Analytics Is King

Searching for the "Perfect" Monitoring or Measurement Solution? Stop Looking!

15 Feb 2011
2 Responses
views
Listening Todd Defren kasey skala social media listening social media measurement social media monitoring

For all of the good information that is shared online there is just as much that could be (generously) considered questionable. Two of the areas where you see the most misinformation is in monitoring and measurement. Why? Frankly, some of the blame has to be at the feet of the challenges we've faced in traditional communications. We've had a hard time truly grasping the utility of monitoring beyond a reputation management function for years. Similarly, traditional communications measurement has been butchered seven ways to Sunday despite the great work of Katie Paine (and others) to educate everyone. For the record, I refuse to blame that butchering on communications professionals not liking math. That feels like a thoroughly uneducated answer to me. There are a lot of other factors there that we'll explore some other time, but for the purposes of this post know that measurement (well beyond social) is being butchered. Yesterday, Todd Defren wrote a great post about PR measurement failures. The trouble as he points out there is that we have widespread acceptance of formulas and concepts that really don't mean a heck of a lot. The scenario as he painted it was: “Say the client spends $100,000 on PR, in one year. For the sake of argument, let’s say PR is the biggest (or only) marketing vehicle. In that one year time period, the client gets 1M website impressions. Could you not divide 1M impressions by $100K and claim PR is driving leads to the website at a rate of 10–cents per impression?” Wow. Interesting, eh? You can check out the comments for all of the rebuttals (including my own). Here is the hard and fast truth... While we have generally accepted best practices for measurement none of them are without fault. My suggestion to Todd in that post was to come up with an index model that takes into account several different metrics. I'd consider that best practice, but I'll admit there's no direct ROI tie there. While there could easily be a connection made to brand reputation, the metrics are soft(er). Don't get me wrong, we should be searching for the harder metrics/calculations/formulas, etc... However, I'd much rather move the debate toward coming up with a generally accepted framework rather than the Bataan Death March approach we take toward ROI. It wont be perfect, but at least it would be generally accepted. Monitoring, unfortunately, happens to be in the same boat. Upfront, I think it's important we clear up one small misconception: monitoring is NOT measurement. Monitoring helps to inform measurement, but the two terms do not mean the same thing. Now that this is out of the way, when you're going through the process of picking a monitoring provider you need to know that no tool offers 100% capture. No tool is going to offer you 100% technological stability. There will be bugs, and there will be conversations that the systems do not capture. What should you look for?

The tool has the ability to adapt - By adapting I mean if you find a source that the tool is not capturing can you send them that source and they can modify the "net" to begin capturing it. If the answer is no, then it is time to look for a different solution.
The vendor is adding sites on their own - Obviously, the onus shouldn't be on you to identify new sources for them. They should be taking it upon themselves to advancing the "net" to capture as many sites as possible.
Consistency - No matter how diligent you/they at updating their platform, there will be sites that are missed. Just accept it. The worst case scenario, though, is for a certain set of sites to be missed this week and then next week a whole different list is missed. If we're going to have a gap, we should know that the gap is going to be consistent so that we can potentially identify other tools that could help.

With respect to Lexus, the pursuit of perfection in measurement and monitoring is silly. We should be pursuing what makes the most sense for our clients and our organizations. If the metrics fit the goals of the campaign and is generally accepted by those constituencies, then use that methodology. End of story. What has worked for you in the past? By the way, thanks to Kasey Skala for inspiring this post.

