I am not entirely clear what kind of actual evidence Anthony Hilton is basing his views on, but he may be on to something ('Anthony Hilton: Is social media tracking worth it?', prweek.com/uk, 20 October).
I have always had a hunch that something on broadcast media packs more punch than print, but it is only a hunch. Have the media monitoring fraternity got views - and maybe a whole new revenue stream - on which media are 'best remembered'?
- Relying on web users to forget is a bad strategy
The question for me is how far does a company want to trust its reputation management to internet users' collective amnesia?
A negative discussion about a company does not need to involve millions of people on Twitter to leave a digital footprint. Effective corporate communicators would not think twice about leaving accusations in a mainstream media report unchallenged or responded to with regret if the company has messed up. Trusting web users to just forget what they heard is not a strategy I would trust to salvage corporate reputation.
- Too many variables to judge SM tracking
Is social media tracking worth it? There are so many variables to consider before anyone can make an informed decision.
Someone once described SM tracking as free, unpolluted market research. On that evidence alone, if people are talking about you, there is a strong case for listening and analysing. Then you will know whether it is mostly incoherent 'nutters down the pub' to be safely ignored or people of real influence ...
Andy M Turner.