Tag Archives: social media analytics

Facebook Breaks Bad Marketing Habits with Data

Photo by Matthew Wiebe

“A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding.” - Marshall McLuhan, Canadian professor of English and philosopher of communication

Data brings important insights and understanding to the equation of opinion vs. reality. However, the availability of data is coming into question as many social media platforms are private. 


In “Is the Era of Social Media Analytics Coming to an End?,” Kalev Leetaru states that “In a world where social media means private conversations among friends rather than announcements to the world, there isn’t much data for outside social data miners to analyze.”

Learn how Facebook is deploying its state of the art measurement systems as Brian d’Alessandro, Lead Research Scientist, Marketing Science, Facebook, presents “Breaking Bad Habits with Data’” at the Marketing Analytics & Data Science Conference(MADS) on June 8-10 in San Francisco, California.


Register today for MADS to learn, network and share best practices with the most influential leaders in data science and analytics. Stay connected at #MADSCONF.

Session descriptions are from the Marketing Analytics & Data Science Conference brochure.

Peggy L. Bieniek, ABC is an Accredited Business Communicator specializing in corporate communication best practices. 

Connect with Peggy on LinkedInTwitterGoogle+, and on her website at www.starrybluebrilliance.com

Six Key Factors that Drive Word of Mouth: Podcast

‘Contagious’
Author Explains How to Make a Message Viral
By Marc
Dresner, Senior Editor, IIR
It’s
well understood that word-of-mouth is an extremely influential marketing
medium, but just how powerful may surprise you.

According
to Wharton Professor of Marketing Jonah Berger, $1 invested in WOM may actually
be worth up to 10 times that of a
conventional ad dollar

Jonah Berger

‘Word-of-mouth underlies most of the decisions people
make.’
‘Word-of-mouth underlies most of the decisions people
make,’ he told The Research Insighter.
As such,
a good read on WOM may be one of the most valuable forms of consumer
intelligence one could hope for, but are we really getting one?
Researchers
and marketers have increasingly fixated on passive capture of WOM through
technology’social media analytics, NLP, etc.
But
despite all of the hype around Facebook, Twitter, etc., Berger’author of the
best-seller ‘Contagious: Why Things Catch On”points
out only about 7% of WOM
happens online
.
This
isn’t to say that social media isn’t a good WOM proxy, but Berger advises not
to get too hung up on technology and media platforms’they come and go.
‘We need
to stop thinking in terms of technology and start thinking in terms of
psychology.’

‘We all understand word-of-mouth affects sales, but most businesses aren’t
being scientific about how to harness it and use those customer insights to
drive their sales,’ he explained.
‘We need
to stop thinking about WOM in terms of technology and start thinking in terms
of psychology,’ Berger said.
In this podcast for The
Research Insighter 
interview
series, Jonah Berger
 shares his ‘STEPPS’ framework and the six
factors that prompt people to pass something on…
Listen
to the podcast!

Download
the transcript!

Editor’s note: Jonah Berger will be speaking at TMRE 2015‘The Market Research Event’now
in its 13th year as the largest, most comprehensive research conference
in the world taking place November 2-4 in Orlando.
For information or to
register, please visit
TheMarketResearchEvent.com.

Ps. SAVE $100 when you register with code TMRE15BL!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR/INTERVIEWER
Marc Dresner is IIR USA’s sr. editor and special communication project lead. He is the former executive editor of Research Business Report, a publication for the marketing research and consumer insights industry. He may be reached at mdresner@iirusa.com. Follow him @mdrezz.

More from #TMRE14: Social Steganography – How Youth are Tricking Social Media Analytics

Danah Boyd
My biggest takeaway from the fascinating
keynote by social media and youth culture expert Danah Boyd, Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and Founder of the Data &
Society Research Institute
, was that we need to be very careful about
analyzing social media, because apparently we misread a lot.
Boyd, an anthropologist and author of ‘It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens,’ noted that social media use
by young people has gone from a consolidation phase (Facebook) to a state of
complete fragmentation as young people dabble in a variety of platforms to meet
their needs.
As such, it’s no longer simple to optimize
analytics for social media because these platforms differ by structure, format
and, importantly, the use or purpose for which young people have deemed each
best suited, respectively.
Much of the migratory behavior we’re seeing in
young people on social media these days is a response to a lack of privacy and
the consequent desire to exert more control over what is shared with whom.
Boyd said young people care deeply about
privacy, but not in the sense we ‘grown-ups’ might think. She said they want to
be in public, not to be public, and they’re migrating from
platform to platform in an effort to exert control over their social situations.

