Adweek has put together a very interesting discussion on online and social media measurement. The principle points IMO relate to the practicality of programs from providers like Cymfony and BuzzMetrics being able to automatically tell you how good your media exposure is.
I must admit I am beginning quite sanguine about the notion of how good automated solution for representing online and social media are. Organisations are spending many, many thousands of the ever-tightening media budget on the online equivalent of a wetted figure in the air.
I really think we need to step back and take a long look at the sense in letting a computer mark your coverage. Even with the recent developments in the semantic web a computer can not understand text. It can not grasp an argument, highlight creativity, isolate messaging, or most importantly assign favourability. Until they can, any automated measurement tool will be nothing more than an expensive marketing gimmick.
Totally agree. These new tools for measuring the results of online communications may only tell you about numerical facts that show you the ups and downs of your article. But only a human being can go further that analysis and look into the deep meaning of those changes and give you a much deep insight.
Computer have come leaps and bounds in recent years, but they just can’t do context, can’t grasp messages, nuances let alone a journalist’s sarcasm. In my experience when you click through charts from some of the automated systems, the raw coverage behind it simply doesn’t match up with the data presented. Computer process is a great aid to analysts, pulling product names, dates and other hard facts, but this needs to be balances with human input which can check quantitative info and add qualitative.
Computer process is a great aid to analysts, pulling product names, dates and other hard facts, but this needs to be balances with human input which can check quantitative info and add qualitative.