As reported very nicely by Todd Zeigler of The Bivings Report, Comcast has been incorporating Twitter into how they perform customer relations. They’re actively monitoring Twitter for conversation surrounding the company and offering customer service. Says TechCrunch’s Mike Arrington:

“Within 20 minutes of my first Twitter message (about technical problems) I got a call from a Comcast executive in Philadelphia who wanted to know how he could help. He said he monitors Twitter and blogs to get an understanding of what people are saying about Comcast, and so he saw the discussion break out around my messages.”

While Mike Arrington is a big “celeb” around these parts, they’re responding to nearly everyone, including my friend David All:

“Comcast just pinged me via Twitter and asked for feedback to the SVP of Customer Service. He just got a nice rant.”

But after David talked to them, he hasn’t heard a thing. Yesterday, David tweeted this:

“Still haven’t heard back from Comcast about resolving this matter. Was their tweeting simply a PR move?”

So, to test this out, I thought I’d see what happens, myself, if I referenced Comcast in a reply. I said:

“Likely just a PR move. Look forward to hearing about Comcast’s response from that tweet. Comcast and promises generally don’t mix.”

Sure enough, a few moments later, I received a tweet asking me if I’m experiencing technical problems.

As of right now, no, I’m not. But the word “Comcast” leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It’s not anything that can be solved tech-wise. They’re systematic changes, like updating the on-screen menu for the first time in 10 years, fixing their auto-bill-pay system that it doesn’t take weeks to cancel (so when you cancel your account, you still get billed and have to wait for a refund check), or them telling me that I have to go and exchange boxes, in-store, if my cable box is nuked.

J.W. Crump of The Bivings Report says that I’m not alone. Of recent Twitter posts,

“178 were about the company itself, 66 were problems with the Internet or cable completely not working, 33 were about slowdown, and 22 were about pricing concerns. It is interesting that on Twitter there is a lot of general venting about Comcast (bad for the brand), and less specific complaints.”

Under the current Twitter system, how can Comcast solve these concerns? It’s a nice effort if they’re trying to solve tech problems, but that’s not what’s the “problem” is that we have with Comcast. Instead, the Twitter initiative will likely evolve into a “why I hate Comcast” free-for-all, and we’re going to overwhelm the poor Comcast rep with our complaints.

What Comcast is doing with Twitter might be a good first step, but like David All warns, they have to live up to their promises in helping us solve said tech problems. The problem is, of course, how a representative in Philly can ensure that everyone who needs help gets real help. He’ll be overwhelmed, and he’ll be lost in the technical argument of “hey, this still doesn’t work.” And if things still don’t work, negative will will form.

There’s no winning, because the only good thing that can happen out of this model is resolving a negative issue that a customer has with a service that they’re already paying for, and that they expect to work optimally.  The model is not about improving experience.

Instead, Comcast needs to use Twitter as a means to solicit real opinions about Comcast to promote systematic change. That’s the only way they can “win” here, and really solve the problem that people have with Comcast. And if they’re not up for that, then this might not be the right experiment for them to take on.

Technorati Tags: Comcast, Twitter, customer service, technical, representatives

As someone who’s done a few studies during his academic years, one of my favorite concepts is that of the “useless study.”

Would you believe it, there’s a new study out (hat tip to TechDirt) that did some research on online influences. Turns out that our entire social media profession is useless, says the study, because “self-described social media users put far more trust in friends and family online than in popular bloggers, or strangers with 10,000 MySpace ‘friends.’”  So much for our profession, right, social media people?

Excerpt:

Of more than 1,100 adults polled in December, nearly 80% said they were very or somewhat more likely to consider buying products recommended by real-world friends and family, while only 23% reported being very or somewhat likely to consider a product pushed by “well-known bloggers.”

“This shows that popularity doesn’t always equate to credibility,” said Robert Hutton, executive vice president and general manager at Pollara (the research group of the study). “Marketers might have to reconsider who the real influencers are out there.”