Young people are increasingly speaking in a sort of code or ‘social steganography’
Boyd cautioned the audience to not to take
what’s posted online too literally, as young people are increasingly speaking
in a sort of code or ‘social steganography’: much of what they post is a
message hiding in plain sight intended for and whose meaning may only be
deciphered by select insiders.
‘My job as an ethnographer to get in deep and make sense of things has
gotten harder. We’re missing things.’
‘My job as an ethnographer to get in deep and make sense of things
has gotten harder,’ Boyd said. ‘We’re missing things.’
They’re also gaming algorithms in ways that
might throw you off. For example, Boyd said young people often insert brand
names randomly in status updates because they know that it will bump them to
the top of their friends’ lists.
‘Youth know Facebook and other platforms use
algorithms for commercial purposes,’ Boyd said.
They do the same thing with Gmail, she added,
whiting out text and pasting it into emails they send friends to trigger ads that are clearly targeted for other people for laughs, for example.
Boyd closed with a note about how young people are organizing by
networks instead of traditional groups.  ‘They get networks; they
understand how to flow things,’ she said.
The move from groups’characterized by established boundaries’to
networks, which are porous, constitutes a radical cultural shift, Boyd
emphasized.
The shift has implications for business culture, in particular. 
Boyd noted young people are voracious learners, which in part explains why
those who’ve entered the work force now switch jobs every couple of years. And
true to networking, they retain the ties they’ve made at their old jobs while
forging new ones, which may seem innocuous but may really not be.
Boyd noted that in Silicon Valley, for example, the new generation
of hi-tech industry workers doesn’t see a problem exchanging, say, code with
peers over coffee.
‘They’re fundamentally networked,’ Boyd explained.  ‘They see
no issue in meeting with friends from their old company and sharing information
that might be considered intellectual property.’

The transient nature of the emerging labor cohort and the free
flow and exchange of knowledge and experience inherent in the networked ethos
will completely change the culture of business, she concluded.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 
Marc Dresner is IIR USA’s sr. editor and special communication
project lead. He is the former executive editor of Research
Business Report
, a confidential newsletter for the marketing
research and consumer insights industry. He may be reached at mdresner@iirusa.com. Follow him @mdrezz.

Privacy Engineering: What Researchers Need to Know

McAfee
Chief Privacy Officer Urges Insights Pros to Own Privacy and Big Data





By Marc Dresner, IIR

‘The fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication
constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual.’ 
‘ Earl Warren, 14th Chief
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, died 1974
‘Privacy is dead, and social media hold the
smoking gun.’ 
‘ Pete Cashmore, Founder and CEO of Mashable, born 1985
The fellas quoted above
were, I believe, referring to opposing sides of the privacy coin: The former
was talking about government surveillance of the Orwellian sort; the latter’taken
from a 2009 blog post’spoke to people’s increasing compulsion to publicize their
personal lives.
To distinguish between the
two assumes there is a line that can be crossed, aka ‘informed consent.’
Privacy advocates have
argued that informed consent is more or less a fallacy because the information
needed to make a fully informed choice is largely inaccessible
But privacy advocates’including
top security and legal experts’have argued that informed consent is more or
less a fallacy, because the information needed to make a fully informed choice
is largely inaccessible to the
average person.
That’s ‘inaccessible’ in three
broad categories:
1.   
Inaccessible by design‘for legit* purposes
(national security or law enforcement) and also for ethically questionable purposes
(ex. Facebook’s privacy gaffes and antics).
*Sorry, but I’ll not kick the Edward
Snowden beehive in this forum today.


