When we first speak with a brand manager or a PR person they normally ask us these questions:

“What are people saying about my brand in blogs?”

“Can you help me monitor that?”

We say: we can help you monitor blogs, but first you need to do to help us define the questions you want answered. Monitoring blogs, review sites and messageboards on its own gives you large quantities of information, but few answers that can help your business. It is easier to make a business case for spending on online research and analysis if you can be pretty specific about the question that you need to have answered and about the relationship between that question and the business’s bottom line.  These are the questions that we suggest the client starts with: Question 1: “Why do people choose my product?”

Question 2: “Why do people choose my competitor’s product?”

Question 3: “Why do people recommend my product to their friends?”

Question 4: “Why do people recommend my competitor’s product to their friends?”

Questions 1 and 2 may seem at first blush to resemble questions 3 and 4. But actually they are dissimilar. When someone recommends a product they will often choose a reason that says something about themselves. People will rarely say: “I chose this product because it’s cheapest”, but they may often say: “I chose this product because I care about the environment”. Conversely, why people actually buy a product is often around a combination of product features, reputation and price.

(Reputation and price are in some measure inversely related. Products with good reputations generally achieve that reputation by good service. Good service costs money and although consumers are tempted by cheap offers, they know that “free broadband” generally carries a cost in poor customer support. We recently completed some detailed research in this area which shows that brands with good customer support can keep their prices higher for longer than their competitors. )

All these questions are answerable from online research, and we can put numbers against the characterisitics of a product which are most likely to drive adoption. Those numbers have direct benefit to a key hiearchy of stakeholders within the company:

a) the product managers suddenly know which aspects of the product are key to marketing success (and which need most attention);

b) the marketing managers know what is the key product strength to push in relation to the corresponding weakness of a rival’s product;

c) the word-of-mouth marketers and PRs know which messages are most likely to drive viral adoption amongst users and can devise appropriate campaigns.

On Wednesday I presented at a fascinating training morning run by e-Consultancy’s Craig Hanna along with Blogging4business’s Matthew Yeomans. The agenda was to educate the audience about blogging as a phenomenon and to give them a sense of what it could teach them about their own customers and how they could use blogging and other social media tools in marketing.

The speakers were Andy Budd of Clearleft, Heather Hopkins of Hitwise, Debbie Weil, author of The Corporate Blogging Book.

There were some great case studies presented and interesting stories from the floor. Heather wrote it up here. I am afraid I missed Andy Budd’s presentation, but my favourite moments were:

Heather’s account of the huge impact of social networks on e-Commerce (it is as important as search) and her observation that 2% of Amazon purchase traffic comes from blogs. It doesn’t sound like much, but Yahoo! only provides 3%.

Debbie’s account of how marketeers are trying to use social media, sometimes well and sometimes poorly … she used an hilarious parody GM Chevy Tahoe ad, which was submitted in response to an online promotion. (Can’t find a link, but here is an ABC report) I talked about how brand messages are mediated by search, and how that means that the brand has to compete for thought space with journalists, competitors, regulators and bloggers. Thus …

The upshot is that you have as a brand a central duty to find out the words that are being used about you, particularly in the context of links, and try to make them as relevant to your core brand promise as possible.

BTW: After I read what Heather had written about what I said, I sent her the following mail, explaining the points I had been trying to make about links:

A very good pull-together on how to respond to negative blogs from the folks at Multi-Channel Merchant. It suggests that a good initial response is to monitor what is being said, and recommends a thoughtful approach to response. Here are some excellent, clear rules on how to blog, courtesy of Stephan Spencer of NetConcepts:

