Simon Collister, a few weeks back, posted that Edelman gave a seminar at their New Media Academic Summit 2008 on Social Media Measurement a few weeks ago. It looked like the $300 million global firm had finally laid down some hard-core social media assessment numbers. I was all ready to pour myself a Makers and write a tearful apology to Steve Rubel for all of the barbs I've sent his way over the last year.
When I read it on Collister's blog; he linked to Karen Miller Russell's account of the 10 "immutable" conversational monitoring metrics. Collister, who is still unsure whether social media needs to be measured, appears to be vaguely uneasy about social media measurement.
I'm not sketched out about measurement, if it's done right, and based off of social web engagement benchmarks. but I am wary of global PR firms with histories of dubious social media strategy preaching the assessment gospel.
After digging deeper, I realized that Edelman really had nothing to do with this presentation, aside for paying for the conference room and moderating it. It was delivered by Radian6 CEO Marcel Lebrun and social media consultant Sean Moffit. The presentation was Moderated by Natasha Fogel, from Edelman's Strategy One division. (This is the division of Edelman that specializes in strategic communications and strategic consulting).
Nowhere in Collister's or Russell's posts (or Edelman's conference notes) are referenced:
(1) a case study showing this methodology in action
(2) if it actually works or
(3) how to triangulate these variables in an actual campaign (let alone the frequency and reporting procedures).
I'm not asking anyone at Radian6 or Edelman to substantiate a spreadsheet template here, but I smell two things that stink:
(1) global PR firms are continuing their quest to gain "guilty by association" credibility in social web strategy assessment and
(2) social media assessment tool brands are chasing a quick buck by partnering with firms that don't really understand social media.
Why didn't the Edelman webinar substantiate a single example of how to use these 10 "immutable laws". Or is this conversational monitoring data something that can only be interpreted by an Edelman team (presumably behind labratory doors using Radian6)?
If North America's biggest public relations firm is doing social media webinars then social media consultants and practitioners have three problems:
1. What was peddled as "public relations" in 2001 is now being repackaged as "social media"; forums and blogs existed, to a degree, eight years ago. These firms were simply paying no attention to social media at that time, and now they're trying to re-brand because their current service offering is non-strategic or ineffective and they're having trouble closing deals.
2. Vague methodologies are being handed off to new social media consultants and social media explorers (people in organizations just beginning to explore social media.) This is sort of like a mechanic giving an oil change and a tire-inflation to every customer that arrives with the "CHECK ENGINE" light on. Good intentions, indeed.
3. What's being peddled as "assessment" violates the all-important 90/10 rule of analytics and assessment: 90% of the spending should be on the PEOPLE who measure the data, not the tools themselves. That means that if you're spending $500/month on a social media measurement platform, you should be spending $55k+ on the analyst that reads it.
Seriously, the only immutable thing about Edelman's social media platform is SVP Steve Rubel's unceasing navel-gazing in Ad Age???s blogs.
And don't think I'm just jealous because Rubel has 10,000 readers and I don't - I like plenty of popular social media writers - Owyang, Dash, Bhargava, Li and McClure, to name a few.
I know this column's certainly not going to get me recruited by a large public relations firm (actually, look what happened to Adam Werbach...), but it's high time that someone called out the impossible combination of these firms' command-and-control mentalities and preaching social-media openness and transparency. These firms are structurally unsuited for the come-what-may strategy and practice of social media.
My rationale for writing this post wasn't to start a pissing match or throw stones, but to differentiate my service offering and that of my colleagues, affiliates and studious competitors from the chicanery that's being peddled on these webinars. Even if you're not going to be my client, I'?d rather see you treated fairly by a competitor than ripped off by one.
Marcel and Sean - why are you guys not on Social Media Today? Get back to your roots, guys.
Link to original post