Everyone knows that Twitter is huge. Not a day goes by without another story showing how it saved someone’s life, broke a news story first or has fundamentally changed the way we think – its growth and entry into everyday life could justifiably allow its usage to be called (in technobabble bingo) a ‘paradigm shift’.

The questions I have been debating focus on growth. Specifically:

• Does news fuel growth in Twitter or does uptake fuel news?
• Do analysts (as supposed ‘fortune tellers’) get it right and are they ahead of the curve or mere sheep?
• Why is this important?

To answer these questions, I have looked at my favourite community of analysts. With a little help from Carter Lusher’s analyst twitter directory as well as my own research, it has been possible to monitor the uptake of analysts on Twitter.

One of the fortunate aspects of using analysts as the criteria for this search is that there are very few closed communities that we can easily track growth in – if you know any let me know and I’ll add them to the table.

The graph below shows the growth of analyst participation on twitter, compared to twitter in the news (as shown by Google Trends) and unique visitors to twitter (as shown by Compete).

Does news fuel growth in Twitter or does uptake fuel news?
Not surprisingly the two are well connected – with a clear conclusion that in the early part of this year news significantly drove new visitors to twitter.

Do analysts (as supposed ‘fortune tellers’) get it right and are they ahead of the curve or mere sheep?
Analysts appear to be ahead of the curve. Whereas there is still a clear relationship between their uptake on news/growth they still seem to be slightly in front of the trend.

Why is this important?
It is an analysts job to understand technology trends. Obviously sometimes they get it wrong but if they get it right and predict that we should be using product x as it will be the next big thing – then, I will use it too. Our role as communication professionals is to engage with our key audiences no matter where they have these discussions.

The recommendation I would make is that we continue to monitor what the analysts predict are the major changes in how people use social media. There is a great advantage in being an early adopter of a product – such as being a trusted participant. Whereas we do not have time to try and test every new solution, there is lot to be said by watching analyst behaviour – if they are using a new solution then maybe we should too. Maybe we should be taking Jeremiah’s advice and look to get ahead in the areas of social colonization, context and commerce.

In the AR almanac my peers will no doubt give a hearty thanks to the banking industry for changing the way we work. As budgets are squeezed then discretionary spend (as Mike Cansfield views it), gets cut first. Some execs view that analyst relations falls squarely within this field and as a result we will simply have to do more with less.

This topic (AR in a credit crunch) was the panel item for discussion a yesterday’s IIAR meeting hosted at Edelman. Analysts included Martin Hingley (ex chief research analyst at IDC and now set-up as a sole practitioner), Dale Vile and Jon Collins from Freeform Dynamics and the aforementioned Mike Cansfield.

As a result of the downturn, the analysts argued that they must become more accountable. Dale explained that there has been a trend for companies to use analysts more as a tactical win rather than a strategic one. Whereas previously they may have been asked to provide long term visionary thinking and guidance, nowadays the need for quick, justified ROI on a bespoke project is essential. I’m not too surprised about this as the analysts firms themselves have been calling on vendors to provide clear ROI metrics when selling their solutions. Guess the shoe is on the other foot now?

One of the harsh realities of a recession is that as budgets are cut redundancies become common place. This have effected AR and analysts alike. Both sets of professionals are having to increase their scope of work and prove themselves as indispensible.

For an analyst, this may mean their coverage increases (which you may argue is not such a good thing) and as mentioned before they are having to provide more tangible value. Maybe this is why many people have noticed that they are being proactively offered far more inquiries, advice and support than ever before.

From the AR side, we have found that our skill set is used in transferable ways to target influencers beyond the analyst community (e.g. consultants, associations). What’s more teams are being cut and we are having to look after more analysts with fewer resources. There was wide consensus that when this is done badly EMEA AR is handled by American teams.

