Social Media Monitoring
Posts 11-18 of 18
Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker Premium Member Group moderator03 Apr 2010, 07:44 am
Great video featuring Valdis Krebs. The trouble is just that I find the distinction between hidden and social influencers a bit artificial.
For starters, both influence people using social channels in one way or another (e.g., communication, meetings, Twitter). It is just that those that Valdis calls social influencers have a larger network with various nodes that are connected to others whom they might distribute a tweet or blog post to.... influencing ever more people.
But the 'hidden' influencers may know fewer people but if the latter are influenced to purchase or to change their life style due to the influencer's work....
The greatest challenge for me is if a micro enterprise or an SME I can probably not apply social network analysis.
Doing it on a regular basis in order to find out who influences whom.... what a time consuming task. In fact, should I care because it gets my cash register to ring = more sales. Or is it just another vanity metrics that might make me feel good but not pay the office rent at the end of the month.
Needless to say, I have tried to put this in a practical frame here:
So while I love social network analysis it is not necessarily a metric for most enterprises that can be used easily. Probably another one Aldo Gnocchi would label as being time/resource intensive. See also Aldo's contribution about qualitative measures earlier in this thread here:
Time thanks for sharing. Another thing I must consider.
Tim Gier(not a XING member)03 Apr 2010, 1:18 pm
Your approach (via Boyd & Krebs) to adding Twitter followers prompted me to think of this:
New Car dealerships routinely use direct mail campaigns to reach potential customers. An average return on such a campaign is about 1% (that's the number everyone uses, but my personal experience tells me that it is more often less than that). The return rate is of responders only, not of purchasers, which is lower still. The direct mail pieces themselves have changed little over the years, other than to reflect technological advances in printing, design & database integration. The messages they contain are almost invariably offers that sound to good to be true coupled with some contest or other remote chance to win something for free.
I've always thought that such campaigns are a waste of time and money as they do nothing to build any value in the brand (of the local car dealership itself) in the minds of prospective customers. Worse, they can actually devalue that brand by confirming the negative stereotypes that people have of car dealerships. Better for the car dealer to create a long term outreach program that educates the public about the real value in the products it offers and the value it adds to those products in the services it provides. By changing from a message that is focused on "Save $4000! Act Now!" to one that is focused on "We value you as a customer, and are worth your time and attention," the dealer would have a much better chance of building customers for life as opposed to adding just a few extra sales in one weekend.
The problem is that the first approach - the mass direct mail campaign - is measurable quantitatively and the results, no matter how poor, can be easily known. The second approach does not immediately cause the cash register to ring - and so it is usually viewed as something that just makes people feel good without adding to the bottom line.
We have been talking about social media and how to measure influence - what causes the cash register to ring and what might just be "feel good" campaigns - quantitative vs. qualitative. Ad agencies & operations managers like to point to measurable results, and results are what everyone is after. I think, though, that often the results that we can measure cause us to chase after goals that are actually at cross purposes with long term success, goals which are not worth having.
Post visible to registered members
Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker Premium Member Group moderator13 Apr 2010, 07:54 am
a) qualitative - evaluate quality of comments, discussion participation, etc. = time-consuming
b) quantitative - pageviews, visits to blog, conversions (visit webpage and purchase)
and many more as outlined in the above thread of comments.
Some of you pointed out in the above comments that quantitative information may not suit your company's purpose for using social media. In turn, what works for firm A may fail for firm B.
But why do we then strive to find software and tools that provide us with quantitative assessments (such as number of mentions on Twitter - how this fails Tim Gier outlined above)? If they do not give us a clear or accurate picture, is it wise to make strategic decisions based on such kind of information?
Put differently, what software you use and does it really go beyond quantitative collection of data that might be primarily vanity metrics (make you feel good numbers) but fail to allow you to make strategic decisions?
Oliver Gassner Premium Member Group moderator Ambassador13 Apr 2010, 09:36 am
It rings and someone says:
"I read on the web that you ... Could you do this and this for me?"
And then they threaten me to give me money if I help them.
I usually oblige.
And I start to worry when my Pageviews on my blog go down and write some more good artoicles that some people link and hype and that make other people call me.
OK, most send E-Mail, but when those are 'caught' that se the phone, I know I won ;)
PS; Typos coorrected
Post visible to registered members
Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker Premium Member Group moderator13 Apr 2010, 10:42 am
It indicates to me that we all have to:
==> 1 - focus on our particular situation and context we are in.
For instance, Amit you you want to build a community. I understand Oliver's comment that he wants to use Xing to increase is reputation as an expert, in the hope that this will get his phone to ring off the hook.
Reg told us in another discussion about - My boss says Xing is for the birds - that for him it is getting more traffic to his webpage and people to purchase his SEO services:
Another important is is that:
==> 2 - metrics can change in just a few months
So based on the context you are in (e.g., early start of your community ... see also Aldo's social media community mentioned above) the metrics that are most helpful have to reflect this to make them useful.
The metrics might change several times within a year and get more stable possibly lateron but no guarantee.
In contrast to some other areas of business like finance or accounting, measuring social networking activities smartly is not yet a science and can be standardized as the bean counters would wish.
In particular providing us with tools that provide standardized metrics may not work very well. In contrast, what we need is tools and methods that allow us to:
a - customize as much as possible, AND
b - mechanize as much as possible (ie. limit the time required to make sense out of such as qualitative data).
Thanks for all your valuable input, wonderful and really ,,,, means all this talk about ROI and other stuff may just not do the complexity of this problem much justice:
===> Will the ROI fad with #socialmedia ever pass?
Merci and yes some people still may want to this important discussion.
Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker Premium Member Group moderator14 Apr 2010, 07:35 am
===> Recipe for success: Facebook, LinkedIn and Xing metrics
I would appreciate if you could leave a comment, things I forgot, your experiences, suggestions right at the blog, thanks for sharing.
PS. if you are interested, privacy with Xing and Facebook is an issue that you must address as best as you can. We have a thread about this here: