SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 32
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
The
Conversation
Index

               Volume 5
Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index
The Conversation Index
Volume 5
TheConversationIndex.com
Get your digital copy   TheConversationIndex.co.uk
                        TheConversationIndex.de
#BVINDEX5




Table of Contents
What to expect........................................................................................................................................ 6
What we’ve found.................................................................................................................................... 9
Stock prices move with Twitter mentions...................................................................................................... 10
Twitter evolves from portal to destination..................................................................................................... 12
Brands get more tweets, but less of the conversation is about them................................................................. 16
Search interest doesn’t correlate to Twitter mentions, stock performance, or TV & radio coverage........................ 20
The bottom line? Social and “the real world” are becoming inextricable........................................................... 24
The methodology behind The Conversation Index Volume 5 / Contributors...................................................... 27
Contact us............................................................................................................................................... 28
About Bazaarvoice ................................................................................................................................... 31




                                                                                                                                                               5
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




What to expect
We’re used to hearing social discussed as if it’s some kind of vast parallel universe, free of the cause and
effect of “the real world.” This view gets at least one thing right: the social universe is vast, and like our
physical universe, mostly unexplored. But where does social intersect with our everyday experiences,
in life and in business? How do social and the real world affect and reflect one another on a larger scale?
We’re starting to see patterns emerge that tell us that social refuses to contain itself; its effects are spilling
into the real world nearly everywhere we look: in politics, innovation, education, and of course, business
and the economy.

In this volume of The Conversation Index, we ride along the collision course of social data, traditional
media, and business performance, with an emphasis on Twitter. With over half a billion active users, and
an average of 340 million tweets per day, Twitter is like a social seismograph for the entire world. We
worked with enterprise social data provider Gnip to acquire 26 million tweets for this analysis. Every
tweet in this research mentioned at least one of 13 brands from the BrandZ™ Global 100 Brands list,
including Adidas, Clinique, Colgate, Gillette, Hugo Boss, Nike, Pampers, Pepsi, Ralph Lauren, Samsung,
Intel, Tesco, and Sony.




6
#BVINDEX5




We compare, contrast, and combine those 26 million tweets with over 8,000 TV and radio mentions, 17 months
of stock price data, more than a year and a half of Google search interest data, and 270,000 pieces of consumer-
generated content from online reviews—all for the same 13 brands.

This Index reveals some fascinating patterns and relationships at the intersections of all these data streams, as
well as a few places where we found—counterintuitively—no correlations at all.

Social data offers a critical new stream of insights for brands and the industry. The social ecosystem is broad;
conversations happen on brand sites and on social channels, across an ever-increasing set of devices. As social
content and social data expands, so does the scope of our knowledge about how it both influences and mirrors
activity across the digital and physical worlds. Sharing these insights with our clients and the industry is the
driving force behind The Conversation Index. We’re excited to share this edition with you.




Erin Nelson (@erinclaire)
Chief Marketing Officer, Bazaarvoice




                                                                                                                            7
Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index
#BVINDEX5




What we’ve found
Here’s what we uncovered:

• Twitter volume for brand mentions is highly correlated with stock price

• Twitter is becoming a destination, not just a portal

• Brand mentions in Twitter lag behind overall Twitter growth

• Search interest for brands doesn’t correlate to Twitter mentions, stock performance, or TV and radio coverage




                                                                                                                         9
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




Stock prices move                                                      more about brands as they perform well on the exchanges,
                                                                       but quiet down a bit as their stocks fall.

with Twitter mentions                                                  Other analyses have shown social data to reflect economic
                                                                       factors. Product reviews mention price more when consumer
                                                                       confidence is low (a -.66 correlation).1 In February 2009,
It is becoming clear that both quantitative and qualitative
                                                                       when consumer confidence hit its lowest point, mentions
analysis of social data can be useful for establishing
                                                                       of price hit their highest point, accounting for 11.5% of all
relationships and in predicting real-world events. Stock
                                                                       US reviews. When we map these price references to the
performance for the brands in this analysis increased and
                                                                       Dow Jones Industrial Average, an even stronger negative
decreased in line with the fluctuating volume of tweets about
                                                                       correlation (-.68) is revealed. Price mentions fall as the Dow
these brands. This is a remarkably high positive correlation
                                                                       average rises, and they rise as the Dow falls. And a 2010 study
of .91, meaning that high Twitter volume tends to coincide
                                                                       by academic researchers at Indiana University and University
with high closing price, and vice versa. The same things that
                                                                       of Manchester found that measuring select dimensions of
make stocks move upward tend to make social chatter spike
                                                                       “Twitter mood” can be 86.7% accurate in “predicting the up
(such as well-received product announcements and high-
                                                                       and down changes in the closing values” of the Dow Jones
profile executive hires). But there’s a piece of this finding that’s
                                                                       Industrial Average.2 As more of these predictive relationships
counterintuitive. Shouldn’t the same factors that send a stock
                                                                       are discovered and subject to rigorous testing, social data
downward (such as a lawsuit, product flop, or poor earnings
                                                                       will be incorporated into things like demand forecasting and
call) be just as likely to trigger a bump in conversations about
                                                                       product release timing.
the brand? Apparently not. It seems that Twitter users buzz



1
    The Conversation Index Volume 1.
2
    http://www.relevantdata.com/pdfs/IUStudy.pdf

10
#BVINDEX5


                        CLOSING PRICE CORRELATES TO TWITTER BRAND MENTIONS
                        200                                                                                                                                                                                   200
                        190                                                                                                                                                        180.2
                                                                                                                                                                                                              190
                        180                                                                                                                                                                173.7              180
                                 stock performance and Twitter mentions.
                        170                                                                                                                                                                                   170
                                                                                                                                                                          159.2




                                                                                                                                                                                                                    AVERAGE BRAND MENTIONS ON TWITTER (in thousands)
                                                                                                                                                                155.5                                 156.6
                        160                                                                                                                                                                                   160
                        150                                                                                                                            142.6                                                  150
                                                                                                                                      135.4    136.9
                        140                                                                   134.2                        132.9                                                                   154.3      140
                                                     130.9     130.9    131.4      129.9                129.9    131.4
AVERAGE CLOSING PRICE




                                           125.6                                                                                                                                        144.8
                        130      121.1                                                                                                                                                                        130
                                                                                                                                                                                133.7
                        120                                                                                                                                                                                   120
                                                                                                                                                                        124.5
                        110                                                                                                                                                                                   110
                        100                                                                                                                                                                                   100
                                                                                                                                                             107.1
                         90                                                                                                                         99.7                                                      90
                         80                                                                                                                                                                                   80
                                                                                                                                          88.4
                         70                                                                                              80.8                                                                                 70
                                                                                                             73.4                  74.8
                         60                                                                           68.2
                                                                                                                                                                                                              60
                                                                    68.1
                         50                                  62.4               62.2     60.9                                                                                                                 50
                        40                         51.0                                                                                                                                                       40
                              45.8
                                         44.7
                         30                                                                                                                                                                                   30
                         20                                                                                                                                                                                   20
                         10                                                                                                                                                                                   10