The way we interact with analysts has also changed. No longer are we able to fly analysts around the world to hear the latest news and organise 1-2-1’s. Fireside chats, more TC’s and virtual meetings will become the way to go. Whilst we can’t underplay the value of face-to-face meetings in building strong relationships (the ‘R’ in AR), we have to accept that we have to look to alternative methods to keep people informed. There will always be a time when travel is required – the difference is that it will no longer be the norm.

Just as previous recessions have forced companies to change the way they operate, the same will surely be true for AR. I wonder whether people will ever go back to the ‘way it was before’ when they find out they can manage just as well with less. Will firms sign the ‘huge’ contracts with Gartner, IDC, Forrester et al without blinking on a year by year basis or will they simply settle just for one? Will there be an increase in project based work and will analysts be more adept at showing their own ROI?

Perhaps creativity is the answer. There has been moderate success in using analysts in alternative ways – from getting involved in procurement on behalf of a vendor to an increase in ‘open-source analysis’.

One thing to remember is that the recession will not last forever. Jon Collins explained that analysts can no longer go back on the gravy train but in the same way, they need to make sure they know when the recession is over otherwise they will be unnecessarily be eating gruel.

It’s no surprise that Twitter has reached its tipping point when the number of techies and marketing-folk are easily outnumbered by celebrities using the platform. No longer do I have to start a conversation explaining what Twitter is, suffice to say – everyone knows.

It’s common knowledge that the UK’s own laureate Stephen Fry is a great advocate of this medium but who would have realised that Philip Schofield was more influential than Downing Street.

When I published the Social Media Index with David Brain that attempted to rank an individual’s presence across all platforms, we received a huge amount of feedback. A great deal of this focused on the fact that what we were listing was popularity and not what is more important which is influence or engagement. The resulting white paper on distributed influence tried to remedy this by analysing measurement in far greater detail.

Understanding that this is also going to ‘ruffle a few feathers’, I have been helping my colleagues at our consumer arm, JCPR, to apply the principles of SMI to the world of Twitter. The JCPR Twitter Index has been created to list individuals based upon their influence (and not like other tables, their popularity).

Influence can be measured on Twitter using the following formula:

(A full explanation of this is shown in the methodology at the bottom of this post).

What I find truly interesting is how an individual’s ranking is completely changed dependent upon whether we are looking at popularity or influence.

For example: Al Gore is rated as the 23rd in the world based upon the number of followers he has. Honestly though, how influential is he? For a man who has only tweeted 29 times (and not within the past 6 months) – I would say…not at all.

If I was to spend my money trying to get a person to endorse a company I would instead focus on the person who was far more engaged and who other people found interesting. Jonathan Ross in this case would be a great example.

I have listed three tables below, the first of these is the list of top twitters weighted by popularity, the second is by influence and the third by engagement. The full list of top 200 (celebrity) twitters are located at the bottom of this post and on the JCPR site.

Top 20 Twitters Weighted by Popularity, Influence and Engagement

Even though this is a bit of fun, there is a serious side behind it. We are always trying to help our clients understand the influence that certain people have over particular sections of society. Behind all the glitz and glamour that goes with fame, it’s important to understand where real influence lies, which is often very different to mere popularity. The JCPR Twitter Index helps us define that within the hugely dynamic social media space.

Of course, this index has initially been used to score celebs but its methodology can easily be used to look at other segments (from analysts, musicians, politician and brands). I hope to be publishing the analyst version of this very soon.

As a final point, I know that when discussing this people tend to be far more interested in ‘influence’ rather than engagement. My view was nicely echoed by AdAge when commenting on Ashton Kutcher’s use of bill board advertising when trying to win the (in)formal ‘first to 1million followers’ against CNN competition. In this piece they quoted a New York commenter who goes by Stevewax:

Seems to me what’s useful with Twitter is creating a small, two-way community with people who aren’t busy running a Twitter team and who have time to SHARE ideas. Rather than broadcast them.

Just as PR has gone to public engagement, and AR has gone to analyst engagement, it is only natural that I believe that instead of mass-broadcast (shown by popularity) or mass-amplification (shown by influence), I believe that the purest form of interaction is via multiple targeted micro-conversations where people actively engage and interact with the community. This is why when scores are weighted for ‘engagement’ the ‘involvement index’ is given the largest priority. Additional commentary on this to follow in future posts.