Six Steps to Better Social Media Listening

8 Feb 2011
6 Responses
views
Listening ken burbary social media listening

Listening to conversations online is a critical component of social media programs. Every post that talks about getting started in social media talks about the importance of listening. It's becoming one of those set in stone principles of social media, and is almost never disputed. What we are spending more of our time on now is how do companies do listening more effectively. Truth be told most companies are doing it pretty well, but aren't really maximizing it to its true benefit. This isn't anything like monitoring traditional communications outlets, and it certainly has greater application than just within the marketing function of organizations. We can use listening for PR, marketing, strategic planning, product development, customer service, investor relations, etc... The possibilities are literally endless. Lets take a step back for a second and consider how companies typically get started listening to online conversations. Around the same time they understand the need/want to do social they also realize they need to pick a monitoring (the word makes me cringe) provider to help them understand the current social media ecosystem about their brand and topic areas of interest. They go through a process of looking at a kagillion (that's not a real number) different providers and come out the other side either more confused than ever or with a clear direction on which of the twenty kagillion (also not a real world) providers is best for them (if you need a great resource on listening providers, be sure to check out this wiki from Ken Burbary). Setting aside for a minute whether I think conducting this level of due diligence is needed, and I don't, what you should realize is that many of this providers have VERY similar platforms. If you don't notice it after looking at about five of them you aren't really paying attention. You can probably tell by the tone of this section of the post that I'm not a fan of this approach. So, how do you actually get started listening to social media conversations? Nothing is easy in this space (if someone says it is I'd like to know their secret sauce), but I think there are six basic steps to get the ball rolling in the right direction: 1. Identify your goals. Like measuring social media, it is important for you to outline the goals for listening. This is not traditional media monitoring where your solution was tended to every other day. It is important to think critically about what you are going to use the data to accomplish. 2. Decide on your listening provider. There are quite a few social media listening solutions available on the marketplace. Conduct due diligence on at least five of them before selecting your partner. 3. Decide on your listening team. Listening is a job that requires more than one person to manage. Your listening team should be cross-functional, but largely housed within marketing or public relations. 4. Undergo training for personnel. Many social media listening tools are highly complicated to get setup the first time. If there is training courses offered by the provider, make sure members of your team participate. Also, look for opportunities to train other members of the organization on how to analyze the data. 5. Identifying the metrics you want to listen for. Most monitoring solutions offer several different kinds of metrics that you can analyze. Don't fall into the trap of trying to look at every possible metric they provide. Pick the ones that fit your goals and analyze those. 6. Building your listening platform. When you are building your listening platform you must understand that it will take time. You will need to change your existing keywords. You'll need to add keywords. Whatever the case may be, the best listening platforms are those that are constantly evolving. For those of you that have experience building listening platforms for companies or clients, what have you found is the best approach for getting started?

Five Ways to Make Your Listening Reports Better

12 Dec 2010
5 Responses
views
Listening radian6 social media listening social media monitoring

Well, this has certainly been quite a week hasn't it? Everything from tough family news, to reading about (and then apparently creating) drama in the social media world. Well I hate to disappoint you, but this post will hopefully bring back some sense of normalcy to this blog. That said, the interwebs have proven us all wrong before! Anyway, I was having a discussion with a few colleagues at WCG about how I conceptualize listening reports for clients. Occasionally I have the opportunity to dig into an actual report for clients these days, but more of my focus now is on teaching and guiding. It's honestly a blast watching people who aren't necessarily of an analytics mindset dig into the data and find the big insight. That's what makes this job fun. So, after the session was over I had a thought: Couldn't the rest of the people working in this space use some of these ideas? Nothing I'm sharing here could be considered trade secrets. They are just a lot of common sense things I've learned while building reports for clients. Here are a few ideas for you as you embark down the listening path:

At this point, almost everybody is using one of the listening or monitoring solutions on the market. If you aren't, wake up! Seriously, it can be pieced together using Google but you're just making your life a lot harder than it needs to be. Anyway, for all of the love I give to Radian6 I actually find their use to be somewhat limited. That's not a slam, by the way. The best use of the platform is in a data capture capacity. Yes, the dashboard that's presented to you is nice and easy to digest for the executive audience. However, I find it much easier to put together a presentation (or report) when all of my data is together in a singular spreadsheet.
That dovetails nicely into the second point: Tell a story with your listening reports. This is no different then if you are giving a presentation at a conference. Each subsequent slide should be building off of the one previously presented until you've told a coherent story, or made a strong argument. Far too often we get stuck developing reports that are overly "templatized." If you've downloaded the data into one spreadsheet and you're realizing that it's telling you something different then what your template would allow, then go ahead and change it up.
Do some basic online research. This is less of a problem for the brand folks out there. In theory, you know your "product" very well and don't need to spend time as much time reading online. However, for the agency folks who tend to spend only a certain amount of time on a brand reading online conversations before you start listening is critical. Spend some time doing a Google Blog and Group search. What are people talking about there? Spend some time reading about the topic area. What are some of the conversation themes you are noticing? Similarly, play around with the topic area/brand name in Google Adwords. What kind of search volume are you seeing? Are like search terms relevant to the scan you've done of online conversations? Who is likely to be doing a lot of the talking? Men or women? These are just some basic questions, but you'd be surprised how much they'll help you as you start building your deck/report.
Start building the deck backwards. I know that sounds silly, but hear me out for a second. The quickest way toward boring your audience with listening reports is by creating the deck from slide 1 to slide 10-15 (by the way, that's all that should be there unless there's something totally wild going on with conversations). I'd much rather you spend time analyzing your data, coming up with a set of key insights/recommendations and then building the deck from the back. It's not necessarily something that's intuitive for us, but try it sometime. You'll see just how valuable the final report will be. If you need to outline the entire deck to be able to do this, then so be it. Do what you need to do.
Finally, and most importantly, form a hypothesis. No, this isn't high school science class all over again. You aren't going to be asked to regurgitate scientific method for a final exam. However, now that you've done your online research (pre- building your listening profile) you will no doubt have an opinion of the types of conversations you are going to see. Are you going to see a lot of forum conversation? Are a handful of sites coming up and over-and-over? Is one demographic doing a lot of the talking? Is there no conversation volume about your brand at all? Based on your preliminary research, you'll know what to expect when you dig into your actual Radian6 (or other providers) profile. With that hypothesis in mind (and maybe an outline if you need it), you'll be able to create a deck that not only tells a coherent story, but is also laced with actionable insights.

These are just some of the things that have helped me. When you've done listening reports for your brand/client, what's worked for you? **By the way, thanks to my colleague Alexis Bizares for pushing me as hard as she does to have these kinds of conversations with other people we work with. It helps crystallize my own thoughts that I then get to share elsewhere. Thanks, Abiz!**

Social Media Monitoring is Not a Replacement for Focus Groups

1 Dec 2010
2 Responses
views
Ad Age Listening The BeanCast focus groups social media monitoring

Last night I had a freak break in the schedule and decided to catch up on podcasts. One of my favorite podcasts is The BeanCast. Always great guests, and Bob does a fantastic job hosting the show. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago he had Wendi Cooper, Gini Dietrich, Steve Hall and John Wall on the show discussing, among other things, the case for live focus groups. The impetus for that discussion came from a Pete Blackshaw article in Ad Age urging marketers to not discount the value of focus groups. I actually agree with Pete, and the folks who participated in Bob's podcast, in that social media monitoring should not replace focus groups. I'm not sure who's advocating that approach, but if they are your agency you should consider finding some new help. Are there problems with focus groups? Yes. They aren't efficient, they are easy to manipulate and are overly structured. Yes, we have access to loads of data via the social Web through listening efforts that we would never have access to through focus group activities. However, as Pete noted, monitoring social is never a replacement for actually talking to people about your product. There are a lot of insights you can glean from monitoring human behavior in the flesh that you could never glean from reading the two dimensional written word. I've rambled on enough about the importance of coming up with a four pronged research strategy so I won't bore you with another one of those posts. The reality is we should be thinking about research from a Web, search, social and consumer insights (which would include focus groups) perspective. Bringing those four categories together leads to the best insights. Trust me, it's true. In actuality social media monitoring and focus groups share similar challenges. Those include.....

Scaling issues - One of the bigger criticisms of focus groups is that they aren't efficient. We're spending our time talking to a small group of people instead of blanketing the universe with a survey that can glean insights from thousands. That's overly simplistic, but I think you get the idea. Guess what? The same issues of scale could be said for social media monitoring. Some brands have successfully scaled it across a large enterprise, but most haven't. Most are still dependent on outside resources to help them manage conversation flow, derive insights and make recommendations. Not every brand has the internal resources to handle monitoring thousands of conversations on a weekly/monthly basis.
Interviewer bias vs. monitoring bias - The other big criticism of focus groups is that the responses derived from the group are often biased by the interviewer. Whenever you introduce a human into any kind of research you'll be running the risk of bias. It's part of the price of doing (research) business. That includes monitoring as well. There's likely to be different approaches for interpreting listening data, just like there is for focus group or survey data.
Difficulty in understanding intent - I was trying to come up with a more interesting way of saying that, but intent is a difficult thing to determine offline or on. When I'm monitoring social media conversations for clients I generally have no idea whether they actually feel that way, or are just trying to stir up trouble. Same thing with focus group persona's. Some people try to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, while others are there trying to provide genuine feedback for the brand. Our assumption must be (until we have data to support an alternate POV) that the content is genuine otherwise the research process breaks down.

No research solution is 100% perfect, which is why I'd never advocate to a client that they use focus groups over social media monitoring. Or even social media monitoring over focus groups. It's when you've come up with a coherent research agenda that everybody wins. Your thoughts?

How much is too much reporting on listening findings?

Next to why the sky is blue, or why the grass is green, this is easily the most frequent question I receive when I'm speaking with colleagues or a group. The answer? No clue. Unnerving right? The reality is that I actually do not know what the line is between too much reporting and not enough. The true answer is that it probably depends on a lot of different factors. This post is (kind of) coming on the heels of the post a few days ago about too much data. It just so happens that having an abundance of data without a clear reporting plan also makes as little sense as having a lot of data without actionable insights. Instead of telling you which model I think works best, I'd rather just outline some that I've seen work well and let you decide which one works best for your organization.

Bi-weekly - If I were to suggest a preference of one model over another, it would be for at least bi-weekly reporting. I am, and have always been, of the opinion that without the element of timeliness data is just interesting information that you can use at a cocktail party or in a riveting game of Trivial Pursuit. However, to embrace bi-weekly reporting, you need to be seeing a large volume of conversations about your brand. If you are currently listening, and only see a few hundred posts every two weeks then it becomes very difficult to report on results every 14 days. The brands I've seen adopt bi-weekly reporting with low volume, also tend to derive weaker actionable insights. What's the right amount of volume? Without seeing the listening data I'd have no way to answer that other than to say you'll know as you are starting the process.
Monthly - Probably the likeliest scenario for most brands. Most brands do not receive the monthly conversation flow of a Dell, or Ford or even Wal-Mart. To report every two weeks wouldn't deliver the same kind of value, but to extend beyond a month would render most of the data meaningless. Monthly reports provide an extra layer of detail, inherently, because there's more data to work with. You somewhat lose the aspect of timeliness, but if your listening program is aligned with your market research efforts then monthly reporting tends to be a great approach. If those monthly reports are produced in a vacuum, however, there is likely to be lesser value placed on the findings because the brand manager is going to assume that there's little he/she can act on in the report.
Quarterly - This is the other most popular model that I see, and one I'm not a fan of to be totally candid. Yes, there are some brands where the volume doesn't warrant a bi-weekly or even monthly report, but waiting three months to see results renders the findings almost meaningless. The fast paced nature of the Web makes waiting two weeks almost too long. Your community's behaviors/conversation themes are likely to change often during a three month window. How are you supposed to accurately report out on online behaviors if in the report you're acknowledging that in one month your community cared about X and now they care about Y? Why would you even bother reporting on X? It's old news at this point.

These are just some typical standards for listening. The reality is the reporting model for measurement would be different then listening. We'll tackle that in a different post... :-)

Can we please stop using monitoring and listening interchangeably?

25 Oct 2010
13 Responses
views
Listening radian6 social media listening

I have a revelation for you... Radian6 is not a monitoring solution. Yes, if you go to their Web site you'll see several references to monitoring but they aren't your monitoring partner. Need some evidence? Take a look at their "About" page. Where do you see "monitor," or "monitoring?" That's right, you won't see it. Does this mean you can't use them as a monitoring provider? Absolutely not. You buy the tool, you can use it however you see fit. Just know you aren't getting maximum benefit out of the technology. Anyway, this post isn't meant to be a perpetuation of my image as a Radian6 fanboy. No, what I wanted to illustrate is that the terms "monitoring" and "listening" are not interchangeable verbs. Folks who should know better are using the terms interchangeably, and I'm confused as to why. Sure, this could be a total "inside the beltway" issue, but I don't think so. Brands have very established perceptions of monitoring. It's something they want to spend as little money on as possible, and (generally speaking) do not act on. They are getting the clips every day (month/quarter) for "reputation management." If you believe that then I'm looking to sell some swampland in Jersey. No, the clips are coming in because it's what we've always done in PR. We're not even sure why we still pay for them, but we know we "need" them. Where does listening differ? First of all, you'll never hear someone in traditional communications saying they are "listening" to traditional media channels. That's like saying I want to put peanut butter on a piece of pizza (you'll forgive me, but that was the only disgusting analogy I could come up with). It just wouldn't occur to anyone to say. It's becoming less foreign to marketers, but we've still got a ways to go. Anyway, listening differs from monitoring in that it implies a second action. Whether that's helping the person doing the talking with an issue with a product, or adding them to a CRM database (oh, horror, a DATABASE), or leading to a convergence with offline market research, listening should lead to something else. Listening, at its core, is a market research function if you're doing it right. How many monitoring programs do you know that feed market research? Not many I'd bet. Before you come running at me with the pitchforks let me just explain one other thing... I have no problem with monitoring. Are you maximizing your research dollar by using a monitoring solution? No. Is there some value in at least having a tangential understanding of the chatter online? Absolutely. Would I spend my time monitoring? No. Do I understand that listening is a big investment? Absolutely. However, if my vision is improving my product, or customer service, or one of the many things listening can help you do I'd be looking for an opportunity to transition my monitoring practices to more listening practices and investing in the future growth of my organization. To wrap this up... Listening = strategic, leading to a secondary action and often requiring significant resources Monitoring = tactical, and not requiring significant investment in resources That's just how I see it... the words aren't the same so lets stop using them interchangeably.

