By Carly Yanco
Let’s face it. We could spend all day, every day, monitoring social media. There is so much chatter online, so many conversations going on at any one time, that it’s virtually impossible to keep up with it all. We want to know what’s being said about our clients – their brand, their product, their service – it’s an essential part of our job, but we really don’t want to spend every waking moment ‘watching’ social media.
There are three ways to monitor and quantify conversations that occur on social media:
· Manually – Searching Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. for specific keywords and responding to direct enquires.
Pros: Results are tailored to the user and sentiment is accurately evaluated based on client objectives.
Cons: Can be time consuming and all analysis and reporting has to be carried out separately.
· Free tools – Using free online aggregators, such as Addictomatic and Samepoint, of social media networks and their content to keep track of conversations in real time.
Pros: They’re generally simple to use and set up like a dashboard to allow you to watch multiple conversations from a range of social networks.
Cons: Analysis and reporting capabilities are limited and it’s difficult to drill down into Australian-only conversations.
· Paid-for services – Signing up for a social media monitoring service, such as Radian6, Brandtology or Visible Technologies, which use web crawlers to seek out online conversations containing pre-programmed keywords.
Pros: Collects a comprehensive database of conversations that can be analysed and extrapolated for reporting back to the client.
Cons: The dashboard provided can be inflexible when it comes to reporting, many services also often pick up international conversations and their use of algorithms to determine sentiment can be problematic as most don’t account for sarcasm or colloquialisms.
While there are hundreds of tools and services available for PR professionals wanting to monitor online conversations, the most effective of these are often expensive and require clients to sign-up to the service for 12 months or more.
Moreover, even the most widely used services, such as Radian6, have significant limitations. Using web crawlers to collect online conversations means your dashboard can often be flooded with international voices. Also, using algorithms to evaluate sentiment means the overall tonality of these conversations can be way off, unless you go through them manually (which would defeat the purpose of paying for the service).
Both Brandtology and Visible Technologies have designated monitors (real people) who evaluate the relevance and sentiment of each conversation. As such, the reporting and analysis is much more accurate. However, the evaluation process takes time, meaning there can be a lag between the conversation taking place and it appearing on the dashboard and limiting your ability to respond.
So what’s the best way to monitor social media? It really depends on your objectives and what you’re trying to do with the information. That is, whether you want to engage with people and/or whether you just want to know what’s being said about your client (i.e. you’re after the ‘big picture’, including trends in conversations, issues and competitive share of voice).
I’m yet to use a social media monitoring service that has fulfilled all the requirements PR professionals need to effectively monitor online conversations.
For me, the most useful social monitoring tool or service would:
1. Collect all relevant online conversations occurring in online and social media channels
2. Limit the results to Australian-only conversations
3. Accurately evaluate the sentiment of each conversation
4. Automatically contact the user with red flag issues or direct enquiries
5. Provide a robust dashboard-style system, which:
− Allows you to arrange the data based on individual social networks, topics, products or conversation trails
− Allows for easy, flexible reporting into a variety of formats including PDF and Excel files
− Allows you to input key announcements or events that have impacted the volume/sentiment of conversations
6. Identify the most influential and most active voices
It would make sense for an ongoing collaborative approach to be taken between social media monitoring services and PR professionals to ensure that the tools and analysis provided aligns with our varied client objectives.
However, we have come a long way in the last few years. A decade ago, we wouldn’t have had the capabilities to monitor and see, in real time, what stakeholders thought about our brands, products and services. This, in itself, is a significant advancement for public relations, and has greatly improved how we understand our audiences.
Just imagine what we’ll be able to learn in the next ten years.
Based in Sydney, Carly Yanco is an Associate in the Technology Practice and a Digital Strategist for Burson-Marsteller Australia.
Email: carly.yanco@bm.com
By Charlie Pownall
From Greenpeace's palm oil campaign against Nestle to aggrieved customers sharing negative product experiences, it is clear that the internet is playing a key role in distributing and amplifying rumours, half-truths and truths about organizations.
Yet, while some organisations are actively trying to 'manage' their reputations on the internet (as well as, of course, through more traditional media), the great majority have no structured approach to containing issues nor handling crises online - be it through fear, inertia, or due to corporate restrictions on online customer engagement.
