ImpactWatch Blog

In the process of leafing through my RSS reader seeking inspiration for a blog post, I came across some outstanding links relating to things we do here at ImpactWatch. If you haven’t checked out these articles, they are definitely worth a look.

Some URL’s relevant to your interests:

• Social media expert Mark Evans details his thoughts on the long-term effects of social media.
• A TechCrunch report on internet advertising and how its growth is outpacing television.
• Snippet on determining browser market share.
• Tips for spotting users with fake Twitter followings.

Just a quick look at Monday’s web offerings.

How do you know what you know? It’s a question worth asking that seldom crosses people’s minds. When it comes to media literacy, few people stop to critically analyze the sources from which their news originates. After all the prestige and organization is stripped from it, mass media boils down to a story written by a biased individual.

One of the widely recognized normative goals of journalistic media is to remain “objective” and “unbiased”, a lofty and impossible goal. Unavoidable forces such as deadlines, ownership, the author’s personal worldview, editorial influence, and story selection all contribute to media bias. What I’m trying to get at is that news isn’t always fair, and anyone with a vested interest in their publicity should be wary of their perception in the media.

Take, for example, someone recently familiar with media coverage: Sarah Palin. Without speaking to my personal favorability, what comes to mind at the mention of her name? Does the term Malibu Barbie, the popular appearances of Tina Fey, or opinions about wardrobe selection come to mind? In reality, many people were turned off by Sarah Palin. Over her campaign for vice presidency, the media chose to zoom in on certain aspects of her personal life, imagery, and political history (as is the media’s responsibility for anybody vying for a spot as prestigious as she was). Whether you felt Sarah Palin was treated fairly or unfairly is irrelevant to my point: the picture you saw was painted entirely by the media.

Some wisdom can be drawn from this. If revenue is driven by consumers, and consumers are informed by an inherently biased media, it is necessary to “maintain” public image with the public. This is nothing new. Public relations firms have been around since the days of Edward Bernays, and before that in other forms. Building relationships with the public, networking with relevant (and influential) members of the media, and responding to negative criticisms are all key qualitative elements to maintaining desired public perception.

Somewhere along the way, a little thing called the internet came along. It took some time to catch on, but it is unstoppable; a TV-killer. Please take advice from this youngster: Do not underestimate its influence. While traditional media personalities have come to terms and accepted the internet as part of their toolbox (see our newspaper study), nobody could predict the overall influence social media would have on media relations. Tweets and blogs and spaces of all varieties have popped up anywhere and everywhere I seem to be looking. For the first real time in history, a medium with virtually instantaneous feedback has become the norm. Opinions from virtually anybody have the potential to go viral.

That’s where we come in. At IW, we take care of that for you. There is simply too much noise out there to maintain relations the way one could in the golden days. Harnessing the vast scanning capabilities of machines and the sentiment of living, breathing people, we deliver information about brands to people who get it. If you think I’m wrong, you’re probably missing something.

You may have noticed something new.  Today we’re launching the redesign of the ImpactWatch website. 

Over the past several months, we have brainstormed, designed and written content for what we hope will be a milestone in IW’s life.

The idea for the site redesign came from the need for a new logo.  Last year, we attended the PDF conference in NY and used a temporary logo for all the swag that was handed out to potential clients.  We weren’t particularly happy with the temporary logo; it was hurriedly done, and it didn’t symbolize IW in our eyes.  Upon returning to the office, Eric and I set to work on a memo detailing all of our ideas for a new logo.  Our initial idea was to have an animal mascot, an owl to be specific, and you can see that vision in some of the rejected logos at the bottom of the post.

Eventually, the owl died (flew the coop?) and after some weeks of redesign, marketing meetings and discussion, we finally came to a consensus.

 The process of selecting a new symbol helped the team see that it was time for a complete marketing website remix.  The original site had been created years ago and we wanted to match our fancy new logo with a fancy new site.  And so began a whole new process of meetings, marketing strategy sessions and designer debates.

The old site was mostly narrative, with long paragraphs describing the features and benefits of IW.  People in the blogging age simply don’t read that way anymore, so the first order of business was to streamline the paragraphs into new bulleted lists and tabbed sections.  The end result is a complete overhaul of the information presented to you on every page.  It’s easier to read, easier to edit and just plain better.

Another tweak to the site was the addition of the Twitter feed on the homepage and secondary pages.  We started tweeting for our brand a couple of months ago, and love the response we’ve been getting.  I saw a great feed app on a favorite webcomic’s page , so I pitched the idea and we made it our own.  Look for that to evolve and grow over time, with the addition of some more Web 2.0 goodies.

With phase one of the site re-launch complete, we are already hard at work thinking of great ideas for phase two.  Feel free to post any comments or suggestions, but try to keep them free of owls…it’s still too soon for me.