                               JAN        FEB       MAR       APR      MAY       JUN       JUL         AUG      SEP      OCT       NOV        DEC      JAN     FEB       MAR      APR      MAY      JUN
                                                                                       2011                                                                                 2012


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   11
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




                                  Twitter evolves from
                                  portal to destination
                                  As Twitter grows, it is becoming a destination rather than a
                                  portal or midpoint. People are increasingly going to Twitter
                                  for the experience it delivers — conversation and timely
                                  information — not as an intermediate step between them and
                                  what they’re really after. And they’re staying longer. But Twitter
                                  is used much differently than other social and web channels,
                                  and its data should be used differently, too.

                                  For example, we compared online search terms that include
                                  “Adidas” to mentions of “Adidas” on Twitter. Since search takes
                                  place when someone is looking for specific information, the
                                  terms that appear during a search vary greatly from other types
                                  of content. Top “Adidas” search terms tend to be at the level
                                  of product lines and categories, and of the top 20 searches,
                                  only three are for specific products. The top 20 search terms
                                  associated with “Adidas” also included the names of two
                                  competing brands, indicating that comparison shopping
                                  begins in the search box.




12
#BVINDEX5




Twitter users tend to reveal their personal interactions with       include product suggestions, and a fifth of all four-star reviews
or in relation to brands. When we dig into what people on           provide this type of feedback.3
Twitter are saying about Adidas, they mention what “new”
                                                                    Use search patterns to optimize your brand’s search
Adidas products they’re wearing “today,” and use words such
                                                                    engine marketing and optimization strategies.
as “my” and “I.” Some of the top Twitter terms associated
with Adidas reference specific campaigns, like the hashtag          And use the words you find in tweets about your brand when
“#branch309adidasday.” Businesses interested in doing               you tweet about your brand. Optimize your marketing copy by
their own text analysis on tweets should think of it as a way       using the language of your top reviewers—or better yet, quote
to roughly gauge consumer response to news, events,                 them. When you reflect what consumers say online in your
campaigns, and as a method of identifying enthusiastic              own social efforts, you’ll create content that’s more shareable.
customer advocates. But they will have to develop repeatable        Quantify this over time by testing optimized tweets, UGC-
methods of separating relevant, authentic tweets from the           rich copy, and SEM strategies derived from the actual terms
abundance of noise.                                                 people use when searching for your brand and products,
                                                                    and compare each to the non-optimized, marketing-derived
In contrast to search and Twitter language, reviews tend to
                                                                    alternative.
focus on specific product qualities (“light,” “looks,” “fits,”
“comfortable”), adjectives (“awesome,” “great,” “different,”        Tweets that mention brands are using fewer links over time.
“perfect”), and other expressions of sentiment (“love,”             In the last half of 2010, 68% of tweets that mentioned brands
“disappointed,” “happy,” “recommend”). Since every single           also had links in them. In all of 2011, the number dropped
review is tied to a specific product, they are a rich social data   to 55%. In the first half of 2012, the number drops further to
source for product-level insights. In fact, 12% of all reviews      51%, signaling a clear downturn in link usage. This means


3
    The Conversation Index Volume 3.


                                                                                                                                     13
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5


                                 TIME ON TWITTER AND PAGES PER VISIT ARE GROWING
                                 780                                                                                                                                                                                                 20
                                 760               Time on site (in seconds)                                                                                                                                                         19
                                 740               Pages per visit                                                                                                                                                                   18
                                 720                                                                                                                                                                                                 17
                                 700                                                                                                                                                                                                 16
                                                                                                                                                                                                                15.1 15.2
                                 680                                                                                                                                                                                          14.1 15




                                                                                                                                                                                                                        714
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 684
                                 660                                                                                                                                                                                                 14
                                                                                                                                                                                                        12.9
     TIME ON SITE (in seconds)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               666
                                 640                                                                                                                                                                                                 13
                                                                                                                                                                                                12.0




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          PAGES PER VISIT
                                 620                                                                                                                                                                                                 12
                                                                                                                                                                                         10.8
                                 600                                                                                                                              10.3 10.4 9.9                                                      11
                                        10.1




                                                                                                                                                                                                          602
                                               9.9                                                                                                            9.7
                                 580                                                                                                                                                                                                 10




                                                                                                                                          583




                                                                                                                                                                                                  583
                                                                                                                                                                     578

                                                                                                                                                                            579
                                                                                                                                                              593
                                 560                                           8.4                                                                     8.4                                                                           9
                                                                        8.1                                                               8.1    8.0
                                 540                      7.7 7.6                                                                                                                                                                    8




                                                                                                                                                                                          551
                                                                                      7.4       7.3       7.4




                                                                                                                                                        566




                                                                                                                                                                                   544
                                                                                                                                  6.9




                                                                                                                                                 563
                                 520                                                                            6.6        6.5                                                                                                       7




                                                                                                                                   528
                                 500                                                                                                                                                                                                 6
                                 480                                                                                                                                                                                                 5
                                                                                                                           486
                                 460                                                                                                                                                                                                 4
                                                                                                          467
                                                                               458




                                                                                                                    457
                                                                                                456




                                 440                                                                                                                                                                                                 3
                                        448




                                                                                      434




                                 420                                                                                                                                                                                                 2
                                                       428
                                               425




                                                                        423
                                                                 421




                                 400                                                                                                                                                                                                 1
                                        G

                                               P

                                                      T

                                                             OV


                                                                        C

                                                                               N

                                                                                      B


                                                                                            R

                                                                                                      PR

                                                                                                                AY


                                                                                                                           N

                                                                                                                                  L

                                                                                                                                          G

                                                                                                                                                 P

                                                                                                                                                        T

                                                                                                                                                              OV


                                                                                                                                                                     C

                                                                                                                                                                            N

                                                                                                                                                                                   B


                                                                                                                                                                                          R

                                                                                                                                                                                                 PR

                                                                                                                                                                                                         AY


                                                                                                                                                                                                                 N

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               G
                                                                                                                                 JU




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       JU
                                                                       DE




                                                                                                                                                                    DE
                                              SE




                                                                                            A




                                                                                                                                                SE




                                                                                                                                                                                         A
                                       AU




                                                     OC




                                                                                                                                         AU




                                                                                                                                                       OC




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              AU
                                                                                     FE




                                                                                                                                                                                  FE
                                                                              JA




                                                                                                                          JU




                                                                                                                                                                           JA




                                                                                                                                                                                                                JU
                                                                                                      A




                                                                                                                                                                                                A
                                                                                                                M




                                                                                                                                                                                                        M
                                                             N




                                                                                            M




                                                                                                                                                              N




                                                                                                                                                                                         M
                                                     2010                                                                        2011                                                               2012
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Source: COMPETE.COM



14
#BVINDEX5




that content about brands on Twitter is becoming increasingly
conversational, and less transactional. Users are talking about
brands instead of just pointing to what they bought or want to
buy with a link to external sites.

