Now here is a headline that grabs the attention of any social media marketer: “Study: Most brands still irrelevant on Twitter.”

Only problem is the headline, which appeared in the digital version of Advertising Age yesterday, is bullshit. And I don’t use that word lightly.

If the headline writer and/or author had really read the report from digital agency 360i carefully and applied a little critical thinking, you would actually draw the opposite conclusion.

I am not a wild-eyed supporter of all-things social media. But I do want people to start looking at data critically before writing reports like this. Let’s look at the major conclusions, taken directly from the 360i report and see if Twitter is really irrelevant to brands.

CONCLUSION ONE:

“Twitter is primarily for people, not corporations. Those of us in the marketing industry tend to see Twitter as a marketing or professional networking tool, but it’s important to remember that it is a consumer-dominated medium. More than 90% of tweets come from consumers and only 12% of consumer.”

The AdAge article used this information to claim that “brands are finding themselves on the outside of the conversation.”

So here is the question that should have been asked:  How do you really know (and measure) if a brand was tweeting or not?  You see, the most effective conversations are not occurring between corporate icons and the masses. They are taking place between individuals representing their brands.

Here’s an example. Over the past few weeks I have tweeted back and forth between Bill Robb, the social media marketing director for SAP.  Bill didn’t “court me.” We developed a mutual admiration for each other and began a <shudder> “conversation!”  The tweets led to deeper discussions via email, which eventually led to a blog post about SAP and their cutting-edge marketing approaches. That blog post was tweeted out at least 70 times, had several thousand page views, and was referenced in two other blogs with who knows how many readers.

Now, did any of that activity show up on the chart above?  No. Was the SAP brand kicking ass on Twitter? Yes.

If you want another example of brand beauty personified on Twitter, check out @SharpieSusan who tweets up a storm for Sharpie pens.  Is Newell-Rubbermaid getting credit for a “marketer conversation?”  My point is that this metric is irrelevant and the AdAge conclusion is worse.

CONCLUSION TWO:

“Twitter makes the private space public. While marketers have a voice in the mix, Twitter remains an important tool for listening to what consumers are saying in a mostly un-filtered, un-moderated environment. There are ripe opportunities for brands to get to know their customers via online listening.”

“An important tool for listening.”  Hmmm.  Does that make Twitter sound irrelevant to you?

The report goes on to say that when it comes to talking about brands on Twitter, consumers are largely sharing news or information about the brand (43%) or reporting use of or interaction with the brand (35%). About one fifth of tweets mentioning brands demonstrate an outward opinion of the brand.  Irrelevant?  The opportunity to use Twitter for consumer research is enormous!  And the report says so.

CONCLUSION THREE:

“Companies tend to talk at people – not with them. The opportunity for marketers to become part of the conversation remains vast. For example, many brands use the channel to pass along information, but fail to capitalize on opportunities to truly connect with consumers via two-way conversations.”

If there is a vast opportunity, why is that irrelevant?

The report’s final conclusion states: “… there remains a largely untapped opportunity for brands to create deeper connections with consumers via earned media and to learn more about what motivates them with online listening through Twitter.”

I don’t think I need to say any more about the content of the report and the article.  AdAge simply blew it.

To make things much worse, the 360i report was based on a study of just 300 tweets per month over six months.  Are you KIDDING ME?  A study of national brands based on 10 tweets a day?  AdAge, do you really think that is a statistically-significant sample size to base a conclusion like this?  And 360i, you need to be taken to the shed out back for even publishing a report based on that sample size.

We already have a problem with the social media fluffs spewing mis-information and half-truths. When an article — even a bad one — comes from a reputable trade publication like AdAge, it gets reported as fact and paraded around the boardrooms of America.  This blog post won’t be, unfortunately.

33 Comments

• 

  By Jeremy Victor, July 28, 2010 @ 7:27 am

  Mark,

  I can almost feel your frustration through my computer monitor.

  Thanks for keeping it real.

  It should never have been positioned as a “report” with a sample size that small.
• 

  By Amy Howell, July 28, 2010 @ 7:35 am

  Is this ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ sensationalism? Great call and I agree the sample size was pitiful! Heck~we tweet enough to be our own sample-ha! Thx for all the great blogging! Needless to say, this post is gonna get *lots* of play…I’m betting!
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 8:45 am

  @Jeremy — Agree. Thanks so much for your insight.

  @Amy — Funny observation. You’re right. Between you and me 10 tweets a day would probably be a good sample! Thanks!
• 

  By Joey Strawn, July 28, 2010 @ 8:46 am

  It would seem that any credible person would be able to look at the report and come to the sames conclusions as you. With there being a “vast opportunity” for conversation (which is the essential component for any kind of relationship), Twitter would be the go-to medium for brands.

