| Blog |
There’s been a bit of a hoo-hah around the comments of Leo Laporte on social media. The influential tech podcaster has said he’s given up on the platform, especially Google Buzz. Laporte was angry because a glitch with Buzz meant his posts after 6 August weren’t seen by anyone – so he’s not doing social media anymore: “It makes me feel like everything I’ve posted over the past four years on Twitter, Jaiku, Friendfeed, Plurk, Pownce, and, yes, Google Buzz, has been an immense waste of time,” (The Next Web 22/8). A few commentators have come out in support.
However, Martin Bryant on TNW (22/8) wondered whether the announcement was a bit of a PR stunt because millions were happily engaged with social media. Bryant thought Laporte’s exile wouldn’t last long because: ‘He simply can’t maintain credibility if he isn’t active on at least some social media platforms – how will he know what he’s talking about if he doesn’t take part’?
The blogger quoted one Twitter user who suggested Laporte was using Buzz and Twitter: “Like a megaphone w/o earphones. If u only broadcast & don’t engage w/your followers they stop listening.” But, the podcaster replied: “I engage plenty. In fact, that’s why I prefer(red) Buzz. Twitter was never designed for conversation.” It could have been Laporte’s simply couldn’t keep up with the high volumes of comment he got, according to Bryant.
Brad McCarty picked up the discussion on TNW (23/8) with a focus on the importance of social media engagement and suggested: ‘If your users aren’t engaged (and make no mistake that some people simply don’t want to be engaged) then it will be a megaphone. If they are, then it will be a roundtable’.
There are no hard and fast rules in engagement and the debate will roll on. But from a brand’s viewpoint, one thing is certain, the platform is a vital part of the media ecosystem for managing its digital footprint and reputation.
An ethical row has broken out over a corporate blog from Pepsi on The Guardian’s ScienceBlogs. Several bloggers have resigned from the respected site after the company started a nutritional blog. The Pepsi content, at the time, was not clearly marked as sponsored.
Did the site undermine its independent, impartial, science bloggers by giving them the same status as a corporate platform, which was essentially paid for? This sparked a real storm in the science community.
Seed editor Adam Bly yesterday wrote a ‘confidential’ letter to contributors explaining the decision to host the controversial blog. It was then leaked. Bly explained corporate participation in the blog. It has previously hosted blogs from Shell, Dow, Schering-Plough, GE, Invitrogen and L’Oreal. He went to point out that the Pepsi posts were made by the company’s leading scientists and were entirely self-managed.
Yes, Pepsi had made a lot of money selling soft drinks and chips, but, according to Bly, they also recognised that ‘their future will be troublesome and time-limited without addressing the real and connected issues of obesity and under-nutrition in the world’. (ScienceBlogs.com 7/7)
Paul Raeburn on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker (7/7), talked of the ‘outrage’ felt among the site’s bloggerati. In response to the Seed editor, he said: ‘For a guy who doesn’t work for Pepsi, or sit in on their corporate board meetings, Bly seems in an odd position to be vouching for Pepsi’s foresight and wisdom. Or maybe Bly does sit in on those meetings–in which case, let’s hope for a leak on that, so we can report it’.
Maryn McKenna (7/7) posted an interesting comment on the first line of the Pepsi blog: “We have some exciting things planned for this project, including a video series that will begin with a look at the role the food industry plays in health issues.” Words usually the preserve of PR departments – not scientists.
So, this will be an interesting issue to watch. It’s another minefield where once again there are no hard and fast rules on engagement through social media or advertorial content. Should blogs provide a paid-for corporate platform. If they do, will it by default always compromise credibility and the impartiality of comment?
There are few rule books on managing corporate reputations in social media. When should a brand engage and show it’s listening? When should it stand back? Chris Lake on eConsultancy Blog (21/5) posted an interesting discussion on a recent spat between Dyson, a blogger and Mitsubishi Electric. What should a brand do when a competitor wades into the discussion?
