40,000 online conversations about Kings Cross Clare Werbeloff

Corey, who?

You know, Corey Worthless.

It’s hard to get excited about 41,186 meaningless ‘conversations’.

“Although many PR agencies no longer use an equivalent media value figure”

That’s one way of putting it. Another would be:

“Although advertising value equivalents (AVEs) have been completely discredited and the Public Relations Industry Association forbids its members from using them under its code of ethics”

This whole scenario could well be a well contrived PR plot to expouse the ostensible relevancy of the power of social media for dialogue to the brainless masses who have nothing better to do.

41,186 conversations – wow!! I wonder what metrics are available to report the analysis of the IQ levels of the 41,186 !

“With the Internet and reality shows, regular people like you are hitting it big and becoming the toast of the town. While there’s no giant door you simply walk through to stardom, there are some steps you can take in order to give yourself some added exposure. Read on to learn how to become a celebrity.”

http://www.ehow.com/how_238711.....brity.html

Sue. My specialty is media research and audience metrics. There are no firm data available. At a guess … collective IQ approaching 10,000 … how does that sound?

It’s misleading to give social media an ad value. Both Twitter and Facebook are free sites and the conversation threads can’t be bought. I realise that Buzz is trying to translate the space into “advertising speak” but marketing managers looking at this space for the long term need to determine value by the size of the community following the brand, their willingness to interact and the quality of conversation that the brand has with them. If they do it well, they’ll measure it in sales not ad dollars.

Hrm don’t see the relevance of this.

Given there was probably 400,000 offline conversations about it.

Still – what does it really mean to anyone? After every weekend there’s probably 40,000 discussions about Collingwood losing online and off. I wouldn’t say that “shows how powerful a medium the social web is” it just shows people like talking about things.

I am sitting in Johannesburg preparing for a radio interview, and I will talk about the 41 000 conversations and the millions of views of the video. (I wont be talking about footie)

This incident is a huge demonstration of the power of social media, its intensely relevant, and the conversations have gone far further than what a chat in the pub would have, and we can measure them. Of course it shows that people like talking about things. Exactly that’s the point.

Well it looks as if the Ostrich effect has a firm hold in Aus

What’s the point of measuring it though? last week there were 41,000 ‘discussions’ around Clare Bogan. The week before it was Keyboard Cat. The week before it was I Like Turtles Zombie kid. Next week it’ll be something else

So what? Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it has any value.

I fail to see how this is a demonstration of the power of social media. Fame seeking or just plain stupid people have become pop culture icons for short periods forever.

Has Keyboard Cat been around for a week!?!

I only saw it today – loser 🙁

Ben, I couldn’t agree more. Why do we measure TV programmes – because we know that week-to-week the audience rarely varies by more than 10% so we can plan and buy in confidence. Same goes for magazine titles – we know they’ll be there next issue and doing the same sort of humbers.

As for Clare – by the time you’ve counted it, it’s all over red rover, until “the next big thing” comes along in a week or two.

Clare is the same as The Simpson’s ‘I Didn’t Do It’ episode.

Everyone jumps on it and thinks it’s hilarious and awesome, Bart records a song with MC Hammer, he’s on Conan etc … then a week later everyone is over it due to how inane and pointless it is and it becomes embarassing and tired even for the most committed bandwagon jumper.

may i also add it’s impressive to see the business dev. acumen of the social media guys to take something as flimsy as a bogan viral and turn it into a product/service sell.

When you measure Social Media you measure how conversations are spreading, nodes of influence etc. Conversations that are actually happening, people taking action.

What are you measuring with magazines, TV? You measure audience, how many people COULD HAVE have seen your Ad? Huge difference.

What this lady said or did is irrelevant, that she is a sensation is relevant, that the story spread is relevant, how it spread is relevant, why it spread is relevant.

Walter, I agree that ‘measuring’ social media is about conversations. Measuring ‘traditional’ media is about OTS. I agree that these are huge differences.

However, the ‘hughest’ difference between ‘traditional media’ and ‘social’ media’ is runs on the board. Without tracking ‘nodes of conversation’ (what we used to call water-cooler talk) traditional media have managed to build the majority of the biggest brands in existence (apart from Google. which is a genuine phenomenon). Somehow I think the existing media must be doing SOMETHING right.

As you point out it comes down to relevance. What Clare did and said IS irrelevant. Just as the ‘conversations’ generated will be irrelevant in a week or two. The fact it spread is a quirk of human curiosity – social media allowed a rapid spread of that curiosity – which is just wonderful. But what outcome was there – none. It was irrelevant – just some (pretty) harmless fun. It does NOT mean that the ‘success’ of Clare to generate a momentary spike in ‘buzz’ will work for a brand communication campaign. People will see straight through it – zero ‘buzz’. AKA … irrelevant,

Jon

But it is a changing era, remember that marketing was only created in the 1960’s and brands in the true sense were around a lot earlier as well.Marketing is about as old as television.

I must refer you to Y&R fundi John Gerzema and his book called the Brand Bubble in which he talks about the massive difference between what brands think they are worth and what consumers think brands are worth. (and waht brands think they are worth is actually irrelevant) Also to the writings of Seth Godin where he describes the different eras before during and after advertising. (meatball sundae)

Many of the key assumptions of advertising are just no longer valid.

Thats not to say that those massive brands that have switched up to 80% of their budgets into online are right, just because they measure effectiveness and action not OTS.

The real power of online is word of mouth, and ok in this case the story that spread via WOM was so what – the fact that it spread is the big thing. Far faster, far further, and far cheaper, than any conventional campaign ever invented.

I am not saying that there is no value in conventional media, at all, but its role is changing, television is already a support medium not a primary medium in some markets.

Walter – the excitement IS the phenomonal change and the sheer pace of it. However, one has to be careful not to get swept away in the excitement. Thanks for the references I am a bare pass on them so have some reading to do.

Could, you please enlighten me as to which of the massive brands have switched up to 80% of their budgets online – because I simply can’t think of who they are. Or is this hyperbole.

The POTENTIAL to harness WOM online is massive. It is however, still just potential as far as I can tell based on results (apart from hits, downloads and chatter) – I want to see firm brand-building results over a period of time. Again, please enlighten me. Many pundits believe that you CAN’T harness WOM. The vey fact that it is an ill-defined collection of disparate people with an unforeseen common interest that rises like a Phoenix dictates this (i.e. Bogan Clare). That which cannot be harnessed has little or no value no matter how large the numbers are. Further, some of the gloomier pundits believe that attempts by marketers to ‘invade’ the social media space with advertising messages is the antithesis of the whole raison d’etre of social media, and could damage brand equity – though myself am not that gloomy and think we need to experiment to find the ground rules and boundaries . But always remember the old adage “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.

Tim you are so bloody right, the questions Star initially raised plus the incredulous cameraman retelling (that shot was framed for that ad from two different angles), and the dramatic body language of Clare all flag a good ol STUNT. The truth will come out eventually and you will be vindicated. Where there’s smoke in PR it’s usually followed by mirrors 😉

well…she’s about the right age for me,but with a name and nose like that,she must be a ….burp…