Comments on: Conversation About vs Conversation With

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:36:57 +0000

HeyI certainly agree that the web has created a very fractured idea of conversation. Most blogs consist of:1. Blogger2. Someone comments3. Blogger replies to commentbut rarely do we find:4. Commentors comment on other comments and create discussion.Just see below to see this is true!So yes, in many ways, lots of monologue that intersects.

By: teedp

teedp — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:03:41 +0000

Two quotes I would like to share that are more so prevelant on social media : namely 1) say to be seenMost conversations are monologues delivered in the presence of witnessesand 2 True conversation is a myththere is just intersecting monologues Even more true on the web as I post another “hit and run” comment.(I think you also blogged about accountability online or the lack of it !) My conversation quotes are taken from (Margaret Millar & Circly Maxwell Andrews)

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:54:44 +0000

Good thoughts – I'm going to mull them over

By: Phil Rees

Phil Rees — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:53:14 +0000

Completely agree that being able to measure all of the conversations is a critical factor but something everyone is still very much on the first few pages of learning and implementing, (granted some are more advanced than others).On the subject of drip feeding content, if a brand was to blurt too much content in one large hit, then surely the resulting conversations would become far trickier to monitor and measure. Perhaps diverting the focus or diluting the impact of any resulting conversations a brand might wish to instigate.In my opinion, small, well-timed salivating dribbles of rich, productive and/or useful content is of far greater value, than 'putting all ones eggs in one basket'.

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:50:12 +0000

Thanks for the $0.2 When studying Viral videos the number one motivation was humour, the second being interest. So you hit the nail on the had with these examples.Whats good about what you're doing is measuring the conversation about.Most people only measure conversation with, which means they are missing out on the majority of conversation that is actually taking place. Enter ASOSreviews and HSBCreviews that measure the conversation about.I'm interested in solutions that focus on measuring conversation about – sentiment, intent, advocacy, frequency. This is far more meaningful than followers.

By: Scott Gould

Scott Gould — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:06 +0000

Hey PhilGood thoughts. When you consider the idea of drip feeding, that surely encourages more conversation than big updates? What do you think?What's critical is for us to measure the conversation about. This is why I think most measurement solution for Social Media are flawed. We need to instead be looking at sentiment, advocate, intent.

By: Charles Dalton-Moore

Charles Dalton-Moore — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:37:55 +0000

Yes I'd agree Scott. And the job of a digital marketer is to incent users to converse with AND about a brand. When we work with clients, we aim to build 'stuff' that is 1) funny, or 2) interesting, or 3) useful. By adding value (even in some small way, like causing someone to smile), a brand can move people towards "conversations with". So to open myself up to accusations of self-promotion, here are some real-life examples...Brands can create value from the "conversations about" like:- We built a Twitter app for ITV's coverage of the FA Cup Final, which aggregated the relevant conversations on Twitter, and displayed live player ratings based on aggregated Tweet info. (see http://bit.ly/aOfNkY). This proved interesting to users, incentivised users to participate in the "conversation about", and drove people to the ITV website where the app was hosted.- Another example of creating value from "conversations about" is the insight reporting we generate from brand conversation monitoring (see http://bit.ly/74itOa)And in moving people to "conversations with":- http://asosreviews.com/ not only aggregates peoples thoughts on ASOS, but is also used by their staff to reply back and continue conversations. It is a meeting point.- FaceGroup's http://www.headbox.com/ and http://www.mindbubble.com/ are great tools for private "co-creation" between brands and audiences which really work, as audiences are explicitly incentivised to "converse with".Anyway just my $.02...

By: Phil Rees

Phil Rees — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:58:12 +0000

Scott,If I'm reading this correctly, and I think I agree. The majority of conversations happening across the social media are 'about' The main difference is when a brand can direct these conversations to happen more readily in the arena provided, ie. a brands Facebook, forums, blogs or sharing hashtags etc. Actual 'conversations with', direct to representatives of the brand you would logically expect to be far less infrequent, unless as you say, motivated into doing so.For instance, a record company now uses Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud and Myspace alongside their more traditional website to constantly drip feed it's fans trinkets of new content as well as ways of obtaining more exclusive music, tickets to gigs, competitions and merchandise that wouldn't be available from any other source. At the same time official representatives and sometimes musicians themselves actively pose valid questions and participate within it's social network. Not solely as motivation, getting fans onto these spaces, but to share and build with its growing community and inspiring a sense of long term ownership among their supporters. In turn, the fans who visit these spaces are more proactive in conversations within the brands social network (whether positive or negative).None of this is to say that any spontaneous 'conversation about', taking place somewhere in the social network is a bad thing, how else will a brands message or content filter to the far reaches of the globe? As the latin saying goes (and I hope I get this right) 'ordo ab chao' – out of chaos, comes order.