Methodology

Following – Twitter lists the number of people each user follows. The tendency for most celebrities is to only follow a few individuals – the more people that someone follows, there is an increased likelihood of them actively participating in conversations with the community instead of simply broadcasting to it. Following ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Followers – Twitter lists the number of followers each user has. Like subscribing to a feed, this is a clear indication of ‘popularity’ as it requires someone to actively request participation. Follower ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 50) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Updates – How often does someone update what they are doing. This number is purely objective as it scores someone highly no matter what the content of their post (i.e. how relevant is it). Nevertheless it is assumed that if someone posts frequently but has poor content then their ‘followers’ will decrease. Update ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Name Pointing – e.g. @name – How many people engage in conversation with a celebrity or point to their name. The clearest way to establish this is to run a search on the number of people who reference @username in a message. This calculation is based upon a one month period combined with a 24 hour period. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.

Retweets – Has a tweet caused sufficient interest that it is worth re-submitting by others? Despite a great deal of ‘noise’ (i.e. posts that are not relevant or interesting), when someone sees something that is of high interest, their post can be re-tweeted. The clearest way to establish this is to run a search on the number of people who reference RT @username in a message. This calculation is based upon a one month period combined with a 24 hour period. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 50) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.

Twitalyzer – “This is a unique (and online) tool to evaluate the activity of any Twitter user and report on relative influence, signal-to-noise ratio, generosity, velocity, clout, and other useful measures of success in social media.” This 3rd party tool is a useful method to combine automated metrics dependent upon criteria within posts and publicly available numbers. Where tools such as this are available, we incorporate them into the algorithm to achieve a more confident score. Twitalyzer gives users scores from 0 to 100. Ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Twitalyzer noise to signal ratio – Signal-to-noise ratio is a measure of the tendency for people to pass information, as opposed to anecdote. Signal can be references to other people (defined by the use of "@" followed by text), links to URLs you can visit (defined by the use of "http://" followed by text), hashtags you can explore and participate with (defined by the use of "#" followed by text), retweets of other people, passing along information (defined by the use of "rt", "r/t/", "retweet" or "via"). If you take the sum of these four elements and divide that by the number of updates published, you get the "signal to noise" ratio. Twitalyzer gives users scores from 0 to 100. Ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Twinfluence Rank – Twinfluence is an automated 3rd party tool that uses APIs to measure influence. For example: “Imagine Twitterer1, who has 10,000 followers – most of which are bots and inactives with no followers of their own. Now imagine Twitterer2, who only has 10 followers – but each of them has 5,000 followers. Who has the most real "influence?" Twitterer2, of course.” As with Twitalyzer, this index uses 3rd party tools to add greater confidence in the overall Twitter score. Similar to the other criteria, ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Twitter Grader – Twitter Grader is the final automated tool to add greater confidence to the final index. This site creates a score by evaluating a twitter profile. Similar to the other criteria, ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Involvement Index – As the only personal subjective measure in the algorithm, opinion points were assigned to each celebrity. People who scored highest in this category had frequent, relevant, high-quality content that actively involved the twitter community (asking questions, posting links or commenting on discussions) and did not purely consist of broadcasting. Ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Velocity Index – As more people engage on Twitter, it may become harder to keep activity going. The velocity index measures changes on a regular basis and assigns a score based on increased or decreased participation. Ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Weighting - Each specific variable listed above was given a standard score out of 10. Using a weighting scale I varied the importance of the each metric to establish an individual’s total score.

Weighted for Popularity – the key variable is the number of people someone has following them. There are many online tools that show this such as Twitterholic.

Weighted for Engagement – the key variables are an individual’s participation with the Twitter community (as measured by the Involvement Index), with additional emphasis on the frequency of people name pointing an individual (via @username), the numbers of followers and the signal to noise ratio. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting.

