Sci Tech Content as Marketing Collateral
August 25, 2009
The notion of running a query across a collection of documents is part of research. Most users assume that the information indexed is going to be like like mixed nuts. In my experience, a more general query against an index of Web logs is likely to contain more of the lower grade nuts. A query passed against a corpus of electrical engineering or medical research reports will return a hit list with higher quality morsels. Those who teach information science often remind the students to understand the source, the bias of the author, and the method of the indexing system. Many people perceive online information as more accurate than other types of research material. Go figure.
When I read “McGill Prof Caught in Ghostwriting Scandal”, I thought about a rather heated exchange at lunch on Friday, August 21. The topic was the perceived accuracy of online information. With some of the new Twitter tools, it is possible for a person to create a topical thread, invite comments, and create a mini conversation on a subject. These conversations can be directed. The person starting the thread defines the terms and the subject. Those adding comments follow the thread. The originator of the thread can add comments of his / her own steering the presentation of information, suggesting links, and managing the information. Powerful stuff. Threads are becoming a big deal, and if you are not familiar with them, you may want to poke around to locate a thread service.
The McGill professor’s story triggered several ideas which may have some interesting implications for marketing and research. For example:
A scholarly paper may look more objective than a comment in a Web log. The Montreal Gazette reported:
Barbara Sherwin – a psychology professor whose expertise in researching how hormones influence memory and mood in humans – was listed as the sole author of an April 2000 article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society arguing that estrogen could help treat memory loss in older patients. In fact, the article was written by a freelance author hired by DesignWrite, a ghostwriting firm based in New Jersey. The company was paid by Wyeth to produce ghostwritten articles, which were then submitted to reputable scholars.
I would not have known that this ghostwritten article was a marketing piece. In fact, I don’t think I would have been able to figure it out by myself. That’s important. If I were a student or a researcher, I would see the marketing collateral as objective research. A search system would index the marketing document and possibly the Tweets about the document. Using Twitter hashtags, a concept space can be crafted. Run a query for McGill on Collecta, and you can see how the real time content picked up this ghostwriting story. How many hot topics are marketing plays? My hunch is that there will be more of this content shaping, not less, in the months ahead. Controlling the information flow is getting easier, not harder. More important, the method is low cost. When undiscovered, the use of disinformation may have more impact than other types of advertising.
What happens if a marketer combines a sci tech marketing piece like the Sherwin write up with a conversation directing Twitter tool? My initial thought is that a marketer can control and shape how information is positioned. With a little bit of tinkering, the information in the marketing piece can be disseminated widely, used to start a conversation, and with some nudges in a Twitter thread directed.
I am going to do some more thinking about the manipulation of perception possible with marketing materials and Twitter threads. What can an information consumer do to identify these types of disinformation tactics? I don’t have an answer.
Stephen Arnold, August 25, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