Too Much Data versus Actionable Insights

20 Oct 2010
5 Responses
views
Market Research Nielsen Social Media Analytics Wall Street Journal listening social analytics social data social media listening

[caption id="attachment_87" align="alignleft" width="270" caption="Photo by wasabicube"]

[/caption] I've been thinking (sorry Ben. I stole your blog's title) a lot recently about the abundance of data that's available on the social web. Yes, before you make any jokes about how geeky that sounds, I do think about things that impact our profession quite often. In its most basic form, the Internet leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for brands (or enterprising individuals) to follow. Why? Why do brands give a damn where you've landed after doing a search on Google? The answer is obvious to those of us working in the space: If we know where our current/future consumers are spending their time it makes it much easier for us to target them with advertising/marketing material. This is what we do, right? We find customers, then we target customers and then we hit them with a barrage of marketing material that hopefully causes them to buy our widget. That's overly simplistic, but I think you get the point. Anyway, as you traverse the Information Superhighway (p.s. how long has it been since you've heard that phrase? I really just used it for posterity) talking, sharing, offering up reviews, posting videos, posting photos, editing Wikipedia there is likely someone like me sitting behind a computer somewhere far away trying to analyze your behaviors. I'll give you a moment while you're thoroughly freaked out by the thought of me looking over your shoulder as you use a computer... (cue Jeopardy theme music)........ Ok, are you ready? Right, back to it. Now, let me hit you in the face with another often forgotten fact: The practice of following the purchasing behaviors and intents of consumers has been going on for a lot longer than the social web has been around. Why do you care now? Is it somehow because we're tracking you while you are in the comforts of your own home/office? I'm assuming, just for the sake of this discussion that it is not blind naivety, though I'm sure there is plenty of that going around. Can it go too far? Absolutely. If you needed any proof of that, check out what happened to Nielsen when they were caught scraping a public forum. A nice write-up in the Wall Street Journal is what happened. I'm not going to go on about whether or not companies should be tracking online behaviors. My personal point-of-view is that we need to get over it. The data gathering process either by Google, or some other vendor is a multi-million (if not billion) dollar industry. That means, in simple terms, that the industry isn't going to change unless forced to by the changing of social norms or government regulation. And, whether or not we have a right to privacy when we're posting things in a public forum is a discussion for someone much smarter than me. No, what I want to touch on is the difference between gathering data and gathering data to derive actionable insights. We're doing far too little of the latter. This is where companies (and the agencies that help them) get lost. More and more brands are starting to listen to online conversations. However, most often we're listening but not really digging as deeply as we need to be. Make sure you check out Connie Bensen's post on Jay Baer's blog yesterday for more information on how you can take listening beyond gathering share of voice, media mix and tone. Since I'm a numbers/equations dork, here's how I'd think about this: The right amount of data = timeliness + solves a business problem. There's no magic bullet for how much data you could/should be gathering. However, if you are gathering data in an effort to solve a business problem, and it's timely, then you are on the right track. I'd argue that if the data isn't timely, it's just interesting information. If it doesn't help further a goal, or solve a problem, it's just interesting information. Right now, unfortunately, we're gathering data for the sake of gathering data. There's far too little actionable insights being developed as a result of this data collection. So before you start down the path of data gathering ask yourself a few questions: 1. Where is the data going to come from? 2. How do we incorporate it with existing data? 3. Will the process happen quickly enough for the data to still be timely? 4. How does the data help solve a business problem? (Notice I said nothing about cost here. This kind of data is invaluable. It's often the reason we do or do not do something. You can't place a cost on that accurately). There's no such thing as too much data. There is such a thing as too much data that's not actionable. Don't think about the problem of an abundance of data as anything more than an opportunity to solve a business problem. If it doesn't, throw the information in the trash. Have you encountered situations where you think you have too much information? How did you overcome?