Weighted for Influence – the key variables in this instance is a combination of the number and authority of someone’s followers together with the frequency of people name pointing an individual (via @username) and the how many times and individuals posts are re-tweeted. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting.

Criteria for inclusion – There are many lists of top celebrities on Twitter – every one of these use ‘popularity’ as its main criteria. Edelman have used all these lists (such as The Times, Celebrity Tweet and Mashable together with selected and ‘interesting’ names from the top 100 from Twitterholic and used its algorithm to establish their influence.

Top 200 (Celebrity) Twitters – Weighted by Influence

As with previous measurement posts I have published, I welcome the community to comment on it and provide your feedback.

To take part in the ‘analyst of the year’ survey – click here

Last year, the IIAR ran a survey to identify who AR practitioners believe should win the award of ‘analyst of the year’ and ‘analyst firm of the year’. I am pleased to say that today, we are now launching the survey once again and hope that you can all take part.

This is your chance to vote for the analyst or firm who you believe deserves more recognition. All too often we only speak about analysts when we want something, but this survey gives you the opportunity to explain what criteria makes an analyst important and who you consider to be world-leaders for their segment.

The previous analyst of the year was Ray Wang, Principal Analyst with Forrester Research, Inc. Respondents praised his insight, depth of industry knowledge, and independent voice. Runners up for the title were David Mitchell of Ovum and James Governor of RedMonk. Ray was also named Analyst of the Year for the Americas, while David Mitchell of Ovum was voted the EMEA Analyst of the Year.

With respect to individual firms, Forrester was highly regarded by respondents in all regions, and was voted the Analyst Firm of the Year. It was commended for the strength of its analyst team, the quality of its client services and its ability to spot new trends. Gartner and IDC came second and third, respectively. Not only did the traditional global analyst firms perform well in the survey, but the smaller, boutique consultancies also scored highly. Freeform Dynamics and MWD came in the top five in EMEA with RedMonk in the top three in the Americas, and a number of other firms also received honourable mentions. Respondents liked their honesty, ability to innovate, the quality of their research and use of new media channels.

To see a copy of last year’s survey results click here for summary post or here for download.

For your benefit I have listed below a brief summary of the methodology used.

Methodology

1) Entrants:

This survey is open to anyone who works in analyst relations in any country, either in-house or at an agency/consultancy. In order for someone’s entry to be valid, you will need to submit your email address and company name to verify you are not an impostor trying to distort the results. (This happened last year from a global firm!!). The personal information will not be distributed or used beyond sending copies of the results to all participant. The survey will be open until the end of May. IP addresses will be taken to ensure that someone does not vote twice.

2) Questions:

The survey specifically focuses on an individual’s perception of the analyst world in 2008. Respondents are able to select from a pre-populated list of 501 firms which company they believe are the most important and relevant for a list of multiple segment areas.

3) Segmentation:

Respondents are able to specify their submissions based upon geography (US, EMEA, AsiaPac, Global), segment (Hardware, Software, Services, Communications and Networking, Green IT/Sustainability, Developer/IT Department) and customer-base (Enterprise, SMB and Consumer). Based upon these criteria further analysis could be made of the results to identify specific regional or segment champions.

If you have any questions or comments about this survey please contact either myself or Hannah Kirkman.

To take part in the ‘analyst of the year’ survey – click here

My colleagues at the IIAR have produced a fantastic white paper sharing a best practice technique to ensure that your company is positioned fairly. Whereas, this isn’t the debate for whether the MQ is fair (heck even Gideon Gartner believes that  if he had his chance again, he would have made it a spider diagram!) there is ample opportunity to learn tips and techniques regarding how to do the job better.

What cannot be underestimated is the value that these little group of boxes have on procurement. I have heard many times companies state (much to the annoyance no-doubt of Forrester, IDC etc) that they will only select vendors who are in the top right hand quadrant of their respective MQ.