Yeah…no, it really doesn’t mean that, because you just conducted a stupid study.
How did the study operationalize “popularity,” “credibility” and “influence”?  They didn’t.  They just asked people, “hey, do you listen to blogs more, or your friends?” and then published the results as if they were valid.

What did the study group consider as a “blog”? Were they thinking about the most popular blogs, like DailyKos, Huffington Post, and so on? These are blogs where there’s not much interaction between a blogger and the audience.  They’re popular — but how do we define credibility and influence based on their popularity?  They’re extremely distinct and different concepts, and completely mutually exclusive.  The loudest person may be heard, but they don’t have to have the most influence.

What about blogs like DownloadSquad or Lifehacker?  These are blogs that “recommend” things.  Therefore, they have more influence.  I read these blogs to learn about the “latest and greatest,” and influence what I download and purchase.  Or what about sites like HeatEatReview, that tells me what frozen foods are delicious and what I should stay away from? Or CoolMomPicks, that acts as a pretty spectacular guide for moms?

Another variable: what if I consider the blogger my friend?  I’ve met plenty of people through blogs that I’d consider my friends, but I’ve never met them in person.  So, are they a blogger, or are they my friend?  Because I listen to those people.  If they say, “oh man, you’ve gotta check this out” or “I love this product,” I’m bound to listen.  “Blogger” and “friend” aren’t mutually exclusive, either.

And, really, what is this study?  Who doesn’t trust something more than their “friends?” I trust my friends’ musical recommendations more than I trust the Rolling Stone reviews, so should Rolling Stone shut down? If my friend says, “hey, you’ve gotta try this new cleaning product,” but Consumer Reports says it’s useless, and I trust my friend, should Consumer Reports just cease publication?

Really, I wouldn’t even call this a study.  I’d call it a question.  Study implies that you actually use research methodology.

So, my take?  Ignore this thing.  Please.

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me by my friend (girlfriend, to be exact) that you shouldn’t trust my opinion on this. I’m just a blogger, you know.

Technorati Tags: Stupid study, study, studies, influences, social media

Alright!  Just when you thought my “social media and anthropology” series was more of a vapor-series than a real one, I’m back with part two!  In the first post, I was beginning to discuss the role of culture in new/social media, and how we can use anthropology and culture studies in order to produce better and more resonant media campaigns.

Why is this?  When applied to communication, research and knowledge of the target community helps communicators create more compelling strategies, solutions, and messages.   You need to learn how a group shapes its perceptions — and of course, how it expresses itself.  Otherwise, you risk striking a culturally off-key note.

After all, great communications always connect and strike a chord with people.  To me, the main ingredient in a real campaign is a compassion and empathy for my audience.  Think about Bill Clinton’s famous “I feel your pain” appeal.  Why did it connect with people?  Because a great communicator understands that the relationship between what he or she has to say and how it connects with others.

But say you need to appeal to an online community that you don’t really know all that well.  Or say you know about the subject that the bloggers talk about (say healthcare or politics or economics), but you know nothing about the actual online community.  What are you to do when you don’t know the “pain” that a group itself faces?  How can you understand, in-depth, how to appeal to a community?  Or how to even navigate it or get started?

Here’s where social anthropology has always come into play for me — namely one of the core methods of research, called an “ethnography.” (As a side note, in the workplace, I’ve always called this a “blog audit,” because “online ethnography” sounds really lame and really, really nerdy.)  An ethnography, simply, is a research method designed to “map out” a culture, group or community that you wish to learn more about.  Once you conduct an ethnography, you’ll likely know what to “do” and how to “do it.”

How? In anthropology, the ethnography itself is an account of a specific social system.  Included are generally a breakdown of roles, norms, values, motivations, symbols, and other social breakdowns.  The ethnography focuses on detailed observations of what the culture “actually does” — its social behavior, and reasons and motivations behind them.  It’s also extremely systematic, and insights come from a rigorous analysis of systematically collected data (cough, metrics, cough).  The best ethnographies are quite objective.