1. Create a “safe haven” for employees to experiment with blogging. Set up a private blog on your intranet or extranet, or start a blog that’s password-protected. Then offer access to that test to a selected audience. Your inexperienced bloggers will feel more comfortable knowing that all your customers and competitors are not watching their every move.
2. Decide on a permanent home for your blog. The Web address you choose should be one that you will be happy with for years to come. Remember that it will become difficult to switch blog services if you allow the service’s name to be part of your URL. Ehobbies.blogs.com, backcountryblog.blogspot.com, and sethgodin.typepad.com are all examples of blogs that are forever wedded to their blog platform, for better or for worse. If they switch platforms, all the links they’ve earned will be unavailable to their new blog. Links are the lifeblood of your search engine visibility, so the significance of this cannot be overstated.
3. Select a scalable, flexible, and user-friendly blog platform. There are so many solutions to choose from! Some are hosted services, such as TypePad, Blogger, and WordPress.com. Some are software packages that you install on your Web server, such as WordPress, Drupal, or Movable Type. You can pore over comparison charts (such as the one at www.ojr.org/ojr/images/blogsoftwarecomparison.cfm), though I suggest you simply go with WordPress (the software package, not to be confused with the hosted service at WordPress.com). WordPress is free, so the price is right. It’s highly configurable, since it’s open source, and it has a plethora of free, useful plug-ins written for it.
4. Decide on a posting schedule. Try to post at least three times a week. Allow several hours per week for this. I typically spend two to three hours a week blogging. Don’t hire a ghostwriter for your blog, or you’ll get slammed by bloggers for lack of transparency (an unwritten rule in the blogosphere). As far as retaining readers, recency is more important than frequency. A couple weeks of inactivity makes the reader feel like nobody’s home. Conversely, having the latest post be only a day old makes the blog appear “fresh.”
5. Build relationships with respected bloggers. Not only will they be more likely to link to you, but they will also offer advice and bolster your street cred. Posting thoughtful comments on their blogs is only the first step. Attend blogger conferences such as BlogOn and Blog Business Summit and meet bloggers in person. Keep the dialogue going through e-mail and through phone or Skype conversations. Become an evangelist, and you will really get them on your side.

Julian Smith of Jupiter Research highlights the increasing influence of blogs in a piece for the BBC website in the context of the WeMedia forum. He mentions Market Sentinel’s Dell case study as an example of evidence showing that bloggers can be influential.

“For marketers,” Smith writes, “this has the potential to significantly impact brand communications if consumer content refers to experiences with products or services that are incongruous and misaligned with official marketing messages.

“When a company’s marketing story differs from the one being told by online consumers, a credibility gap will emerge that could have dire consequences on brand perception and favourability. “

The last few days have seen us talking to a number of different companies about whether it is possible to measure the success of marketing campaigns using our tools. It is.

The traditional way of measuring marketing success is:

1. Sales of the product. This is the point of the exercise after all. But sales numbers are a crude tool. How and why did these folk reach you? What were they responding to? The original campaign, or word of mouth generated by it? If they are buying it, are the also recommending it?

2. Consumers seeing the campaign. In offline this would include estimates of people seeing the campaign in papers and on TV, in online you could measure how many people reached any of your pages, downloaded your collateral.

3. Numbers of links to your campaign. This is the primary traditional buzz measurement. A campaign needs links from those who are qualified to endorse it.

4. Numbers of citations (how many people mention your campaign). The secondary traditional buzz measurement. If they are talking about you more after the campaign then you know the campaign is working at least on some level.

All these metrics deliver some value, but they don’t really tell you enough about the campaign itself. If you are a mobile operator the retail returns on handset sales tells you what is hot and what is not, but it does so retrospectively. You can’t predict the success of a product on the first day it is sold by a competitor.

The numbers of customers seeing the campaign is a weak indicator of whether a campaign will be successful. The bubble era was strewn with campaigns which were seen by millions but acted on by very few. (Remember the ISP “Breathe”, whose beautiful, but baffling advertisements were hard to avoid?)

The number of links to a campaign and the number of citation of it form the beginning of an important measure. But both these metrics are incomplete in themselves. Firstly not all links have the same value: some links are more equal than others. If a link is from someone who is authoritative in the area of the product, it is worth far more to the campaign, brings more Google influence and hence more prominence in natural search and therefore more sales.

Natural search is the key target for this kind of buzz measurement. Why? When customers go to Google, their eyes disproportionately linger on natural search. Consumers consider natural search authoritative. The image below is courtesy of Eyetools and demonstrates this in practice.

This is authority is inherent to a brand and it is something that Market Sentinel can measure. What can be measured, as the saying goes, can be managed.

Secondly these measures leave out the quality of the citation - is the reaction positive or negative? A citation is not necessarily an endorsement.

We have recently been looking at a clever viral campaign for Sony Bravia on behalf of the agency Tonic.

The campaign’s origin was a commercial shot in San Francisco on 26th July 2005. Thousand of brightly coloured plastic balls were dropped on a street in Telegraph Hill. This spectacle was so astounding that passers by stopped to photograph it. They posted their pictures on Flickr. This photo has been viewed 245974 times. The agency spotted the opportunity for a viral marketing campaign, and created a site using high quality assets from the photoshoot, as well as making the commercial itself available online.

We were not able to give Tonic all the help we would have liked to, because they only came to us in the last couple of weeks, and benchmarking this in retrospect would be time-consuming. However: this is what you would do to measure the impact of a digital campaign like this.

