Trending Topics (Part II)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Yesterday's post raised some interesting questions about the role and significance of becoming a trending topic on Twitter.
Nora Geiss and Helge Tennø asked why worry about the quantifiable aspect of becoming a trending topic? As with all communications, it's the substance of the trending topic that's important.
There were also interesting questions about the ethics and effect of figuring out the formula for becoming a trending topic. Spammers are already gaming the system and leaching on to the attention earned by trending topics to trick curious users into clicking through to their spam websites. What happens if major brands start adopting a similar strategy?
We look to trending topics as a mostly reliable indicator of the evolving zeitgeist of the twittersphere. If the popularity of top trending topics starts to become artificially manufactured, then the meaning of the entire function is undermined.
This clearly isn't good.
So, what is the appropriate role of top trending topics in the context of marketing? I propose that trending topics have a useful and appropriate role to play as an honest indicator of a surge in attention around a brand or specific campaign. If that attention is earned by actually creating an experience or event that makes enough Twitter users talk about it that it becomes a top trending topic, then that achievement should be looked to as evidence of the project's success.
Tricking Twitter users into thinking that everyone is talking about your campaign via artificial means, however, does a grave disservice to both your brand and the Twitter community.
As I said in my comment yesterday, I completely agree with Nora and Helge that it's essential to remember that trending topics are a social phenomenon that occurs when groups of connected individuals are compelled to share an experience. The substance of the topic needs to be compelling enough to motivate people to talk about it.
The quantitative side of things is also relevant, however, to the extent that it provides context for an already used success metric. Brands already point to having achieved a trending topic as proof of the success of a campaign. Well, what does achieving a trending topic really mean? Is it really as big a deal as people think?
The preliminary numbers I presented yesterday indicate that because of how fragmented the conversation is on Twitter, earning a trending topic is not the same thing as "getting everyone on Twitter to talk about you." There's a huge gaping chasm between those two occurrences, and it's important that marketers understand the difference.
Nora Geiss and Helge Tennø asked why worry about the quantifiable aspect of becoming a trending topic? As with all communications, it's the substance of the trending topic that's important.
There were also interesting questions about the ethics and effect of figuring out the formula for becoming a trending topic. Spammers are already gaming the system and leaching on to the attention earned by trending topics to trick curious users into clicking through to their spam websites. What happens if major brands start adopting a similar strategy?
We look to trending topics as a mostly reliable indicator of the evolving zeitgeist of the twittersphere. If the popularity of top trending topics starts to become artificially manufactured, then the meaning of the entire function is undermined.
This clearly isn't good.
So, what is the appropriate role of top trending topics in the context of marketing? I propose that trending topics have a useful and appropriate role to play as an honest indicator of a surge in attention around a brand or specific campaign. If that attention is earned by actually creating an experience or event that makes enough Twitter users talk about it that it becomes a top trending topic, then that achievement should be looked to as evidence of the project's success.
Tricking Twitter users into thinking that everyone is talking about your campaign via artificial means, however, does a grave disservice to both your brand and the Twitter community.
As I said in my comment yesterday, I completely agree with Nora and Helge that it's essential to remember that trending topics are a social phenomenon that occurs when groups of connected individuals are compelled to share an experience. The substance of the topic needs to be compelling enough to motivate people to talk about it.
The quantitative side of things is also relevant, however, to the extent that it provides context for an already used success metric. Brands already point to having achieved a trending topic as proof of the success of a campaign. Well, what does achieving a trending topic really mean? Is it really as big a deal as people think?
The preliminary numbers I presented yesterday indicate that because of how fragmented the conversation is on Twitter, earning a trending topic is not the same thing as "getting everyone on Twitter to talk about you." There's a huge gaping chasm between those two occurrences, and it's important that marketers understand the difference.
4 Comments:
mike,
i completely agree with you. we always try to find "quantity" instead of "quality" in first place. it's not bad, it's only natural and our first way into understanding the mechanics of any subject. it has always been this way, that's why we got google *and then* twitter, not the opposite. i really don't know if the day we create T.T.O. [stands for trending topic optimization :)] it will be as much valuable and mean the same thing it does today. Our dive into hacking TTs is really important and will teach a lot about what really drives people online.
Mike - This is an interesting post and it makes me wonder if it compares to the issue around viral.
Viral is an outcome...not a strategy or a goal. Is it oversimplifying this to note that trending on twitter is also an outcome vs a strategy or a goal?
Regardless, we usually see someone do a tip post around a specific topic and it leads to people trying to game the system. The road to Web 2.0 is paved with good intentions.
The study on the words most likely to get you retweeted on Twitter for example. I think it's interesting to see the study (http://ow.ly/qCsW). But I'm certain there are people out there using the study to create specific tweets for a "Twitter campaign."
Good luck with that.
If you like true religion jeans, diesel jeans and evisu jeans , welcome to my site.
Hi Mike
Excellent follow up and summary of your last post.
The interesting thing now is finding how the evaluated participation (or multiplication according to Jenkins) compares with the value created from traditional media. If it is comparable at all?
Seeing that the numbers for multiplication/contribution are quite small compared to the metrics for involvement, how do we convince brands used with consumers in the millions that a meager 10k comments on Twitter or Facebook actually is immensely valuable?
(This question is one of my favorites :o).
Best
Helge
Post a Comment
<< Home