The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

Second, I was at a Society for New Communications Research (SNCR) retreat a while back and one of the things that came up for discussion was "What is SNCR's competition?"

Companies have been asking NextStage to help them understand their competition for a long time. The first request came back in 2003 and you can read the results in the original Gen Y Etailers Web Site Comparison or get a taste of them in 2006's How to Build a Super-Sticky Homepage. These reports are based on NextStage's desktop TargetTrack tool. Since then NextStage's TargetTrack tool has been used for comparative analysis by Fidelity (also noted in How to Build a Super-Sticky Homepage and referenced in 2009's Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 1)), P&G (as a demonstration of why identical page layouts would fail in different countries due to cultural differences), most famously by Progress Software as documented in Reading Virtual Minds Volume I (also available on Amazon.com) and the list goes on. NextStage has a long history of successfully using our tools for comparative analysis of marketing materials.

Third, most recently we've been converting some of our desktop tools to web-based tools. You can see the current list on NextStage's KnowledgeShop Tools page. There's more coming and you're welcome to take part in the discussion of what should be released when (or what you'd like to see now) on both LinkedIn and FaceBook. Some of these tools are based on various TargetTrack components and one in particular, NextStage Sentiment Analysis, is the closest to the existing TargetTrack for comparative analytics purposes.

Fourth, so while I was sitting there and because the question was asked, I did an analysis of the sites of four groups mentioned during the "What is SNCR's competition?" discussion (the homepages only and analyzing what came up, not navigating beyond what each group presented the visitor. The different homepages are shown in this blog post). You can find those analysis in the following links and should open them to follow along with the rest of this post (a high level comparative analysis).

• Altimeter Group
• Forrester Research
• Pew
• SNCR

Take-Aways

Probably the most obvious and most actionable take-away from this comparative analysis is that SNCR could come to the front of its pack by doing the following:

• Design more for a business audience than a research audience.
• Make their site an active promotional tool ("one-click") for SNCR and all SNCR functions/activities.
• Make their site more visually active.
• Making their site a more obvious doorway to higher value content would put them ahead of their competition in most regards.

Background

Comparative Analyses are basically gap analyses. Pick the group(s) doing outstandingly well, measure them, measure the client, see where things do/don't line up. Is there a place where the client's value is noticeably less or more than the test groups'? Ah, you've determined one thing that could be changed.

Comparative analyses are involved. What I'm doing here is simply meant to point out some directions for further inquiry. For example, do all the groups in this analysis get most of their business off the web? From an existing subscriber list? Is there an active sales force involved? Does the web presence exist simply to exist (because you have to have one these days), is it a primary/secondary/tertiary sales tool, a lead generator, merely a portal for clients who are given links to "deep" pages for downloads, reports, etc.? These are questions NextStage would normally explore in such an analysis.

This analysis allows some of these questions to be answered quickly and easily. Let me also offer that comparative analyses can be like detective work. Each Sentiment Analysis listed above includes several sections and you need to use all the sections to create a complete profile. Just as human psyches tend to be complex, so too the psyches that are being are demonstrated on these pages.

Last item before the analyses themselves -- we comment on the reports, not the items being analyzed. No humans ever look at the material being analyzed because doing so may bias our comments and we work to keep our personal feelings out of our analyses.

Okay, enough blather. Here goes...

Author Attitude

The first section on each analysis is Author Attitude. The Altimeter, Forrester and SNCR values are close enough that I'm not thinking this is a deciding factor...

...with the exception of the Forrester analysis. You'll notice that the explanation of the Author Attitude report ends with "It is most likely the author doesn't like, accept, believe in or otherwise is on bad or unfriendly terms with their audience". This is different from the SNCR and Altimeter reports which end with "... their subject matter."

Based on long experience looking at these kinds of reports one thing immediately comes to mind; the companies/groups/businesses that actually own these sites hired another group to do the site design and development. NextStage has long known that a design firm's non-conscious thoughts about their client will often get non-consciously placed in the finished product. If the design/development group doesn't feel wonderful about what they're doing, that goes into their work and is usually picked up by consumers (again, non-consciously).²

I'm impressed by Pew Trusts' 96% Neutral rating because it takes work, training or both to be that neutral about something. More on the meaning of this in the next section.

Confidence

Confidence is something that tends to come naturally from certain people. Pew Trusts' 64% Confidence value, when taken with their 96% Neutral value, indicates the confidence is genuine because they don't have an agenda (they're "neutral"). Most People with definite agendas are not often confident about their agenda (with the exception of zealots, religious or otherwise).

Now consider Altimeter Group's Confidence and Author Attitude values. Their Negative Author Attitude is almost twice their Positive value and their Confidence is almost as high as Pew's. While Author Attitude values can sometimes reflect design group confusion, Confidence is most often direct from the author(s). Therefore whatever Altimeter and Pew are communicating, they're fairly confident about it and good for them.

Forrester had a remarkably low Confidence value. Usually NextStage's Evolution Technology ("ET") pings us when it gets a value that low and so it did this time, so I checked the page using NextStage's BlueSky Meter³ because a lack of confidence is often accompanied by a high BS value. Forrester received a good, technical BS rating of about 1.3%, thus whatever they're not confident about, at least they're not BSing anybody about it. The negative Confidence value could be due to the popup. It opens with "We would greatly appreciate your help in evaluating and improving your Web site experience." NextStage has (as I write this) about seven years of research indicating that visitors find such popups offputting, and that opening statement is a need to improve things, hence a lack of confidence in the way things are. Hence the site designers/owners have basically broadcast they don't have confidence in their site.

Finally for this section, SNCR's Confidence rating falls into the "...casual, 'every day' writing" level. From this one can gather that while the other three sites' content is being produced by professionals, SNCR's content is either being produced by non-professionals or by professionals wanting to reach a common, broad audience rather than a specific, targeted audience...

...or, as we'll learn later, a completely different audience than Pew, Altimeter and Forrester.

