Kluster's crowd naming rights and wrongs.

In naming a product or service, it's great to have the benefits of a large focus group, but everyone who works in naming knows that it's even better to have a focussed outcome based on a good brief.

So when US based crowd sourcing company Kluster launched their recent Namethis service, DIFFUSION was both interested and abhorred all at the same time.

Kluster philosophy is based on crowdsourcing, meaning if you can get a group of passionate people working together you can get better solutions for almost any decision-making problem than with a single person. Whether its writing an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia, designing a new logo, or creating a new product or a new name, the people at Kluster think the power of the crowd is a better way to do it. They may be a little off the mark.

While there is much debate about the ethical, social, and economic implications of crowdsourcing, it's a popular outcome of Web 2.0 but not without it's detractors. I'm going to join the critics.

Firstly, what's interesting about the whole naming proposition, is the idea that naming can be made simple and the result usable. It's a very clear three phase process that includes a company or individual paying the $99 fee, posting it up for 48 hours and letting people put their suggestions and then what is described a ssome" fancy math machine" makes some decisions (?) and payment is apportioned out to the crowd.

Sure, there's some good names in some of the suggestions but the outcomes seem bizarre and, in many cases, unusable. A case in point. An organic skincare company gets the name Altitude. The brief:

A unique combination of pure, natural and organic ingredients from the Swiss Alps that is USDA and ECOCERT certified natural and organic skin care. Rare medicinal plants plants found at very high elevations are combined with essential oils to nourish and protect the skin from losing moisture and keep the skin beautiful and healthy. The high elevations and exposure to extreme temperature and humidity changes and high UV has resulted in plants that have developed protective factors that have proven to be beneficial to our skin.

The result is 275 names including Altitude, of which 12,523 watts of power were invested in the project to come up with the name. Or by my calculations 576kWH. or around $172, depending on how much energy costs per kWH where you live.

Now the energy usage is all very well for green credibility, but the actual cumulative time taken by the 275 respondents could be something close to something like 91 hours, if we say that each individual spent on average 20mins on this project within the 48 hour deadline

Now if you want to attach a real monetary value for the project, it's close to three working weeks for a single individual. Or approximately $31,000 worth of value on global brand consulting naming rates (yes, I know what the rates are!) for a single consultant without any add on rates or taxes.

While it looks like incredible value and it is, what's troubling about social media being used as product naming avenue is the fact that the process, intellectual and economic value is being completely undermined.

In the case of Altitude, there's no real attempt to validate the name beyond possible domain name registration. I did a quick Whois.net check and the name Altitude is registered for the major TLDs. Forget any trademark or company name checks and any other legals registrations in whatever territory or country you wish to operate in.

With a single search engine check and I can come up with at least two global companies (Napoleon Perdis and Swiss Army) using the name Altitude as a product name. And I'm not even sure whether they have registered this name.

The likelihood of its use by the project sponsor is subsequently likely to be low, because really the exercise is just that..a exercise. Even the "winning graduate" as they are described, is unlikely to have any rights to the name if there annexure has been buried in the fine print. Sure there might be the opportunity to come up with some great names but really, Kluster proves crowdsourcing works but it doesn't prove that it's right for everyone. So far the Kluster people have come up with 10 names. The value of this $999. And to Kluster, $200.

So you see what the value is.

Return on influence: metrics and measurement for brands in social media.

One of the emerging dynamics of social media is the compelling need for companies and organisations interested in tracking their brand, positioning, reputation and saliency within this space is to have some way of measuring return on both investment and influence.

Many organisations want to be able to measure their involvement or even assess potential returns prior to investment but are slowly coming to the realisation that traditional web-based analytics alone are not going to do the job, so the next question is crucial – what and how should be measured?

The crux of the issue is that regardless of the success of brand monitoring companies like Neilsen BuzzMetrics and TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony, at this point in history their work is both highly speculative and also completely unique to the interpretation of the entity doing the measuring.

While the ability to track the tone, perception and nuances of discussions around a company and its brands, either via social media or even within it, cannot be achieved through web metrics or traditional advertisement measurement alone, the real problem is that even among the eight or so market leaders Forrester Research identified last year, there is no universally agreed standard upon which to base either measurement and metrics.

Certainly, the measurement attributes identified by Factiva, one of the vendors included in the Forrester study, could likely be considered to be part of any brand monitoring mix but this mix is also likely to be far more dynamic than anticipated.

Last year Factiva tried to get an understanding of the prevailing thinking, hosting a roundtable of influential bloggers and social media critics which identified the following measurement attributes (I've left out explanations of those that need no explanation):

1. Analytics and activity

2. Community activation/call to action

3. The "Conversation Index", define as the ratio between blog posts and comments-plus-trackbacks. This attribute is one subset of measuring participation and engagement but when I look at the majority of external corporate blogs alongside trackbacks and comments even in our brand sector, the actual ratio is low.

4. Demographic/s

5. Influential ideas or memes which the "intensity" or "velocity" of the spread of an idea or message over time. (A "meme" refers to an idea or discussion that grows and spreads from individual to individual into a lengthy chain of commentary. Rather like an idea train.)

6. Participation and engagement, where a recipient not only responds to a message but acts on it as well.

7. Reach, where it’s a lot less to do with sheer numbers than with influence.

8. Relationships and connections. For example, Factiva’s panel noted that a blogger may have a large, diverse audience but he or she may not have an intimate relationship with specific influential individuals within any given community.

9. Relevance, the question being how relevant to my company is a particular blog post among hundreds of a given meme?

10. Sentiment/tone/favourability

11. Content: the focus of coverage of social media. In most cases, this means a narrow, but extremely detailed focus on one subject or issue and it explains the importance of certain blogs over others within their respective niches.

Factiva’s panel concluded that to be successful companies need to use a combination of several key measurement attributes to understand and drive their own social media success for internal and external stakeholders.

Brand monitoring companies need to be able to help clients develop and execute plans which monitor and measure these changing attributes within a specific context and within a sphere of operations. Brand agencies then need to able to be bipartisan and develop strategy that acknowledges both measurement and metrics are dynamic and that a company's ability to identify those key attributes important to it might actually be limited. Setting these against a wider brand context and against other metrics might be another way of helping to define their brand influence.