External data confirms this. Twitter users are spending more time
on Twitter, and visiting many more pages within Twitter.com
while they’re there. According to data from Compete.com, from
2010 to 2011, there was a 19.8% increase in average time on site;
in 2011 to 2012, so far, there is a 19.7% increase in time on site.
And average pages per visit decreased 9% from 2010 to 2011,
but increased by an incredible 58.7% from 2011 to 2012.




Pages per visit
increased by an
incredible 58.7%
from 2011 to 2012

                                                                  15
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




Brands get more                                                   retweets. So far in 2012, 22% of all brand mentions on Twitter
                                                                  have been retweets, and only 78% of brand mentions

tweets, but less of                                               are original.


the conversation is                                               There’s good news and bad news for brands in this data.
                                                                  The increase of brand mentions overall means there is more
about them                                                        data to learn your customers’ thoughts about you, but as the
                                                                  retweet analysis shows, that data is increasingly redundant.
                                                                  Retweets are becoming a bigger part of the Twitter brand
The volume of tweets per day has grown 143% from 2011
                                                                  story, but a retweet is a weaker social signal than an original
to 2012; however, mentions of brands on Twitter have only
                                                                  tweet from, say, an advocate or detractor. Retweets also
grown 113% in the same period. To maintain and improve
                                                                  contain less original data, and may not represent the users
Twitter share of conversation, brands should analyze their data
                                                                  behind them as much as a wholly original tweet from the same
to find which tweets are generating positive conversation
                                                                  user. Our research also found that some of the most retweeted
about them, emulate these tweets, and continuously optimize
                                                                  content is the work of automated bots (nonhuman scripts)
and add fresh content.
                                                                  and spammers that have set up networks of auto-retweeting
Original tweets about brands are declining over time,             accounts to spread their inauthentic messages across the
as retweeted brand mentions are rising.                           social web as quickly as possible before Twitter shuts them
In other words, more and more content is simply repeated          down. Altogether, this means that businesses need to apply
verbatim or with little alteration from the original source. In   more scrutiny to Twitter data. Perform spot checks, weight and
2010, 85% of brand mentions on Twitter were original, and         filter your metrics to place less emphasis on retweets about
15% were retweets. In 2011, 18% of brand mentions were            your brand if you find they are far more noise than signal.




16
AGGREGATE OF BRAND MENTIONS (in thousands)

                                                                                                                            2500




                                  500
                                                   1000
                                                                      1500
                                                                                         2000
            JU
                 L       537,332
            AU
                 G      539,864
            SE
                 P      536,894
            OC




     2010
                 T            615,218
                                                                                                   second half of 2010.




            N
                OV            638,983
            DE
                 C        587,469
            JA
                 N             681,455
            FE
                                                                                                   down from 82% in 2011 and 85% in the




                 B             695,041
                                                                                                   78% original tweets in 2012 (as of June),




            M
                A                784,875
                    R
            A
                PR                    879,132
            M
                AY                       1,031,875
            JU
                 N                      919,238
            JU
                 L                    897,434
     2011   AU
                 G                      967,993
            SE
                 P                       1,039,532
            OC
                 T                          1,130,981
            N
                OV                       1,067,332
            DE
                 C                              1,247,513
            JA
                 N                                 1,372,390
            FE
                 B                                        1,507,232
            M
                A                                                 1,724,314
                    R
            A
                PR                                                  1,829,344
            M
                AY                                                           1,977,783
     2012
                                                                                                                                               BRAND MENTIONS VOLUME GROWING; ORIGINAL TWEETS DECLINING




            JU
                 N                                                                   2,229,620
                        10%
                                                                               70%




                                          30%


                                20%
                                                            50%
                                                                     60%
                                                                                                 90%


                                                                                        80%




                                                  40%
                                                                                                                            100%




                                 ORIGINAL TWEETS (i.e., not retweets)
17
                                                                                                                                                                                                          #BVINDEX5
18
                           PERCENTAGE OF TWEETS WITH LINKS




                          10
                               20
                                       30
                                             40
                                                  50
                                                         60
                                                              70
                                                                      80
                                                                              90
                                                                                    100
            JU
                    L     537,332
            AU
                    G    539,864
            SE
                    P     536,894




     2010
            OC
                    T       615,218
            N
                                                                                                                                                                                                    THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




                OV
                            638,983
            DE
                    C      587,469
            JA
                 N             681,455
                                                                                          (as of July), down from 55% in 2011




            FE
                                                                                          51% of tweets contain links in 2012

                                                                                          and 68% in the second half of 2010.




                    B          695,041
            M
                A
                    R            784,875
            A
                PR
                                    879 , 132
            M
                AY
                                        1,031,875
            JU
                 N                     919,238
            JU
                    L




     2011
                                    897,434
            AU
                    G                  967,993
            SE
                    P                   1,039,532
            OC
                    T                       1,130,981
            N
                OV
                                        1,067,332
            DE
                    C                          1,247,513
            JA
                 N                                1,372,390
            FE
                    B                                    1,507,232
            M
                A
                    R                                         1,724,314
            A
                PR
                                                                   1,829,344
            M
     2012




                AY
                                                                            1,977,783
            JU
                 N                                                                 2,229,620
                                                                                                                                       PERCENTAGE OF BRAND MENTIONS CONTAINING LINKS IS DECLINING




            JU
                 L                          994,291
                                 500
                                                                     1500




                                                  1000
                                                                                          2000
                                                                                                                                2500