Crisis communications principles
Here are ten basic principles for communicating during a crisis, especially one with an active online component (and what crisis is not now played out on the internet?):
- Assume the worst: plan for everything that might happen or could go wrong. Corporate behavior is being scrutinised as never before and the internet is a great place for sharing opinions and mobilizing action, so you'll need to think increasingly laterally. Bear in mind also that that the internet is tearing down the corporate firewall and information is likely to be passing to the outside world more freely than you imagine.
- Move fast: stories can travel fast on the internet, and companies need to stay on top of what's relevant to them. And be in a position to intervene at a moment's notice, when necessary.
-
Monitor continuously: to be able to move fast, but also to be in a position to make an educated call on the likely dynamics of a discussion topic/meme, you must be continually monitoring top tier channels and influencers.
-
Be patient: while information can travel online like lightening, it actually rarely goes truly viral. The ability to spot the tipping point is crucial, and requires a close understanding of the dynamics of the community and the topic. And a healthy dose of plain good judgment.
- Be transparent: to help become seen as a trusted source of information, the more information you can provide the better, especially in the early stages of a crisis. Witness the manner in which the US government forced BP to provide a live video feed of its oil cap in the Gulf of Mexico, making the oil giant appear reluctant and perhaps with something to hide.
- Be accurate: few things travel online as well as conjecture and rumour. Where available, use hard facts that can be credibly supported and easily demonstrated. And make sure you are accurate – in times of trouble, netizens often act as a collective 'truth squad' seeking to undermine your position.
- Speak as a human: the internet rewards behavior perceived as natural and human, not least by large organizations who often appear remote and monolithic. So make sure you are speaking across all channels in a language and voice that your audiences can variously relate to. Press releases will not suffice.
- Apologise: people accept that humans make mistakes. But make sure you do not come across as insincere or appear to be involved in an 'apology war'. And, online, it is more difficult to be convincing, so consider using formats that convey emotion, notably video.
- Don't get into fights: avoid insulting or patronizing your communities, as Nestle managed with its Facebook community during its recent palm oil spat with Greenpeace. And avoid getting into strident or highly polarized discussions on the internet, in which David usually fells Goliath, at least in the broader public mind.
Next steps
- If you're not already doing so, start monitoring the top online channels and individuals relevant to your company or brand
- Assess your existing crisis communications capabilities – stakeholder database, crisis manual, checklists etc
- Identify the gaps between your existing capabilities and desired capabilities – in terms of knowledge, skills, systems, processes, tools
- Re-design your crisis management policies, procedures and toolkits
- Cascade learnings across your organization
- Don't then leave all this on the shelf, but update on an ongoing basis.
Based in Singapore, Charlie Pownall is Lead Digital Strategist for Burson-Marsteller Asia-Pacific.
charles.pownall@bm.com
http://twitter.com/cpownall
By Chris Gee
I won't bore you by chronicling the decade-long decline of the traditional publishing industry. Magazines and newspapers that have been fixtures on the editorial landscape for decades — in some cases for more than a century — are disappearing every month. Many of the few that aren't completely disappearing are going digital only.
Newspapers and magazines have been in what seems like a decade-long hibernation. Most have been slow to morph their business models in order to allow them to survive in an increasingly digital world.
Then along came the iPad
It's clear from the comments by Wired Editor in Chief Chris Anderson that he, and others, think (or maybe hope) that the runaway success of Apple's iPad will spawn an ecosystem of similar tablet devices that will usher in a new day for publishers, providing them with a dynamic platform through which they'll be able to stop the bleeding and save their businesses. I'm typically the most optimistic guy in the room but call me cynical on this one.
Here are 5 reasons why:
Reason #1: Sharing is caring
For starters — and I acknowledge that it's early — most of the print industry's early attempts at iPad –friendly formats of their publications have essentially sought to do nothing but recreate their printed versions. For obvious reasons, readers of the printed version of those publications do not expect to have any social functionality embedded. However, once those same readers encounter content in the digital realm, they have every expectation of being able to share that content via popular social networks like Twitter and Facebook. Publishers need to build social features into every digital publication they create. No exceptions.