Audience Branding

SNCR is the standout here with about 19.5% of its audience scanning the homepage then not returning. This is actually much better than the other sites. Here we begin to ask some "purpose" questions, as in "What's the purpose of this site?" Considering the concurrency of the previous elements we can guess that the Altimeter, Pew and Forrester sites are not their primary means of revenue. It is plausible (based on the data so far and previous experience) that these sites exist as placeholders and that richer content is provided on "deep" pages provided to existing customers or prospects directly rather than through site navigation.

That recognized, it is worth noting that SNCR, the "oddball" in this area, may be attempting to get clients via its website and that its content (as analyzed here, a "snapshot", such as it were) isn't designed to entice visitors beyond a "first look".

Message Intent

This section provides some light on what we surmised based on previous sections.

I wrote earlier that Author Attitude values can sometimes reflect design group attitudes more than author(s) attitudes. Note here the Message Intent:Constructive, Active Pleasure and Referral values for SNCR and Altimeter. The Constructive value alone tells us there's a disconnect between Author Attitude:Negative and Message Intent, so it's probably safe to assume external design groups created the SNCR and Altimeter sites.

Pew is the real standout here. The Referral, Active Pleasure, Love and Constructive values all demonstrate that these people enjoy/believe in what they're doing (even if the site is primarily a placeholder for deeper content). Forrester's consistently mediocre and low values here (in my opinion) definitely indicate there's not a lot of "visitor-directed" design on the homepage (this is not a source of revenue for them).

There is a message here for SNCR due to it's high Message Intent:Referral, Active Pleasure and Constructive values, it's low Love value and the previously noted Audience Branding: Read Once Then Ignore value -- The site author(s) intend for the audience to respond rather than Read Once Then Ignore. As the section indicates, adding a little more excitement or joie de vivre in their subject will bring these values more in line and could cause visitors to return to the site for further investigations.

Author Influencer Type

The standout here is Altimeter. Consider their Author Influencer Type:Influencer value with their Confidence value and you are basically broadcasting "We're a cocky bunch" without any negative aspects. Nicely done and good work provided it works for you.

The other three sites have ballpark Influencer values and note Pew's Author Influencer Type:GateKeeper value of about 11%. That's a high enough comparative value to other Pew numbers to indicate that Pew both knows it's influential and knows who to get its information to in order to cause action. SNCR's 4% value is overshadowed by its Influencer value, ie SNCR knows its influential, knows they have actionable data and hasn't figured out who to get it to or how to get it to them yet.

Ten "Must" Marketing Messages

All the sites could use some help in this regard as none of them are demonstrating a "customer-centric" or "visitor-centric" dialogue. Forrester is (in comparison with their other numbers in this section) screaming they can be trusted, that they can help and that they're a leader. Unfortunately none of the other values in this section are backing up those messages.

Again it's worth noting Altimeter. Their numbers are fairly good ("This Is Important" could do better and that value can always do better for every site/paper/brochure we've analyzed) with their strongest message being "We're A Leader". It's rare we see the "We're A Leader" message as the strongest (usually "We Can Help You" is strongest) and this leadership message strength backs up the previously noted Author Influencer Type:Influencer and Confidence values.

Trust & Affinity

The surprise here is Forrester with Trust and Affinity values of 10% and 11% respectively. These numbers are pretty good when the audience is western educated and an indication that regardless of anything else, the content author(s) are aware of their audience and believe they are part of their own audience. Note that this could explain the request for help redesigning the website noted earlier.

Altimeter's low combined ratings are probably reflections of their high Author Influencer Type:Influencer and 10 "Must" Marketing Messages:We're A Leader values. You can't be on a par with your audience when you strongly believe you can influence and lead them (we've seen this a lot when analyzing political material. Political leaders can't truly envision themselves as part of the populace they're leading because an ego that believes it can lead and influence must non-consciously recognize itself as being different from those it seeks to lead and influence. If not, then there would be no confidence in its ability to lead or influence).

For "off the chart" Trust & Affinity values, see A Sentiment Analysis of Alex Todd's "Trust Extender" Post. Scroll down to the But Wait! There's More! section, or just open the plain text analysis of Alex's post and scroll down to the Trust & Affinity sections of that report.

Author-Audience Rich Persona

Probably the real, immediate "take-away" or meat in this comparative analyses is in this section. Both Pew and Altimeter are going after the same audience (V16) in so far as how that audience thinks, makes decisions, learns, finds important, what they place value on, are influenced, ...

Forrester's audience (K15) is (my opinion) obviously a business audience. They focus on what to avoid (minimizing risk, 2nd bullet), are focused on recent experience rather than long term experience or learnings (3rd bullet) and are skeptical of hype (4th bullet).

This brings us to SNCR's audience (V8). This is (again, my opinion) obviously a research audience. It's not the obvious business audience of Forrester nor the business-like audience of Pew and Altimeter. The latter two have audiences that need charts, graphs or pictures (1st bullet) then thinks things through before making a decision (2nd bullet) -- they want to read a report -- , SNCR's audience wants to see things then discuss them with an authority figure (1st and 2nd bullets) -- ie a presentation with discussion format.

This could be another area in which SNCR could improve their "click-through"; make their site more business oriented (if that audience is the goal).

Sphere Of Influence

Of all the sites analyzed, SNCR has the greatest viral impact, meaning its Real Followers (also known as "first circle audience") will tell their friends (Friends of Followers or "second circle audience") about SNCR goings-on. But those Friends of Followers is small and this lends confirmation/explanation to the Audience Branding:Read Once Then Ignore value.

Forrester's audience is necessarily small but the conclusion is that their site isn't intended to bring in new business (we'll see what happens after the redesign). Both Pew and Altimeter share the same audience with Altimeter gathering about 1.5% more of that audience than Pew, possibly due to their "Leadership" message. A business audience can be easily swayed by a self-declaration of "leadership", substantiated or otherwise.

Summary

The Take-Aways were listed earlier in this post.

