Social Monitoring. Garbage In. Pretty Garbage Out.

If you've done a bit of of work in the digital marketing arena lately, then odds are you're familiar with the various social monitoring tools available to help bring metrics and clarity to a chaotic stream of data. The number of options is impressive, but realize that the majority of them also share the same weakness.

The reality is that we're in a f a "garbage in, pretty garbage out" situation. While the tools are becoming increasingly detailed and complex in terms of chopping up data, visualizing trends, and even gauging sentiment, the majority of them still are populated by the same simple back-end data: RSS. 

Challenges with data coming from RSS feeds:

1. Lots of unfiltered spam. Although tools are being implemented to block this out, certain categories like pharma and e-commerce are bombarded with keyword spam.

2. Repetition. In the age of the the retweet and digg link there is a vast amount of RSS data that is redundant. While it's important to know how much a message is being rebroadcast, by simply taking a feed vs. grouping items as original vs. repeat monitoring tools can often create a false sense of importance around a conversation.

3. Text Heavy. Text is core to how a RSS works. While social media channels are primarily text based, there are some big players like YouTube and Flickr that have the potential to distribute viral content in a visual manner which monitoring tools often cannot see. Obviously tagging exists, but this assumes that the someone took the time to implement tags (which often isn't the case.)

The only current solution to the above issues is implementing human power. Unfortunate most of us simply don't have the time or resources to delegate teams to do this kind of work. There has not been enough monetary justification to do anything above and beyond spot-checking the work of robots and algorithms. The point here is, take the output of social monitoring tools with a grain of salt. Understand the specific business needs you're trying to address before pulling piles of data from these tools.

If you're looking to expand on your ability to respond rapidly during a crisis, are you measuring the time and volume of your press releases? Are you correlating the growth of your following to the subsequent volume of rebroadcasts?

If you're launching a discussion forum are you tracking overlaps between the outside social web and your domain? Shortened URLS leading back to the forum?

Social Monitoring is an extremely young enterprise. It has its pitfalls but also has amazing opportunities. As brands are jumping into the social web (and naturally wanting the metrics to justify that decision) they need to remember that data streaming in is going to evolve and setting baselines and expectations now should be handled carefully. We're going to see monitoring start to focus more on quality not quantity as filtering improves and algorithms move closer to mirroring human analysis. Until (if) that happens, be careful when investing a great deal of money, time, and trust into clumps of data that have been reformatted into a somewhat more organized and visually appealing package.

Silence in the Echo Chamber

Ironically, the topic of this blog post is something that has already been spoken of. It's the "echo chamber," the most common reference to the idea that much of the thoughts on the web are redundant or derivative. I find myself posting much less lately because I often will find fresh content that mirrors the ideas that I was planning on writing about. In effort to reduce the echo, I thought about what "walls" were being created that have stifled original content for myself and others:

The Walls

RSS Feeds: Those actively engaged with RSS feeds get a great deal of information (even in snack form) thrown at them. The topics in those feeds get our brains working, but it's often about the work or thoughts of other people. While there's great value in this kind of analysis, when brainstorming I suggest ignoring your feeds.

Livestreams/Microblogs: On Twitter today I posted the following: "Know how when you were a kid you'd invent things that already existed? To you, they were new? Happens a lot with thoughts now on Twitter." This proved true when three people replied to me saying that had just had that "epiphany" today as well. In terms of being a "wall" Twitter is still a mixed bag for me. It does two things, having it open forces me to think of creative questions and points, but it also leads me to read the same of others. Unless you can ignore your tweet stream and focus only on the "What are you doing?" box, I'd say close this up as well.

Lazy Reconfiguration: An author once told, there are 6 great stories out there when it comes to fiction books. They have all been written, new books are the same stories with new people, settings, and technology. The optimist in me doesn't want to believe that statement, but assuming it's somewhat true, it means that creative configuration of content is vital. It means telling the same story from a different perspective and adding your own analysis and critiques. (But also making sure your analysis/critiques aren't clones of other respondents)

Conferences and Mixers: Choose your live events carefully. Unless you are a speaker sharing knowledge, ask yourself a few questions. Is this conference going to bring something new to the table? Are the people here going to be different from the last one I went to? Am I going to act as a filter for the speaker and send out someone else's thoughts into the stream (conference tweeting) or am I going to listen to a unique perspective and then collect my thoughts and offer my own?

The above walls are not without value. They serve the purpose of SHARING content with those that can't access it or find it. But don't get confused and think that sharing content is the same as CREATING content. In the digital space, your audience is composed largely of people who do know where to get this information so instead of showing them the same film twice, write the sequel, do the remake, or add the directors commentary. 

What are your strategies for avoiding and not contributing to the echo chamber?

Birds and the Mules of the Web

Do you go to CNN to get your news, or do you have an RSS feed? Do you use email to forward your thoughts and interests to large groups or do you use Twitter? Although I hate to use absolutes or generalize, it is fair to say that the majority of the online audience can be grouped into two main categories:

Mules: Heavy in number and somewhat stubborn. They like to go the same places because they are reliable and easy. These are the folks who are now getting comfortable with YouTube and/or Wikipedia. They have found large and excellent resources for content and they know they can always go back to get it again.

Birds: Jump from place to place. The venues these people frequent aren’t as heavily trafficked and the mules of the internet either can’t, don’t want to, or don’t know how to reach the branches of the many web 2.0 properties. These entities offer what consumers seek, but with innovative packaging or specific attributes which exceed what the majority of the internet audience is used to seeing.

I’m not going to use this post to talk about what demographics comprise the Mules and Birds. Those are statistics that are ever changing around a space which is very blurred. The purpose of this post is to understand that there are two distinct groups that have two distinct types of behavior which need to be catered to in specific ways.

With the recent explosion in “social media” many sites which have largely catered to Mules have started implementing social functionality to mimic the abilities of other start-up like media providers. While there’s nothing wrong with such changes, those mule loving sites need to understand that they shouldn’t assume those functions will be a hit. The Birds will of course visit those sites and appreciate those functions, but the vast majority of visitors will be there because of the content and not because of the content + the added tools.

In my mind, the reason the stodgier older sites are expanding their social functionality is because they knows the Birds are the most vocal online. And they want those Birds to talk about how innovative the established online brands are with their design changes. But the key obstacle is that Birds are kind of like indie rock fans. Once the band gets played on MTV or the local top 40 station, it’s not cool anymore. It’s wonderful that you can now Digg stories on CNN money but bloggers aren’t going to talk about it. They have been exhibiting these kinds of behaviors for a long time (in the time frame of the internet) and that isn’t news to them.

On the flip side, when supplying content or tools for the Birds. Providers need to remember not to try and duplicate the quality and mass resources of the Mule feeders. A site like Blinkx, which leverages a great piece of video search technology isn’t going to take the place of a site like Youtube. DIGG isn’t going to the take the place of Google Search (yet) as a default resource even for the Birds. The key for online brands serving the Birds is to cherish each and every one of their users because they are fewer in number albeit more influential. These online brands need to constantly be changing and evolving while they are serving the Birds. Eventually, the branches of web 2.0 that stick around will become thick. The Birds will fly away to another tree, but hopefully (for the online brand) the mainstream audience (the Mules) will take their place.