Mitsubishi recently jumped into the ring and joined a row between blogger Nick Donelly and Dyson over the supplier’s Airblade. Donelly claimed the dryer was an “awkward and unusual” way to dry your hands among his list of gripes. The company was quick off the mark in responding to pinpoint the fault and the blogger was “quickly impressed with the engagement – thinking ‘wow, Dyson gets it”.
Then everything changed. Mitsubishi lost no time and ‘threw a massive curve ball at Dyson’ by adding its comments to the original post. It listed the reasons its dryer was better than Dyson’s.
At that point, Dyson left the discussion, which it thought was going nowhere. The move didn’t impress the blogger, but was understandable according to Lake, given Dyson couldn’t be 100 per cent sure Mitsubishi had posted the comments. Lake explained that in the irregular world of social media, brands should determine how they manage their reputation online, and with a competitor at its door, Dyson was right at the time to back off. Other brands would have quickly got their gloves off.
There was some positive support for Dyson in the comment thread following the eConsultancy post. For example, Dan Barker posted: ‘To be honest I think Dyson came out of this rather well’. Donelly commented: ‘I think Dyson did a lot right’, following a subsequent discussion with the company. However, he did update his post on how Dyson could have better communicated its position.
It’s all a bit of a minefield and there no hard and fast rules for social media engagement. Clearly, being fully transparent to your customers, and listening to their needs is key. However, is it right for brands to jump in to discussions about their competitors in the blogosphere? It will be interesting to monitor the situation and see if this is an emerging trend.
LONDON, February 23, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Sentiment Metrics today announced the launch of its social media engagement module, powerful new web-based functionality fully integrated with the existing Sentiment Metrics social media monitoring and measurement platform.
The social media engagement module directly integrates with Twitter and Facebook, as well as supporting the creation of comments in blogs and forums from within the application itself. Via the workflow module, CRM functionality is also possible allowing the assignment and tracking of engagement activities, across all team members in an organisation.
Until now, Sentiment Metrics users have been able to monitor online conversations about brands, organisations and issues across all forms of social media including blogs, forums, and Twitter. Sentiment Metrics were the first company to include Facebook fanpage coverage last year and continues to embrace new arenas with Google Buzz. With this new module, Sentiment Metrics users will now be able to directly engage with individuals and enter the online conversation without needing to leave the application.
With the new highly visual social profile graphing tool, users can look up social media user profiles, including their Twitter handle, LinkedIn profile, blog address, and google profile, and then choose to engage via these profiles all with the touch of a button.
Directly engaging with an organisation’s customers has been proven to increase customer satisfaction, improve customer retention and generate greatly increased sales leads. By integrating engagement activities into the Sentiment Metrics social media monitoring platform, organisations can roll out a time-saving, convenient, and easy-to-use process with a full audit trail for historical reporting.
“We have been privileged to help many of the world’s leading brands and agencies monitor and measure social media over the past few years. Direct engagement was the next step for customer-facing organisations. We have responded to our clients’ requests and we are delighted to release these new features,” said Leon Chaddock, Managing Director of Sentiment Metrics.
Sentiment Metrics’ user-friendly web dashboard allows topics to be entered for monitoring and measurement. Content is delivered in real-time, graded by importance and sentiment. Users can then respond directly to mentions collected via Twitter, Facebook or through comment-based systems. For organisations, this means their customers can receive instant feedback, contact information can be identified via Google’s Social graph API and new leads can be funnelled back into the organisation’s sales processes.
For more information about Sentiment Metrics, visit http://www.sentimentmetrics.com.
Free trials and demonstrations available.
About Sentiment Metrics
Sentiment Metrics provides a social media monitoring, measurement and engagement platform for PR, marketing and communication professionals. The real-time dashboard monitors all forms of social media and online news, breaking down mentions by sentiment (positive, negative, neutral), demographics, influence and authority. Sentiment Metrics is focused on providing real actionable insight and analytics for their clients, allowing them to directly engage with their customers. For more information, go to http://www.sentimentmetrics.com.
