Jed Hallam

<div style="background-color: none transparent;"><a href="http://www.rsspump.com/?web_widget/rss_widget/twitter_widget" title="web widget">Twitter Widget</a></div>

Web Measurement

OK, so everyone thinks that they’ve nailed the art of measuring emerging media. No one has. And personally, I don’t think that anyone ever will.

If I suggested you read the Hunter S. Thompson biography written by Johnny Depp, and we’re pretty good friends, would you calculate how likely that is to happen on a scale of one to ten? No, you wouldn’t. And if you don’t know how much I influence you, how is someone who doesn’t know you supposed to decide how much you’re influenced by, or influence, other people. Exactly.

So, on that note (drum roll please and please place your tongue firmly within your cheek), I present to you my new way of measurement. This does not take into account influence, nor does it indicate popularity or expertise. This highlights how involved someone is within their community – it is then down to the reader to decide how influential, popular and savvy that individual is. And it’s my way.

The basic premise is simple; the closer you are to the centre, the more established you are within that sphere.

Centre Web
Stuart Bruce, Stephen Davies, David Brain and Stephen Waddington.Level One
Neville Hobson, Drew Benvie, Ged Carroll, Simon Collister, Joel Cere, Colin Byrne, Jonathan Hopkins, David Cushman, Chris Applegate and Brendan Cooper.

Level Two
Chris Norton, Jaz Cummins, Becky McMichael, Matthew Watson, Richard Bailey, Sherrilynne Starkie, Chris Lee, Ben Matthews, Paul Stallard, Jonny Rosemont, Michael Litman and Melanie Seasons.

Etc…

Spider Web

Let me explain the theory. The social sphere of, say, PR bloggers is just that, a sphere. It cannot be defined by a traditional list, because online isn’t a traditional medium. I think the best way to display how the echochamber operates is to use a spiderweb system. So, the people at the centre of the web are usually the most established in the echochamber, and those at the outer layers are either new to the sphere or cross over from another echochamber.

So the people at the centre of the UK PR bloggers web are likely to be Stuart Bruce and Stephen Davies. Then, as you can see, as the web expands the numbers of people on each layer increases, this serves a purpose (see, it’s really clever)… I believe that it’s no longer possible (and will become increasingly more difficult) to identify one blogger over the other – and it rarely matters anyway, if blogger A and blogger B have a similar level of presence, why should one be adjudged above the other based on metrics that are likely to be unimportant to the majority of readers and bloggers?

This measure can then be expanded upon greatly by adding in other spheres;

Geographical Sector Specific
Spider WeFull b Spider WeFull bIndustry

This diagram has been heavily influenced by Dom Whitehurst and the only reason I have chosen to do it again is because he liked my last effort ever so much.

This is a rather link baiting post, but I don’t usually do it and I don’t plan on doing it in the future. I’d like the opinion of all of the people that I linked to and bar emailing them all, this is the only way to make them aware of my post. And most of the people that I have linked to are my friends. Except Chris Norton (!).

(With acknowledgement to Jacorre design studio for providing the original picture that I drew my web from.)

  • Level two? LEVEL TWO? bloody cheek ;)
  • Hi Stephen, tnx for the shout out to. :)

    I saw your picture and I realized that resemble, more or less, with Victory Avenue from Bucharest, Romania, 1920.


    This comment was originally posted on Wadds' tech pr blog

  • As you say the art of measuring emerging media is a difficult one, but I think your work here is very interesting and something that I will look at in greater detail over the coming weeks. Good to see this post listed in PR Week as well.
  • Cheers Wadds.


    This comment was originally posted on Wadds' tech pr blog

  • Ah bless Stephen are you feeling left out ;-) Sorry mate. I’ll give you a hug and buy you breakie on Fri.


    This comment was originally posted on Wadds' tech pr blog

  • Interesting co-incidence with my attempts to think through how a google adsense model may calculate the value of your mentions in conversational marketing.
    Will link back to this piece. dc
  • Well, according to Twitter Friends – http://twitter-friends.com/index.php – I @reply you more than I do to anybody else. So there! ;-)


    This comment was originally posted on Wadds' tech pr blog

  • Hi Steven, thanks for the shout out from everyone at Metrica’s Measurement Matters.


    It’s always a pleasure to read and link to your blog, and Earlin’ Abuse too for that matter.


    We’d send you guys a postcard of Metrica’s ‘hood on the South Bank in Southwark from bygone years in return, but our Media Analysis Director Paul has researched the history of the area and it seems that it used to be one that was frequented by debtors, prisoners, clergymen, merchant seamen and ladies of the night. Not quite the pretty shop fronts of Oxford Street… :-)


    This comment was originally posted on Wadds' tech pr blog

  • influence is a word that's definitely banded around far too much in the industry at the moment, and as far as I can see, it's only going to be detremental to evolving a pr and marketing arena that clinets trust, if start-up social media oriented companies keep shouting about 'getting influencers on board' and such. Maybe 2 years ago, but not now, you know, influence is entirely subjected.

    I believe people can have 'reach' online, and a selection of metrics can be utilized to help show a client why they should be talking with a select group of people, because they have reach into their online world. But to suggest you can directuly calculate a persons 'influence' is madness, and if it keeps happening will blow up in all of our faces eventually.

    @mat i like the ideas you've put up there
  • Like the idea. We've been working on network influence metrics at Porter Novelli for a while -- the three that we're beginning to get together on are:

    1) Authority ("degree centrality" or "eigenvector centrality" -- both on Wikipedia): a measurement of how many people (and who) link to a source.

    2) Popularity: how many people read a given source (these numbers are almost impossible to get hold of without asking for them

    3) Betweenness: does the source form a bridge between two groups that would otherwise not know what the other was up to?


    For 1 and 3 we have a number of tools (including Technorati) -- but the one that we work with most often is Rufus -- which we've been developing for a while now.

    The other metrics we look at are Recency, Frequency, and Tenure.

    None of these metrics (yet) replaces a combination of desk research and interviews if we're trying to assess sources in a new environment, and none of them replaces regular reading as a way of keeping abreast.

    But they can help us justify our findings. Then we can plot them on the web =)
  • A surrogate measure may be akin to Page Rank: ratio of inbound links versus outbound links. Those that are more influential are likely to drive agendas and consequently be referenced. So this 'page rank' would relate to the radius of the sphere you describe.

    But all this is conjecture, so keep the tongue firmly planted in your cheek.
blog comments powered by Disqus