Reason #2: With digital, it's not a one-way monologue
With social tools, users expect to be able to join the conversation after reading an article, by posting comments. Some of the popular blogs that have created iPad versions of their sites, i.e. Mashable, tend to get this right. But iPad versions of popular newspapers like the New York Times and USA Today, as well as magazines like Wired, do not include the ability for user feedback.
 Reason #3: Missed opportunities
Over the last decade, online startups like eBay and Craigslist slowly (and then rapidly) ate away at traditional publishers' classified revenues until there was almost nothing left. At no point over the last decade did the major publishers decide to partner with either of these juggernauts, and they completely missed the opportunity to purchase them outright when either company was small enough to be had. The industry cannot afford to miss future opportunities to innovate or to purchase potentially disruptive technologies. Will the Times Company or News Corp decide to purchase popular startup Flipboard, the iPad sensation that aggregates content created by your friends in various social networks and displays them in a beautiful magazine style format? Could we see them purchasing or partnering with popular apps like Instapaper or Read It Later, applications that cache content from online sources and allow readers to read them offline? My guess is we will not.
Reason #4: It's all about apps
For the longest time, publishers have focused on the entire publication, erroneously thinking that readers buy their papers or magazines because they all want everything contained within. In truth, different readers want different things in different sections. Some newspaper readers primarily buy the paper for the sports section so they can keep up with their fantasy league players. Others flip directly to the horoscopes while some instantly thumb to letters to the editor or the Op Ed section. Most publishers continue to force users to dig deep into the iPad versions of their publications whereas apps provide users with streamlined access to the content they really want in the first place. Some publications get this right. ESPN provides users with a variety of apps that cater to their individual needs, rather than force them to download 5MB of information, most of which they may have no interest in. Publishers need to consider productizing existing sections of their publications — innovating sections that do not exist in their print versions — and providing them as applications.
Reason #5: The price
Most magazine publishers charge users a premium ($3.99 and up) to purchase the iPad versions of their publications, often charging $1-3 more for the iPad version than for the print version. The reason? They don't want to cannibalize their rapidly dwindling print sales. This makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, the iPad version should be CHEAPER than the print version. In the app universe, there are many great applications and games that are available for between 99 cents and $2.99. By contrast, paying $5.99 for the iPad issue of a magazine seems extremely high. Most iPad owners would agree that in app-land, $5.99 seems like $50! I routinely find myself debating whether to purchase apps that cost $3-$4 because it seems so out of whack compared with what's available.
Of course, there could always be some miraculous turnaround by the publishing industry and, overnight, they might become extremely digital, innovative and – finally - aware of the way people want to consume their content in 2010. But I doubt it; and I don't think many of them will be around for long as a result.
Chris Gee is a Managing Director with Proof Integrated Communications. Follow him on Twitter at @chrisgee as well as his lifestream at http://thepreparedmind.com. By Santiago Fittipaldi
There's an age-old adage that claims that "there is nothing new under the sun". Even the most modern and innovative technology can trace its roots to something that preceded it. Harold Burson once told me about how he had spent time researching the way newspapers had covered the introduction of the telephone, comparing it to coverage of the arrival of the Internet. That reminded me of a book I read some years ago, in which the author analyzed how the advent of the telegraph was so revolutionary for 19th century users, in terms of the ease and speed of communications, that he dubbed it the "Victorian Internet".
Even Facebook has some old-time roots. In the 19th century, a variety of directories compiled personal information. "Burke's Peerage", a roster of Britain's upper crust, including royals, was first published in 1826 and is still published today. In 1849, England also saw the launch of the first "Who's Who", a directory of members of parliament and aristocrats. Still today, many publishers produce a wide variety of "Who's Who" books, now often segmented by sector, profession, ethnicity and the like.
In the US, the concept was introduced in 1886, with publication of the first "Social Register." The directory, now published by Forbes, included —and still includes— information on socialites. While initially limited to members of New York's "noblest" families, by 1918 there were local versions in 26 US cities. Since 1976, the directory is published as a single volume, which includes names, addresses, club memberships, academic affiliations and notices of marriages, births and deaths. The "Social Register" has winter and summer editions, with the latter also listing the names of yachts and their owners. There is a digital edition in case one has an urgent need to know where Steve Forbes' yacht is anchored these days.
