Archive for October, 2009

Customer Engagement Demystified

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

The words engagement and customer engagement are beginning to pop up all over the place, in fact I went round the DMA last week in San Diego “Engagement” spotting as only a marketer focused on customer engagement might. So whats new, why all the fuss and generally what does it all mean to the marketer?

In order to get a debate going, our very own Mike Talbot hooked up with Neil Davey at Mycustomer on a fresh Bristol morning to engage in a live chat session on the subject.  With conversation gems such as “I think it’s the oldest thing in the book” and “an opt in email name is worth on average $118 – now that’s just an opt-in…”  and “Remember it’s 1-1-Many” its got to be worth a read.

Its a big topic and what was only a half an hour session soon became 45minutes. For the full read of this interesting transcript go to http://www.mycustomer.com/topic/live-web-chat-customer-engagement-demystified or if you want my views on the subject click on ‘Tips for Customer Engagement’ above and get my top 10.

The Web Analytics Revolution

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009
The Web Analytics Revolution
Eric T Peterson, a veteran of the web analytics business, Principal Consultant at Web Analytics Demystified and author some of must read books on Web Analytics has published a report on what he sees as the current revolution in Web Analytics.
This report focuses on the needs for businesses to not just create reports but to develop insights and recommendations from the data – something that when I am talking about web engagement I have referred to as ‘actionable insight’ and it’s about more than pretty graphs.
Peterson also discusses the data that organisations are capturing and reporting on, the wealth of data available to organisations, from web analytics, to credit card transactions to observations about location – GPS data. He also covers the privacy issues wrapped around that – that people will give up their data, but it has to be in exchange for something valuable to them.
I like Peterson’s analogy of it being like money – the difference between using the money you have and just storing it – in terms of the potential rewards. As the report says:
If today’s business leaders want to take advantage of this treasure trove of intelligence about customers and prospects, a new approach is required. First and second‐generation analytic vendors are good at what they do, but mining for correlation and causation within massive, disparate online and offline data sets is simply not what they do. To take the next step, business owners need to explicitly recognize the inherent limitations in these systems and augment them with appropriate systems that are built to extract, transform, load and analyze data regardless of the source.
With certain symmetry with our own Customer Engagement vision, he refers to a third generation of analysis tools that are bringing this together – that companies who treat offline and online as separate data silos will concede ground to their competition that look at this more holistically across their enterprise.
As the report concludes:
The only thing worse than not having data, is having data and not being able to use it.
You can download a copy of the report here.

Eric T Peterson – a veteran of the web analytics business, Principal Consultant at Web Analytics Demystified and author some of must read books on Web Analytics – has published a report on what he sees as the current revolution in Web Analytics.

This report focuses on the needs for businesses to not just create reports but to develop insights and recommendations from the data – something that when I am talking about web engagement I have referred to as ‘actionable insight’ and it’s about more than pretty graphs.

Peterson also discusses the data that organisations are capturing and reporting on, the wealth of data available to organizations, from web analytics, to credit card transactions to observations about location – GPS data. He also covers the privacy issues wrapped around that – that people will give up their data, but it has to be in exchange for something valuable to them.

I like Peterson’s analogy of it being like money – the difference between using the money you have and just storing it – in terms of the potential rewards. As the report says:

If today’s business leaders want to take advantage of this treasure trove of intelligence about customers and prospects, a new approach is required. First and second‐generation analytic vendors are good at what they do, but mining for correlation and causation within massive, disparate online and offline data sets is simply not what they do. To take the next step, business owners need to explicitly recognize the inherent limitations in these systems and augment them with appropriate systems that are built to extract, transform, load and analyze data regardless of the source.

With certain symmetry with our own Customer Engagement vision, he refers to a third generation of analysis tools that are bringing this together – that companies who treat offline and online as separate data silos will concede ground to their competition that look at this more holistically across their enterprise.

As the report concludes:

The only thing worse than not having data, is having data and not being able to use it.

You can read more about what Peterson has to say or download a copy of the report here.

Seven Business Objectives and their ROI for Monitoring Social Media

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Michael Leander Nielson of Oslo  invited me to present a webinar on Business Objectives for Social Media Monitoring. It’s a popular topic and we had great attendance!

I covered the following:

  • Which objectives to consider when defining your social media monitoring (SMM) strategy
  • What types of tools are available
  • How to make sense of the data that is gathered
  • The ROI and benefits of social media monitoring

During the webinar it was interesting the exchange of Twitter usernames transition to  requesting to continue the conversation in a community. It underlined how people with a similar affinity will want to gather! Everyone is welcome to join our Community .

One of the challenges that I have in presenting webinars is that I feel like I’m talking to an empty space. But that wasn’t the case in this one. There was a lot of conversation happening in the chat box. I had 5 poll questions and that generated more conversation on the side as well making much more interactive. Here are the results:

image

Many of those that chose ‘Other’ posted their background in the chat.

image

I found this to be very interesting that the majority were B2B’s!

image

This explains why we’re so busy. Social Media monitoring isn’t mainstream yet. People are still learning.

image

Attendees were primarily from Europe, and there were a lot of questions about language capabilities.

image

It’s really important to know what your objective is for listening.

I will post a link to the recording of the webinar when it is available.

Google – The New Citizen Engagement Portal

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Recently I was fortunate enough to meet with David Pullinger from the UK governments Central Office of Information(COI), who are driving our government’s citizen engagement strategy  and mandating the policy around which government must adhere to.