2.   
Inadvertently inaccessible, but fixable‘Ex. privacy
policies that can only be deciphered by lawyers or that will only be read by
very patient, unusually suspicious people with lots of time on their hands.
3.   
Inadvertently inaccessible, but unavoidable‘the
complex tangle of partnerships, affiliations, agreements and policy overlaps,
oversights, contradictions, accidents, etc., that comprise our digital universe
(it is called the Web, after all) make it practically impossible for someone to
be completely informed of all the ways information about them may be or is
being used.
The jury appears to be
out when it comes to the ownership and control of all of those digital data
points we generate
I’ll leave it to the
intelligentsia (not used in the pejorative here) to debate whether or not we’re
doomed to life in a digital panopticon, but the jury appears to be indefinitely
out when it comes to the ownership and control of all of those data points we’re
generating in the digital realm.
This much is clear: The
privacy debate isn’t going anywhere; it’s just getting started.
People seem resigned
to the fact that information about them is collected and used for purposes they
aren’t aware of and might not consent to if they were
For the time being, people
seem generally resigned to and even comfortable with the fact that information
about them is being collected by unknown others and used in all kinds of ways
for all sorts of purposes that we aren’t aware of and might not consent to if
we were.
But for how long? It seems a
tenuous peace at best.
I’ve attended sessions at
two of FoCI’s sister events within the past six months’Foresight & Trends
and Media Insights & Engagement, respectively’whose speakers warned their
audiences that the sleeping giant is stirring.
All of this
matters to insights jocks more than one might suppose.
Consumer researchers work hard to build and
maintain respondents’ trust, and I think most would agree that there’s no
privacy bugaboo in taking surveys, participating on panels, etc.
But even if transparent,
double opt-in instruments are still the primary source of consumer intelligence’debatable’they’re
certainly not the only source.
We have Big Data now, pulled
from across the digital universe. The sheer breadth of sources without a doubt increases
the likelihood that we’ve violated someone’s privacy.
As consumer insights become
increasingly dependent upon and intertwined with technology, we find ourselves
in a precarious position
So as the consumer
intelligence field becomes increasingly dependent upon and intertwined with technology,
we find ourselves in an increasingly precarious position because we cannot be
guaranteed that the data we’re collecting and analyzing was captured with
informed consent.
Moreover, research
professionals cast in the traditional mold aren’t the only ones accessing and
using these data. We’re not necessarily the gatekeepers and we can’t always
know which information from even our own internal databases is being used, how
and by whom.
That is the domain of the
chief privacy officer, or in lieu of a CPO, typically a mishmash of IT and
legal folks.
Michelle Dennedy
Enter Michelle Dennedy, VP and Chief Privacy Officer at McAfee,
and co-author of ‘The Privacy Engineer’s Manifesto: Getting from Policy to Code
to QA to Value.’
Dennedy is a top authority whose credentials straddle the legal and
technological aspects of data security and privacy.
She and co-authors Jonathon
Fox and Thomas Finneran have developed a new model: ‘privacy
engineering,’ which endeavors to operationalize privacy and embed it in the products and processes companies use, buy, create and
sell. 
‘Privacy engineering is a way to build respect for information about
people back into our infrastructure and to think about data from the consumer
perspective’
‘Privacy
engineering is a way to build respect for information about people back into
our infrastructure and to think about data from the consumer perspective,’
Dennedy told The Research Insighter.
This
is particularly important to the Future of Consumer Intelligence audience
because companies are increasingly looking outside the
research function to data scientists to manage Big Data.
The
approach outlined in ‘The Privacy Engineer’s Manifesto’ appears to offer a blueprint consumer researchers can
use to insinuate themselves in the fundamental discussions that shape not only
privacy policy and practice, but the manner and extent to which companies
harness Big Data moving forward.
(Full disclosure: I have not yet read the book, but I’ve researched it thoroughly and rest assured you don’t need to be an IT specialist to understand it.) 
‘At
best, most companies probably leverage maybe 1-2% of the true import of data
through analytics that count,’ noted Dennedy.
‘A lot of Big Data analytics are wrong because they fail to address the
true business problem, a human problem.’
‘I
think a lot of these Big Data analytics are wrong or bad,’ she added, ‘because
they fail to address the true business problem, and by that I mean a human
problem.’
‘Researchers tend to
understand the business case and how data should be leveraged,’ she observed.
According to Dennedy, it’s
time for researchers to step up and reach out to their counterparts in
functions they may not normally work with, even if it means taking on projects
outside their current purview.
‘Consumer
and marketing researchers become quintessentially important when they carry
insights across the aisle,’ Dennedy said.
‘Make
sure those customer insights and pain points are part of the equation from the
start.’
In
this podcast for The Research Insighter’the official interview series of the
Future of Consumer Intelligence (FoCI) conference’Dennedy discusses:

‘ ‘Privacy engineering”what it is and why it
matters

‘ The problem with Big Data

‘ Applications and implications for large and small
companies, alike

‘ What researchers can do today to get involved, and
more!

Editor’s note: Michelle Dennedy will present ‘The
Privacy Manifesto’ at The Future of Consumer Intelligence Conference taking place May 19-21 in Universal City,
California.
SAVE 15% on your registration to attend The Future of
Consumer Intelligence when you use code FOCI14BLOG. 

Register here today!

For more information, please visit www.futureofconsumerintel.com

  


ABOUT THE AUTHOR / INTERVIEWER 
Marc Dresner is IIR USA’s sr. editor and special communication project lead. He is the former executive editor of Research Business Report, a confidential newsletter for the marketing research and consumer insights industry. He may be reached at mdresner@iirusa.com. Follow him @mdrezz.