Probably all that's worth adding at this point is that the above analysis would cost about US$2,000 using NextStage Sentiment Analysis's Advanced Corporate Analysis. Alternatively, you could take a training and run the analyses yourself for about US$210.

A similar analysis run through our TargetTrack tool would cost about US$7,000, include a pre-analysis phone interview, a written report with a page or more of take-aways with specific, actionable suggestions, and a two-hour phone consultation to go over the report. The TargetTrack tool reports much more in-depth information including

• age and gender capture breakdown
• major and minor messaging analysis and interpretation
• an ROI curve indicating what changes will result in the greatest return so clients can determine where to place their dollars
• ...

• Analysis of content before publishing ensures that it will appeal to the desired audience.
• Analysis of the users to a web site will help align content to the audience and their expectations.
• These products provide empirical data about user profiles and reactions -- which is difficult to obtain other ways -- while protecting anonymity.

2 - A long ago example of this was a designer/developer who thought she was underappreciated and given the task of designing a site for a major NH business. That business's web business started faltering as soon as the site went live (their bounce rate went through the roof).

The business called us in. The site "looked" fine, very professional indeed. An analysis with the desktop TargetTrack tool revealed the hidden message "I don't belong here". A visitor coming to the site was being given the non-conscious message "I don't belong here" and leaving. A subtle change to the site removed the message and online business boomed.

The following material is from a marketing paper published in Nov 2003:

The Difference Between What You Meant and What You Designed, Part I

Most people who design and build websites think the real message of a website is the obvious one and is something like "Buy from us", "Come visit us", or "We're better at what we do than anybody else." In that sense they're correct; that's the obvious message and it's the message you meant to give. But remember that right now we're talking about subtleties. What you meant might not have been what you designed because what you designed is conveyed in subtle messages you, your designers and programmers are probably unaware of. What subtle messages might your website be giving visitors?

To understand that you need to know what these subtle messages are and where they come from. People talking face to face or over the phone pick up subtle cues and messages from each other during their time interacting. Some cues and messages are obvious (facial expression, body language, tone of voice, ...) and some are not so obvious (changes in respiration, iris dilation, muscle tonus, word usage, ...). Because some cues are obvious we intellectually respond to them. The obvious messages and cues that we intellectually respond to are the "Buy from us", "Come visit us" and "We're better than our competition" messages we mentioned above.

It's also true that we respond to the unobvious cues and messages, we just don't know it. Responding to unobvious cues and messages goes on when we're talking face to face, when we're talking on the phone, and, not surprisingly, when we browse a website.

Unobvious cues and messages are placed in websites by designers and developers even though they don't know it, just as most people don't know they've assumed an aggressive or defensive posture, or that their face or tone of voice registers disbelief or anxiety. Never-the-less, these messages show up in websites just as they do in face to face conversations.

Consider these notes from actual NextStage Evolution clients:

 

From an eCommerce company

I asked Joe to run Evolution Technology on our site and five of our competitors' sites. Evolution Technology showed our five competitors with pretty much the same messages; "Learn about us here."
Our site had the message "Go away, we're not ready."
I told Joe this was hard to believe because I had designed one of those competitive sites.
About ten minutes later while I was thinking about it, I realized that when I designed our site we didn't have a product and were about six months away from having one. I remember that I was really nervous someone would actually contact us and ask for a demo when we had nothing to show them.
Evolution Technology correctly analyzed the message that was deep in our site, and because I'd never updated our site the message was still there, months after we'd been in the market.

 

From a Professional Website Designer

I recently had a website that I designed run through NextStage Evolution's engines. The overall message that was found took me by surprise but was right on target. The message was "I don't have time for this" and at the time this was one of 15 projects going on and I was most definitely in a hurry to complete this particular website. I was floored that the engines picked up on my inner feelings at the time.

These unobvious messages are important because they pass our intellectual barriers and go straight to the deep brain where our emotions and childhood superstitions lie. Such unintentional messages can be good and bad. Don't tell yourself your website is different and no subtle messages exist there. Trust us, they do. Evolution Technology is able to find these hidden messages before visitors to your website do and that's a very good thing for you. And yep, we have some stats for that.

3 - NextStage BlueSky Meter (NSBM) is a format recognizing text analysis tool based on Nextstage's patented and award winning Evolution Technology (ET). ET is the only patent (as far as we know) granted by the USPO that "allows machines to understand and respond to human thought". Why format-recognizing? Because people respond to DOC files, web pages, emails, straight text, etc., differently even when the same information is contained in each item.

NSBM is designed to analyze material (blogs, Twitter streams, FaceBook pages, emails, DOC files, ...) and determines how much Blue Sky is hidden in the content. Please remember that

• Some material is intended to be BlueSkyish.
• Everybody has a little blue sky in everything they do. This is required for cognitive continuity (few people can exactly remember everything correctly) and to maintain the "fabric of society". Purveyors of penultimate truth are usually ostracized.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Trainings:

• 17 Sept 2010 - Know How Someone Is Thinking in 10 Seconds or Less in Bedford, NH
• 21 Sept 2010 - Social Media Messaging with Meaning in Concord, NH
• 22 Oct 2010 - Mastering Push and Pull Writing (Writing Headlines that Cause Action) in Bedford, NH

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

Learn the latest regarding NextStage blog posts, conference sightings,
whitepapers, tools, presentations and more via The NextStage RSS feed .
NextStage Evolution

  Friends of NextStage
  LinkedIn Group

I shared the initial analysis with Alex and he asked me to share it, hence this comment/post/discussion thread.

Obligatory Promotional Paragraphs

We decided on the latter.

You can learn a lot about NextStage's Sentiment Analysis tool by following the links at the bottom of the NSSA About page.

The Analyses

Please go to the analysis of the entire webpage to follow along with this analysis.

Starting at the top with Basic: Author Attitude - The fact that the Positive (green bar) is about 10pts higher than the Negative (red bar) is an indication that the author (Alex, in this case) is doing "heart" writing. They are writing to an audience they both know and believe will respond positively to what is written. Because they (probably) both know and believe the response will be positive, they're sharing more of themselves than they might normally share in a professional piece of writing.