As a bonus, browse some of the logos from the decision-making process that didn’t make the cut.  During the decision-making period, these were designed by graphics guru Teddy Taylor.  As you can see, we went through a LOT of different ideas before finally deciding on the one you see above. 

Within the past month, we released our 2008 Newspaper Study, and the results aren’t all that surprising. It seems as if newspapers are finally catching on to the whole, you know, internet thing. With steady growth in most categories, the results show that the typewriter-types at Gannett and McClatchy are stepping up to the plate and transitioning into the digital forum. While they still have a few kinks to work out, let it be known that the nation’s editors are trying, desperately, to hold your attention online.

This trend has several implications for the industry and the way information is disseminated — namely, in our line of work, the division between traditional media and web 2.0/social media/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is being blurred. No longer are the days when scanning the nation’s top papers is enough to ensure you’re seeing most of your significant coverage. A media monitoring initiative must be all inclusive, spanning content types and niche audiences. Where people choose to receive their news is growing in diversity and complexity; as a result, so are the methods in which to keep up.

While some features like podcasts have dropped, more important factors like socially-driven bookmarking are skyrocketing among the nation’s traditional publications (92% of newspapers studied, compared to 44% in 2007). We’ve seen the way information flows turned completely upside-down with the Digg factor, which works in very much the same way. In addition, registration is at an all-time low (11%), meaning less obstacles to hurdle for the average user to access content.

On the ImpactWatch team, it is our priority to ensure that our clients see what’s being said about them — be it traditional print, online content, or socially driven media. When there’s simply too much clutter from too many sources, we help sort it out.

You’ve heard it before, and you’ll hear it again. Monitoring the jumble of user-driven media is essential for the health of any brand. A few days ago, Jeremiah Owyang highlighted the importance of this on his blog entry about a recent brand-jacking involving Exxon Mobil. Apparently, a user account “ExxonMobilCorp” was created on Twitter, and a user known only as “Janet” posed as an Exxon Mobil spokesperson. This is not the first time that brand-jacking has been been identified as a problem within social media.

Analytics aside, it boils down to a matter of tipping points. Most organizations spend countless resources building their brands, and the reality is that these intellectual positions can fall at a moment’s notice. Trying to calculate ROI, tracing overall trends, semantic analysis — all of these take a back burner to public relations emergencies within the realm of new media.

Being aware of attacks on your image, misrepresentations of fact, and negative opinion from top influencers is simply necessary when positioning your brand.

In the last post, I did a micro-study of Kinoki Detox Foot Pads and the way they are being portrayed in the realm of YouTube. In addition to analyzing the “views” count on the website, I adjusted the quantity by minutes to give a better representation of the exposure YouTube is actually giving the Kinoki brand.

This time around, I will examine the user feedback to the videos that were part of the study. If I had been the one who had actually posted these videos, I would be able to utilize YouTube Insight, a powerful built-in tool that turns an ordinary YouTube video into something that resembles an online focus group (there will be more on this tool in the future). Seeing as how I am not interested in posting my own videos about Kinoki Detox Foot Pads, I will have to rely on the inexact method of comment analysis and “feel it out”.

First, a red flag. On the positive videos, there were only a couple of comments that were all positive and framed as customer testimonials reiterating their “refreshing feelings” and how using them had changed the users’ lifestyles for the better. After three or four comments, the commenting feature had been disabled, thereby locking in a few positive comments and keeping naysayers from commenting on the wall. That, and the videos themselves were infomercials in the guise of “health update” news reports. Rather suspect if you ask me.
On the videos that allowed commenting, the tone was overwhelmingly negative. A couple of comments would be users who have actually used the product and would claim that the Kinoki Detox Foot Pads actually made them feel better, to which users would instantly become outraged and prove them wrong with their elite high school chemistry knowledge.

In review, the coverage of Kinoki Detox Foot Pads on YouTube is quite negative, both in videos and commentary. If an undecided consumer were to consult YouTube to make a more informed decision, they would more than likely decide not to purchase these foot pads — maybe changing your diet is the way to go after all. I still swear by my twice-daily regiments of snake oil.

According to Alexa’s listing of most visited websites (sorted by country), YouTube is ranked as #4 in the United States, #6 in the United Kingdom, #4 in Japan, #5 in South Korea and #2 in Germany. It has the power to launch overnight public-relations Cinderella stories such as the Blendtec miracle (yes already, it will blend) as well as broadcast to millions a reputation-killing moment even more swiftly. These occurrences, once posted to YouTube, are available indefinitely.

How does one quantify the amount of successful or damaging exposure YouTube is causing them? Here are some measurements of a micro-case study crafted specifically for this blog post: an analysis of YouTube exposure of the television infomercial product, Kinoki™ Detox Foot Pads. Note: The Bivings Group and the ImpactWatch service are in no way affiliated with Kinoki™ Detox Food Pads.

