1/23/2009 11:57:45 AM

I think the answer is pretty much in the question:

'This is something that has been built over time and that has been earned. We tend to respect their opinion and believe their recommendations. So how do you know whether you should trust a report from someone claiming to have seen something happen on Twitter?'

I trust when someone claims to have seen something happen on Twitter, Facebook, their blog etc that they're being honest because they are people I've followed over time and they've been able to earn my trust.

That's why the BBC can get caught out in this case, because it was getting information from new sources which it won't have any previous relationship with, and therefore is open to abuse.

Dan Thornton

1/23/2009 2:23:05 PM

Hi Dan, I think you're absolutely right, trust comes from the longevity of the relationship which in turn leads to an understanding of what that person or organisation is like.

With more and more people starting to use sites like Twitter, the question will remain how do we prevent false rumours from spreading and in more extreme examples, creating news stories?

My mind goes back to the end of last year when the twitterverse was awash with gossip about Twitterank (http://twitterank.com/). At first, everyone was rushing to be 'ranked' and auto-updating their accounts with the information. Suddenly, a rumour broke out that it was a scam designed to steal user passwords and pandemonium broke out.

The truth of the situation I don't personally know (although I suspect Twitterank is a perfectly reputable site). Do I trust it though? I don't know - and nor does the twitterverse to this day it would seem.

Thanks for stopping by our site and contributing to the debate. Best wishes, Richard.

Richard

1/23/2009 3:36:32 PM

It seems journalistic integrity takes a backseat every now and again to the need to break a story. I think Dan is right that the public distinguishes between sources they know to be reputable or not. And, facing facts, we are all had on occasion.

With regard to the effects on measurement, I'm not sure that I see the relevance.

Measurement does not care that a product review is fabricated. We don't concern ourselves with one happy customer but rather with the scores that are influenced by the review. A positive mention, contrived or not, is good publicity.

We can also easily measure the negative publicity that has come of Belkin's ruse being found out, which will be weighed against the favorable review coverage.

As far as the public's loss of trust in the review forums, or the BBC for that matter, certainly if I don't trust a source I would stop reading it. A loss of traffic or subscribers will result and this influence too is easily and commonly measured.

Hannah Del Porto

1/23/2009 3:39:58 PM

I thought you might appreciate this link on the 'common sense' of using Social Media:

www.davidhenderson.com/.../

Bob

1/23/2009 4:21:55 PM

Hi Bob, Thanks for highlighting that link to us, an amazing tale indeed!

Hannah, thank you too for stopping by and your contribution. While I would agree with you that 'a positive mention, whether contrived or not, is good publicity' I would disagree with you on whether measurement should care whether it's fabricated.

Fabricated and undiscovered is one thing, fabricated and in the public domain is quite another. A betrayal of trust by a brand will do far more damage to its reputation than will be revealed by just measuring the good coverage versus the bad coverage, although as you say, this is of course very easy to do.

Richard

1/23/2009 5:06:39 PM

A betrayal of trust, and certainly that type of manipulation, will undoubtedly do far more damage than any type of positive publicity.

But will the damage to their reputation not be measurable through the quality and quantity of reported and public comments that call out their behaviour? Is this not the very task of media measurement?

Hannah Del Porto

1/23/2009 5:23:46 PM

Hi Hannah, I'd agree that the damage to the reputation in the various media outlets can be measured - this of course is one part of the services that Metrica has been providing our clients for over 15 years.

Media coverage itself though is not the only metric that needs to be considered when measuring an organisation's reputation. The damage done by unfavourable media coverage to a reputation can far outweigh the good done by the positive coverage.

Just one example of this is what befell Gerald Ratner (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doing_a_Ratner#The_speech) when the Financial Times picked up on some comments he had made about some products his company sold at what he believed was a private function. The FT article alone resulted in over £500 million being wiped off the company's stock value almost overnight, and the chain of jewelers, once the largest in the UK, subsequently ceasing trading. Quite a negative impact from one unfavourable article!

Thanks again for your great contributions to the discussion. Regards, Richard

Richard