Intermediate: Confidence - This is a very impressive value, 67%, and high enough to be rarely seen in professional pieces that aren't blatant self-promotion or demonstrations of outright arrogance. In a training, I would instruct users to compare the Confidence value to Intermediate: Message Intent: Referral, Active Pleasure and Love values and Advanced: Trust and Advanced: Affinity values found further down in the report. The fact that all these values are also relatively high indicates that the Confidence value is based on the author's core beliefs in what they're offering rather than sarcasm, arrogance or self-promotion. In any case, 67% is a demonstration that the author (Alex) strongly believes the audience will both benefit and act upon the information presented.

Intermediate: Audience Branding - The fact that the "Read Once Then Ignore" value is low and the other values in this section are non-existent indicates that a general audience wouldn't pay much attention to this piece. As with Confidence, I would instruct users to compare these values with Advanced: Sphere of Influence: Real Followers. That value is at 30%, meaning that 30% of the people in the author's immediate circle of associates will respond to it. Thirty percent is a fairly high number in marketing circles and something to be proud of. The fact that Real Followers is 30% but Friends of Followers and Friends of Friends are insignificant indicates that this piece could be audience specific (meaning it's full of jargon only known to a specific audience) and definitely that people outside of the author's sociologic "first circle" won't pay much attention to it, hence will "Read Once Then Ignore".

Intermediate: Message Intent - The high Referral, Active Pleasure and Love values all demonstrate that the author believes the information presented is valuable to the reader, will be acted upon by the reader and that the author believes they are both recognized and honored by their audience. Very nice. This conclusion is verified by the Advanced: Trust and Advanced: Affinity values both being between 15-20%, both good numbers for a western cultural audience/author. Advanced: Trust and Affinity are indications of whether or not the author believes they are a member of their audience, hence that the audience will accept and act upon the information presented. Those values being between 15-20% validate many of the other values in this analysis.

Intermediate: Author Influencer Type - At 90%, the author strongly believes they can influence their audience to act in certain ways. Also note the GateKeeper value is about 10% of the Influencer value. This indicates that the author also believes there may be a need to protect the audience from something. This becomes obvious after a simple read of the material; the material is about trust demonstrations between individuals without social ties. Whenever there is a request for trust there may be a concern about misplaced trust, hence the residual GateKeeper value.

Advanced: Ten Must Marketing Messages - The two leftmost values, We Trust You and You Can Trust Us, form a nice stair and this is good because it demonstrates the trust relationship both extended by the author and received by the audience. The next four values, This Is Important to We Can Help You, don't demonstrate as nice a staircase and this can be a concern. The difference between This Is Important and This Is Important to You equates to someone not proving something's importance but still demanding that people pay attention, likewise the step between We Can Help and We Can Help You equates to someone being a tad obsessive towards an individual than being able to genuinely help that individual. The analysis provides some suggestions for rewriting the material so that these messages aren't lost in the mix.

Advanced: Trust - A value of 16% is on the high side of what English speaking, western educated authors get here and is usually an indication of some relationship pre-existing between the author and their audience.

Advanced: Affinity - The 19% value here indicates (for most English speaking, western educated authors) that the author believes they are part of their audience. This is validated by some of the other values in the report and means the author believes their audience will respond to the provided information as intended. Advanced: Author-Audience Rich Persona - RichPersona is a NextStage metric that a) I've written about quite a bit elsewhere and b) all of our clients use for a variety of purposes. The RichPersona section provides some psychologic factors of the most receptive audience for the material presented.

Advanced: Sphere of Influence - As mentioned previously, this material will work well with an audience familiar with the author and subject but not beyond it.

But Wait! There's More!

What I want to offer next can be thought of as "Comparing Apples with Apples, but Granny Smiths with Golden Delicious". The previous analysis came from analyzing how the entire web page -- how it's typeface, font, colors, images, ... -- affects readership.

All NextStage tools are format recognizing and format sensitive. Format recognizing and format sensitive means they are aware that how people interact with a webpage is different than how they interact with an email, with a brochure, a DOC file, straight text, etc. Being format recognizing and sensitive is important because these different formats influence how people respond to the information presented.

That stated, compare the values presented above with the values revealed from a plain text analysis). What follows is an analysis of Alex's material only (I cut&pasted Alex's material into a text file and analyzed that with NextStage's Sentiment Analysis tool). The differences between the full web page and just Alex's content demonstrate that people should write both for the audience and also for how their information is presented to its audience.

Basic: Author Attitude - The plain content demonstrates more Positive than the web page version and draws that increase from both Neutral and Negative. In other words, if the author were sharing this information with you directly, you'd probably feel better about it.

Intermediate: Confidence - Here is the big news; the web page's formatting, etc., is draining about 20 percentage points from this value. The author, by themself, is much more confident in their material than the web page would lead the reader to nonconsciously believe.

Intermediate: Message Intent - The web page has the same stultifying aspects on the Love metric here.

Intermediate: Author Influencer Type - The pure material has a recognizably higher Hub value meaning the author sans web page formatting also believes the information they're offering is time, person and place specific.

Advanced: Ten Must Marketing Messages - You'll notice that the staircase of This Is Important to We Can Help You is much better in the non-web page version.

Advanced: Trust and Affinity - Here is the big news. The author sans web page formatting is demonstrating amazingly high values of social trust and affinity with their audience. These numbers are recognizably high for an English speaking, western educated author and that author should be congratulated (congrats, Alex!).

Advanced: Sphere of Influence - And here is where marketing in the guise of placement, web page audience versus individual's audience, etc., come into play. While the author's native material has much higher social connectivity and relationship values, its actual audience is much smaller, meaning the author transmitting this material by themself will make less of an impact that by placing that same material on this outlet.

Hope this helps and is useful. Please feel free to contact me directly with questions, comments or concerns.