I manually aggregated data by watching YouTube videos related to the “miraculous detox system”. You can see the raw data that I collected here in an excel spreadsheet. Using the resulting data, I created some visualizations within ImpactWatch:

The first graph shows a raw view of the types of videos people watch related to the Kinoki™ Detox Foot Pads. This is strictly measured in views, which is valid because YouTube only counts views once from each unique IP address, and only if an overwhelmingly large portion of the video was viewed. However, this unit of measurement is often misleading and does not give an accurate representation of the actual exposure Kinoki foot pads have received. That’s where a little spreadsheet manipulation and the second graph comes into play.

In the second graph, a new unit was analyzed. Taking the number of views for each video and multiplying them by their length in minutes, an adjusted unit that more accurately represents total “exposure” was created. This graph provides a much better metric for gauging the float-or-sink status of the product. Although in both graphs negative exposure was dominating (I wonder why?), the adjusted quantity of “YouTube minutes” shows that it wasn’t as bad as just a raw views count might have initially demonstrated.

In the next part of this two-part case study, comments for the videos and other forms of responses will be analyzed.

After last week’s debacle with Barack Obama’s MySpace page, lots of bloggers have been discussing whether or not political campaigns should take control over MySpace profiles and other voter-created websites and online groups. It’s no surprise that bloggers have been covering this issue, but I wondered to what degree the story had reached mainstream media (MSM) outlets.

I did a quick Google search for articles about Barack Obama from May 2 to May 4. I limited my search to print media outlets (newspapers and magazines) and major online news sources (such as CNN.com or MSNBC.com). I did not include blogs, international sources, or TV/radio outlets in my search. To further narrow my search, I only considered articles that were directly about Barack Obama–his name was either in the headline, or he was a substantial part of the story. I did not include political overviews or articles where he was mentioned in brief.

I found 51 articles over the three days, 10 of which were about Barack’s MySpace page. I marked particularly negative articles with an asterisk.

Political blogging growing like a vine*
Barack Obama Could Lose Some ‘Friends’ In MySpace Debacle*
This Should Make Bloggers Happy *
Learn from Obama: Hire a Professional *
Campaign takes control of ‘official’ MySpace site
Between Barack and MySpace
I’m Sorry, Barack, We’re Through*
Obama Campaign Asks: Is it MySpace or Yours?
Obama Takes MySpace Page from Backer
Obama to MySpace: That’s MyPage

These 10 articles were spread over 8 different publications and make up 20% of Barack-specific coverage during May 2-4. I was pretty surprised that such a variety of MSM outlets, some of them very significant publications, picked up on this story. I was also surprised that MSM outlets were so critical of Barack’s efforts at regaining control over his MySpace page. I expected that since most newspapers and magazines maintain top-down strategies in most of their media coverage, they would be supportive of the transition to the “official”, rather than voter-controlled strategy.

To see the articles I included in my survey, please take a look at my datasheet.

Our media monitoring platform, ImpactWatch, would be perfect for tracking an issue such as this one. In order to complete this analysis, I had to manually search through Google results. If I had used ImpactWatch, this search would have been automated, allowing me to pre-determine which news sources I would be tracking. In addition, ImpactWatch would have given me a mechanism for sorting, graphing, and ranking the results according to subject, source, author, and bias (positive, negative, neutral).

For more information about ImpactWatch , check out the website and our current free demo, which tracks coverage of the PS3 and Nintendo Wii.

I was against promoting Ajit’s music on the blog. But then his cover of Gnarl Barkley’s Crazy got over 10,000 views on YouTube, so I realized we needed to jump on the bandwagon and support our own. So here’s our Senior Director in charge of Impactwatch, Ajit Verghese, singing Crazy:

Listen to Ajit. Buy ImpactWatch. Love the Bivings Group.

In the most recent volume of Communique Magazine , TBG’s Gary Bivings authored a featured article. “Watching the Web” is a great piece about how PR and marketing techniques are changing to incorporate the monitoring of various new forms of media, primarily the Web. The article cites several examples of how the Web has affected PR and customer involvement in the pharmaceutical industry, and discusses how content tracking platforms can be an effective addition to any PR firms strategy (this includes our very own ImpactWatch !). Among other issues, Gary listed the Top Seven Online Media Monitoring Practices in his article:

1. Get involved sooner rather than later
2. Implement a platform that will track online media for you
3. Categorize online activities of target markets/information seekers–blogging, message board posting, etc.
4. Make a list of the top sites to monitor per public/target audience
5. Track site statistics (eg, how often the site is visited)
6. Track bias of various sites with regard to your product
7. Decide how you will respond to the circulation of negative information about your product

You can read the article in its entirety here.