                        AGGREGATE OF BRAND MENTIONS (in thousands)
#BVINDEX5




The increase in retweets also illustrates that news travels faster   network (and, as this Index shows, beyond) by creating
than ever before—and that a single piece of content can have         consistently retweetable content—they are the greatest
major consequences for the companies involved. In fact,              distributors of social currency. Reach them, highlight, and
many of the most retweeted messages about brands in our              promote them if they are advocates, and address their
analysis were highly negative in sentiment, and concerned            concerns if they are detractors. Determine whether they are
things like scandals, lawsuits, and negative press coverage.         influential in other channels: Are they a top reviewer as well?
Now is the time to prepare social crisis communications plans        Give them exclusive access: insider news, early product
if you haven’t already.                                              testing, event invitations, and the like. Make them feel like
                                                                     a part of your brand instead of a spectator, and in all cases,
It’s also important for brands to get to know the real people
                                                                     locate them as soon as possible.
that are creating the ripple effect for their brand across the




                                                                                                                                       19
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




Search interest doesn’t
correlate to Twitter
mentions, stock
performance, or TV and                                              Unpaid
radio coverage                                                      coverage
                                                                    doesn’t
While it may seem that people tweet what’s top of mind, they’re
not tweeting about what they’re searching for. While we saw
                                                                    drive much
this across the board, we’ll use Clinique as an example. Twitter
mentions for “Clinique” spike in April 2011, August 2011, and
                                                                    search activity
March through June 2012. During these Twitter peaks, however,
we saw either no correlation with search interest or a decline in
search interest (search interest is Google’s normalized indicator
of “the likelihood of a random user to search for a particular
search term” on a 0-100 scale). When we compared the stock
performance of the brands in this analysis to search interest for
the same period in time, we found no correlation.




20
#BVINDEX5




       21
NETWORKS GROWING FOR USERS THAT MENTION BRANDS
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




                  FOLLOWER GROWTH FOR USERS THAT MENTION BRANDS
            JUN                                                                                            1566

            MAY                                                                              1309

            APR                                                                          1287
     2012




            MAR                                                                 1161
            FEB                                                                          1299
            JAN                                                                 1183
            DEC                                                     1041
            NOV                                                          1087
            OCT                                                               1155
            SEP                                                                  1177
            AUG                                                                  1194
            JUL                                                       1067
     2011




            JUN                                                       1067
            MAY                                                                   1208
            APR                                                            1130
            MAR                                                 993
            FEB                                                          1097
            JAN                                                    995
                                                      Average Twitter followers per user
                   0


                        0


                             0


                                   0


                                        0


                                             0


                                                  0


                                                         0


                                                                0

                                                                         00


                                                                                00


                                                                                         00


                                                                                                00


                                                                                                      00


                                                                                                            00


                                                                                                                   00


                                                                                                                        00


                                                                                                                              00


                                                                                                                                    00


                                                                                                                                          00
                  10


                       20


                            30


                                  40


                                       50


                                            60


                                                 70


                                                       80


                                                              90


                                                                      10


                                                                              11


                                                                                        12


                                                                                                13


                                                                                                     14


                                                                                                           15


                                                                                                                  16


                                                                                                                        17


                                                                                                                             18


                                                                                                                                   19


                                                                                                                                         20
22
#BVINDEX5




                                                                               We analyzed 8,000 brand mentions in closed captioning
                                                                               data from television broadcasts (most TV ads are not closed-
Brand                                                                          captioned, so ad mentions are not reflected in this data), and

advocates
                                                                               radio transcripts (this data does include ads) to determine
                                                                               whether brands being mentioned in traditional media saw a

and detractors                                                                 corresponding bump in search interest. Surprisingly, they do
                                                                               not. This suggests that unpaid coverage (news pieces, etc.)

have wider                                                                     doesn’t drive much search activity, but findings from a study by
                                                                               Efficient Frontier show television ad campaigns correlating to

audiences in                                                                   a 60%-80% bump in brand-name search during the life of the
                                                                               campaign.4 So, while unpaid coverage in traditional media

2012                                                                           may be a great awareness mechanism, it’s not driving the
                                                                               consumer search behavior many businesses are craving.
                                                                               For that, television ads still seem to do the trick.




4
    http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/7731-how-can-marketers-use-offline-ads-to-drive-people-online



                                                                                                                                             23
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




The bottom line? Social                                             Convergence is a new concept for many companies, but it’s
                                                                    actually nothing new in practice. In fact, it’s the “place” we’ve

and “the real world” are                                            called home since 2005. Reviews, Q&A, and stories are all
                                                                    forms of earned social content that live on owned digital real
becoming inextricable                                               estate. And while we were helping clients across the globe
                                                                    integrate owned and earned, Twitter launched, Facebook
                                                                    opened to the public, and search became more and more
The borders between “social” and “the real world” are               social. Channels blossomed, and are now converging. Data
difficult to pinpoint, but they’re being redrawn in some places,    exploded in volume and then fragmented, and is now coming
and eliminated in others. Consider this: Just a few years ago,      together again. Convergence will soon cease to be the
the terms “in-store” and “online” gave us a clear, differentiated   exception, and will become the rule, just as product reviews
way to talk about channels. But as channels converged, and          on company websites were once the exception.
consumers began to use the mobile web while in the physical         Social’s connection to the world around us is has been
aisles, the terms no longer accurately described the way            established in some areas, cannot be found in others, and has
that people actually shop. The same is true of social—and           yet to be discovered or quantified in most. But it’s far better
everything it touches.                                              for businesses to look for it everywhere and find it only in
                                                                    some areas, than for them to stumble over it where they least
                                                                    expected it.




24
#BVINDEX5




      25
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




26
#BVINDEX5




The methodology behind
The Conversation Index Volume 5
Volume 5 is based on an analysis of social content and other data surrounding 13 brands appearing on the BrandZ™
Top 100 Global Brands list, which ranks the “most valuable global brands” of 2012. The brands analyzed are Adidas,
Clinique, Colgate, Gillette, Hugo Boss, Nike, Pampers, Pepsi, Ralph Lauren, Samsung, Intel, Tesco, and Sony.

The data includes 26,000,000 tweets, over 8,000 TV and radio mentions, 17 months of stock price data from relevant
exchanges, more than a year and a half of Google search data, and 270,000 pieces of authentic user-generated
content from online reviews across the vast Bazaarvoice network.




Contributors
Column Five Media created the visualizations for The Conversation Index Vol. 5.

columnfivemedia.com




                                                                                                                           27
THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5




Contact us
Contact us to see how we help brands gain invaluable consumer and product
insights by putting consumer conversations at the heart of their organizations.