  This report just goes more to prove to me that we need to not only update our thinking about communication, but we need to update how we measure communication effectiveness. Like you said, there might not have been a lot direct brand talk on Twitter, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t going on outside. Just because a party goer doesn’t buy the host’s TV at the party doesn’t mean he won’t buy it somewhere else.
• 

  By Kathy Snavely, July 28, 2010 @ 9:30 am

  I’m still reeling, following your tweet on this issue (as I hadn’t gotten to read this AdAge post yet), giving the article a cursory reading, and then tweeting you, as I know there’s way more talk in my Twitter stream (often me “reacting” to some company/brand who does something I just don’t get). And the sentiments in those tweets are usually confirmed by others in follow-up conversations. I’ve been accused of being delusional a number of times in the past week; thanks for confirming my reaction to this silliness doesn’t fall in that category.
• 

  By Laura Click, July 28, 2010 @ 9:38 am

  I saw this article yesterday and nearly barfed when I read that 1,800 tweets constituted a “statistically significant sample.” Are you kidding me? It’s not just the article that’s bad, but the report itself. I don’t know how we can even take these numbers as being worth anything. I’m not sure who’s the greater offender here – 360i for a shoddy report or Ad Age’s poor reporting and considering this to be newsworthy. Thanks for calling them both out!
• 

  By Roy Wells, July 28, 2010 @ 9:41 am

  Mark,

  Looks like a classic case of 360i finding the data to support a conclusion that they had already reached. I agree with Amy, ten tweets a day – really? All of us using the medium are tweeting far more than that – the two of you far more than me. We are using it successfully because we are using it wisely – sharing valuable content with our followers, retweeting valuable content others post, having conversations, and using it to help broadcast our original content. Brands that create strategies around these tactics will be relevant. Thanks for shedding light and putting some transparency on a piece of, as you eloquently said, bullshit :)
• 

  By Brandon Croke, July 28, 2010 @ 10:22 am

  Thanks for this Mark, I think you make some really great points, but I have to say I agree with the headline Ad Age used.

  “Most brands still irrelevant on Twitter”.

  I tend follow random consumer brands to see how they use Twitter. (not because I like them, but because I’m curious how good/bad their social media strategy is)

  Although I don’t have any hard statistics, usually I’m not that impressed with what brands tweet, the number of followers they have, and how they interact with others.

  Because of this I think a majority of brands do use Twitter poorly or are irrelevant. (I’m focusing more on B2C brands, usually B2B companies do better sharing articles etc.)

  I feel like this post is more suited towards the headline, “Twitter is irrelevant for most brands”

  I really like the examples you show, including how brands can utilize individual employees as brand ambassadors.

  Also its great to see everyone bringing up 360i’s sample size and research methodology. There is too much “research” fluff that spreads around as if it is hard science. Keep on keeping them honest, we need you!
• 

  By April Karli, July 28, 2010 @ 10:32 am

  I’m still learning about all this stuff, but what you say makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for offering your perspective. And I’ll definitely pass it along for others to read, too.
• 

  By Tom Webster, July 28, 2010 @ 10:59 am

  The actual sample size isn’t a huge issue – roughly 2000 tweets would be statistically OK to look at – if they were all taken at once. The actual bias in this data is a longitudinal one – it isn’t really an 1800 person sample, it’s 6 different 300 person samples. And yeah, that would be kinda thin.
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 11:14 am

  @Joey — What is completely overlooked by this, and many other “statistical” conclusions is all the qualitiative data — like the OldSpice juggernaut last week — to suggest the conclusions are total hooey. You can’t plot every aspect of “success” on a chart.

  @Kathy — Thanks for taking the time to comment today!

  @Laura — Unfortunately, at least 80 percent of the social media “research” I see is statistical garbage. Even Charlene Li, who should know better, put out a report last year that was garbage. I wish I had more clout (or Klout as the case may be) to have call attention to this very important issue. The big brands are conducting their own research and making their own statistically-valid conclusions. But the rest of us are depending on insights from places like Ad Age to provide relevant trends. Thanks for being here today, Laura!
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 11:19 am

  @Roy — Very well said! Thank you!

  @Brandon — Thanks for the dissenting voice. Appreciate you! I agree that brands are irrelevant if they use the tools incorrectly.

  @April — I’d like to welcome you to the {grow} community. I believe this is your first comment here and I’m so very glad you took the time to express your thoughts!

