcomes" and "outputs". But I continue to see what I consider to be misclassifications of  what I consider outputs and PR activities as outcomes.

Perhaps because the terms are somewhat mysterious. And while I like the alliteration and parallelism in the "out-" triad, it may be too confusing. So I'd like to propose an alternative framework:

• Media Influence -- this is essentially the outputs: clips, impressions, quality of coverage. In other words: did our PR activities cause the media to respond to our messages and report on them?
• Audience Influence -- this is essentially outtakes, though I differ a bit in Prof. Lindenmann's definition which is "determining if those to whom the activity was directed received, paid attention to, comprehended, and retained particular messages." I would go the next step to measure if these messages change audience perception, attitudes, and intentions, which the paper categorizes as "outcomes". Thus, this category of measurement answers the question: did our PR activities cause the intended audience to respond to our messages? The main approaches here are likely to be based on market research surveys.
• Business Influence -- These outcomes I define  very strictly as a financial impact on the business which can be measured in one of three ways: sales, stock price, or brand equity valuation. This category of metrics answers the question: did our PR activities positively influence the business? I use this strict definition because 1) we know that at the end of the day, this is all the C-suite really cares about and 2) it is the most complicated, expensive, and difficult metrics to create and link to PR activities. The main approaches are likely to be sophisticated modeling techniques, like market mix modeling.

While I don't want to get the industry hung up in changing terms for change's sake, I think the distinction is important. It will make it much clearer what measurements and methdologies address which aspect of measurement and clear away some of the fog surrounding the purpose and usefulness of different approaches.

(I also think we need to rethink the Audience Influence approach in light of the idea of "engagement", but I'll save that for another post.)

Thoughts?

Posted by Jim Nail on October 31, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

© 2008 TNS Cymfony. All Rights Reserved.