     United States:         (866) 522-9227                                        Germany:   +49.89.24218508
                            bazaarvoice.com                                                  bazaarvoice.de

 United Kingdom:            +44 (0) 208.080.1100                             Netherlands:    +31.20.301.2169
                            bazaarvoice.co.uk
                                                                Australia / Asia-Pacific:    +61.2.9362.2200
              France:       +33 1 56 60 54 45
                            bazaarvoice.fr
                                                                                  Sweden:    +46.8.463.1083

                                                                           San Francisco:    (866) 345-1461




28
#BVINDEX5
Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index
#BVINDEX5




About Bazaarvoice
Bazaarvoice brings the voice of customers to the center of business strategy, transforming business performance for nearly
2,000 clients globally, including over half of the Internet Retailer 500 list of the world’s largest retailers, over
20 percent of the Fortune 500, and over one-third of the Fortune 100 brands. Bazaarvoice social software helps clients
like Best Buy, Costco, Dell, Macy’s, P&G, Panasonic, QVC, Travelocity, and USAA create social communities on their brand
websites and Facebook pages where customers can engage in conversations. These conversations can be syndicated
across Bazaarvoice’s global network of client websites and mobile devices, making the user-generated content that digital
consumers trust accessible at multiple points of purchase. Through Bazaarvoice, manufacturers can also connect directly
with consumers on retail sites to answer questions and respond to reviews about their products. The social data derived
from online word of mouth translates into actionable insights that improve marketing, sales, customer service, and product
development. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, Bazaarvoice has offices in Amsterdam, London, Munich, New York, Paris,
San Francisco, Stockholm, and Sydney.

For more information, visit www.bazaarvoice.com, read the blog at bazaarvoice.com/blog, and follow on Twitter at
twitter.com/bazaarvoice.



                                                                                #BVINDEX5
                                                                                TheConversationIndex.com
                                                                                TheConversationIndex.co.uk
                                                                                TheConversationIndex.de


                                                                                                                              31
Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index

Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512
Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512
Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512Sandy Donlon
 
Audience intelligence: Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...
Audience intelligence:  Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...Audience intelligence:  Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...
Audience intelligence: Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...Stukent Inc.
 
52.01.Brand Bubble
52.01.Brand Bubble52.01.Brand Bubble
52.01.Brand BubbleJohn Gerzema
 
How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights
How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights  How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights
How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights Virginia Bautista
 
Media Prominence: a leading indicator of brand value
Media Prominence: a leading indicator of brand valueMedia Prominence: a leading indicator of brand value
Media Prominence: a leading indicator of brand valueSerge Beckers
 
Quarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and Advertising
Quarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and AdvertisingQuarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and Advertising
Quarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and AdvertisingEM3
 
How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012
How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012
How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012Darrell Heaps
 
Marketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-box
Marketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-boxMarketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-box
Marketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-boxMathilde Lenoir
 
Automation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Automation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisAutomation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Automation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisZeno Group
 
Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)
Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)
Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)Dan Howald
 
A Social Divide In The City #1
A Social Divide In The City #1A Social Divide In The City #1
A Social Divide In The City #1FTI Consulting
 
Social Media Stats 2012
Social Media Stats 2012Social Media Stats 2012
Social Media Stats 2012Hugo Clery
 
Enterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Enterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisEnterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Enterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisZeno Group
 
Rp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xg
Rp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xgRp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xg
Rp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xgLiberteks
 
MO Association of CVB's
MO Association of CVB'sMO Association of CVB's
MO Association of CVB'sJeff Risley
 
Digital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Digital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisDigital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Digital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisZeno Group
 

Ähnlich wie Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index (20)

Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512
Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512
Bazaarvoice_Conversation_Index_Volume5_FINAL_102512
 
Audience intelligence: Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...
Audience intelligence:  Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...Audience intelligence:  Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...
Audience intelligence: Winning the War of Brand Relevance with Audience Inte...
 
52.01.Brand Bubble
52.01.Brand Bubble52.01.Brand Bubble
52.01.Brand Bubble
 
How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights
How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights  How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights
How to Contextualize Data for Meaningful Insights
 
Media Prominence: a leading indicator of brand value
Media Prominence: a leading indicator of brand valueMedia Prominence: a leading indicator of brand value
Media Prominence: a leading indicator of brand value
 
Quarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and Advertising
Quarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and AdvertisingQuarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and Advertising
Quarterly Statistics on Media, Mobile, Social Media and Advertising
 
How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012
How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012
How to make social media work for Investor Relations - January 31, 2012
 
Marketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-box
Marketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-boxMarketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-box
Marketingcharts powerpoint-the-marketing-data-box
 
Automation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Automation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisAutomation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Automation & Robotics: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
 
250 Brands to Watch | Seattle Interactive 2019
250 Brands to Watch | Seattle Interactive 2019250 Brands to Watch | Seattle Interactive 2019
250 Brands to Watch | Seattle Interactive 2019
 
Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)
Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)
Super Bowl Media Value Report (onine and digital media value)
 
A Social Divide In The City #1
A Social Divide In The City #1A Social Divide In The City #1
A Social Divide In The City #1
 
Social media stats
Social media statsSocial media stats
Social media stats
 
Social Media Stats 2012
Social Media Stats 2012Social Media Stats 2012
Social Media Stats 2012
 
Enterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Enterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisEnterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Enterprise Network Firewalls: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
 
Media prominence
Media prominenceMedia prominence
Media prominence
 
Verizon DBIR-2015
Verizon DBIR-2015Verizon DBIR-2015
Verizon DBIR-2015
 
Rp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xg
Rp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xgRp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xg
Rp data breach-investigation-report-2015-en_xg
 
MO Association of CVB's
MO Association of CVB'sMO Association of CVB's
MO Association of CVB's
 
Digital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Digital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer AnalysisDigital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
Digital Transformation: 2018 Media & Influencer Analysis
 

Mehr von Brett Hurt

Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9Brett Hurt
 
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6Brett Hurt
 
Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014
Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014
Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014Brett Hurt
 
Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7
Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7
Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7Brett Hurt
 
Social Trends Report 2013
Social Trends Report 2013Social Trends Report 2013
Social Trends Report 2013Brett Hurt
 
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1Brett Hurt
 
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2Brett Hurt
 
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4Brett Hurt
 

Mehr von Brett Hurt (8)

Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 9
 
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index 6
 
Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014
Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014
Bazaarvoice 3M Detailed Case Study from Summit 2014
 
Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7
Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7
Bazaarvoice Conversion Index 7
 
Social Trends Report 2013
Social Trends Report 2013Social Trends Report 2013
Social Trends Report 2013
 
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 1
 
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2
Bazaarvoice - The Conversation Index, Volume 2
 
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4
Bazaarvoice Conversation Index Volume 4
 

Volume 5 of the Bazaarvoice Conversation Index

  • 4. TheConversationIndex.com Get your digital copy TheConversationIndex.co.uk TheConversationIndex.de
  • 5. #BVINDEX5 Table of Contents What to expect........................................................................................................................................ 6 What we’ve found.................................................................................................................................... 9 Stock prices move with Twitter mentions...................................................................................................... 10 Twitter evolves from portal to destination..................................................................................................... 12 Brands get more tweets, but less of the conversation is about them................................................................. 16 Search interest doesn’t correlate to Twitter mentions, stock performance, or TV & radio coverage........................ 20 The bottom line? Social and “the real world” are becoming inextricable........................................................... 24 The methodology behind The Conversation Index Volume 5 / Contributors...................................................... 27 Contact us............................................................................................................................................... 28 About Bazaarvoice ................................................................................................................................... 31 5
  • 6. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 What to expect We’re used to hearing social discussed as if it’s some kind of vast parallel universe, free of the cause and effect of “the real world.” This view gets at least one thing right: the social universe is vast, and like our physical universe, mostly unexplored. But where does social intersect with our everyday experiences, in life and in business? How do social and the real world affect and reflect one another on a larger scale? We’re starting to see patterns emerge that tell us that social refuses to contain itself; its effects are spilling into the real world nearly everywhere we look: in politics, innovation, education, and of course, business and the economy. In this volume of The Conversation Index, we ride along the collision course of social data, traditional media, and business performance, with an emphasis on Twitter. With over half a billion active users, and an average of 340 million tweets per day, Twitter is like a social seismograph for the entire world. We worked with enterprise social data provider Gnip to acquire 26 million tweets for this analysis. Every tweet in this research mentioned at least one of 13 brands from the BrandZ™ Global 100 Brands list, including Adidas, Clinique, Colgate, Gillette, Hugo Boss, Nike, Pampers, Pepsi, Ralph Lauren, Samsung, Intel, Tesco, and Sony. 6
  • 7. #BVINDEX5 We compare, contrast, and combine those 26 million tweets with over 8,000 TV and radio mentions, 17 months of stock price data, more than a year and a half of Google search interest data, and 270,000 pieces of consumer- generated content from online reviews—all for the same 13 brands. This Index reveals some fascinating patterns and relationships at the intersections of all these data streams, as well as a few places where we found—counterintuitively—no correlations at all. Social data offers a critical new stream of insights for brands and the industry. The social ecosystem is broad; conversations happen on brand sites and on social channels, across an ever-increasing set of devices. As social content and social data expands, so does the scope of our knowledge about how it both influences and mirrors activity across the digital and physical worlds. Sharing these insights with our clients and the industry is the driving force behind The Conversation Index. We’re excited to share this edition with you. Erin Nelson (@erinclaire) Chief Marketing Officer, Bazaarvoice 7
  • 9. #BVINDEX5 What we’ve found Here’s what we uncovered: • Twitter volume for brand mentions is highly correlated with stock price • Twitter is becoming a destination, not just a portal • Brand mentions in Twitter lag behind overall Twitter growth • Search interest for brands doesn’t correlate to Twitter mentions, stock performance, or TV and radio coverage 9
  • 10. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 Stock prices move more about brands as they perform well on the exchanges, but quiet down a bit as their stocks fall. with Twitter mentions Other analyses have shown social data to reflect economic factors. Product reviews mention price more when consumer confidence is low (a -.66 correlation).1 In February 2009, It is becoming clear that both quantitative and qualitative when consumer confidence hit its lowest point, mentions analysis of social data can be useful for establishing of price hit their highest point, accounting for 11.5% of all relationships and in predicting real-world events. Stock US reviews. When we map these price references to the performance for the brands in this analysis increased and Dow Jones Industrial Average, an even stronger negative decreased in line with the fluctuating volume of tweets about correlation (-.68) is revealed. Price mentions fall as the Dow these brands. This is a remarkably high positive correlation average rises, and they rise as the Dow falls. And a 2010 study of .91, meaning that high Twitter volume tends to coincide by academic researchers at Indiana University and University with high closing price, and vice versa. The same things that of Manchester found that measuring select dimensions of make stocks move upward tend to make social chatter spike “Twitter mood” can be 86.7% accurate in “predicting the up (such as well-received product announcements and high- and down changes in the closing values” of the Dow Jones profile executive hires). But there’s a piece of this finding that’s Industrial Average.2 As more of these predictive relationships counterintuitive. Shouldn’t the same factors that send a stock are discovered and subject to rigorous testing, social data downward (such as a lawsuit, product flop, or poor earnings will be incorporated into things like demand forecasting and call) be just as likely to trigger a bump in conversations about product release timing. the brand? Apparently not. It seems that Twitter users buzz 1 The Conversation Index Volume 1. 2 http://www.relevantdata.com/pdfs/IUStudy.pdf 10
  • 11. #BVINDEX5 CLOSING PRICE CORRELATES TO TWITTER BRAND MENTIONS 200 200 190 180.2 190 180 173.7 180 stock performance and Twitter mentions. 170 170 159.2 AVERAGE BRAND MENTIONS ON TWITTER (in thousands) 155.5 156.6 160 160 150 142.6 150 135.4 136.9 140 134.2 132.9 154.3 140 130.9 130.9 131.4 129.9 129.9 131.4 AVERAGE CLOSING PRICE 125.6 144.8 130 121.1 130 133.7 120 120 124.5 110 110 100 100 107.1 90 99.7 90 80 80 88.4 70 80.8 70 73.4 74.8 60 68.2 60 68.1 50 62.4 62.2 60.9 50 40 51.0 40 45.8 44.7 30 30 20 20 10 10 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 2011 2012 11
  • 12. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 Twitter evolves from portal to destination As Twitter grows, it is becoming a destination rather than a portal or midpoint. People are increasingly going to Twitter for the experience it delivers — conversation and timely information — not as an intermediate step between them and what they’re really after. And they’re staying longer. But Twitter is used much differently than other social and web channels, and its data should be used differently, too. For example, we compared online search terms that include “Adidas” to mentions of “Adidas” on Twitter. Since search takes place when someone is looking for specific information, the terms that appear during a search vary greatly from other types of content. Top “Adidas” search terms tend to be at the level of product lines and categories, and of the top 20 searches, only three are for specific products. The top 20 search terms associated with “Adidas” also included the names of two competing brands, indicating that comparison shopping begins in the search box. 12