1. Benchmark the “approval rating” of the product. Compare it with two or three direct competitors. How many people recommend and how many disparage the product? Measure this before the campaign, during the campaign and three months later. If you have changed sentiment about the product relative to the competitors, the campaign has had an impact.

2. Measure the influence of the Sony Bravia brand in relation to the sector as a whole (LCD TVs). That is: how many authoritative commentators in the area of LCD TVs give authority to Sony Bravia. To do this you need to use our proprietary software. Again benchmark this against competitors in the sector. Repeat during the campaign and six months after (these effects take longer to worth, and are themselves longer lasting). This is the key area. If the campaign is successful Sony Bravia will rise up the Google natural search returns for “LCD TV”.

3. Undertake a stakeholder analysis of Sony Bravia itself, before and after the campaign. Look at who were the key influencers before and afterwards. Examine the actual words which are used by those influencers. Examine the context of the conversation - what other websites were cited in that context? These subtle and sensitive measurements help you measur how the climate of opinion around a brand has been transformed.

4. Measure search volume for crucial terms. How many people are looking for the campaign, or for the brand in the context of the campaign.

The preliminary work we did looking at this Sony Bravia campaign identified some interesting methods by which the campaign achieved traction as well as throwing up some interesting lessons about what the brand should try to achieve next time. Tonic will be publishing more detail in the next few weeks and when they do we will return to this subject.

The BBC’s Robert Plummer gives Market Sentinel’s report on Dell a mention in his UK blogging survey.

Yesterday we attended the Blogging4business conference in London. It was very ably put together by Matthew Yeomans and Bernhard Warner of Custom Communications - two journalists who have put together training packages and strategies for communications professionals moving into blogging.

With this in mind, we designed a one pager Your 3-step guide to the blogosphere, (PDF download 70k) which we distributed at the conference. The HTML version follows …

1. Get started:

- Go to Technorati, the biggest of the blog search engines.
- Enter the topic you are interested in.
- When you find a blog that appeals to you, you can use Google desktop (a quick download) to automatically notify you when there is new content.
- Or save your search as a Watchlist, and get relevant information from a variety of sources.

Blogs to explore:

Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things A lively commentary on events, the world’s most popular blog has 66,000 links from 22,000 sites.
Engadget Well-written technology reviews.
Dooce Personal blog by Heather Armstrong, who got sacked for blogging about her work colleagues
Public Relations Onlinefor discussing how businesses can best understand and use consumer generated content
British businesses using blogs:

The Guinness blog - bought to you by the Guinness branding team
The Cadbury’s Creme Egg podcast - with Kate Thornton
The Honda blog launched 28th February 2006, already has 107 links according to Yahoo

2. Join in

- Go to Blogger to create a blog for yourself. It takes about three minutes and is as simple as setting up a Hotmail account. Your blog will have the format http://yourname.blogspot.com.
- If you want to set something up with your own domain name for business, talk to a blog creation specialist like Market Sentinel.
- If you would like to comment on someone else’s blog posting, click on comment and complete the form. Sometimes (in Blogger and Moveable Type) you have to register in order to comment – this is to protect bloggers against spam comments from advertisers.
- You can comment on a blog posting on your own blog and put the address (http:// …) of the original comment into the “trackback” section of your blogging software. This will mean that your blog post is automatically linked to the blog you are commenting on. This facility has been abused by spammers, so most bloggers check trackbacks to prevent spam.

3. Get your blog noticed

- Optimise your blog for the subject matter. If your blog is about skincare, then put the word “skincare” into the name of the blog, and into the url: www.skincare.co.uk
- Update your blog regularly, at least once a week and ideally two or three times. Search engines visit sites according to how often they find new content.
- Tag your content. When you make a post, use the “category” or “tagging” facility to tell everyone what it is about. Someone on Technorati will be searching on the tag “dry skin”.
- Use Technorati or Google blog search to find out who else is writing about your subject matter. When you make an interesting new post, politely email them with the url and suggest that they might be interested in reading what you have written. You will make some new friends, and you might benefit from some links!
- If you are hosting your site, make you “ping” all the right ping servers when it is updated.

Market Sentinel works with top brands like Yahoo! Europe monitoring blogs and advising on marketing response.

For more information on how to integrate blog communications intoyour marketing strategy, call +44 (0) 20 7793 1575 or mail simon DOT rogers AT new DOT com

Tomorrow I am on the blogging4business panel in London and talking on the topic of “what blogs are saying about your business”.

