Redbull is making the news again for its heavily caffeinated drink, but in a very negative way.
Looking for something surprising, I checked them out in our updated segmentation app to see how their tweets fared in September. Of all the highest-engaged tweets, I was surprised that this one hit a massive 46% negative response.
Some Background. Our app segments a brand’s social audience (Twitter, in this instance), including a qualitative measure, “Brand Personality”. Marketers can target under-engaged segments, for example, then see how targeted content or campaigns were received by that persona. The app is priced to be super-accessible, which means “cheap”, to real people.
In this case, Men responded poorly to this tweet.
What this Means: For this male-gender Persona who didn’t respond well to the tweet, 33% have the “Reliable” Brand Personality trait, 67% are young parents, and about two-thirds come from somewhere other than the US, Canada, or the UK. Their sentiment is 6.6, or 66% negative, compared to a benchmark of 68% positive. It’s a small sample size, but for such highly-targeted functionality, it’s far better and can be indicative of a trend.
Digging a little deeper, let’s look at their Benchmarked Interests just for Media:
What this Means: The “KAPOW’ red exclamation icon means that the interest is a “Benchmark Alert”, which means that the percentage of followers is higher than the benchmarked twitter following. This puts things in nice perspective for you and also can provide opportunistic media values – those under-served media that might be cheaper. In this specific case, you might want to talk to these Persona with a different tone.
There’s obviously a lot more in the app and we’re happy to give you access to show you more.
Segment your audience in hours — not weeks or months — all without asking questions. Craft campaigns and products that appeal to their personalities and unique interests.
“Online Qualitative Market Research”. What the heck is that? And why should I care?
See how much fun he’s having?
If you’re asking yourself these questions, read on. If you’re asking yourself these questions yet do not read on, then when you pull your head from the sand you may find yourself in the most lonely and sad states: irrelevant.
But I know you’re not going to do that. You’re going to ride the ostrich.
Digital. Big Data. Social. You hear these buzz terms and, because they’re labeled ‘buzz terms’, you dismiss them. But think about the companies who dismissed buzz terms like ‘ecommerce’, ‘digital photography’, ‘smartphones’. Would you like to be Barnes and Noble, Kodak, or Blackberry? Of course not – so how can you ease into online market research – qualitative online research, to be exact? Good news – Dr. Paul Rubenstein, CEO of Accelerant Research, wrote an excellent article last month with some solid tips. Here are just a couple:
1. Use online for one-to-one studies. Online may actually be far better than face to face (F2F) in a focus group:
Rubenstein writes, “Unfortunately, if focus groups are being conducted, all interactions are done openly among others, and it is left to the moderator to somehow control the group influence from having the effect of changing participants’ responses to key questions.”
2. Use online for any exercise that requires special stimuli and arts & crafts skills. You know the drill: rearranging objects, choosing images, etc. These can and should be done online. Like your kid’s soccer calendar.
Rubenstein continues, “Not only can these exercises be better facilitated in an online platform, but aggregating those data is typically done automatically and, with a button push, can be redrawn based on various subgroups among the sample of participants.”
I’d urge you to read the article in its entirety here. You’ll be inspired to take the first step to move your practice online virtually risk free. And you might find yourself better organized and getting your work done faster. So you have more time to call the coach to see when and where the next game will be played.
Here’s a video of 3 guys racing ostriches.