Joseph

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Trainings:

• 21 Sept 2010 - Social Media Messaging with Meaning in Concord, NH

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

A single use of NextStage Sentiment Analysis costs between US$10 and US$500 depending on who you are and what you want to know

NextStage Sentiment Analysis comes in three flavors; Basic, Intermediate and Advanced. NSSA Basic reports the author's attitude towards their material and/or audience - Positive, Neutral or Negative scaled from 0 to 100, and is most similar to the generic sentiment analysis reports provided by others

NSSA Intermediate includes the above Basic and also reports on the author's

• Confidence in their material
• Ability to "brand" their audience (to make the audience think about and remember the material)
• Intent towards their audience (shown on the right)
• Belief they are an Influencer, GateKeeper or Hub towards their audience

NSSA Advanced includes the above Basic and Intermediate reports, Suggestions, an XLS of the data forming the report and the following

• Ten Must Marketing Messages (shown on the right)
• Trust that the audience will understand and respond to the material as desired
• Affinity (shared group identity) with the audience
• Author-Audience Rich Persona
• Viral Capacity

NSSA Advanced, Intermediate and Basic are also available in bulk (10 and 100 run increments) at discount prices through the NextStage Store. Please contact NextStage directly for larger purchases.

Corporate rates for NSSA Advanced include one (1) hour phone consulting and report analysis for US$499.99/run

New (Wednesday, 26 May 10) - NextStage Sentiment Analysis Voices - The Voices version of NSSA allows users to submit a text file of URLs (minimum 100 entries, maximum 10,000 entries) for "bulk" analysis. Analysis can take anywhere from 1 to 24 hours and users are emailed an XLS of NSSA Advanced results with each URL's results data on an individual line. NextStage Sentiment Analysis Voices was suggested by Syncapse's Chris Berry.

Voices Pricing
1 run, 100 entries @ US$6,999.99
1 run, 1,000 entries @ US$32,499.99
1 run, 10,000 entries @ US$129,999.99

Please contact NextStage directly regarding using NextStage Sentiment Analysis Voices.

Do you have a free version?

Nope. We're strong believers in "A worker is worthy of their wages". We're told there's lots of free tools out there. Good for them and good for you if you use them and are satisfied. We've also been told there are tools out there that cost between US$20k-100,000k/use. Definitely good for them and good for you if you use them and are satisfied.

We've also been told there are no tools that offer the information our tools offer, have the documented accuracy our tools have and cost as little as our tools do. Our price point for the common user is based on an ages old philosophy; "The right to information is the right to be free".

How can your tools do so much, cost so little and be so accurate?

First, we do things differently. Second, we do things differently. Third, we do things differently. Fourth...

Seriously, we do do things differently. Firstly, our technology is based on completely different principles than others (the USPTO said we were creating a new field of technology when we got our patent). Secondly, our tools have been available in desktop versions since 2001-3 so placing those many years of use, experience, learning and knowledge into web-based tools wasn't a long shot. It would be nice to make US$100k/use but frankly, nobody at NextStage likes to work that hard and it takes much less time to sell 2,500 US$39.99 uses than it does to make one US$100k/use sale. We'll gladly charge you US$100k if you want us to, you'll get the same report, same accuracy, same amount of information as you would for US$39.99. If you really need to pay that kind of money to believe something is accurate...well, we hope you enjoy your new clothes, too.

Thirdly and lastly, our tools' accuracy comes from points 1 (greatly) and 2 (to a lesser extent) above. Our technology understands human thought patterns so it knows how someone is thinking when they do something and how others will respond when something is done. Each time one of our tools is used, all of our tools learn a little bit more about how people think. This 1 and 2 is why when Yahoo's Dennis Mortensen challenged us to prove our accuracy, we used independent groups and they determined our tools' accuracy at better than 98%.

Summary

I said at an eMetrics SF conference long ago that everybody would be using these kinds of tools someday. I also stated clearly that it wouldn't matter if you were using NextStage's tools or someone else's tools, but everybody would be using these kinds of tools.

Based on usage patterns, traffic, all the usual indicators, it's nice to know how prophetic I can be sometimes.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Links for this post:

• "...programmable device..." and "...how a person is thinking."
• NextStage Receives First Patent
• Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 1)
• Canoeing with Stephane (Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 2))
• Understanding and Using NextStage's Level 1 Sentiment Analysis
• NextStage Sentiment Analysis, Beta Test, Phase 2
• Once Upon a Beta: My NSSA Experience
• Sentiment Analysis 101
• NSE Evolution Technology Research Paper - Machine Detection of Website Visitor Age and Gender via Analysis of Psychomotor Behavioral Cues

• 21 Sept 2010 - Social Media Messaging with Meaning in Concord, NH

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

I'm very fortunate to be part of NH Citizens Health Initiative, a group that gets together regularly to determine ways to make NH a healthier place. Group members represent state, industry, and various private and public health concerns.

Recently we had a day long session discussing recent initiatives, results from past efforts and new directions, one being a strong push into social networking and social media. That's where I came in. Working under the aegis of The Center for Adaptive Solutions, I presented an introduction to social media workshop.

Before I got onstage, we had presentations by Dorothy Bazos, Holly Tutko, Ned Helms (pictured), and Laurie Davie, all fascinating and all enlightening. I was intrigued to learn from Ned Helms that health initiatives share a problem plaguing quite a few other places; a lack of leadership (something I'll be posting about in The Analytics Ecology some time soon).

Several Initiatives, Several Voices

We had a nicely packed room and the discussions were lively. I shared my experience re The High Cost of Cancelling WorkOutWorld Membership and everybody seemed to have a similar story. The workshop itself started with an explanation of what social media services address what audience groups and how to identify where your audience spends its social media time. From there we got into particular methods for getting people's attention online, how to deal with unwanted social campaigns and commenters and how to penetrate existing social groups to your benefit.

And then I gave a class assignment

I mentioned that the discussions were lively. This was especially true when I asked the participants to create a blog post based on that day's presentations and training.