So what are blogs saying about your business? In the US, where blogging has become a widespread phenomenon, blogger Eric Mattson has just demonstrated in an anecdotal survey that top US companies are much discussed. [Hat tip to John Cass of Backbone media for the link]

The UK situation is different. Athough the last few months has witnessed a huge growth in the use of community sites like mySpace, the majority of bloggers are either hard-core early adopters, or younger people. That still leaves blogs as a smaller scale phenomenon in the UK than in the US as far as most brands are concerned. Pick a UK-focussed brand like John Menzies and the comment count on Technorati is pretty anaemic. 79 comments in the database, and most cut and pasted from online news sources like Reuters and the Scotsman.

The truth is that for most UK industries the bulk of commentary happens in message boards or in other traditional sites. This kind of commentary is technically harder to get at than blog commentary (Technorati won’t be much help) but it’s also less susceptible to infestation by keyword spammers.

Market Sentinel has a number of automotive industry customers and our automotive database is comparatively light on blogs. The majority of these sources are sites which allow customers to review cars, or simply message boards. For the automotive sector at least, blogs are a rather small part of the story thus far.

This is not to say that the automotive industry shouldn’t itself use blogs to communicate with its consumer base - of course it should. And the most enterprising of the online brands are either doing this already or have plans to do so in the near future. But as far as listening is concerned, brands need to spread their nets a little wider than the blogosphere.

[Update] My colleague at our partner Onalytica Flemming Madsen draws attention to a phenomenon which can be made use of in the blogosphere today, and that is something he calls “statistically improbable links” and which we deliver in a branded form as “Stakeholder Spotlight”. That is to say - what urls are disproportionately linked to by the stakeholders in a particular topic? We have found this to be a fascinating predictor of trends and an early indication of problems. Flemming has identified that the Vodafone stakeholders are highlighting a blogger who has a complaint about data charges. For other Market Sentinel customers we have found that this functionality throws up interesting links to companies that might be considered acquisition targets, with the stakeholder group serving almost as a focus group of what might be considered cool and interesting on the web.

Google has reported that the UK population as a whole now spends more time online than they do watching TV. This is an epochal change for marketers. It means that they must finally get to grips with a medium (the internet) that has remained largely resistant to their wiles.

Think of an online marketing campaign that has impressed you. I bet you that you can’t. Think of the online products that you use and value: iTunes, Amazon.com, Skype, Google. I would bet that you did not find these products as a result of a marketing message. Someone recommended them to you. You may have followed a link on a web page. And if you did I bet that link was contextual. It was not an advertisement.

Old school advertising is good for awareness, but it has not been a major part of the success of internet-era marketing. Internet era marketing is about testimonials, about peer recommendations, about serendipity: stumbling across something interesting whilst looking for something else.

It is no surprise that the way to internet marketing success has been shown by paid search. Paid search has the huge advantage of being contextual. Advertisers choose when to give you their message. They give you their message only when they think you are likely to transact. They are only going to communicate to you if they feel their communication is welcome.

But there are other products waiting in the wings behind paid search. These products, too, will depend on marketers opening a conversation only when they know that a consumer is responsive. It is one reason internet marketers are using our products at Market Sentinel. They want to find out what is being said online in ongoing conversations, conversations that are (or could be) relevant to their product. And then they want to join in with those conversations.

And that joining in process is one of the hardest things to pull off. Years ago, when I was at the BBC, I was one of those responsible (with my current colleague Sheila Sang) for launching the BBC’s message boards. It was an invaluable opportunity to learn about how communities worked. One thing I learnt good and early is that if an outsider comes into a community with an irrelevant marketing message, they will be shunned. It is as if an insurance salesman were to wander into a snug bar and suddenly pitch into a sales spiel in front of eight surprised drinkers. Such a conversation only works if it is relevant. If someone is discussing where to go skiing, and you happen to mention that you know a good place, they will be keen to listen, particularly if you seem to be impartial.

That is why we work with our customers to identify where the appropriate conversations are taking place online, and to identify the authorities. That is the beginning of understanding where a conversation can begin. Is there a strategy for beginning a conversation that always work? No. Conversations of this kind are like pick-up lines, nothing quite works twice. But honesty helps: “Hi I know you like my product because I noticed you talking about it. I am keen to hear your reaction to some new features I am planning to introduce.” This is the strategy that Intuit used to get their QuickBooks blogging strategy underway.

You might call it contextual marketing, and, as a science, it’s in its infancy. We are taking baby steps to figure out how it should work. As ever in this new world of marketing communications, it is going to be all about permission, about honesty and about relevance.

