Social Media Listening

I was at a research conference a few weeks ago and attended a presentation about social media listening which reinforced the need to understand the emotional drivers behind social media. The presenter showed that sentiments towards a brand can be markedly different when they analyzed all blogs, tweets, and reviews online, versus when they analyzed just conversations on Facebook. My immediate reaction was, of course. What you choose to say about a brand is largely dependent on who you think is listening. A blogger's emotional motivation can be very different if the intended listeners are strangers or friends.

There are arguably two dominant emotional rewards for blogging and tweeting. One is enhancing one's social standing - "look how smart I am". The other is strengthening social relationships - "I want you to accept me". One is competition, the other is collaboration. What a person will say about a brand will be very different if the motivation is competition, or if the motivation is collaboration. Bragging to strangers carries no consequences, whereas, giving friends bad advice will have significant consequences.

If you are a marketer who is monitoring the sentiments for your brand through social media listening tools, would you want to separate the bragging posts from the relationship building conversations? Would one give you a truer sense of how your brand is perceived?

Intended versus actual emotional response

How consumers feel about a marketing claim may be very different from what was intended. Recently, we completed a study for a major OTC brand which reinforced the need to check advertisments to understand what they are really evoking among consumers.

Our client knew from prior research that there is a significant level of doubt among consumers regarding the efficacy of the product. Consistent with very rational problem solving, the client believed that the most effective strategy to change perceptions is to make a strong clinical claim - "In clinical studies, 87% of patients showed results". The hard data is real and will be convincing. Unfortunately, after spending million on T.V., the business showed little growth.

We conducted a quick study to illuminate consumers' emotions evoked by the clinical claim. The inconvenient truth is that the claim actually increased consumers' skepticism. Instead of reducing the perception of doubt, the claim actually triggered deep consumer experiences with dubious scientific claims and generated strong subconscious unpleasant emotions. The intended solution was actually strengthening the problem.

Many of us are taught at an early age to solve problems rationally. However, with consumers, emotions rule, and rational claims may not generate the intended responses. Be careful.