In a previous post, I suggested that there may not be a whole lot of content posted online - in the blogosphere at least - to really do any detailed analysis of the reaction to adverts aired during the Superbowl. A brief look at the case for Audi, which featured an advert spoofing a scene from the Godfather, shows the following.
| Search Term | Before | Peak | ||
| Percentage | Count | Percentage | Count | |
| audi | 0.04 | ~300 | 0.082 | 451 |
| r8 | 0.01 | ~100 | 0.027 | 151 |
| godfather | 0.03 | ~200 | 0.047 | 258 |
The term audi gained approximately 150 posts, r8 approximately 50 and godfather 60. Thus the maximum possible yield would be 260 posts. The true value (over this data set) is likely to be lower due to some of these isolated counts actually being accounted for by a single posts (that is to say, a post containing 'audi' and 'r8' is getting double counted in the above).
I'm not putting this forward as a particularly scientific analysis, but it doesn't seem to refute my prediction that, surprisingly, bloggers don't talk that much about the Superbowl ads. These results could be misleading due to any number of reasons: Audi may be a bad example, there may be a term that I should have used that would show a dramatic increase, the data collected by BlogPulse wasn't comprehensive, my counts may be wrong in the above, ...
Very interesting! I think this reveals a lot about the limitations of social media monitoring. Listening doesn't help much when people aren't talking. It suggests the need to engage your audience more: let them know you really want to hear what they think about your ads, let them know that if they post their opinions on their blogs you'll find it.
I wonder what this says about the blogosphere. Are sites tending to fit very tightly into niches and not wander outside them to speak on something like super bowl ads? Do bloggers perceive that people wouldn't be interested in their opinions on commercials? _Are_ regular people interested in bloggers' opinions on commercials?
Posted by: Paul Barba | February 05, 2008 at 12:14 PM
your stats could use some work. you approximate the baseline count and then claim that the terms had a "maximum yield" of 260 posts. for two of those terms there were maxima before the super bowl happened...i'm not convinced it's not noise.
these posts about blogpulse trends are pretty uninformative.
Posted by: rl | February 06, 2008 at 04:03 AM
@rl,
Perhaps you didn't read all the post before leaving a comment. Note the paragraph at the end: 'I'm not putting this forward as a particularly scientific analysis...' Further, if it is noise, that goes even further to say that analysing this data for Superbowl commercial commentary is weak.
Posted by: Matthew Hurst | February 06, 2008 at 08:18 AM
@Paul Barba,
I don't think this does reveal a lot about the limitations of social media monitoring. This post is about the expectations that are set by the industry towards a very specific event. Social media monitoring is a very healthy, viable and validated industry.
Posted by: Matthew Hurst | February 06, 2008 at 08:20 AM
I wasn't saying SMM isn't a viable industry, but I do believe this reveals a limitation in it. The Advertising Industry obviously really builds up Super Bowl Ads. From news articles to press releases to jokes in commercials, the idea that Super Bowl Ads are important is communicated.
Then what do we see (assuming the graph is reflective of actual coverage)? People didn't talk about the ads on their blogs. In at least this situation, advertisers weren't able to convert hype into a Social Media response. This means that talking something up won't always generate content, which means you can't monitor (or benefit from) that content. If audi really wanted to learn how people were reacting to their super bowl spot, they'd need a new strategy.
This might mean there isn't a strong advertising-themed community out there to pick up on the industries overtures. It might mean that conversations shift on more specific events: product releases, etc. It could mean any number of things. But my interpretation of it is that shows a limit to industries abilities to influence the topics of conversation online. Which isn't a bad thing, but is significant if you want to start conversations on your products.
Posted by: Paul Barba | February 06, 2008 at 04:12 PM
I found it somewhat interesting that although the Audi add was considered one of the best of the Superbowl, when you look up the several versions of it on YouTube each one only has a few thousand views (at least from the videos I was able to find). This number pales in comparison to the more popular videos on Youtube. You would think that if Super Bowl advertisements were such a big deal that one of the best adds from the most viewed Super Bowl in history would receive more buzz online. Do you think that the audience of the Super Bowl is not typically the type of audience that participates in social media? My gut feeling says that it would not be so, but who knows...
Posted by: Nate | February 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM
@Nate - interesting to look at the YouTube stats. Probably worth looking at the stats for all the ads. One of the problems with YouTube is the large number of duplications, making accounting tricky.
As for audience type - I think this was part of my intuition in making the original post. I'm not saying that Social Media Analysis is broken, just that expectations in certain markets need to be recalibrated. I guess it is a key question that companies like BuzzMetrics and others need to answer (possibly before selling specific targeted services against an event like the Superbowl).
Posted by: Matthew Hurst | February 14, 2008 at 09:29 AM
Yes, I very much agree with both your comments. The YouTube stats obviously aren't any hard evidence, just something I noticed after a quick glance. I agree with you that companies may need to make a more detailed evaluation of their customer markets and the areas they are going to focus marketing in to determine whether the usefulness of social media analysis for them. I also think that right now we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as what will happen in the future with regards to social media analysis.
Posted by: Nate | February 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Dear Sir,
I got your email account while searching for a business oriented personality in my private study in the internet on business and international affair,so i decided to contact you for a business possibility.
Welcome to the family of chief Nan Nun Owusu 111 of Tarkwa on Gold partnership and consideration.
I am writing to a deal of bilateral interest and mutual benefit.
I am Mr.Asare Owusu the representative of my family, we have a large mining concessions of about 359 plots, Below is the contacts information of my family, We are from Bogoso Tarkwa, Western Region Ghana , our family Chief name is Chief Nana Num Owusu 111 of Tarkwa.
We are highly interested to deal in a long terms business relation with you, if only you can understand our primary problems here. To be frank with you, we are facing a lots of problems in our local mining site,because of lack of mining equipments machines, because we are using man power to mine, I mean we uses local method to extract the gold from the soil, Base on that we looses a lots of gold and also it has been resulting loosing the life of the workers in the site for lack of equipments machines.
For now we are in the position of 105 kilos of alluvial gold dust 23+ carats with 99.9 purity for our local price is $19,500usd per a kilo.if their is any opportunity for you to come down to Ghana we are going to welcome you and you also visit our site in tarkwa.
Upon hearing from you then I will disclose to you exactly the type of equipments machines we need for the projects.Remain bless
Kindly contact me to my direct e-mail box:goddyakwne1@yahoo.com
Regards
Mr. Owusu
Posted by: ASERE OWUSU | July 28, 2008 at 07:06 AM