It’s also not just observation that gets the job done.  Ethnography is also based — and this is key — on a participatory model (are bells ringing in your head, my social media friends?).  Ethnographers take part in cultural events.  Participation lets the research “feel” what it’s like to be a part of the group being studied.  Participation works not only as a means of gaining insight, but trust.  Don’t forget — the social scientist (the “participant”) is also being observed and evaluated as the ethnography is conducted, so participation builds rapport.

The observer-participant model, together, lets social scientists — and in the case that I’m trying to make, us social media people — better able to understand and widen our perspectives on the culture we’re interacting with.  Because of it, we have better analytic insight and a deeper understanding of the culture and what makes it tick.  Once we have that, we can build better campaigns.

In my next post, I’m going to lay out the ethnographic model and map out the “social media equivalent” to these.  I’ll be going from the conceptual, theory-based stuff to the practical “this is how you do an ethnography with an online community.”  And no, don’t worry, it’s already mostly typed out, so expect it soon!

Technorati Tags: Blogger relations, social media, outreach, online outreach, connections, anthropology, social anthropology

I’ve made it no secret that my favorite news station (actually, “favorite” might not be the right word. How about “leasted hated”?) is MSNBC. So, likely, it’s no surprise that I find myself on MSNBC.com quite a lot.

There’s been an ad circulating for some sort of mystery facial cream called “Dermitage,” and I’m wondering how advertising like this is legal.

Here’s the ad in question:

Welcome to the miracle cream that fills craters the size of the Grand Canyon and takes 40 years off of your face. My absolute favorite part is how the application of this cream changes the color of your hair from “old person” gray to “hot blonde.” Truly amazing.

Now, I understand that it’s “simulated imagery,” as it says in pretty small letters, but as someone who makes and places online advertisements, I begin to wonder…how is that not false advertising? And how is that, in any way, allowed? Is there any oversight on this? Is this stuff regulated?

I highly doubt that this “Dermitage” company cares about its integrity and its reputation (it’s pretty clear that when you advertise like this, you likely don’t), but shouldn’t MSNBC, as a place that should care about news and facts, have a better “false advertising” policy?

Technorati Tags: false advertising, online advertising, advertising, ads, MSNBC

A strange thing happened to me when I moved last week. I had no Internet for six whole days.

A crisis, you’d think. How could a social media guy survive without the Internet for more than ten minutes?

So how well did I hold up?

Pretty damned well, actually.

I went to bed at reasonable hours. I woke up feeling amazingly refreshed and extremely happy and affable. I actually watched TV and paid attention to plots, rather than having it just be background noise. I actually called people on the phone — including my grandma, like a good little 6 foot 4 grandson. I took the time to relax a bit.

Now that Comcast is installed, I’m finding myself mull this over. I’m convinced — totally and utterly — that less Internet time can actually be more. I’ve realized that while I didn’t think I was, I was snacking. I’m realizing that I need more red meat, and less of the Ruffles.

That means making Internet time more valuable to me. That means no staying up late because of instant messaging. The same people will be there in the morning, I’m telling myself.

That means that I’m setting an Internet curfiew for myself. Yes, I’m not kidding.

Could it be? A more disciplined Internet usage? My mood, my sleep and my love of the Internet depend on it, I think.

Let’s see how long it lasts, no?

Technorati Tags: Snacking, sleep, Internet, discipline

I’ll be back in the next few days. I’ve been moving, and my new place has yet to have Internet installed.

Strangely, that’s allowed me to finish up my “social media = anthropology” series, and I’ll be posting those up little by little over the next few days.

Stay tuned!

- Brad

The Internet has made me really, really, really lazy.  For instance, look at how long it took me to write a new blog entry.

