Public Content
In an increasing D-I-Y research world we are D-I-F-Y (do-it-for-you) kind of people.
And we D-I-R (do-it-right) because it's hard to un-do a bad business decision in today's world.
There is a disturbing trend in our industry and among many client companies to mistake the mining of big data (including web based transactions of any kind) by automated processed as valid “research” without question. It can be, but is not unconditionally so.
It is data collection, and like ALL data collection, what is being collected requires validation and this seems to be sorely missing in many processes today.
I can understand this; much of this is due to necessity. There is so much data, that it cannot be managed by people, only by machines. We require filters to sift through the morass of minutiae that is growing by the second online. But filters are crude tools. The underlying assumption in a lot of mining data (the use of filters notwithstanding) is that all data mined is equally valid because it exists.
Being trained as a historian, this makes me cringe. Everyone knows (or should know) the web contains a huge amount of erroneous data, lies, and misinformation. There is no filter for bullshit and crap.
These data sources are indeed literally “facts” (in that they exist & are verifiable in their existence) but more properly I would say they are digital artifacts, and these artifacts are being gathered and analyzed in dashboards everywhere. Existence does not equal either truth or even valid opinions.
We in the research & analysis business need to be at the forefront of discerning what digital artifacts are valid source materials for analysis for market and social research projects. It's not an easy job. I think there will always be need for some human interaction with data in order to make sense of it to other humans (and clients still fall into that category).
I love the use of the latest technologies in my job, but as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.
And do not believe for a moment in the death of survey research just because we can “listen” instead of “ask”. It is easier to filter respondents than it is to filter terabytes of data. And we don’t have to sift through a morass of data that has nothing to do with the research process just to get to that which does.
A questionnaire is focused whereas listening to the generic “conversations” online is like gathering opinion data on the service in a restaurant by eavesdropping on conversations among diners. Many people are not talking about the food.
One of the key take-aways from the Carbon Economy Summit in Toronto on June 6th was talk by Dr Bair Feltmate of the University of Waterloo where he declared that debating whether climate change was real was a mute point. Actions to reduce carbon in the atmosphere can be mitigated, and perhaps we can delay the severity of the effects, but it's a done deal. Climate change is here, we can slow it down, maybe, but the point where it could be stopped is past. It was refreshing to here as this has been my opinion for quite some time.
So we need to deal with adaptation. And while Dr Feltmate didn't put it this way my sense was that if you live in low lying areas, you'd better start building your dykes now if you want to avoid swimming down main street later. For more details about the speakers and the conference content see http://www.carboneconomysummit.ca .
Ana Pavlovic of Dufferin Research (our resident expert in the science of climate chnage) will also be attending the WaterSummit http://www.watersummit.ca in Calgary on June 28th.
In addition to the science about Climate Change, there is also the important business of doing the public opinion research necessary to develop the polices needed by governments and corporations to get on with the business of adapting to climate change and mitigating the effects as best we can. And of course this is what we do.
Words fail me.
This is not what the authors call an "example of buzz tracking and analysis", this is complete nonsense.
Maybe I’m just not getting it, or I’m reading too much into vacuous statements, but why are we asking the ROI on a thing without considering what one is doing with that thing.
And define “investment” in this content? Time? Money? Something else?
Time may be money to some people, but not all, but money is never equal to time.
The vague “What’s the ROI” question is, I think, confusing the means of distribution with the content and the purpose. They are all interrelated but are not equal.
I’m generally in agreement with what I think McLuhan meant on “the medium being the message” but the use of “being” has always bugged me in this statement. It’s hyperbolic (in the non-mathematical sense). Let’s just say I concur that the means of delivery of any communication affects the reception of the content. This works for TV, and it works for Social Media.
So what’s the ROI on television?
First question that pops into my mind is from whose point of view? The broadcaster? The audience? The advertiser? The appliance store? The cable repair dude? Someone else? The ROI differs for all, based on their relationship to TV.
It is the same for Social Media. From whose point of view are you asking this question?
Asking clear questions is the obvious first step into getting clear & relevant answers. This is why we do research.
You can sensibly ask what is the ROI on your working hours spent promoting your business, or the ROI on the advertising dollars spent via Social Media, but an abstract “What’s the ROI” without specifying something tangible & measureable, is a pointless question. It’s a bit like asking “What is the ROI on eating?” Well, if you don’t you’ll die.
The use of social networks is a communicative process. The purpose differs for everyone. What I get for using LinkedIn or Facebook or Twitter or blogging may be quite different from others doing similar things. I do many things via social networking sites, and I communicate as well as by phone, by email, by snail mail, etc. Effective communications are a necessary precondition to doing work in our era.
I don’t measure ROI on this by channel (is this practical?) but rather the overall effectiveness of my communication strategy. My revenue stream is usually a good indication that if I spend a lot of time communicating for business and there is no associative income, the ROI is not good.
“What is my ROI on my communication strategy using social media?” is a sensible question, but not easily answered. Unless you are ONLY doing this and it works or doesn’t (using the revenue indicator) it is hard to measure the exact reach of the medium.
We of course try. That is the nature of being a market researcher. We can get you something of value, and you can use that to make decisions. It’s what we do.
I can’t guarantee you’ll get a mathematically precise measurement (like your ROI on all the time you spend on Facebook is worth $14,113.12 per annum), but I can guarantee that asking an imprecise and vague question will not get you any answer at all.
Cheers
drive an Audi S4. It is a driver's car. The first time I had the opportunity to take it to a professional track for a day of professional instruction and zooming around the track, I leaped at it.
It was a humbling experience. To come away realizing that your car is more capable than you, is an eye opener. I was cramped & exhausted after four hours. I limped home. I sucked as a driver & I thought I was good.
Three months later I was back, an Audi among Porches, for a full eight hour day. And I actually learned something.
Read more: What professional race track instructors taught me about social media.
