A recent piece in the UK’s PR week quoted some work by Delahaye identifying the proportion of negative commentary about brands and companies in different media.
In messageboards 11% of comments are negative, in news coverage 13%, but in blogs 23% of all comments are negative.
So why are bloggers so negative? One reason is that bloggers want to be controversial. They are generally looking to get as many incoming links as possible, and the best way to do that is to take on some mighty behemoth and lay it low with a few well-chosen epithets. Even though most blogs allow for comments to be posted, this functionality is not often used by the target of the abuse. Bloggers know that they can get away with being rude.
In a messageboard, by comparison, because you are in conversation with your fellow posters, you tend to moderate your views. Instead of saying “Acme cars are for dorks” you tend to say “I am not sure about Acme cars”. Immoderate expressions are potentially offensive. The person you are talking to could well drive an Acme car.
This leads me to the point of this post. Corporate PRs ask – why should I respond to bloggers? They hate me. I say: think of the positive PR of doing so. If you post in response to an attack, and say something meaningful and respectful in your post which addresses the point being made, many bloggers will link to your response. The blogger will be grateful for you taking him or her seriously, and the blogging community will think: “Wow, here is a corporation which understands its customers and responds to them.” It is a simple, cheap way of getting positive news coverage.
The motto of the corporate PR online should be: engage.
[...] Monologue is more negative than dialogue. Research we have previously published a reference to work done by Delahaye pointing out that blogs are more negative that messageboards. 23% of blog commentary is negative, compared to 11% of message board commentary. The reason? People tend to be more measured, more polite face to face than they are in monologue. They do not make such bold, inflammatory “look at me” negative comments. The reason is that in dialogue a speaker is unsure of the feelings of the interlocutor. If he or she makes an emphatic statement about a product or service, he or she risks spoiling their social relationship with the other speaker (or poster) who may be a big fan of the product in question. This politeness factor may also explain why the results of face to face conversations are less negative than a sample of online opinion might suggest. [...]
[...] Avis case study is based on the idea of net approver ratings, which essentially measure people saying positive things minus people saying negative things, for [...]