Another case and point: Earlier today, I had to send, get this — an e-mail. Not an e-mail! That takes so much work. You have to open Gmail, click “compose,” and type. That’s like, a whole three steps. Sooooo tedious. It’s pure torture, I know.

Why do I bring this up? A lot of us have been playing with task management and contacts management programs — generally referred to as “Getting Things Done” (or “GTD”), because we’re way too cool to refer to it as something as unhip as “task management” or “contacts management.”

I’ve played with all of them. OmniFocus, Highrise, Things, I Want Sandy. All were tried on the great hopes that they’ll improve my life, make things easier, cause me to not forget a thing or a person, and so on. But they never did catch on with me. Why? Because I’m lazy. And so I stop using them. A few weeks later, something new comes out, and then I try that for a little while — but nothing ever sticks.

But the more I think about it, is it really laziness, or something else?

I think that it’s because it actually becomes more of a chore to enter information in such an amazingly organized way than to just do the work. I call it “Getting ‘Getting Things Done’ Done.” It takes so much time and thought to figure out how to organize the task, “tag” it appropriately, ponder who will be involved, who to invite, how long the task will take — and so on — I just figure, “screw it. I’m just going to make a mental note” or “I’m just going to search my inbox for this contact’s e-mail.”

I have, however, been playing with something cool — I’ve taken Sandy and integrated her with Twitter. So, whenever I want to schedule something or write a reminder, all I need to do is type “d s” into my Twitter client (to directly message Sandy) and then go for it. Whenever I have a meeting coming up, or need to be reminded of something, Sandy sends me a direct message. Pretty hard to forget, and all without a click of the mouse. I’m on day 3 of this set up. I wonder how long it will last.

Technorati Tags: GTD, Twitter, Getting Things Done, laziness, lazy

Yes, it’s true. I’ve been a little MIA over the last few weeks, and I still need to publish my little “online anthropology” series.

I’ve been a bit preoccupied. A new work opportunity/project, a new personal social media project that my friend and I will be unveiling soon, and just some inexcusable laziness.

I’ll be updating soon. Thanks for standing by!

If you don’t, follow me on Twitter. I’m always around there.

With all of the developing technology and tools, many social media and new media communicators have been bogged down in the role that technology plays. Without seeing the evolution of technology, the view is that you cannot succeed — and that you must adapt to all of these technologies. Technology, it is believed, is the enabler and therefore determines culture — the view is that it is predictable, traceable, and it has effects on societies and their history.

This view is called “technological determinism,” and many people can get lost in the idea. I’ve seen many clients and organizations fall victim to it, and it’s reinforced by popular culture. Subscribing to this idea tends to lead campaigns on a wild goose chase, with no strategy other than to “seize the technology.” The strategy, therefore, usually becomes “well, let’s throw all of these things up against a wall and see what sticks,” and the organization never get the results that they were hoping for. A distrust of the social media realm usually evolves, and the organization concludes that social media is not “worth it.”

I tend to disagree with this deterministic view because I believe more in the role that culture plays in the evolution of technology. Over the last 10 years (yes, I’ve been blogging for a decade), I have seen this to be the case. I believe that there is a distinct reason why the word “social” is used in the phrase “social media,” and therefore, I tend to fall on the other side of the spectrum — called “technological constructivism.” To constructivists, human action shapes technology, which births adapted technology, which is then shaped more by culture, and the process continues. The “enabler” to constructivists is not the technology, but rather the culture behind it — and the culture that shapes how it was created.

Thus, constructivism follows these steps:

1. There is a culture with a need
2. A technology is developed to meet that need
3. The culture consumes the technology in ways that are meaningful to them
4. Consumption habits dictate new needs of the culture
5. Subsequent technological revisions are based upon these habits
6. The pattern continues

Here’s a perfect example: think about how Twitter started. The culture of blogging became more intricate and involved, and the makers of Twitter saw a need for technology that would facilitate and allow a group of people to “micro-blog.” So, they created the Twitter platform — which was initially designed as a “what are you doing?” solution. When we started using it, we began to reshape the utility from “what are you doing?” to the much deeper “what are you thinking?” And thus, the culture was born.