What this means is that getting the MQ process right takes you half way there to getting placed perfectly. Ed Gyurko explained in the recent IIAR meeting that if you follow this process, there should be no surprises regarding where a firm is positioned upon publication.

I agree and disagree.

My view is that when the MQ is published, there should be no surprises regarding where your firm is positioned relative to the competition. In my opinion too much time is spent focussing on where ‘we should be placed’. However, by taking into consideration the additional factor of positioning yourselves relative to the competition a company can make huge grounds in understanding relative merits (which can then be proactively countered).

The IIAR through Ed have created some fantastic IP which is available to all members. If you want to join, please let me or Hannah Kirkman know.

I’d like to highlight a presentation I have seen on social media – what makes this one different is that it avoids the normal clutter and makes a coherent discussion about what is important, how to do things right and how the web is evolving.

Even though there are several Edelman clients listed in here (disclosure) – this slide deck is pretty good if you need to explain to anyone best practice.

What I particularly like though, is that it attempts to explain ‘measurement’. Any regular reader of my blog will know that this is a focus-area of mine that I feel is critical to any implementation. We do not live in a ‘field of dreams’ world where simply creating content is enough to deliver success. More importantly (and especitally from a marketing POV), we need to be able to show how this process is a valauable use of (increasingly limited resources).

You can imagine the marketing team at NASA sitting round a table thinking how can we get more people involved and excited about space (aside: anyone remember similar plot in the Simpsons). Either way, this creative bunch decided, ‘what better way than to ask the crowd what shall we name our new room in the space station?’

Genius.

…or so they thought.

What should have turned into a considered and thought provoking discussion with possibilities suggested by NASA including Serenity, Legacy and Venture turned into little more than a farce.

What happened was that comedian Stephen Colbert persuaded 230,539 of his Colbert Report viewers to vote instead on his last name. The result, he easily defeated the next closest contender by 40,000 votes. Nearly 1.2 million votes were cast overall.

What should NASA do now, overrule the crowd and pick their own name (which could cause more resentment) or stick with it? It’s a tough call… but not one that is unique.

I remember several years ago when Manchester City football club asked the crowd to help them name their new stand – there was a list of choices for people to pick. What they didn’t anticipate was that the vote would be hijacked by their main rivals (Manchester United) with disastrous and comedic results. In case you were wondering the new stand is called the Bell End (after Colin Bell).

What is the learning from this?

Never trust the crowd hasn’t got a sick sense of humour?

Or – be weary about what you ask, ask you may have to live the consequences.

Disclaimer: Edelman run the PR for Manchester City)
Disclaimer 2: I support Manchester United but have not been asked to work on the MCFC account.

I think that the Darwin awards needs to have a new classification under the 2.0 category.

Top of this list today would be @theconner on Twitter who made this ridiculous post:

Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.

For some strange reason some people really believe that the things they tweet are private. (I am not talking about the very few people who turn on privacy settings in Twitter).

Either way, as a result of this clever Tweet, the ‘community’ rallied against poor theconner and said:

timmylevad: @theconnor Who is the hiring manager. I’m sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the web.

eweek points out “that "theconnor," who has since made private settings (with an ironic image that appears to have something stuffed in its mouth), is being wryly referred to as "cisco fatty" now. Not only has this response garnered a whole lot of attention from members of Twitter who are ridiculing the heck out of this person, it’s also spawned a Website ciscofatty.com.”

This post isn’t here to poke fun at theconner but merely to emphasise the view that what is published on Twitter is open to Google Alerts, searching and remains forever. Be careful, considerate and authentic with everything that is written.

Thanks to Graeme Thickins for pointing this story out on Twitter

This post was originally published on the Edelman ‘how to kill a pheasant’ ning.

I shouldn’t have to start a post with an explanation, but I feel in this instance, it is due.

Firstly, I am not a Jade Goody – the reality TV star fan. I don’t even like Big Brother or any of the drivel that fills our tele screens on a daily basis.

