ethics

An Open Discussion On Social Media Monitoring and Ethical Data Mining

As a marketer, I’m excited when I see advances in social media monitoring technology and the way we can use tools like text analytics, ontology and Natural Language Processing (NLP) to really understand our audience and their behaviours.

This level of data mining allows businesses to go way beyond the existing information they have not only on their existing customers, but potential ones, and really laser in on the kind of promotions, products and services that consumer is looking for.

However…

As a consumer, I’m increasingly concerned at that same level of data, and how technology can be used (often without our strict permissions) to define us as a person and make us a “target” (even though it’s for products and services we’re interested in).

Consider these points:

Does Google really need us to answer so many personal questions when activating an Android phone?
Does Facebook really need to allow apps to delve into our accounts and those of our friends (without their knowledge)?
Do social media monitoring technologies really have our best interests at heart, or simply those of the businesses they sell to?

As a marketer, I know the benefits targeted marketing and advertising can offer. But I also see the data some people may not want to have public.

For example, should a gambler or alcoholic be targeted by keywords and natural search, even if it’s by an Alcoholics Anonymous group or responsible gambling organization? What if their details were accidentally made public?

Should teens be targeted to see what their brand preferences are, to tailor the next generation of advertising for these soon-to-be-consumers? Or should we just let them be teens and loop back in a few years time?

Or do we benefit by the level of data that’s available? After all, it’s the open research web now, so this is just a by-product of that and results in us being served better and more relevant ads.

I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on this – where do the lines blur between useful data and invasive data?

Let’s start the conversation.

image: Sri Harsha Meghadri

What the Cool Kids Can Teach Us About Selling Out

My friend John Haydon shared a link with me to a video by Youtube user italktosnakes (Kristina Horner). It’s a video response to another Youtube user, nerimon (Alex Day).

In both the videos, each discuss the merits of being paid to advertise products on their Youtube channels. What’s interesting is their take on how companies are approaching this. Kristina praises Ford for its Fiesta initiative (which she’s part of) while Sanyo’s “insert here” example by Alex shows a company still getting to grips with the new tools.

Each video also acts as a nice rebuff to marketers and advertisers who say that Gen Y aren’t worth dealing with as they don’t have the influence or business savvy of older media users.

How about you? Would the approaches talked about in the videos work on you? How can businesses reach you?

Tipping the Scales

Sir Millard Mulch So there’s been plenty written about why bloggers hate PR people.

From lazy pitches to not knowing names and audience, there’s a veritable mish-mash of scorn poured on us PR nuisances from a lot of bloggers.

And, yes, some of it is warranted and trust me, I’m the first to call out bad PR practices.

But you know that just like anything, there’s always a flip side. Here’s an example.

I was speaking with a very good friend of mine who runs her own PR agency. She’s established a terrific reputation as one of the best PR people around and has deservedly won awards for her approach. Simply put, she’s a role model for great PR.

We were talking about the relationship between bloggers and PR and how we can improve it (“we” being both the blogosphere and the PR industry). This was when my friend shared one of her examples as to why that improvement might be further off than hoped.

She was working with a client whose core audience were “mommy bloggers”. The client’s product was ideally suited to the thousands of moms that have families of their own and blog about products in that niche. So, it would make sense for the PR campaign to connect with the blogging audience it’s suited to. So far, so good.

When my friend approached some of the key bloggers in this field, she had this response: “It’s $75 for a positive review, $100 if there’s an image attached.” When my friend queried this, she was told, “Get your client to splash the cash. If you’re getting paid, we want paid too.”

Say what?

Now, I understand about paid blogging and I have no qualms with it, as long as the blogger is upfront that it’s a sponsored post and that the review remains unbiased. Heck, we all need to make a living, but if you can’t offer full disclosure and non-bias then don’t take the money.

But this isn’t paid blogging – it’s simply a company asking (through their PR agency) if you’d be interested in product testing. You get first shot at the new line and you get to use and keep the product.

But you’re saying that if I pay $75, I’ll get a “positive review”? Isn’t this false advertising, or marketing, or whatever you wish to call it?

What happens if the product is crap? Will you still tell your readers that it’s great, because you’ve agreed to offer a positive review? How do you think your readers would feel about that? After all, aren’t they your most important audience?

Or is this just another point in your one-upmanship game with the PR industry?

Now, I’m not saying all bloggers (mommy or otherwise) are like this, either when it comes to product reviews or in the relationship they have with PR. I have some fantastic relationships with many bloggers and I couldn’t do a lot of my work without them.

But to those bloggers that my friend had the misfortune of dealing with?

A blog is your personal voice. Your readers are your community. Is both your voice and community something you’d happily sell down the river for a few bucks?

Because if they are, then that’s the real bad PR.

photo credit: rick