Questions, Variables & Meseaurement of Social Media

Be aware! This post will show how much the comprehensive exam I had weeks ago is still haunting me. :)

So this week, I started to think about how to measure the value of social media, and I couldn't help thinking about operationalization, that is, to specify the measurement on variables in relation to a concept.

The concept is obviously social media. Variables are multiple depending on what questions you've asked. You may ask what is the increase in traffic to the organization's web site with the implementation of social media; or you may ask how is the interaction going between the social media users and you; or you may directly ask what is the sales driven by the social media. Other variables may include and are not limited to attention, retention, perception, engagement, etc.

With different questions, your inquiry will look much different. Some more qualitative, and others more quantitative. Various measurement tools are attached to both approaches.

Qualitative
Perhaps you want to know something about the reputation of your business/product/service, the ongoing conversations, and customer relationship. You may ask-

"Do we have a voice in the conversation about our product/service/overall industry?"
"How is our voice different from our competitors?"
"Are we making monologue or having a dialogue with our key publics?"

In-depth exploration and human analysis are involved to catch interaction and competition, and get answers to this kind of questions. Also, tools such as Sentiment analysis and opinion tracking may be used to get a picture about the conversation.

Quantitative
If your questions mainly address numbers, ROI, sales, profits, traffic, SEO ranking, you may take a more quantitative approach. Tools such as Google Analytics and Feedburner can help analyze blog traffic, subscriber count, keyword optimization, etc. I recommend this article if you want to learn how to use some of the most advanced tools and metrics. Also, for reference, this article introduces more than 50 tools designed to track traffic.

The key takeaway is that organizations need to ask clear questions, specify variables before they get down to choosing tools and metrics to measure social media successes.

Organizations: Ready for Wiki?

My internship projects at a PR agency handle business development for three gaming technology clients, two of which have their own Wikipedia entries. The third client, a fairly new game artificial intelligence company from Germany does not. Our project team thought it was an issue while many competitors have presence on Wikipedia. "Why wasn't it there though?" I had this question. The computer-science-professor-turned CEO was very technology savvy; the company embraces social media- it's on Linkedin, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook; so, why isn't it on Wikipedia?

Then the project with this company got a major focus away from social media use, so my question hasn't got answered yet, but below are some possibilities when an organization is not Wikipedia ready:

1. Not 'Notable' Enough

Wikipedia has a special rule on notability- For a topic to be considered worthy of its own article, it must be considered “worthy of note”. In the case of organizations and companies:

"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable."

It is obvious that Wikipedia emphasizes the importance of verifiable, non-editorialized content for organization entries. Thus, press releases issued by the organization itself are not considered a credible resource. Organizations need to include several external references and cite as much as possible in the entry, which can be quite a challenge for small start-ups.

2. Not the Best Platform

Some wiki platforms can handle robust file types, while others can only support text or HTML files. If organizations need to use complex file formats, Wikipedia may not be the best choice. Also, since types of wiki are very diverse and specified, Wikipedia as the general one, may not be the best wiki that meets users' objectives. For example, the game artificial intelligence discipline actually has its own professional wiki.

3. No Time Taking Care of it

It takes efforts to manage the use of wiki. Constant monitoring, editing, and maintenance are required, which again can be quite a challenge for smaller-sized start-ups.

In sum, though having presence on Wiki, or specifically Wikipedia is tempting, organizations need to self-check readiness- what are the needs, possibilities, pros and cons, etc.

Don’t be Evil… Says Who?

My previous blog about Pizza Hut’s viral marketing through social media in China brought Paromita and I into a very interesting discussion about ethics of social media marketing. Was it unethical of Pizza Hut not to disclose that it was the creator of the original post? If you were on the team that strategized and implemented this campaign, knowing that self-disclosure was not essential with the local law and industry regulations, plus absolutely tempted by the fact that the campaign would sell much better if “astroturfed”, what would you do? Where would you place ethics for an organization such as a corporation? What would be your priority, and at the same time, how would you define your bottom line financially and ethically?

How I wish there were a universal ruler that measures ethics, but after all, life is never a black-and-white, good-or-bad dichotomy. In the business world, ethics is a challenging issue full of gray areas, entangled with variables. Yet, for organizations, attempts must be made to answer these questions, because publics of interest care to know what kind of player you are in the market before they decide what kind of relationship they want to have with you. To help with the thoughts, I’d like to share Google’s word about ethics.

“Don’t be evil,”

says Google in their organizational philosophy. As a technology/service provider that integrates information, Google believes that it is unethical, evil to manipulate information. This ethics standard can be seen as an underlying motive of Google’s recent statement about leaving China (by closing its google.cn domain) when Gmail accounts of several pro-democracy dissidents’ were censored and hacked. While many thought it was a morally advantageous excuse to shut a poorly performing line of service (google.cn’s market share has been disappointing), many believed Google was a hero. As the picture below shows, some people even presented bouquets (as a way to say goodbye to the beloved) to Google’s Beijing office when the announcement was made.



I tend to believe that Google’s ethical practice in China has largely combined interest of itself and the key publics. Google’s revenues rely on a stable service that reflects natural unmanipulated information flow, which serves as a legitimate reason for Google to stick to the ethical standard. More importantly, Google’s key publics (users, investors, the press, etc.) expect to see consistent execution of “don’t be evil”, even when it means making clear the core values against the "Great Firewall of China" (Government PR efforts are much needed after that though.) It reassures them that Google is trustworthy, protects the brand, and in the long run, it helps cultivate the Chinese market. Thus, what Google did in China was both a moral bottom line and a moral high ground for its stakeholders and itself.

What I’ve learned from this incident is that, for organizations, ethics can be and should be strategic. Ethic standards should direct organizations to developing positive relationships with their key publics. Organizations need to decide the ethical DOs and DON’Ts in a big picture thinking about long term consequences, and in the eye of the publics on whom an organization's success or failure depends.