In order to maintain its exclusivity, those who aspire to a "Social Register" listing must first be vetted by a committee, but only after being endorsed by at least five people already on the list. The concept's democratization begins with the publication of personal information in phone directories, school yearbooks and other such public lists. Facebook itself, founded by Mark Zuckerberg and a group of schoolmates, takes its name from the "face book", a directory of students and faculty at New Hampshire's prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, Zuckerberg's alma mater.
While today we use Facebook to communicate with each other, express ourselves, search for information, chat and other tasks, all with a level of interactivity and non-exclusivity unimaginable to our 19th century ancestors, there are already other Zuckerbergs out there exploring new and even better technologies. If history is indeed prologue, then in just a few years we may be reminiscing about Facebook in much the same way that we regard the old-time "Social Register" today. If you're not fully convinced, just ask yourself when it was that you last checked your Myspace page.
Santiago Fittipaldi is a Director in the Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Practice. He is based in Burson-Marsteller's Miami office.
By Charlie Pownall
Many online marketing and social media campaigns now incorporate popular or well connected bloggers or netizens, in the hope that their output -- be it blog posts, video, tweets etc. -- will be read and spread by their readers to as many like-minded people as possible.
It is easy to view such sponsored conversations as a quick and cost effective way to generate buzz.
But they can just as easily backfire. Organisations are being caught paying bloggers in China, Hong Kong and other markets where the paid approach is rife. More common, bloggers are often viewed as little more than free publicity and can resent this, publicly.
Below are some basic guidelines to blogger outreach.
Some are common sense, others a little more nuanced:
* Expect to be uncovered. The internet is a collective 'truth squad' par excellence that will proactively and mercilessly hunt down such activities and parade them for all to see.
* Don't expect coverage. Bloggers tend to prize their independence and don't work according to the same codes as conventional journalists. They don't expect to have to write about your story, let alone include your carefully scripted messages, so don't try and force them to.
* Don't buy influence. While some online influencers are only too happy to make a fast buck, others recoil at the idea of being 'bought'. Even offering to pay bloggers can be problematic -- they can, and do, talk about such overtures on their channels. Instead, invest in building a relationship with a blogger that is based on insight, trust and access. This is much more likely to pay off in the longer-term.
* Consider giveaways carefully. Most bloggers are delighted to work with companies that help them build their audiences in smart ways. But make sure that the promotion or giveaway is appropriate to the blogger and audience -- anything too large may smack of bribery, alienating both blogger and audience.
* Disclose your relationship. If you are working with bloggers, make sure you disclose your relationship with them, not least if they are being compensated to write about your products. And ensure that they do likewise.
* Disclose your identity. Posting under a fictitious name or, worse, under somebody else's identity, is asking for trouble. You should state clearly who you are, for whom you work, and provide a clear means for people to contact you.
* Ensure relevance. Bloggers may have large spheres of influence, but don't have the appropriate audiences. Others have little time or, indeed, inclination to talk about your brand. Spending time finding the right influencers to work with is important. And it can be more effective, and less costly, to work closely with just a few bloggers than look for immediate buzz by working with a large number.
* Make the right approach. Many bloggers state how they would like to be contacted by readers and companies. Make sure you find out how. Above all, don't spam a blogger with promotions or press releases without their agreeing to receive such materials. Getting this wrong can result in negative posts.
* Get the infrastructure right. Providing a two hour window for the delivery of a product, and then not delivering on time annoys everybody. The difference is that e-fluentials will moan about it publicly and potentially to a lot of people. Make sure the basics are done right.
* Take feedback seriously. Despite often being 'non-mainstream' players, bloggers like to feel that they can contribute suggestions and ideas, and are being taken seriously. Consider how to establish an environment that encourages and rewards (non-financially) a truly two-way conversation.
Charlie Pownall is lead digital strategist at Burson-Marsteller Asia Pacific.
1
- 5
 |
|
|