It was an incredibly absorbing meeting as we took a fast ride around all elements of where a citizen touches the government, (each of which I would love to have explored for longer than we had) and an interesting mix of mandatory policy, education and technical enablement that his department are driving.

David courteously and patiently indulged my interruptions and there is plenty to write about but, in this post, I’m just going to focus on one very interesting topic – the reduction in the number of government websites.

At first glance it’s easy to assume that this initiative is the old clumsy cost cutting exercise, a not terribly enlightened confusion between the words ‘platform’ and ‘website’,  which we’ve seen before. Whilst there is an understandable element of cost consciousness in this initiative – of recognising that a single WCM platform can manage multiple sites and a new website shouldn’t demand a fresh procurement process – I thought there was a more interesting driver behind it.

That driver is a recognition that the people look for information using search, not by turning up to the correct government agency website (or some obscure sub-site) and dutifully following the navigation. They are using Google and choosing from a list of results which is in direct contrast to the early days of DirectGov – of grouping information around ‘life stage’ on a single portal and assuming people will slot into the right shaped information hole. Today there is recognition that our lives are much more complex and subtle than that, and the way we access information reflects this.

Recognising that would not seem to be rocket science, ooh Truscott that’s SEO you say. But I say this is subtly different. It’s different because if you are looking for the cheapest TV or the information about Persuasive Content, the dynamic of sites competing for those clicks is different from if you are a Government hoping to engage with your people.

If you are a Government agency that provides services, advice or benefits for your citizen you are not competing for clicks – you are the authority, the source; you have the likely #1 search result the searcher needs. For example, there is only one definitive version of the truth when it comes to entitlement to state benefits, how safe a certain food is, the cheapest public transport to Manchester, whether it’s safe to travel to Uzbekistan and how to get a Visa.

What I think COI are saying is that by pruning the number of websites it avoids agencies and other government bodies, sub-sites and campaign sites from competing for those positions on the Google rankings, enabling the citizen to cut through the clutter to the single source of the truth.  They are looking to effectively manage that search page as our portal into government.

This then shifts their focus from individual website silos, to figuring out how search can bring together the information that the citizen needs – a single web page then needs to stand alone in terms of content and context.

To deliver this the UK government is on the vanguard of adopting the semantic web, standards such as RDFa and attracting the advice of Internet luminaries such as Tim Berners-Lee (read about their call for developers).

There is plenty more to explore here, but first lesson of Citizen Engagement seems to me to be that the COI have recognised that Google is the new Government portal.

Alterian is significant supplier of WCM software to the UK government and you can read more about what we do around Citizen Engagement.

Five Myths about Automatic Sentiment Analysis

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Sentiment analysis is a hot topic. If the social media monitoring tool doesn’t have it, there’s criticism. If it does have it then there’s skepticism. So let’s take some time to talk about these five myths:

  1. The technology isn’t accurate
  2. Sentiment doesn’t take into account cultural differences
  3. Positives and negatives cancel each other
  4. Can’t identify the influence of those expressing the sentiment
  5. Sentiment doesn’t indicate action

1. The technology isn’t accurate

Sentiment analysis using natural language processing. Yes, it is done by a machine and no, it’s not 100 % accurate. The industry estimates that it’s at 70 – 80%. We are very open about that and recommend that it be used as an overview.

In using a tool like Techrigy SM2 for automatic sentiment, customers can see the overall view of thousands of search results. It would take hours to manually review the same amount and one still wouldn’t have an overall sense of the percentage positive vs negative.

SM2 has a customizable dictionary so users have the option of reviewing a sample of results and revising the dictionary. This functionality was added to accommodate the language differences of various verticals. For example “well” in the health industry is a positive thing, but in the energy industry, an oil well has no bearing on sentiment.

2. Sentiment doesn’t take into account cultural differences

One of the first dictionaries that we customized was for our friends down under. Australia has some vernacular that is unique to it’s region. No matter the location, those lexical idiosyncrasies can be added to SM2’s dictionary.

3. Positives and negatives cancel each other

Marta Strickland listed this in her recent blog post: Five Reasons Sentiment Analysis Won’t Ever Be Enough

Many people assume this. In SM2 a search result can be attributed with positive and negative sentiment. In addition, a search result may have 3 positive aspects and 1 negative. This would also be charted as such (3 in the positive column, and 1 in the negative).

This information is then considered along with the length of the post when calculating tone.

4. Can’t identify the influence of those expressing the sentiment

That is possible and it utilizes the power of SM2’s categories.

Let’s consider the negative sentiment around McDonald’s McCafe. We want to see the negative results in order of influence (SM2 refers to it as Popularity).

By creating a category called ‘Neg McCafe Sentiment’ and assigning those results to it, we can then view them in the Demographics report. This will allow you to see the distribution from highest to lowest influence. You can drill in at each level.

image

And they can also be displayed under ‘View Results’ and displayed in order of Highest Popularity first. This is a nice way to browse them.

image

5. Sentiment doesn’t indicate action

I agree that it doesn’t indicate it, but I would also argue that automatic sentiment makes it very easy to realize trends/patterns that would otherwise be very difficult to identify.

By reviewing the results under Negative Sentiment in the McCafe example, some trends become apparent. And they fit under the following business objectives:

  • feedback on the products – product development
  • complaints about customer service – customer service
  • irritation with specific ad’s – marketing/advertising
  • reference of being diet conscious – marketing research

What do you think about automated sentiment analysis?

Katie Paine has a poll on her blog.

And Andy Beal offers another viewpoint.