When the Twitter developers saw the type of cultural evolution that was taking place — for instance, our use of “@” — subsequent revisions to the Twitter platform have been programmed to allow this type of culture to flourish. In other words, we made the technology what it is, rather than the technology creating what we now do. This is a clear example of constructivism, because the evolutional trigger was indeed culture.

The constructivist argument can also explains why Pownce never took off as a micro-blogging platform. Pownce was a “second-mover” (meaning that Twitter came first, and then Pownce was created later), and seems to be vastly technologically superior to Twitter. Pownce allows for more diverse means of “sharing” (including files, pictures — much more than just text). But our networks — our “social” networks — remain on Twitter. According to the determinists, Pownce should be the leader in the micro-blogging platform, but it’s clearly not. For most of us, it would take a gravitational shift towards Pownce from our core group of friends to switch to that platform. It’s the network and the people that are valuable to us, not the technology.

So, what does this mean? The constructivist view means that in order to be successful in the “new media” space, we need to refocus our attention from technology and towards culture. Some great leaders in the social media space, like Kami Huyse and Brian Solis, have been pointing out in the last year or so that social media is a lot like social anthropology, and a few of us have had this conversation on Twitter.

Over the next few blog posts, I’m going to explore this concept to a greater degree and with greater detail and elaboration. My goal is to explain why an anthropological approach towards blogger relations and community relations — and with that, social media and the communications realm as a whole — is very much needed, valuable, and will lead to successful campaigns.

Specifically, I’m going to start with the practice of ethnography, which is an anthropological research method based on observation, and explain its value and its techniques. From there, I’ll explain how ethnography and online research should be parallel, and should be, in fact, the same thing. Then I’ll argue the benefits and value of the ethnographic technique towards campaigns, their successes and the overall “bottom-line.”

Technorati Tags: Social Media, anthropology, culture, technology, ethnography, online, new media, social media, blogging, blogs, Twitter, Pownce

I’ve been working on a series of blog posts about social anthropology and online communities, but admittedly, I haven’t been giving my full attention to it because of this Super Week we’ve been having. First the Giants, now Super Tuesday. I’m hoping to wrap up at least the first entry of the series and post it tomorrow.

In the meantime, whenever I’ve had a few moments, I’ve been doing this pretty cool activity on Barack Obama’s website. It’s really simple, and it lets me know that I’m doing my part.

Ever want to do your part, but not want to commit to going to a campaign headquarters? Or are you too busy, but only have time for just a few phone calls?

The Obama campaign has been rolling out this nifty little feature on their site that lets you pick a Super Tuesday state and make some “get out the vote” calls from your own home or office. Once you choose the state, a sample script appears with a list of people to call. You give them a ring, encourage them to get out and vote, and tada, you’ve done your job.

If you’ve only got a moment to spare, but want to do your part, give it a whirl. Then you can tell everyone you were a part of this little something that we like to call “we.”

Technorati Tags: GOTV, Get Out The Vote, Super Tuesday, election, primary, 2008, Feb 5th, Barack Obama, Yes We Can

I know that I apologized in my last post for going all political on everyone, but I simply cannot resist spreading this video to as many people as I can.

This is a video done by the Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am, and puts a melody to Obama’s speeches. Not only do you hear Obama’s voice, but you hear and see different peoples’ voices singing his words — and it’s sent chills down everyone’s spine.

I don’t think anyone’s doing this for Hillary…

To quote my ever-wise girlfriend, “she’s still just political figure. He’s almost the leader of a movement at this point.”

Sorry Jess — I’m happy to say that I think it’s more than “almost.”

Can someone put this on TV, please?

