As much as i can gather, it's quite like hiring a spy to lurk around forums and social networks and identifying potential attacks to brands by users or highlighting certain key assessments that is sussed out from peer to peer conversations. In order to do this, they have a mix of technology and people who act as social media consultants who then help evaluate and report their findings.
What do you think? First off, let's agree that eavesdropping is not a form of communication. Assuming you wanted to know more about what people thought about your brand, or to get relevant feedback and allow ranting to happen, wouldn't the logical option be to get involved in these communities personally? I have spoken before that the 1st step to building a connection with your onground community is to establish trust and to get involved. A 2 way process is critical to really understanding what people are saying. And since it's impossible to teleport yourself to every single touchpoint, the next logical step would be to create a productive condusive environment for this to happen. Look at starbucks with their superb talkback site, or Dell whom has a home for innovation to happen .
Most people complain because they want to be heard, if these people knew their complaints were being heard by the company whom is interested to know and resolve these issues. It makes sense that those complaints would be aired in this controlled setting.
Without knowing too much about Brandtology's measuring methodologies, i can't say too much about if their qualitative and quantitative indexes are worth their weight in salt. But i can say that employing people as 1st or 2nd level evaluation fences smells pretty funky. I mean , where's the yardstick if you take into account human bias, past experiences, tolerance levels, different intepretations etc etc. These all contribute to various opinions based on various personal experiences and i'm not sure thats a good standard measure tool to gauge brand influence or reputation.
On the positives, i actually think the service has a market and a demand. Most companies are scared to death of social media because of the openess and transparency the web brings to the table. Sending out spies is probably a safeguard so they can prevent any PR disasters. But here's my takeaway point, you reap what you sow. The web is a double edged sword but any company can turn it into a powerful tool to build engagement and really use conversations as a starting point to improve and grow.
Let's look at the US, negating potential threats with offensive stealth and strategic measures didn't really help the republicans much did they? What's Barack Obama's stand on potential conflict resolution. In Iran's case,“economic engagement” and “security assurances" are tactics Obama wants to employ. In a nutshell, communicate.
There are better ways to prevent a PR disaster than employing some branding police to do your dirty work for you. Here's a tip, put on your gloves and start opening up those channels.