What I do find interesting though is cause and effect. With the relentless media coverage that Jade’s cancer has achieved, many people have questioned her motivation, dignity and ethics over her approach to dealing with her own crisis. I am not here to judge (well maybe a little bit) but when I hear people saying that cancer is a private thing and that she should not be sharing her death with the nation I think people have failed to recognise the (unintended) result.

When initially queried as to why she was spending her dying days in the media spotlight, she emphasised that this was because she wanted to raise enough money for her sons while she still can. Good for her, but this is not the point I am trying to raise.

Jade Goody has never admitted to being the sharpest knife in the drawer and yet she has created a legacy that has become far bigger than she could have guessed. The media diary of her decline in health has tactfully made the younger generation more aware of death than they ever normally would (luckily). The fortunate fact of the matter is that people do not consider death at such a young age, many people will not have come face-to-face with it and hopefully will not for some time to come. And yet, here they are being told about how fragile life is on a daily basis through all kinds of media channels.

Which brings me back to her legacy.

There has been a 25% increase in the number of women having smear tests in the past few months, Max Clifford today is handing a petition to 10 Downing Street asking them to reduce the age restriction on tests from 25 to 20. This is Jade’s legacy – someone who through tragedy has saved lives.

Of course, none of this could ever have happened with the change in media consumption that we ‘enjoy’ nowadays. I am not a Jade Goody fan but I find it compelling and fascinating how an unintended benefit has fallen on the nation from someone who, let’s face it, has often been mocked.

It seems that my long absence from the mighty social media world has come to an end. The change – a new motivation. A few of us at Edelman are creating ‘something’ under the banner of ‘how to kill a pheasant in the digital age’ – think of it as an almanac of thoughts from some of the wizards in my team. As to my take on what this weird (and wonderful title means, read on…

Surprisingly this is more difficult than it sounds – after all, “you can’t kill a pheasant too dead”. However, in the digital age, the answers are literally at the tips of your fingers.

Whereas historically, such a question might be left unanswered, today a quick search in Google and you’re sorted. Or are you?

There is a balancing act to play between ease of search and trust. Just because it is written – is it accurate, fair and representative? In the current environment, everyone can be a publisher – no longer the domain of the geeks, technology has enabled users to share their thoughts, experiences and opinions in a vast array of multimedia channels such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube etc.

In addition, newspapers, no longer the source of scoops, have become more of a ‘viewspaper’; Internet blogs in search of the latest meme are changing the rules about embargo whilst citizen journalism has given everyone the right to take part in the conversation.

Meanwhile, algorithms are utilised to identify tastes (such as Genius, LastFm and Amazon) and are used to recommend products and services we were previously unaware of. Surely this is progress?

The combination of ease of search together with the proliferation of information has made it incredibly simple to find what you believe you are looking for. After all, when Time, momentously called the person of the year – ‘you’, they believed that everyone’s contribution to worldly knowledge in a way previously unavailable would be life changing.

And yet, the question of trust still remains. I am far more likely to believe what I read from certain sources over others. These influencers are the crux of the digital age and are the raison d’être to my pay packet. Taking the pheasant analogy further, who would you trust for a first class recipe for pheasant soup: the blog that is listed at the top of a Google search, a Wikipedia entry or a Delia Smith recipe? Of course the answer is subjective but I would argue that a search result can be manipulated by SEO and clever key words, Wikipedia is notorious for its anonymous-editing abilities whereas Delia (and bless her let’s be having you prose) is someone who is trusted – I would opt for her.

Time is a limiting factor. Agencies simply do not have resources to have conversations with every twitterer and Joe Blog out there. We must prioritise our scarce time to focus on the people that matter, the people who are trusted, the people who are influential.

So even though it my easy to find to find a way to kill a pheasant using a quick search in Google, you’ll probably find me referring to Delia for ways to how to cook it.

Note – this article and all posts that reference pheasant killing are in now way promoting the hunting of birds, or any animal for that matter .
More important note – this post was originally published on Ning and may in turn creep up in other places too.
Final note – sill still be focussing on the AR world too