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Yes We Can, 2008, election, Hillary Clinton, primary, Super Tuesday, February 5th, February 5

I know I’ve gotten semi-political over the last few posts, but it’s because the intensity of the ‘08 primary season is making me giddy, nervous, hopeful, and overall, sending me on a little bit of a roller coaster ride.

Super Tuesday is on the way, and with that, there will be a marathon watching of MSNBC (if you look at my last post, you’ll see why I’m not watching CNN.  By the way, I sent a very polite complaint e-mail to CNN and never got a response — no, I’m not being sarcastic, like I usually am…it was quite polite, I swear).  Super Tuesday is kind of like my Superbowl, which will have preceded this two days before.  And since I’m a Giants fan (and a Tom Petty fan for that matter — he’ll be performing during the halftime show), I’m kind of in my Super Glory.

But the election coverage, with all the pundits, is mindnumbingly boring.  You know, how they talk and talk and talk about the same things, and then they bring in Pat Buchanan, who likely shouldn’t talk.  He gets into a fight with Rachel Maddow, then Chris Matthews says something that gives you a brain aneurysm, then they go to their consultants who have usually endorsed a candidate and we hear spin, then they hide the exit polls from us as if we can’t really comprehend things or understand the idea that it’s just a poll.  The schtick is getting boring — which means I’ve been looking for something new to augment those occasional, excruciating moments.  And following a few live-blogs are nice, but they still leave my political belly hungry.

My good friend David Wescott to the rescue.  He and the team at Virtual Vantage Points (an APCO blog that collects feeds, mashes them up, and spits out really interesting community text clouds — with expert commentary on “what’s going on” in these communities from the bird’s-eye perspective) will be live-blogging the events.  The Super Team will consist of former Vice President G.H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff (Craig Fuller), a former deputy White House press secretary (B. Jay Cooper), and a former ambassador (Marc Ginsberg) — and of course, my good friend and ever-partner-in-crime, David Wescott.  I think that’s a pretty sweet collection of people.

What’s even cooler — and keeps with the “bird’s eye analysis” of Virtual Vantage Points — is that they’ll also be live-blogging the live-bloggers from across the web and live-tweeting the live-tweets.  Give them a “follow” on Twitter at http://twitter.com/SuperTuesday.

I think it’s a great opportunity to get the best-of-the-best, and I’m looking forward to hearing some new (and very welcomed) perspectives.

Technorati Tags: Super Tuesday, Super Duper Tuesday, live blogging, blog, Twitter, MSNBC, CNN, media, 2008, election, primary

While CNN has been falling out of favor with me (I find them to be extremely sensationalistic, which is why I now gravitate towards MSNBC), I tend to alternate between CNN.com and MSNBC.com throughout the day to find quick news updates. When I headed over to that site just a few moments ago, I found myself some nuggets of pure racist gold.

As part of their I-Report project, where CNN solicits content from their users, they occasionally write “news stories” that are a collection of comments that they receive. Because when I think breaking hard news, I think of an ensemble of demented comments from the readers of CNN.com.

Today, CNN asked their users to submit their reactions towards Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Naturally, in order for these reactions to be published, you’d think that these comments would a) be on the topic with Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama (hence the title of the story, “CNN.com users react to Kennedy backing Obama”), or that b) they’d be appropriate.

No. Apparently, that would be giving CNN too much credit.

Take a look at this gem that they actually posted:

“Arnold Burton: ‘No wonder Obama won in South Carolina. Fifty percent of the voters were black. The African-Americans of South Carolina would vote for any black, no matter what lack of experience the candidate possesses.’”

Or this one:

“Eric Woodruff: ‘Obama has all the support he needs from the elitists in the media. There is not one single candidate who gets as much media support as him. … Is it because of the issues he champions? Is it because he supports universal health care? No, its not any of those reasons. The media supports him for one single reason. That reason is this: He is black.’”