The following story just appeared in The Economist:

Internet trends: Companies are eavesdropping on online discussion forums to find out what their customers really think about them

ONE of the things that makes the internet so appealing is that for any subject, no matter how obscure, there is almost guaranteed to be at least one website, blog or discussion forum where people congregate to talk about it. Online discussion forums cover a huge range of topics: it is not just stereotypical geeky bickering about Macs versus PCs, or Windows versus Linux. Worried mothers compare the fat content of different brands of potato crisps; car enthusiasts discuss the merits of forthcoming models; fans of obscure bands swap trivia.

The internet’s oldest discussion system, called Usenet, dates back to 1979 and can now be easily reached via Google, which also maintains archived discussions going back 25 years. More recently, web-based discussion boards, and the comments that can be appended to blogs, have become the most popular forums for online debate. Most of these discussions are of little interest except to their participants. But the direct, unfiltered, brutally honest nature of much online discussion is gold dust to big companies that want to spot trends, or find out what customers really think of them. As a result, many firms now monitor online chatter as an adjunct to more traditional forms of market research.

For example, ConAgra, an American food giant known for its Butterball turkeys and Healthy Choice ready meals, tracks discussion groups to keep abreast of new diet trends, such as Atkins and organic food. “These discussion groups are very useful to determine whether a trend is really a trend, or just a fad,” says Nick Mysore, ConAgra’s director of strategy. “They also help you get a read on the marketplace quickly and cost effectively, and provide you with the ‘baseline hypothesis’ that you can test further, using conventional market-research techniques.”

This sort of thing has been going on, in an informal way at least, for several years. Sometimes public-relations teams are asked to keep an eye on online discussions, and switched-on company executives visit forums to stay in touch with the public mood. But companies are now looking to do it in a more systematic way. Initially, this involved throwing lots of computing power at the problem. Accenture and IBM have each built computer systems that trawl the web in search of trends and insights. But the extensive use of jargon, abbreviations and obscure slang can make it hard for computers to figure out what people are saying.

So smaller specialist firms, such as Wavemetrix in Britain and Nielsen BuzzMetrics in America, are now using a combination of computers and human researchers. They track general discussions and try to spot trends early, by identifying the members of online communities who are most likely to influence other participants. BuzzMetrics does this kind of work on behalf of 100 of the world’s biggest firms, including General Motors, Ford and Microsoft.

Such research has a number of weaknesses, not least the fact that it excludes non-internet users, so it is not about to replace telephone surveys and focus groups any time soon. But it also has many advantages, notably its high speed and low cost. Opinions appear on the web within minutes of an event. Convening a focus group or performing traditional market research to gauge the impact of a campaign, in contrast, might take weeks or even months.

The results can often be surprising. Wavemetrix, for example, carried out a study for a European mobile operator that was aware that its network was less reliable than those of its rivals. Online research, however, showed that the general public believed the opposite to be true. Other surprising findings arise because participants in discussion groups can say anything they like, whereas people answering a survey answer only the questions that researchers think to ask.

What of privacy? Max Kalehoff of BuzzMetrics insists that “openness and transparency are the most important things in our industry.” Even so, many companies are reluctant to discuss their activities in this area. Although firms track only public forums, they do not obtain the participants’ formal consent, and many users may be disconcerted to learn that their conversations are being listened to. That said, people who post their thoughts online generally want them to be read. While the ethics of monitoring public discussion boards are a matter of debate, there is general agreement that the active abuse of forums-in particular, posting poorly disguised product plugs-is unacceptable.

Occasionally, the monitoring of discussion groups itself becomes a topic of conversation. In one car forum, a discussion of BuzzMetrics’ research for General Motors produced no objections-just disbelief that the carmaker could listen to their conversations and still produce such unappealing products. Consumers often moan that companies do not listen to them. Might the monitoring of discussion groups provide an answer to that problem? Discuss.

Citing blog traffic, the monitoring company Cymfony points out developing problems with Citibank: customers who can’t use their debit cards to withdraw cash. Cymfony chides Citibank for not commenting. But Citibank respond. They explain that they have been scammed in some way. They had to act before they talked about it, apparently. This new communications revolution puts a lot of pressure on companies to manage their crises online. One gets a strong sense that few - not just Citibank - have the resources in place just yet.

Charlene Li gave an interesting and wide-ranging keynote Friday morning at the New Comm Forum. She took a 30,000 feet look at social media, with particular reference to blogging, aiming her sometimes impassioned comments at a broad audience.

“Social media is all about ceding control to build the relationship with the consumer. They won’t put up with anything else, as the processing power has moved to the edge of the network, the consumer has been empowered by it.

“Look at my own situation - I can work anywhere. The rest of my team works remotely from me. I am displaced.

“What has made this possible? Cheap hardware, for one. Have you seen this $200 computer? Incredible. The impact of RSS - I don’t have to go looking for information, I can subscribe to it. It finds me. Sites like Trip advisor[travel reviews], Blogger, Wikipedia, eBay, Google and services like Bit Torrent [file sharing], the Linux operating system show this in action. Technology has moved towards the “people”.

“Like anyone, I trust recommendations from friends and family first, followed by online recommendations way ahead of other sources. Brand loyalty is declining. It is down from 59% to 54% in two years between 2002 and 2004 in Europe. It may not sound like much but 5% over two year is a major decline. The new technology has empowered communities, not institutions.”

Li mentioned as case studies some work done by Umbria about mobile pricing plans, analysing customer complaints online and using them to create a more consumer-friendly offering. She cited the website istockphoto, which derives its inventory from user-generated photos, and mentioned Burpee seeds, who have given their business a huge fillip just by shrewd use of RSS feeds of seasonal offers.

“Brands are being defined by the communities that accept them. For example on Bob Lutz’s famous GM blog, there is a Community-driven conversation about the Solstice” Li reported an exchange between commentators on the blog …

“Guy one: I can’t wait to own a Solstice: it’s a chick magnet of a car

“Guy two: What about us family guys?

“Guy one: Get rid of the kids.

“The phenomenon of Digg [tech-focussed news where the item’s prominence is driven by social bookmarks] derives from the same motive. If you are a corporation, you have to let the customers become the brand. This is what Nike ID have done with their software which lets you design your own shoes, and then encourages you to let other consumers vote for your design. Similarly with CNet, they have taken the decision to window other sites’ content

“From companies I hear from corporations a lot about the risks of ceding control - the fear that the employees and executives will say something bad: ‘We can’t have negative opinions on our site’

“But the point is that constructive criticism should be welcomed. Sure, you don’t need abusive comments, but it is better to have your brand advocates engage you directly with their constructive criticism, than have them do it behind your back. People say: ‘We’ll lose control of the brand’. I say: ‘You already lost control of the brand.’ They say: ‘People will delete the RSS feed.” I say: ‘Do you really want to send unwelcome emails, instead?’ People say: ‘We’ll get sued.’ I think those risks are easily manageable.

“So, how does your company get involved with all this? First: decide how involved you want to be with social computing. At a minimum listen to what is being said in message boards and on the blogs. Test the waters and immerse yourselves in the tools. It’s a new mindset and you are not going to get the hang of it straight away.

“Take the case of Dan Entin: he blogged that he couldn’t find his favourite deodourant (Degree Sport, as it happens). A sharp-eyed Unilever employee spotted the post got in touch, advised him on local stockists and then gave him a box of the stuff. He blogged it, naturally. That is a huge PR win for Unilever.

“I would argue that companies should focus on the relationship, not the technology. It is not so much about blogging or about podcasting … it is about the relationship with the consumer. Technologies will come and go, but the relationships will outlast them.

“For companies my advice is: start small and prove the business case. It’s a mindset: it will take some time. It took eight days to set up the small block blog. If you want to get your feet wet I would suggest that a recruitment blog is worth having. You always want to attract new talent to your company. Or at the very least ensure that your press releases are in RSS, or that when you do an earnings call you make it available as a podcast. You don’t have write new stuff necessarily. You probably have some existing speeches from executives that you can repurpose.

“The key thing to consider is to let you cusomters tell you when you are doing it right and also when you are doing it wrong. And then measure engagement, measure frequency of visit, length of stay, links. And benchmark your position before and afterwards.

“I hear about return on investment: Typepad costs me $15 a month and I have got $1m of business off it in the last year

“In conclusion: what does it all mean:

“Social computing will move into the enterprise. Wikis and blogs are perhaps even more effective internally than they are externally.

“Consumers want to create their own applications. Jeff Bezos said that Web 2.0 was all about computers talking to other computers. That makes it easier for consumers to use applications to create new applications of their own. For example you can take Google maps and overlay something else

“I predict that Community-based political systems will emerge, where people who share common views will seek out candidates to represent them.

“Finally social computing will become like air, as it becomes part of everyone’s experience, it will disappear …”

To Paris yesterday to hear the great David Weinberger, by the special invitation of Guillaume du Gardier, now with Edelman.

David Weinberger was one of the editors of the Cluetrain Manifesto and thus has a legitimate claim to be at the heart of the philosophical shift that underlies the rise of consumer-generated media, and the transition of public relations into “public relationships”.

Weinberger is now at Harvard Law School’s Berkman centre for the Internet and society. As he spoke I made some notes on my PDA. This isn’t everything he said - it is everything that he said that I thought was interesting. So not an impartial account at all - and please mail with corrections!

Weinberger:

“If you want to understand at how the internet has impacted information look at Wikipedia. It has 994,000 articles in English alone. I mean, Encyclopedia Britannica has 32 volumes and contains 65,000 articles. That’s not just because the editors decided there are only 65,000 things in the world that are interesting enough to write articles about. It is because of the sheer costs of paper and printing, and shipping books about the place.

“And the Wikipedia is not edited at all, in the conventional sense. No single person decides what’s in or out. Famously, there are articles about the use of the umlaut in heavy metal - something that would never find its way into a conventional encyclopedia. The Wikipedia approach to knowledge management is that the originators don’t manage it at all. They allow people, members of the public to decide what’s relevant, and what’s not.

“What the Wikipedia is to knowledge management, the blog is to personal expression. Everything is allowed. Tonight, though I would like to talk about what a blog is not. A blog is not about advertising …”

Weinberger used the Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit blog. He pointed out that this was not a blog in any meaningful sense of the word. It was not a true expression of someone’s experience. It seemed to revolve around two people arguing which of them liked Juicy Fruit more.

“I mean - even the guy from the advertising agency doesn’t like Juicy Fruit that much … Anyone from Juicy Fruit, here? No. Good. I mean, come on.

“A blog is not about cats. I hear that a lot from people in marketing. People blog about their cats, right? In fact one of my neighbours in Boston really answered that the other day. If I want to blog about my cat, who are you to say that I can’t do that. I should be able to blog about anything that interests me. And in fact, there are many blogs about cats. But that is not the point. A blog is about whatever I want it to be about. It is my agenda, and not yours.

“A blog is not about journalism … although some journalists blog and some bloggers are increasingly being hired as stringers by the news media. The worlds of blogging and journalism overlap, but they are distinct. Bloggers distrust journalists because they suspect them of being corporate whores serving some kind of hidden agenda from the news organisation’s proprietor. Journalists distrust bloggers because they suspect bloggers don’t check their facts (right! and newspapers do, I suppose?) and that they are single issue merchants and cranks.

“Blogging is not about 1 to 1 marketing. 1 to 1 marketing in blogs often doesn’t work, because one of the 1’s isn’t really a 1. It is a big corporation. How can I have a conversation with Wrigley’s, or with Ford? The fact is that blogging is about a conversation. Blogging is a new social space. My weblog is me. It is my body in the new public space.

“One of the key things about blogging which distinguishes it from the stuff that’s gone before - the marketing messages on the one hand, and the conventional journalism on the other - is the freedom to write badly, the freedom to make mistakes. Making mistakes is a sign of authenticity. It is a sign of being human. Of course we are all going to make mistakes. It establishes intimacy. And on the internet pretty good may be good enough. “

Weinberger went on to talk about links:

“Links are little acts of generosity. They are saying: don’t stay on this site, visit this other site. The web is based on links. The web is links. But look at the home page of the New York Times (registration required). It only links to itself - oh, and to advertisers. Journalists talk about bloggers being narcissistic. That’s narcissism. The New York Times home page.

“In the old model, businesses thought of themselves like a fort. They controlled their brand, they released only the information they wanted. But now the fort has holes in the walls. People are having conversations about those companies that the companies can’t control. The fortress business model has been overtaken. Now our customers know more about our business than we do. And the customers trust other customers to tell them about our business more than they do the marketers. You cannot control your customers by the selective release of information. Customers are not there to be managed. We trust Google, craigslist, Robert Scoble and Jonathan Schwarz because they are there for us. They are for us.”

Weinberger talked about Howard Dean’s election campaign, which he was involved with as an election strategist.

“The thing that characterised the Dean campaign was its openness, the sense of involvement that it generated. And typical of that was the way that they got this 31 year old kid Matthew Gross blogging. Traditionally the campaign messages are tightly controlled by the candidate and by the press officer. This time Matthew Gross just blogged the whole campaign, talked about it the way he saw it. It caused a sensation, got huge buzz.”

Weinberger on branding:

“Branding - as a metaphor - is drawn from what you do to a cow with a red hot iron. And that is still - mostly - the way it is done. Branding is done by someone to your customers, the way you might brand a cow.

“And yet business is evolving. You start with brand and you move towards the idea of reputation and then the idea of relationship. That means that every business is going to be involved in blogging one way or another.”

Weinberger on trust:

“Blogging is best - or at least very good - if taken internally. The blogosphere operates as a vast, amorphous focus group - a defocus group. It creates a sense of trust. I feel that this is my company. That is like the relationship I have with Google. I feel that Google is my company, although I don’t own stock. “

What should companies do?

“Public relations needs to turn into ‘public relationships’. Companies need to listen, to audit, to engage, to give up control to their employees. Companies need to develop a blogging policy - not rocket science, just saying that blogging employees need to observe the same standards as anyone else - keep corporate secrets, don’t run down the corporation. Fundamentally companies must try to sound like a human being, to be like a human being. Engage, don’t defend, be transparent, and link, link, link, link, link. “

What mistakes do companies make?

“You don’t know more than your customers. Your customers know more than you. Don’t be boring. Take risks. Blogging is about opportunity, about connectedness, about breaking down the walls.”

Weinberger then fielded a few questions. What would he say to corporations who worried about loss of control:

“You would better ask: do you want people to talk about you? That is the question. If you do, you should blog.

“Thinking we were in control was magical thinking, it was delusional. People have always talked about us, we were just deaf.”

We are working with a customer in the automotive sector looking at commentary in both message boards and blogs. It has brought out some interesting characteristics of web users. The volume of commentary in blogs is somewhat lower, and that in message boards somewhat higher than we had anticipated.

I am not aware of any research which compares blog-writers with message board contributors. It seems to us that there are distinct contrasts. Bloggers tend to solitary, opinionated, contrarian, message board contributors are friendly, clubbable and consensus-seeking. Bloggers are cats and message board contributors are dogs. Not very scientific, I know. I am always quoting some Delahaye research which showed that 23% of blog comments are negative and only 11% of message board comments. Previously I had assumed that this was because of the nature of the conversation. The blog is a monologue (with interjections) and the message board is a dialogue, or even a public meeting. Now I am beginning to think the differences go deeper.

We will look for chapter and verse.

An excellent article in Red Herring reporting on work by Umbria in Boulder, Colorado, draws attention to the increasing problems posed by spam blogs or splogs. Apparently spam bloggers have targeted 44 out of the top 100 brands.

This problem has vastly increased in severity since September/October 2005 when the blog spammers seemed to change their game. It is worth pointing out here that blog spam differs from email spam. Email spam is chiefly aimed at getting the recipient to visit a website, or engage in a transaction. Blog spam is partly about that, but to a greater measure it is about ensuring that the spam site appears in search results for a popular topic. It might also be useful, once it is has succeeded in gaining search engine authority on a particular topic, in lending that authority to a legitimate business which is trying to spoof its own way to greater search engine prominence. We will write more about this topic in our forthcoming white paper, a sequel to our “Measuring blogging influence”.

But back to the spam bloggers: previously they had tried to boost the traffic to their sites by posting direct links to gambling and poker sites. From mid-Autumn onwards we noticed increasingly that product names (cars, mobile phones, broadband suppliers) and common search terms were being systematically targeted, often in the context of material which might itself be returned in response to common searches.

This strategy suggests a return to the bad old days before Google, when search prominence could be (and was) spoofed. The retrospective results in Google are still reliable, but live results (and this business is all about live results) are polluted by junk returns.

The immediate problem from our perspective and the perspective of anyone in the corporate intelligence business was simple: how did we maintain the integrity of our live blog search results in the face of this issue? If you are searching on “product name” + keyword, and that product name is suddenly the target of spammers, you are screwed.

In the article the research group Umbria announces that it is pinning its hopes on a linguistic approach, hoping that the spammers will betray themselves by using characteristic patterns. It is an approach that is definitely worth trying. However, Market Sentinel’s researchers find that spam blogs are cunning at reusing genuine content, and that oftentimes you cannot identify that a blog is a spam blog until you have clicked through from the search return to the blog posting itself. This kind of disguise means that any algorithmic filtering is likely to be hard to implement. If a human being cannot spot a fake blog, what chance does a machine have?

For our customers the key question is: is this result important? Is it relevant to me? We have established that the best approach is to filter all our results by the writer’s relevance to a particular issue, using an algorithm developed by our partners at influence-specialists Onalytica to assess the writer’s influence on a particular issue, and then highlighting the most relevant returns in the results we provide the customer. This approach ensures that any spam-polluted result can be eliminated, saving time and server space. It also helps to create a more valuable monitoring service, since you are highlighting only those commentators who are authoritative.