An Update on the 5W’s of Social Media Listening

15 Jul 2010
2 Responses
views
Don Bartholomew Jason Falls Listening Social Media Explorer social media analytics social media listening social media monitoring

Last August I was struggling for a way to talk about the value of social media listening. I knew it was important from a general market research perspective, but many companies hadn’t jumped on the “listening” bandwagon as yet. Social monitoring, in my view, was being labeled with the traditional media monitoring stigma. By that I mean, reactive, not timely and generally low value/priority for senior executives. To try and explain the value, I came up with the 5W’s of social media listening. In that post for Social Media Explorer (check it out or the rest of this post isn’t likely to make much sense), I outlined the who, what, when, where and why of social listening, but then also how you turn that data into actionable insights. Actionable insights are what really resonate with senior level executives. But, like anything else, ideas and concepts evolve. The who, what, when, where and why still apply to social media listening, but the horizons are broadening beyond just social media. We’re slowly getting there, but the real next generation for social media listening incorporates findings from search and Web analytics. To that end, I’ve taken a crack at “amending” the 5Ws to include those ideas.

Who – This is still the most fundamental of all the “W’s,” but it’s the one so often erroneously defined. We don’t just want to know who is talking about your brand (are they doctors, moms, over 60 year old dads), but we want to know how influential they are within their micro community. To the point of our post on influence, we need to be able to identify the strength of the site they are participating on, as well as their individual influence. We don’t just want to know what their demographic characteristics are, but who they are specifically. Is it Jane519 in a forum? Is it @Joe519 on Twitter? What can we learn about Joe or Jane? What are their habits on the web? These all help better define the “who.”
What – This “W” stays relatively consistent from the post last year, but the only addition would be not only finding what the individual is saying, but also what they are sharing. Quite often we post to Twitter, or Delicious, or Facebook without making a comment. But that doesn’t mean we don’t care about the content they’ve shared. Sharing, and commenting carry equal weight in this equation.
Where - Specifically, where are the conversations happening about you and your products? This also stays consistent from last year, but again with an addition. We want to know where people are talking, where people are sharing content, but also where people land when they are searching. It may sound intuitive to you (echo chamber FTW), but social media conversation volume leads to increases in search volume leads to increases in views for pages other than brand.com. When that occurs, it’s an important insight to deliver to your brand manager/boss. Similarly, if they land on your brand page, where are they going? Are they going where you want them to go?
When – When are they talking about you? Are the conversations taking place in a vacuum (often not the case)? Are they event-driven? For example, in the case of many public companies (particularly, B2B) you often see spikes in conversation around specific corporate events, like earnings announcements. Are the conversations cyclical? This stays consistent from last year.
Why – As my friend Don Bartholomew pointed out to me when I originally started talking about this concept, the why cannot be entirely answered through listening. Primary research is required. The good news is that we’ve come a long way in social community surveying over the last year. This is something that’s not entirely common, yet, but will be as the push for more definitive ROI grows.

The key, as I noted then, is how we turn the data we glean from these “W’s” into actionable insights. Once you do, you’re golden with your superiors. What would you add to this list? Are we capturing everything? Looking forward to hearing from you.

Searching for the "Perfect" Monitoring or Measurement Solution? Stop Looking!

Six Steps to Better Social Media Listening

Five Ways to Make Your Listening Reports Better

Social Media Monitoring is Not a Replacement for Focus Groups

How much is too much reporting on listening findings?

Can we please stop using monitoring and listening interchangeably?

Too Much Data versus Actionable Insights

An Update on the 5W’s of Social Media Listening

About

Archive

Get Updates

Sites I Like