Here’s what I want to know: why is CNN allowing their website to be used as a forum to promote racism? Why are they allowing the kind of comments that insinuate that “black” people’s votes don’t count as much as “white” people’s votes or that their opinions should matter less? It’s despicable, pure and simple.

Also, the last time I checked, Barack Obama is bi-racial, and is just as “white” as he is “black.” Just wanted to throw that in there, too, since this is apparently a concept that many people — including CNN — cannot grasp.

Technorati Tags: CNN, racism, racist, Barack Obama, prejudice, media, black, white, bi-racial

The great “predictors” of “what’s next” are always looking to tout “the next thing.”

2008, in particular, is rumored to be the “Year of Open Data.” 2008 also happens to be, I don’t know if you’ve heard, a presidential election year. I know, hold back your surprise. You must be asking yourself, “why hasn’t anyone told me this?”

Enter Gallup.  Gallup is one of the biggest collectors of data. You know them. They’re the “polling people.” They poll everything under the sun. Politics. Economics. Health care. Government. You name it, they know what people think about it. And they’re starting to open this process up to the online community. It makes sense: the online realm is public opinion at work — it’s the new “town hall,” as the cliché goes.  Gallup is a leader in measuring and discussing public opinion. It’s a natural fit.

Recently, they’ve already began to enter the social media realm by producing some top-notch video-based “daily briefings” that they post on both their website and on YouTube (which makes it quite embeddable on blogs — a good move on their part).

But they’re also starting to open up their data and their experts in a really great way. They’ve started a round of conference calls with bloggers and online opinion leaders, featuring their editor-in-chief, Dr. Frank Newport. I had the opportunity of attending the second call in this series yesterday, along with Mark Blunmenthal, the editor of Pollster.com. I was able to ask a few questions, namely about the record turnout on the Democratic side of the primaries and how it may be affecting polling accuracy, as well as the youth vote and cell phones (something I’ve always wondered about).

Dr. Newport was very candid in his responses, and gave some very satisfying answers. He explained, for instance, that there are several pockets/groups of citizens who “care” much more than they have in previous elections, and obviously that affects turnout. When there is a much more randomly distributed vote, polling accuracy isn’t as affected as when there is a non-random distribution. Makes sense once he explained it, but what’s great is that I was able to actually ask these questions.

It’s a great opportunity, and it has the potential to really open up the electoral process. We bloggers are always asking “why?,” and this is a great way to ask it.

I see this benefiting the online community in some very specific ways:

1) As bloggers, we’re hungry for primary sources. This provides us with not only great data and video content, but allows us to interview experts.

2) We get to understand polls, in-depth. We’re used to news shows reporting basic numbers that flash on the screen (who’s up, who’s down), and they don’t give us more than a snapshot with minimal data. But now, it can be more than just the simple “horse race” numbers that are taken at face value.  We can really explore, understand issues that matter, how these issues matter and to whom, overall trends, and possible outcomes.

3) Bloggers can see how the issues that they discuss/care about fit into the larger picture, with a simple question.

4) Polls can become more approachable. They can be interpreted for us by the expert. It can be as wonky as we’d like, or as down-home as we’d like.  For instance, Mark Blumenthal and I are on very different levels of understanding with polls.  Mark asked some specific, in-depth questions about sub-groups and longitudinal cross-what’s-it-analyses, and I asked some very basic questions about accuracy and methodology.

I really enjoyed this open process, and I see a great benefit for it. I’ll more than likely be attending these calls from now on, and perhaps you should join me. We should all hear about how the issues we care about play into the larger public opinion.

To join the next call, I’ve been told that you should e-mail Elizabeth Mendes, the associate producer of Gallup.com at elizabeth_mendes (AT) gallup (DOT) com, and that they’ve got many more opportunities coming up in the near future.

Technorati Tags: Gallup, poll, polling, data, election, primary, blog, blogger, open