Comments on: Online PR Evaluation – do we need new models?

By: KDPaine

KDPaine — Wed, 09 May 2007 10:59:01 +0000

I argued in my paper that the old output/outtake/outcome rules still apply because if you don’t know what you’re trying to achieve, you can’t measure anything. What I find interesting is that all too often, people get into “social media measurement” without having a clue as to why they’re doing “social media” to begin with.
I agree with David, there is no longer a market for your message, you need to be there when people are trying to find you, but you also need to know what you want those people to do.

By: What a difference 2 years makes: measuring social media « Measurement PRoponent / PRomulgator

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:55:57 +0000

[...] Moreover, there’s some great blog discussion to with whether or not we need entirely new models to measure on-line PR. [...]

By: David Phillips

David Phillips — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:10:51 +0000

The assumption here is that the organisation has ‘messages’. For the most part, the online community likes to respond to values and if wrapped in ‘messages’ fine but all too often not.

The important metric is values not some marketing generated corporate or brand speak ‘message’. In a conversation it just does not ring true.

Where there once was out-take, we now have ‘out-pull’.

It is all very different in an era when a journalist is no longer needed as an intermediary and is just another RSS feed reader serving up considered critical analysis to a time deprived audience that might see the works on any of a dozen platforms from Reuters in SecondLife, a mobile phone, Sony Playstation3 or the Echo’s TV stories.

The new metrics are pullability and values.

By: Alan Chumley

Alan Chumley — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:18:03 +0000

Absolutely.

There are some out there that transpose the old output, outtake, outcome, outgrowth spectrum onto the CGM world, but that strikes me as a bit of a temporary square peg round hole excercise.

Though there may be the odd methodology or element of said methodology that could be adapted / cobbled together (relationships, content analysis), measuring CGM requires in my view a different approach.

If we consider PR to be about (among others) relationships, and that blogs are really communities of interest, there seem to be social networking theory/analysis models popping up:

http://intelligentmeasurement.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/network-mapping-commercial-application/#comment-2568

and

http://www.hillanknowlton.com/commsmapping

While some would argue that such tools are simply an extension of tradional media monitoring, one could say that if you add an extra layer of analysis (both quantitative data and qualitative commentary) behind the fancy charts, well then we’re going beyond monitoring and into analysis.

Still, such tools are certainly not the end all be all answer to CGM measurement but perhaps a step in the right direction.

By: Michael Blowers

Michael Blowers — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:06:36 +0000

I think the the online environment is by-passing much of the traditional structures that have formed the media – look at what is happening with advertising where last year £2bn was spent in the UK on online ads – much of it directly (mostly with Google) by companies, missing their ad agency markup. Your point about ‘credibility’ is very well put – outtake measures have to be way ahead and I would like to see some sort of mechanism to measure outtake developed, like the BBC’s Most Popular Stories Now, but for the wider online environment; easier said than done I fear!

By: Online PR Evaluation - do we need new models? « intelligent measurement

Online PR Evaluation - do we need new models? « intelligent measurement — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:55:18 +0000

[...] interesting post here from Tom Watson on his new blog Dummyspit. Tom poses the question – do we need new models of [...]