Welcher Sponsor holte Gold bei den ersten “social games”?

Die Olympischen Spiele in London 2012 (27.07. – 12.08.2012) sind bereits als die ersten “social games” in die Geschichte eingegangen. Natürlich haben es sich die Anbieter von Social Media Monitoring Lösungen nicht nehmen lassen, die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Tools anhand dieses weltweiten Ereignisses zu demonstrieren. Das Resultat ist vielversprechend. Gleichzeitig bestätigt man das Problem, mit dem Anwender dieser Software konfrontiert sind: Es kommt jedesmal etwas anderes heraus, wohl auch, weil jeder Anbieter ein anderes Bewertungsschema verwendet .

PRINT Index™
1 Coca Cola, 2 adidas, 3 British Airways

“top performers” on base of” a quantitative analysis looking at the numbers using the PRINT™ algorithms based on more than 50 sub-metrics”
http://olympics.sociagility.com/
http://www.sociagility.com/2012/08/so-farewell-thenlondon-2012/

Brandwatch
1 General Electric, 2 P&G, 3 Samsung

based on a score reflecting “the potential reach of the buzz, the sentiment of the discussion and the level of engagement with each brand”
http://labs.brandwatch.com/mediacom/buzzboard/
http://www.mediacom.de/de/news/news/2012/07/olympic-twitter-tracker.aspx

Newsdesk
1 Visa, 2 McDonald’s, 3 Coca-Cola
“winners in terms of highest volume of news mentions”
http://www.moreover.com/blog/2012/08/13/using-newsdesk-to-monitor-olympic-coverage-wrap-up/

Das heißt: Wechselt man das Tool, bekommt man andere Ergebnisse. Und es zeigt, wie wichtig es wäre, endlich Standards in dieser Disziplin zu definieren.

Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

3 Responses to “Welcher Sponsor holte Gold bei den ersten “social games”?”

  1. Thanks for including our results. Have to disagree with your conclusion about defining standards, though. As you rightly point out, every vendor uses its own evaluation scheme and there’s a good reason for this: because invariably they are trying to measure different things.

    In our case, we’re assessing the effectiveness of each brand’s use of their ‘owned’ properties. That’s a very different thing to measuring how many people are talking about a brand or what the sentiment of that discussion is.

    And that’s why different measurement systems are important. In the same way we have rulers for dimension, scales for weight, micrometers for thickness, etc. for physical objects.

    What it really means for brands is that they need to decide what it is that they are trying to measure (buzz, sentiment, popularity, effectiveness, etc.), how each fits with their planning and executional approach, and then what combination of tools and vendors they need.

    Niall Cook, Co-founder, Sociagility

    • Dear Niall,

      Sorry – it took a while until I found your comment among all that spam.
      Thank you very much!

      You are absolutely right. The problem is, that these differences are not clear when reading a short press release. One has to read the small print in order to understand, what is comparable and what is not. I worked a lot with online reach and ad statistics since the days when we counted hits instead of unique users. Therefore, I know how important it will be to find clear standards in order to increase acceptance for this new discipline.

  2. Social media monitoring is a critical aspect to any well thought-out social strategy implementation. Many practitioners often question whether or not today’s tools justify the spend and, even more importantly, what tools should be used for their company’s specific situation. The honest truth that most vendors don’t want to talk about is that most tools fall short on delivering what they promise. From my experience testing and using 20 different tools over the course of the last 3 years, this is simply the case.