One group took on the task of creating a social media campaign that tied together Robert Frost, cellulite, black flies and living in NH, another took up my suggestion of creating a hook (such as the quotes I use in my email signature) to draw people into a social media effort and another discussion dealt with creating social media campaigns for internal corporate use.

Fascinating stuff, all.

It was so much fun we're going to do it again

The Center for Adaptive Solutions will be sponsoring some additional workshops over the summer for everyone who's interested. The focus will be general and apply to all sectors, not simply health. You can learn more at The NextStage Store.

See you there!

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Trainings:

• Creating a Social Media Campaign That Works - CAS-NextStage Live Training, Concord, NH, 8 Jun 2010
• Social Media Messaging with Meaning - CAS-NextStage Live Training, Concord, NH 21 Sept 2010

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

<UPDATE>I've added a comment from The Good Dr. Geertz at the end of this post</UPDATE>

I wrote in A Rant With A Purpose: EULA about the travails of finding a gym membership that wasn't a bait&switch.

I was talking with a friend earlier today who shared that, in her opinion, health clubs are becoming the new "used car dealers". Things got better since I posted that rant and I thought I'd share the fun.

I had called WorkOutWorld on 18 Mar 10 to cancel. I got a bill from them. I called on 29 Mar 10 to ask why I got a bill. Even though I remember telling them I cancelled and Susan remembers my telling them I cancelled, they only have a record that I had a question about charging my membership to a credit card. On the 29th I was told "Verbal cancellations are not accepted. You have to go to your local club and cancel your membership there."

How come nobody told me this when I called on the 18th?

Nobody knew. But to cancel, I had to go to the local club.

Which I did. Got a little yellow piece of paper here signed by the club manager. She told me to fax it to WorkOutWorld's home office. I did. On 31 Apr 10.

And I got another bill from WorkOutWorld on 2 Apr 10, this time owing $24.50.

So I called today (5 Apr 10) and asked, "Why am I getting another bill?"

"You didn't cancel your membership in time so you're being billed for another month."

Could I talk to your supervisor?

Up the foodchain, things weren't any better. I would offer that there was no love. Finally, I asked what do I owe today, right now, right this very second that we're talking on the phone?

"$24.50."

Okay, let me get a credit card. I'll pay it off and we'll be quits.

"There's also a $39.99 rate fix fee due."

You just told me that I only owe $24.50. What's this $39.99?

"That's a rate fix fee. It insures that your club rate won't go up for the remainder of your membership."

I'm cancelling my membership. Today. Right now. I don't need my club rate fixed because I'm quitting the club.

"I understand that, sir. But you didn't cancel in time so we have to charge you this fee, as well."

Are there any other fees?

"You also missed your April membership fee payment so there's another $15."

Uh huh. I didn't pay for April because I called and cancelled before that payment was due.

"But you didn't go to your club and cancel so we had no way of knowing your membership status."

Those phone calls meant nothing? Oh, right. That's the "no verbal cancellations accepted" thing, right?

"And we'll have to charge you a late fee because that payment is late."

And what will that be?

"$9.50."

Anything else?

"No, sir. That's all. The total due is $79.49."

Okay. Fine. Here's my credit card number.

"And there'll be a $5 fee for processing."

Okay. Right now. Today. How much do I owe you to quit the club. Done, forever. Never contact me again quits?

"Your bill today is $24.50."

Then how come if my total bill today is $24.50 it'll cost me $84.49 to quit?

And does anybody remember that my reason for joining the club was that I wanted no hassles, no classes, no babysitting, no nothing except to actually exercise? Anybody remember "exercise"? You know, you move your body, you work up a sweat, you release endorphins, you feel good about life and yourself?

Anybody remember that the bait&switch was that membership was only $10/month?

So in the end, it only cost me eight-and-a-half months membership to quit a health club I only went to three times during my first week of membership.

I no longer wonder why the majority of Americans are overweight, lack physical strength or stamina and don't frequent health clubs of any kind. Especially not WorkOutWorlds, although I'm a'guessin' it's not much different elsewhere.

Funny, though. This never happened when they were gyms.

Comment from Dr. Geertz

WorkOutWorld - Nashua doesn't have a good reputation with the BBB. See http://www.bbb.org/concord/business-reviews/health-clubs/workout-world-in-nashua-nh-92009296.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics. Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

<UPDATE>This post is updated with a comment from R. Podarok</UPDATE>

I recently decided to join a gym. Now-a-days they call them health clubs and I'm probably always going to call them "gyms". I went to a WorldGym years ago and decided it was time to go again.

I received an USPO mail solicitation to the local Gold's Gym. The advertised rate seemed reasonable because all I wanted to do was about ten minutes of floor exercises, warm up on an elliptical trainer, lift some weights, cool down on an elliptical, take a shower and go. In and out in a lunch hour or so, three to four times a week. Maybe use the sauna.

Simple, yes? No classes, no pilates, no yoga, no aerobics, no babysitting. Just do my routine, in and out and that's it.

So I went to Gold's with the USPO solicitation in hand. I asked at the desk, "Are there any other fees involved?" and was told I'd need to talk to a member something or other ("membership coordinator" sounds right. Nice title, that).

"All I want to know is if there's other fees involved."

"Let me get a membership coordinator to help you."

Fine. I had a few minutes. Don't remember the name of the fellow who sat down with me. He asked my name.

"Before we get there, I came because of this." I showed him the flyer. I think the actual price was US$24.99/month. "I want to know if there's other fees involved."

"Could you fill out this form for me?"

"I'm wanting to save us both lots of time here. Just tell me if there are other fees involved."

A couple of back and forths later, "There's an enrollment fee, ..." and a this fee and a that fee.

"Thanks. That's all I needed to know." I walked out. It had some to do with the fees, more to do with not being able to get a straight answer. I threw the USPO solicitation in the trash as I walked out.

They sent another in the mail a week later. It also got trashed. I opened the phone book and started calling gyms top to bottom.

"What's the least expensive program you offer?"