  @Tom — Thanks very much for the clarification. Statistical guidance always welcome.
• 

  By Tom Webster, July 28, 2010 @ 11:32 am

  Thanks, Mark! I expanded that issue a bit here: http://brandsavant.com/is-twitter-irrelevant-for-brands/ (Didn’t want to clutter your comments with a statistical kerfuffle :) )
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 11:37 am

  @Tom — First, I adore statistical kerfuffle, so bring it on. Second, thanks for the link. Finally, loving what you guys are doing at Edison Research.
• 

  By Matt Ridings - @techguerilla, July 28, 2010 @ 11:40 am

  A massive flaw in the data isn’t simply the sample size, it’s that equivalency is being placed on volume. A brand doesn’t, and shouldn’t, typically have the same volume of public tweets as a consumer. Would you follow a brand account if they tweeted as much as me?

  Combine that equivalency with the sample size and you have meaningless numbers.
• 

  By Michael Brenner, July 28, 2010 @ 11:45 am

  You wrote the very post I was considering this morning. So thanks for saving me the effort. And of course you nailed the point. Great job.
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 11:51 am

  @Matt — If a brand were as interesting as you Matt then yes, I would love some more tweets. : ) Your insight is right-on. Thanks!

  @Michael — Happy to serve as your personal word valet. Thank you for your kind words.
• 

  By Pauline Ores, July 28, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

  As you point out the AdAge piece merely illustrates how tightly they’re bonded to the old marketing framework. Social is not a new element in an existing model – it’s a paradigm shift. You’d think AdAge is perfectly positioned to see this, but the saying goes, it’s like asking a fish about water – they’re too immersed to see it.
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

  @Pauline — Very true. That’s a very relevant angle on this piece. Thank you!
• 

  By Linda Jackson, July 28, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

  Mark, I think you have misrepresented what @AdAge wrote. They specifically said “Brands are irrelevant” not “Twitter is irrelevant.” When I reread their article, after your review, I still felt the same as I did yesterday. I believe they are saying it doesn’t matter if you represent a big brand, new product, a personal service, what you are selling on Twitter is yourself and your ability to connect.
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

  @Linda — Thanks for the dissenting view. I know some of the comments on the original article share your view so I’m really glad you brought it up. I still believe the article mis-represented the research and the research was faulty to begin with. Just a double whammy of bad. Thank you very much for taking the time to be here today.
• 

  By Jlarranaga, July 28, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

  Mark, thanks for doing the deep dive into the research. Brands do matter on Twitter, just ask the Old Spice Guy!

  http://priorityresults.com/blog/old-spice-combines-tv-twitter-and-youtube-efforts-to-boost-brand/
• 

  By Shelly Kramer, July 28, 2010 @ 6:21 pm

  Bravo! Morons.
• 

  By @sharpiesusan, July 28, 2010 @ 7:10 pm

  My Tweeps and I are pretty happy with our set up. I like them, and I think they pretty much like me. We talk Sharpie but we also talk some smack. Ad Age was right about one thing: Twitter is primarily for people. I just happen to be people attached to Sharpie.

  Love you Mark Schaefer!
• 

  By Linda Jackson, July 28, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

  @Mark – I confess, I did not dive into the research as you did. Maybe AdAge does need to clarify their position.
• 

  By Mark, July 28, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

  @Jlarranaga — Yeah, I didn’t want to bring that up but there WAS that little ol’ Old Spice blitz last week. Much of it was driven off of Twitter. I believe this might be your first comment here? Thank you!

  @Shelly — Humbled as always when Shelly the Great comes by {grow}.

  @Sharpie Susan — I had such a smile on my face when I saw you show up today. Keep rocking those pens! You are doing an amazing job. Still one of my favorite case studies!

  @Linda — No worries. You are a GREAT thinker and I know when you comment it is going to be something really interesting. I’m glad you took the time to contribute today. Always a highlight.

Other Links to this Post

1. Tweets that mention Twitter irrelevant? No, Advertising Age blew it | {grow} -- Topsy.com — July 28, 2010 @ 2:11 am

2. Tech News » Twitter irrelevant? No, Advertising Age blew it — July 28, 2010 @ 3:42 am

3. Twitter irrelevant? No, Advertising Age blew it | {grow} | Twitter Marketing and Advertising Tools — July 28, 2010 @ 8:06 am

4. Twitter irrelevant? No, Advertising Age blew it – UBERDAILY — July 28, 2010 @ 11:22 am

5. Storytelling Business Social Media Marketing PR & Technology Curated Stories July 28, 2010 — July 28, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

6. Twitter Tips and Resources - Part 27 | Spotlight on Marketing — August 2, 2010 @ 2:46 am

7. Why so much research about Twitter is flat-out wrong — August 21, 2010 @ 11:29 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment