A client, reviewing some of the sentiment scores on the net approval work we have been doing for them recently asked: “why are these people so negative? We don’t get these scores from our off-line net promoters work.”

The client was identifying a pattern we see quite regularly. Online commentary is more negative than off-line. Why? There is no systematic answer to this question, but if you were to attempt an answer you would divide it into three sections:

The squeaky wheel. People are likely to post on a blog or message board or a consumer review site when they have a reason to. The post can often be prompted by a problem they wish to solve, for example - difficulty with the product - if a car won’t start or a program won’t install. Because of this, and given the likelihood that the problem may persist, complaints about the product and the brand are likely by-products of a web session.

Monologue is more negative than dialogue. Research we have previously published  refers 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.

The third reason is that, particularly for bloggers, staking out one’s social territory online involves a certain amount of display activity - particularly for men! A vehemently negative comment about a large brand demonstrates a certain kind of alpha male aggression. It is show-off behaviour. Bloggers want to be linked to, and being showily negative, particularly in a witty way, may garner more links than a considered “one the one hand, on the other hand” approach.

Paradoxically, as we explained in our “Measuring blogger influence” report, this negativity amongst bloggers actually reduces their authority on a topic. For the casual reader, strongly negative views are off-putting. A neutral is more likely to be impressed, and influenced by the argument of someone who has weighed up the evidence for and against a brand, citing their evidence, than by someone who says: “Brand X SUCKS!”So … although brands are worried about extreme negative commentary online, it generally has little influence. That is, unless there is a special case.

The special case is, as in the example of Jeff Jarvis and Dell:

a) the issue complained of is real and the complaint justified, and echoed by others;

b) brand makes no direct statement on the topic, leaving the existing authorities no choice but to link solely to the complainant.In that one case, bloggers can be VERY influential.

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.

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.

Forbes magazine has devoted a sensational cover story to bloggers who set out to damage people and brands. Since the piece itself is password-protected, here is how it kicks off:

Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.

Blogs started a few years ago as a simple way for people to keep online diaries. Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns. It’s not easy to fight back: Often a bashing victim can’t even figure out who his attacker is. No target is too mighty, or too obscure, for this new and virulent strain of oratory. Microsoft has been hammered by bloggers; so have CBS, CNN and ABC News, two research boutiques that criticized IBM’s Notes software, the maker of Kryptonite bike locks, a Virginia congressman outed as a homosexual and dozens of other victims–even a right-wing blogger who dared defend a blog-mob scapegoat.

Forbes’s writer Daniel Lyons point out that first amendment rights protect many writers who are simply out to settle scores, or in the case of “Pamela Jones” - the writer of Groklaw - take a partisan line on SCO’s case against IBM over Linux. Lyons suggests that Jones may be an IBM mouthpiece.

The article is written in a sensational flack versus counter-flack style, but both it and the indignant response from bloggers are worth a read.

(via Micropersuasion)

Mark Rogers is interviewed by Guillaume du Gardier of Blogging Planet in a podcast about online visibility, brand auditing and benchmarking, and brand response.

Market Sentinel gave a presentation on September 15th at the Internet Advertising Bureau, looking at how company’s reputations are effected by search. It is interesting to note that a huge consumer-facing company like Hutchison 3G, despite vast off-line investments in branding, have somehow ended up with a web site which contains fewer than 50 words indexable by search engines, with zero information about their products, services, customer issues, investor issues etc.

Hutchison Whampoa hopes to float the company next year and one wonders how long it will take them to sort this out.

via Noisefilter. Larissa Bannister reviews the threats to brands from bloggers in a Campaign article, mentioning Market Sentinel’s work to monitor this and to help companies deal with it.

Online PR gurus Shel Holtz and Steve Rubel have linked to our white paper Search is Brand dealing with the influence of online detractors and methodologies for coping.

Rubel suggests that one way forward is pointed by CommonCraft who deliberately targeted a #1 Google slot for “weblogs and business” and achieved it. Commentators on Micropersuasion suggest that this approach becomes more difficult the larger your brand is.

This is true, but Search is Brand shows that you can target smaller search phrases successfully, even if you are a big brand - like Madonna! The report shows how she could optimise her website if there were rumours of marital problems with Guy Ritchie, for example.

To take a theoretical example, Madonna might want to optimise her web site for the phrase ‘Madonna and Guy Ritchie divorce’, and point people to positive content on the site that emphasises how happy she and Guy are, having recently renewed their wedding vows. Then, should the marriage hit the rocks, and more people start making the search ‘Madonna and Guy Ritchie divorce’, the site content can be updated to give her side of the story ahead of the celebrity gossip sites which might not be so positive and promoted via the paid-for listings.

Smartapps - a blogger with a complaint about Land Rover has deliberately used his blog to target Land Rover and their PR Harrison Cowley, when direct approaches failed. He cites Market Sentinel and Weboptimiser’s white paper supporting our estimation that blogs are a dangerous weapon for disgruntled consumers to wield against brands and estimates that he is getting 700 visitors a day - most coming from search engines.

Market Sentinel and Weboptimiser have collaborated on a white paper Search is Brand.

Our aim was to provide a useful survey for PROs of the challenges posed to brands by online detractors, and to outline a simple toolkit:

Audit - find out what people are saying about you, and where the issues are online;

Benchmark - establish how your performance compares with your competition;

Optimise your message - make sure your own web presence says what you need it to say and is indexable by search engines;

Respond - go into the blogosphere yourself, either by responding to your critics directly or indirectly, or by establishing a corporate blog;

Monitor - review your progress against your benchmarks.

Your feedback on this white paper would be very welcome.

Grootie posts an image of the Elvis-shaped bread that provoked the attack on Kingsmill Bread, mentioned in our recent survey on online detractors.

A long and thoughtful piece by Adam Hill in PR Week surveys the threat to brands from blogging and gives prominence to Market Sentinel’s report on how detractors dominate search results for some of the UK’s top grocery brands including Coca Cola and Kingsmill Bread.

So what should PROs do about it? ‘Blogging has never been in anyone’s control, which is why it is so disruptive,’ says Joel Cere, Hill & Knowlton vice-president and head of netcoms EMEA. ‘Consumers, analysts or employees are now able to share their opinions or voice their discontent on a planetary scale. The disgruntled employee or dissatisfied customer could ignite a full-blown crisis, much quicker and on a broader scale.’

PROs can start by identifying the influential bloggers who write about clients’ industries and track what they are talking about, sending them relevant information. ‘Identifying the public opinion influencers is crucial here,’ says Cakim. ‘Not all bloggers are experts on what they write, and they may not have a large following.’

Steve Rubel has posted the 10 commandments of participatory PR.

They are:

1) Thou shall listen – Utilize every avenue available to you to listen actively to what your publics have to say and feed it back to the right parties.

10) Thou shall thinketh in 360 degrees – Ask not what you can do for your customer, but also what your customer can do for you.

What happens when you put the most famous brand names in the British high street into Google? Trouble - according to a new survey. 20 out of the top 50 biggest British grocery brands have “major issues” with critical commentators whose websites appear high in the search rankings, according to new work by internet monitoring company Market Sentinel.

The Market Sentinel survey, which involved putting the brand names into Google found that 40% of them had critical or negative commentary in the top ten results. The brands with critical commentary include Coca-Cola, Walker’s crisps, Lucozade, McCain oven chips, Mars Bars and Bird’s Eye fish fingers. Criticism covered corporate issues, product issues and worries about health. Despite the larger budgets of the brand owners, many household names are out-marketed on the internet by critics who use blogs, message boards and single issue sites to get their message across.

PRESS RELEASE: EMBARGOED UNTIL 0001 THURSDAY 30th JUNE 2005

40% of top fifty UK grocery brands “outmarketed by detractors”

According to web guru Jakob Nielsen, for most brands their Google search page is their “home” page, as far as Internet users are concerned. Research shows that more people visit “Ford” on Google than visit the Ford home page. But for many top UK brands their Google search results are dominated by negative commentary, insults, misinformation, or systematic campaigns against them.

A survey by Market Sentinel (www.marketsentinel.com) – a UK-based company specialising in online monitoring and response – shows that twenty of Britain’s top fifty grocery brands have negative commentary amongst the top ten results on their Google search page. For some the negative comment is the number one result.

The brands with critical commentary in Google’s UK top ten search results include Coca-Cola, Walker’s crisps, Lucozade, McCain oven chips, and Mars Bars. For Kingsmill Bread and Bird’s Eye fish fingers the negative results were ranked number one, ahead of the company’s official web presence.

ACNielsen UK grocery brand ranking; Brand; Google ranking of negative sites #

1 Coca-cola 5,7,8,9

2 Walker’s crisps 2

3 Warburton’s bakery 9

4 Cadbury’s dairy milk 10

7 Kingsmill bread 1,2

12 Lucozade 4

17 Bernard Matthews 5, 9

18 KitKat 10

19 McCain 3

21 Flora 6

22 Fanta 3,6

27 Heinz baked beans 9

28 Mr. Kipling 10

32 Tetley tea 7

35 Dairylea 2,3,4,8,10

38 Red Bull 5,10

41 Bird’s Eye fish fingers 1,9

42 Mars bars 4

43 Dolmio sauces 6,10

46 Bird’s Eye chicken 2,4.7,8,10

[Survey date 6th June 2005]

Market Sentinel CEO Mark Rogers suggests that brand-owners need to pay more attention to online detractors. “Corporate PRs and brand owners don’t have to give this crucial ground to their critics. Online detractors can be out-thought, out-argued and out-marketed.”

A Wall Street Journal story shows that mainstream companies like Sprint and Motorola are using blogwatching to understand their customers better.