I saw a TV ad for WorkOutWorld around this point in time. "US$10/month for life" Okay. I went down to the local WorkOutWorld. "Are there any other fees involved?"

A yearly membership fee, paid on 15 April of each year, about US$40.

Anything else?

"No, that's it."

Could I pay in cash? (I mean, US$10/month. That's spare change these days)

"Yes."

So after about a week of going to WorkOutWorld I got a letter indicating that I would have to pay US$15/month because I elected to pay by cash. This was clearly written in little tiny print (about 6pt (my guess)) on the back of the contract (the whole contract, actually, was in little tiny print). Right next to "Please read the contract carefully". 

And as I said to the woman on the phone, "How come when I asked what the monthly fee was, I was told US$10 and that I could pay in cash?"

I was told that both statements were true, they just weren't true together. I could pay in cash and I could pay US$10/month.

I explained that this wasn't true. I could pay in cash OR I could pay US$10/month.

My next stop was BestFitness. They advertised a US$19.99/month fee. I called. First call got Scott.

"I'm calling about your US$19.99/month rate. Are there any other fees involved?"

He asked my name. I told him, "Joseph".

"Well, Joe, if you can come in we can go over our options with you."

Lesson the first: When someone tells you their name, don't change it to show familiarity without asking first. All you've done is demonstrate false familiarity. And possibly disrespect.

"Just tell me if there are any other fees involved."

"If you can come in we can go over our options with you. I'm here -- "

"No, I'm not going to come in until I know what the least expensive membership program is. I don't want classes, I don't want training, I don't want tanning, I just want to come in, lift, leave. That's it. What's your least expensive membership program."

"That depends on whether or not you'll be taking classes, doing tanning, you really need to come in so we can go over our options -- "

"Oh, Scott...you've lost the sale." I hung up. I had just told him I only wanted to come in, lift and leave, didn't want classes or anything else and he starts selling me classes. Also, stating my goals going in as "come in, lift, leave" should be a clue that I don't like to waste time on things.

Remember I mentioned I'd gone to WorldGym years back? BestFitness took over WorldGym (at least in Nashua), so remembering that I did like WorldGym I called again a few days later and got a Karen. After a few back and forths she told me that yes, the basic membership plan was US$19.99/month and if I enrolled this month there was a special so I wouldn't need to pay any enrollment or other fees. She told me when she was in and entered me in a guest book.

I went down to the local BestFitness. I got there half an hour before Karen got in. "Mind if I walk around?"

The receptionist told me she'd have someone show me around.

"No need to trouble anyone."

"Let me get Sean or Scott to show you around."

Scott? Scott??? "I'll take Sean, please."

Scott showed up.

"I asked for Sean."

Sean came over. We walked to the gym floor. "You talked with Karen?"

Yes. She told me US$19.99/month and that there was a special going on right now, no enrollment or any other fees.

"I don't know about that. The only special we have now is ..." (I don't remember what it was. It wasn't the special Karen mentioned, that I remember) "...and the US$19.99/month is if you get a friend to enroll."

I stopped walking. "So what's the monthly fee if I don't get someone else to enroll?"

US$24.99/month.

"Karen never told me that. I asked what the least expensive program was and she told me US$19.99/month."

I was told that was the truth, the least expensive program was only US$19.99/month. I just needed a friend to enroll in order to get it.

"Karen never told me that I needed a friend to enroll in order to get it."

I turned around and started walking out.

"It's only five dollars more a month, Joe," Sean said.

"Good. Then you pay it."

Bait&Switch

The above are (to me) examples of "The Old Bait&Switch". Tell the customer one thing to get them in the door then tell them something else once they're in the door in the hope that once there, they'll just go along.

I have never liked "The Old Bait&Switch". I find it...well, I find it distasteful (anybody read It All Started With That First Bite Of Food?) if not downright dishonest. I don't care what the contract says in the fine print (6pt. Come on!). There should be no fine print, especially when you have an interested buyer who clearly states their objectives. Get them in the door, give them what they want, meet their expectations and they will upsell themselves.

Doesn't matter the product or service, that's the way it goes.

The NextStage EULA

The above were strong lessons to me because NextStage is crafting its EULA (End User License Agreement) for it's online tools. I want to meet consumers' expectations, not give them frustration and definitely not alienate them. I'm emphasizing something simple, something like

• You get this and only this.
• We're responsible for our system, not yours.
• Live Long and Prosper.

My concept of EULAs goes back to Philippe Kahn's Borland Software and their "No Nonsense EULA".

It was simple, clean and neat. At least that's how I remember it.

But that was long before I ever went to a gym.

(and to close the loop on that one...) I'm joining the local YMCA. They are more than US$19.99/month, more than US$24.99/month.

However, they do clearly advertise their rates on their website. All their fees. Monthly dues, enrollment, membership.

Clean, neat, simple.

I'm big into that these days.

Comment from R. Podarok - I think what they did to you was unfair and poor customer service.

Thanks. I agree. I'm posting a follow up today. You can find it at The High Cost of Cancelling WorkOutWorld Membership.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

<UPDATE>
Jen sent me her comment and I'm posting it above my advertising below.

Same for Dr. Geertz's comment.
</UPDATE>

I received a request to help Unicef raise some US$20,000 a while back. The fellow who sent me the request pinged some 1,000 people. I think I passed it on to probably another 250. Others on his list may have done the same.

Let's say conservatively that maybe 1,500 people got pinged. The fellow who pinged me included in his ping that if everybody he knew donated just US$20, Unicef's goal -- bringing fresh water to an African village -- would be met.

The end result?

US$2,591

US$2,591???

I looked at the donation list. Most of the people donating were donating upwards of US$25.

And still, the US$25,000 goal wasn't met???

Just so everybody's clear on the concept, I'm upset by this poor showing.

I consider myself fairly fluent in the psychologies and sociologies of altruism, of social networks, group dynamics, ..., so this poor showing isn't surprising, merely upsetting.