  • 13. #BVINDEX5 Twitter users tend to reveal their personal interactions with include product suggestions, and a fifth of all four-star reviews or in relation to brands. When we dig into what people on provide this type of feedback.3 Twitter are saying about Adidas, they mention what “new” Use search patterns to optimize your brand’s search Adidas products they’re wearing “today,” and use words such engine marketing and optimization strategies. as “my” and “I.” Some of the top Twitter terms associated with Adidas reference specific campaigns, like the hashtag And use the words you find in tweets about your brand when “#branch309adidasday.” Businesses interested in doing you tweet about your brand. Optimize your marketing copy by their own text analysis on tweets should think of it as a way using the language of your top reviewers—or better yet, quote to roughly gauge consumer response to news, events, them. When you reflect what consumers say online in your campaigns, and as a method of identifying enthusiastic own social efforts, you’ll create content that’s more shareable. customer advocates. But they will have to develop repeatable Quantify this over time by testing optimized tweets, UGC- methods of separating relevant, authentic tweets from the rich copy, and SEM strategies derived from the actual terms abundance of noise. people use when searching for your brand and products, and compare each to the non-optimized, marketing-derived In contrast to search and Twitter language, reviews tend to alternative. focus on specific product qualities (“light,” “looks,” “fits,” “comfortable”), adjectives (“awesome,” “great,” “different,” Tweets that mention brands are using fewer links over time. “perfect”), and other expressions of sentiment (“love,” In the last half of 2010, 68% of tweets that mentioned brands “disappointed,” “happy,” “recommend”). Since every single also had links in them. In all of 2011, the number dropped review is tied to a specific product, they are a rich social data to 55%. In the first half of 2012, the number drops further to source for product-level insights. In fact, 12% of all reviews 51%, signaling a clear downturn in link usage. This means 3 The Conversation Index Volume 3. 13
  • 14. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 TIME ON TWITTER AND PAGES PER VISIT ARE GROWING 780 20 760 Time on site (in seconds) 19 740 Pages per visit 18 720 17 700 16 15.1 15.2 680 14.1 15 714 684 660 14 12.9 TIME ON SITE (in seconds) 666 640 13 12.0 PAGES PER VISIT 620 12 10.8 600 10.3 10.4 9.9 11 10.1 602 9.9 9.7 580 10 583 583 578 579 593 560 8.4 8.4 9 8.1 8.1 8.0 540 7.7 7.6 8 551 7.4 7.3 7.4 566 544 6.9 563 520 6.6 6.5 7 528 500 6 480 5 486 460 4 467 458 457 456 440 3 448 434 420 2 428 425 423 421 400 1 G P T OV C N B R PR AY N L G P T OV C N B R PR AY N L G JU JU DE DE SE A SE A AU OC AU OC AU FE FE JA JU JA JU A A M M N M N M 2010 2011 2012 Source: COMPETE.COM 14
  • 15. #BVINDEX5 that content about brands on Twitter is becoming increasingly conversational, and less transactional. Users are talking about brands instead of just pointing to what they bought or want to buy with a link to external sites. External data confirms this. Twitter users are spending more time on Twitter, and visiting many more pages within Twitter.com while they’re there. According to data from Compete.com, from 2010 to 2011, there was a 19.8% increase in average time on site; in 2011 to 2012, so far, there is a 19.7% increase in time on site. And average pages per visit decreased 9% from 2010 to 2011, but increased by an incredible 58.7% from 2011 to 2012. Pages per visit increased by an incredible 58.7% from 2011 to 2012 15
  • 16. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 Brands get more retweets. So far in 2012, 22% of all brand mentions on Twitter have been retweets, and only 78% of brand mentions tweets, but less of are original. the conversation is There’s good news and bad news for brands in this data. The increase of brand mentions overall means there is more about them data to learn your customers’ thoughts about you, but as the retweet analysis shows, that data is increasingly redundant. Retweets are becoming a bigger part of the Twitter brand The volume of tweets per day has grown 143% from 2011 story, but a retweet is a weaker social signal than an original to 2012; however, mentions of brands on Twitter have only tweet from, say, an advocate or detractor. Retweets also grown 113% in the same period. To maintain and improve contain less original data, and may not represent the users Twitter share of conversation, brands should analyze their data behind them as much as a wholly original tweet from the same to find which tweets are generating positive conversation user. Our research also found that some of the most retweeted about them, emulate these tweets, and continuously optimize content is the work of automated bots (nonhuman scripts) and add fresh content. and spammers that have set up networks of auto-retweeting Original tweets about brands are declining over time, accounts to spread their inauthentic messages across the as retweeted brand mentions are rising. social web as quickly as possible before Twitter shuts them In other words, more and more content is simply repeated down. Altogether, this means that businesses need to apply verbatim or with little alteration from the original source. In more scrutiny to Twitter data. Perform spot checks, weight and 2010, 85% of brand mentions on Twitter were original, and filter your metrics to place less emphasis on retweets about 15% were retweets. In 2011, 18% of brand mentions were your brand if you find they are far more noise than signal. 16
  • 17. AGGREGATE OF BRAND MENTIONS (in thousands) 2500 500 1000 1500 2000 JU L 537,332 AU G 539,864 SE P 536,894 OC 2010 T 615,218 second half of 2010. N OV 638,983 DE C 587,469 JA N 681,455 FE down from 82% in 2011 and 85% in the B 695,041 78% original tweets in 2012 (as of June), M A 784,875 R A PR 879,132 M AY 1,031,875 JU N 919,238 JU L 897,434 2011 AU G 967,993 SE P 1,039,532 OC T 1,130,981 N OV 1,067,332 DE C 1,247,513 JA N 1,372,390 FE B 1,507,232 M A 1,724,314 R A PR 1,829,344 M AY 1,977,783 2012 BRAND MENTIONS VOLUME GROWING; ORIGINAL TWEETS DECLINING JU N 2,229,620 10% 70% 30% 20% 50% 60% 90% 80% 40% 100% ORIGINAL TWEETS (i.e., not retweets) 17 #BVINDEX5
  • 18. 18 PERCENTAGE OF TWEETS WITH LINKS 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 JU L 537,332 AU G 539,864 SE P 536,894 2010 OC T 615,218 N THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 OV 638,983 DE C 587,469 JA N 681,455 (as of July), down from 55% in 2011 FE 51% of tweets contain links in 2012 and 68% in the second half of 2010. B 695,041 M A R 784,875 A PR 879 , 132 M AY 1,031,875 JU N 919,238 JU L 2011 897,434 AU G 967,993 SE P 1,039,532 OC T 1,130,981 N OV 1,067,332 DE C 1,247,513 JA N 1,372,390 FE B 1,507,232 M A R 1,724,314 A PR 1,829,344 M 2012 AY 1,977,783 JU N 2,229,620 PERCENTAGE OF BRAND MENTIONS CONTAINING LINKS IS DECLINING JU L 994,291 500 1500 1000 2000 2500 AGGREGATE OF BRAND MENTIONS (in thousands)
