Turns Out, People _Do_ Want More than Social Media Measurement and Rollercoasters

On April 17th, I asked "What More Do You Want?" Well, it turns out, some people want a lot more. Check this post for some serious criticism of Shel's interview with Kami Huyse. And a few fireworks in the comments, as well.

We're all for doing proper research (anyone who reads The Measurement Standard knows we criticize a lot of it), and the post makes some good points. But the video was made in the spirit of "Isn't this cool, let's do a fun interview about it!" And the research was presented with a similar attitude of "Wow, we showed that social media can sell rollercoaster tickets!" Yeah, so, maybe the research isn't as airtight as it could be. Is that reason to go all ballistic? --Bill Paarlberg

Comments

[Drama 2.0]

Bill: since when is presenting a reasoned critique going ballistic? There's nothing in my post that is angry or insulting unless you consider "logic" to be angry and insulting.

Global Neighbourhoods TV, which is operated by FastCompany, purports to be a legitimate attempt to report on issues related to social media and thus it should be scrutinized as such. Portraying Shel's interview as a personal, noncommercial attempt to do something "fun" is disingenuous and that's what it appears you're trying to do.

The entire point of my post was to question whether anybody "showed that social media can sell rollercoaster tickets" in the volume claimed.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you make claims, expect people to analyze them critically. If you don't want people to evaluate your claims using rational thought, don't make claims.

When you make specific claims about results and they are questioned on the grounds that the numbers simply don't make sense you can't turn around and say, "Well we made those claims in the spirit of fun!"

I'm pleased that Kami Huyse has been willing to engage in a "conversation" about the points I've made but simply engaging in a "conversation" doesn't eliminate the fact that I've yet to see the logical flaws in her claims resolved.

[Bill Paarlberg]

Nice to hear from you, Drama 2.0. First a few problems with your comment:

--Please note that I did not refer to your post as "angry" or "insulting." I did refer to it as going "all ballistic," because you made a remarkably demanding and detailed critique of some research that was presented in a lighthearted and not-quite-ready-for-peer-review manner. You made some good points, I just wonder if maybe you hammered a little harder than necessary.

--And no, I am not trying to portray Shel's videos as "personal" or "noncommercial." I know he is doing a series of rough and ready interviews, but I don't really know enough about his business or motives to be "disingenuous" about them, as you claim. I agree with your point that a legitimate interview should contain legitimate content. Still, the rollercoaster ride interview was obviously not intended to be "60 Minutes." It was a lighthearted and, yes, fun way to summarize some research.

--And note that I said "a fun interview" in my post and did not, as you suggest, imply that "a spirit of fun" excuses misrepresented research. It doesn't. However, I do know that it is a relatively rare and wonderful thing in PR to be able to firmly connect any media outputs (social or otherwise) to sales. And so it is easy to understand how any researchers could get very excited over such results. Excited enough to perhaps be a little more exhuberant than accurate when on camera. No, it doesn't excuse misrepresentation, but it makes inaccuracy more understandable.

And now on to the points that we agree on...

I very much support, your point that research results ought to be analyzed critically and logically. And I'm glad you made the (considerable) effort with the rollercoaster results. Actually, I'm pleased when _any_ public relations measurement or research is carefully critiqued and held to high standards. It doesn't happen often enough by half.

It is a _very_ important question as to how many tickets social media can sell. _The_ question, really. (Which is your point, I think.) It will be interesting to see how your critique affects the final write up of the research. Much for the better, I imagine.

The point of my post was not to defend the research, but to wonder at how vigorous your critique of it was. I see a lot of research papers and they far too rarely get the benefit of a thoroughly rigorous and skeptical review. Yet here's a quick video interview and you are all over it.

Personally, I notice the social media honeymoon is just about finished, and a lot of people are noticing that the emperor doesn't have such nice clothes on after all. I wonder how it will play out? Maybe some heads roll? -- Bill Paarlberg