Fortunately, you still have a chance to take part.

'Nuff said?

<JEN'S COMMENT>
Just can't stay away from this site, eh? :)
I participated without publicizing and also posted the link to my 200 Facebook friends, and I was also shocked/disappointed by the result of the fundraising.
I am commenting though because you didn't explain the formula in the title - are you teasing your loyal readers?!

Sorry about that, Jen. I wasn't teasing, I've just been busy the past few weeks putting the finishing touches on NextStage's Level 1 Sentiment Analysis tool and have been thinking in neuromathematics equations for a while. The equation translates to "Charity is a function of personal and/or group altruism (± 2db of variance)".

Thanks for the catch and thanks for reading and commenting. - Joseph
</JEN'S COMMENT>

<DR. GEERTZ'S COMMENT>
What could Scott have done differently to elicit a broader/greater response? I am loosely familiar with philanthropic endeavors and asking people to support a cause, as you know. From what I've found, the less effort you put into making the request, the less success you'll have. Much like any communication, face-to-face is best, followed by a telephone call, followed by real time communication, followed by mail/email.

I think there is a convenience factor in being able to pay by credit card through the email link that should be helpful, but I'm not sure the message with the request expressed urgency, expressed the need in terms of the village, or made it sufficiently personal to Scott. The water system need was vague and seemed to express what $20k can do more than it expressed what this $20k would do, raising $20k is something Scott was doing (not providing water to a village), and it suggested he hoped to get the money from 400+ twitter followers (Twitter followers are not a strong village, IMHO) and 200 facebook friends ($20 from each would still fall well short of the goal).

Finally, I think if you really hope to raise that kind of money, you need to step up with more than $180 - this goes back to the effort of the requester/commitment to the cause. And, as I'm sure you'll understand, I'm not trying to be critical toward Scott, but I am trying to provide a little critical thought as to how he could have communicated his message more effectively to achieve his desired effect.

Thanks for reading and commenting, Dr. Geertz.

The type of philanthropic activity you're describing is very different from the kind Scott used. He was using social mechanics (which works very well for certain things when done along certain lines) and you're describing (essentially) one-to-one solicitation (you know email addresses, phone numbers, etc). Your method uses "direct address", something I've discussed elsewhere. Scott chose another method.

To your points re Twitter and Facebook, yes and no. Those avenues are dependent on the strength of the social ties expressed by the individuals communicating via those networks.

I would disagree with your comment about Scott's level of commitment to his own cause, as well. My disagreement goes back to the social methodology he's using. A demonstration of "greater" commitment on his part could have proven financially intimidating to the audience he was addressing, hence the response would have been much poorer than it was.

As always, these are my thoughts and I'm glad you shared yours. - Joseph
<DR. GEERTZ'S COMMENT>

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.

And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!

Think Cyborg. Think Johnny Mnemonic. Think Firefox.

Also think DARPA and Extreme Black Ops.

The individual had read some papers I've written and determined that the ability for any programmable device to respond to human thought (from our first patent) qualified as neuroengineering. Especially weapons that know their owners and aircraft that know their pilots.

I offered that people are making a choice whether or not to use a programmable device, so ET didn't qualify.

They responded that programmable devices were ubiquitous so my point was moot.

I offered that humans always have choices.

They responded that modern society funnels us into mass behaviors and away from infinitely unique choices.

I offered that being part of a modern society was itself a choice.

They responded that fish don't know they live in water, so the great unwashed don't recognize they can opt-out. Further, the default is an unrecognized opt-in at birth and nobody gets to choose when they're born.

At this point my phone determined the individual was more interested in argument than discussion and took over larynx and breath control from me. My desktop has a very well developed mental matrix of me and is quite apt at conversing in my style so it took over attention, engagement and cognitive functionality.

Thankfully and pleasantly, I had already been shut down for my maintenance period and scheduled refit.

What made this such a fascinating paper was where the author went with it.

Here's their logic in a nutshell:

• We are wired for pleasure.
• Everyone's just enough different that the pleasure they go after can be unique enough such that in small groups, their individual pleasures become obvious (think going out for drinks with friends and each ordering a different drink).
• Given enough time or a large enough group (and there would be an upper limit on the group size such that group and tribal dynamics don't kick in) these unique quests for individuated pleasures will lead to chaos.
• So it's possible the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a penchant towards disorder, towards chaos, and had nothing to do with vice or sexual deviancy except that they were manifestations of the disorder. And probably the historians of the day wouldn't grasp the concept of "chaos" in its mathematical meaning, so go with something you can easily point a finger at.

Oh...wait a second...everyone acting as a unified whole? That's a mob, isn't it? Definitely in the third person, never in the first (We were sitting here calmly sipping our drinks when an uncivilized mob roared past.)

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Upcoming Conferences:

• The 4th Annual SNCR Research Symposium & Awards Gala at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA, 5-6 Nov 09

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.

<UPDATE>
This blog platform has been providing increasing challenges over the past year. Yesterday I learned that people were having trouble leaving comments. One, Jen, was kind enough to email me her comment and I've included it at the end of this post. I'll only be posting two more times on this platform then moving my blog elsewhere.
Stay tuned...
</UPDATE>

I've written before that I read a lot. Honestly, I don't know many people who read more than I do. It's simply one of my preferred ways of learning.

Here I'd like to bring two such readings to everyone's attention:

• The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy

   

   

   

   

   

• The Babylonian Theory of the Planets

Perhaps even more amazing, the observations were made without any -- any! -- fancy or high power equipment, just patience and the naked eye.

And of course, lots of conversation and thought.

Seems to me those last two are especially lacking in today's I need a number let me come up with a metric world.

But that's just my opinion.

<JEN'S COMMENT>
I think there's a NextStage principle implicit in there!

Conversation and thought are wonderful, but I think patience may be the most important of all. Maybe part of the WAA certification should be baking a cake from scratch ;)

Joseph Response: ROFLMAO (and thanks for reading and commenting.
</JEN'S COMMENT>

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.