  • 19. #BVINDEX5 The increase in retweets also illustrates that news travels faster network (and, as this Index shows, beyond) by creating than ever before—and that a single piece of content can have consistently retweetable content—they are the greatest major consequences for the companies involved. In fact, distributors of social currency. Reach them, highlight, and many of the most retweeted messages about brands in our promote them if they are advocates, and address their analysis were highly negative in sentiment, and concerned concerns if they are detractors. Determine whether they are things like scandals, lawsuits, and negative press coverage. influential in other channels: Are they a top reviewer as well? Now is the time to prepare social crisis communications plans Give them exclusive access: insider news, early product if you haven’t already. testing, event invitations, and the like. Make them feel like a part of your brand instead of a spectator, and in all cases, It’s also important for brands to get to know the real people locate them as soon as possible. that are creating the ripple effect for their brand across the 19
  • 20. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 Search interest doesn’t correlate to Twitter mentions, stock performance, or TV and Unpaid radio coverage coverage doesn’t While it may seem that people tweet what’s top of mind, they’re not tweeting about what they’re searching for. While we saw drive much this across the board, we’ll use Clinique as an example. Twitter mentions for “Clinique” spike in April 2011, August 2011, and search activity March through June 2012. During these Twitter peaks, however, we saw either no correlation with search interest or a decline in search interest (search interest is Google’s normalized indicator of “the likelihood of a random user to search for a particular search term” on a 0-100 scale). When we compared the stock performance of the brands in this analysis to search interest for the same period in time, we found no correlation. 20
  • 21. #BVINDEX5 21
  • 22. NETWORKS GROWING FOR USERS THAT MENTION BRANDS THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 FOLLOWER GROWTH FOR USERS THAT MENTION BRANDS JUN 1566 MAY 1309 APR 1287 2012 MAR 1161 FEB 1299 JAN 1183 DEC 1041 NOV 1087 OCT 1155 SEP 1177 AUG 1194 JUL 1067 2011 JUN 1067 MAY 1208 APR 1130 MAR 993 FEB 1097 JAN 995 Average Twitter followers per user 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22
  • 23. #BVINDEX5 We analyzed 8,000 brand mentions in closed captioning data from television broadcasts (most TV ads are not closed- Brand captioned, so ad mentions are not reflected in this data), and advocates radio transcripts (this data does include ads) to determine whether brands being mentioned in traditional media saw a and detractors corresponding bump in search interest. Surprisingly, they do not. This suggests that unpaid coverage (news pieces, etc.) have wider doesn’t drive much search activity, but findings from a study by Efficient Frontier show television ad campaigns correlating to audiences in a 60%-80% bump in brand-name search during the life of the campaign.4 So, while unpaid coverage in traditional media 2012 may be a great awareness mechanism, it’s not driving the consumer search behavior many businesses are craving. For that, television ads still seem to do the trick. 4 http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/7731-how-can-marketers-use-offline-ads-to-drive-people-online 23
  • 24. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 The bottom line? Social Convergence is a new concept for many companies, but it’s actually nothing new in practice. In fact, it’s the “place” we’ve and “the real world” are called home since 2005. Reviews, Q&A, and stories are all forms of earned social content that live on owned digital real becoming inextricable estate. And while we were helping clients across the globe integrate owned and earned, Twitter launched, Facebook opened to the public, and search became more and more The borders between “social” and “the real world” are social. Channels blossomed, and are now converging. Data difficult to pinpoint, but they’re being redrawn in some places, exploded in volume and then fragmented, and is now coming and eliminated in others. Consider this: Just a few years ago, together again. Convergence will soon cease to be the the terms “in-store” and “online” gave us a clear, differentiated exception, and will become the rule, just as product reviews way to talk about channels. But as channels converged, and on company websites were once the exception. consumers began to use the mobile web while in the physical Social’s connection to the world around us is has been aisles, the terms no longer accurately described the way established in some areas, cannot be found in others, and has that people actually shop. The same is true of social—and yet to be discovered or quantified in most. But it’s far better everything it touches. for businesses to look for it everywhere and find it only in some areas, than for them to stumble over it where they least expected it. 24
  • 25. #BVINDEX5 25
  • 26. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 26
  • 27. #BVINDEX5 The methodology behind The Conversation Index Volume 5 Volume 5 is based on an analysis of social content and other data surrounding 13 brands appearing on the BrandZ™ Top 100 Global Brands list, which ranks the “most valuable global brands” of 2012. The brands analyzed are Adidas, Clinique, Colgate, Gillette, Hugo Boss, Nike, Pampers, Pepsi, Ralph Lauren, Samsung, Intel, Tesco, and Sony. The data includes 26,000,000 tweets, over 8,000 TV and radio mentions, 17 months of stock price data from relevant exchanges, more than a year and a half of Google search data, and 270,000 pieces of authentic user-generated content from online reviews across the vast Bazaarvoice network. Contributors Column Five Media created the visualizations for The Conversation Index Vol. 5. columnfivemedia.com 27
  • 28. THE CONVERSATION INDEX VOLUME 5 Contact us Contact us to see how we help brands gain invaluable consumer and product insights by putting consumer conversations at the heart of their organizations. United States: (866) 522-9227 Germany: +49.89.24218508 bazaarvoice.com bazaarvoice.de United Kingdom: +44 (0) 208.080.1100 Netherlands: +31.20.301.2169 bazaarvoice.co.uk Australia / Asia-Pacific: +61.2.9362.2200 France: +33 1 56 60 54 45 bazaarvoice.fr Sweden: +46.8.463.1083 San Francisco: (866) 345-1461 28
  • 31. #BVINDEX5 About Bazaarvoice Bazaarvoice brings the voice of customers to the center of business strategy, transforming business performance for nearly 2,000 clients globally, including over half of the Internet Retailer 500 list of the world’s largest retailers, over 20 percent of the Fortune 500, and over one-third of the Fortune 100 brands. Bazaarvoice social software helps clients like Best Buy, Costco, Dell, Macy’s, P&G, Panasonic, QVC, Travelocity, and USAA create social communities on their brand websites and Facebook pages where customers can engage in conversations. These conversations can be syndicated across Bazaarvoice’s global network of client websites and mobile devices, making the user-generated content that digital consumers trust accessible at multiple points of purchase. Through Bazaarvoice, manufacturers can also connect directly with consumers on retail sites to answer questions and respond to reviews about their products. The social data derived from online word of mouth translates into actionable insights that improve marketing, sales, customer service, and product development. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, Bazaarvoice has offices in Amsterdam, London, Munich, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Stockholm, and Sydney. For more information, visit www.bazaarvoice.com, read the blog at bazaarvoice.com/blog, and follow on Twitter at twitter.com/bazaarvoice. #BVINDEX5 TheConversationIndex.com TheConversationIndex.co.uk TheConversationIndex.de 31