Initial campaign results from our MAX ad

July 14, 2009 Justin Kistner — 70 comments

Social media is changing the way businesses connect with markets. Conversations take place where the participants choose and are often spread across multiple sources. Pulling the conversation together in order to make informed, engagement decisions is at the heart of marketing’s challenge in this new media landscape. To demonstrate how Webtrends Social Measurement helps with a social media campaign, we advertised on the outside of Portland’s light rail, MAX, to monitor Twitter for responses to our ad. The idea is to publish the results on another MAX ad in October. We forecasted it would take 3 months to get a volume of results that would tell a compelling story, but a compelling story emerged in less than a week and spanned Twitter, blogs, and mainstream news. This is an update on that campaign.

Campaign results

The following are results from our measure of conversation on social media driven by our marketing campaign.

If a source had two or more posts, we combined the results. KATU had the most comments. BikePortland had the most commenters. Also worth noting, after we filtered for duplicates we discovered that the number of comments that KATU reports on their site are nearly double the actual amount. Unique commenters are considered unique usernames.

Sentiment is a hot aspect of social media. We recently wrote a post challenging the use of algorithms to determine sentiment, and this campaign is a great example of how NLP falls short. Sentiment is a complex tapestry of human emotions, not just positive, negative, or neutral. In this case our criteria was:

Yes answers: People that only said yes.
No answers: People that only said no.
Same answers: People that said the amount paid now is fine.
More answers: People that said pay more; including answers about licensing and registration.
Less answers: People that said pay less; including answers about rebates or tax credits.
Other answers: Comments that didn’t explicit state a position; including answers that were sarcastic or answered with a question as we can’t be sure of their inference.

As our results are human scored and could be interpreted differently by other people, we are providing our data so that it can be reinterpreted by anyone who is interested. We showed the top four sources broken out to show what impact sources had on the overall sentiment. Overall, the sentiment was that people favored either the same or less taxes than cyclists currently contribute. The strongest opposition came from Twitter, our original target source for monitoring conversation for this campaign.

Reflecting the salient points

In today’s media landscape, it’s challenging to track many viewpoints from many stakeholders. Making sense of a high volume of conversation from disparate sources isn’t easy for anyone. After tracking this conversation with our tools, here are some of the main points we learned:

1.) There is a lot of confusion on the facts about who pays for what currently

The most quoted source was the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), which reported that 92% of the funds for local roads come from property, income, and sales taxes. It was the lack of general awareness of this fact that we believe causes a lack of empathy with cyclists as it pertains to taxation/registration. We did notice that the mainstream news sites that had the most “yes” answers to our question, many of which were accompanied by messages that indicated people didn’t think cyclists paid taxes currently. Others pointed out that cars, boats, motorcycles, airplanes and more have additional taxes including licensing, registration, and fuel taxes. Respondents pointed out that many cyclists are also motorists and therefore not only pay the unique motor vehicle taxes, but that it would be double taxation. To which people replied that the additional taxes are paid for per vehicle regardless of use, which therefore doesn’t constitute double taxation.

What is clear to us is that more conversation around this point could help clarify for everyone where contribution currently comes from, which is key to having a discussion about where obligations should be moving forward. While the information is out there, it doesn’t appear to be widely distributed, nor agreed upon. We see this as the greatest opportunity for constituents involved in public policy development around transportation.

2.) More taxes on cycling could be bad for everyone

There were two reasons for arguing this point. First is that people pointed out that less traffic, less damage to the environment, and more benefits were good for everyone. Participants reasoned that anything that discouraged cycling, such as taxes, prevents the community from reaping those rewards. As bikes do not use fuel, the only additional per vehicle costs that could apply would be licensing and registration. The only argument we saw against this point was the feeling of it being unfair that road faring cyclists didn’t have to pay these costs as well. Contenders pointed to the fact that state governments and municipalities who have adopted bike registration programs have later abandoned them due to the loss of the revenue to overhead.

3.) Some cyclists want more taxes, but under specific conditions

When people said they’d be willing to pay more taxes, they were only willing to pay more if the money went to bike specific infrastructure (we’ll include numbers in our final report). Nearly every answer for more taxes included the word “if”, often in all caps, and ended with extra exclamation points–indicating that people felt strongly that paying more was critically tied to the conditions that the money went to bike specific infrastructure. People expressed interest in better maintenance of existing bike lanes, more and better bike lanes, new bike-only paths, theft recovery, and more.

Other themes that came up were: Motorists are rude and sometimes dangerous about sharing the road; Road laws are not enforced equally on cyclists; Cyclists aren’t required to have liability insurance; Some people consider “cyclist” a loaded word.

Transparency

As part of our campaign, we are being transparent. That means we share openly about all details of the campaign. It also means our employees are free to discuss their thoughts publicly, even if they are critical. So, let’s talk about how we make money with this campaign. As I mentioned earlier, this campaign is part of a larger campaign called The Open Campaign. The Open Campaign will have it’s own microsite that will openly display the methods and results from various campaigns we’ve run using our tools. The concept is to provide a reference to businesses for what running campaigns with our tools looks like. It is that site that we’ll use to build leads for our sales team. While we do have a landing page for the MAX ad with a form on it, that form is to enter to win a free TriMet pass. Information from that form is *not* given to our sales team. It is strictly a promotional offer to encourage participation.

Want to see the results and make your own reports? Download our data »

Next Steps

Our question surfaced a diversity of viewpoints in much less time than we expected. As a result, we have an opportunity to progress the conversation by asking another question. If you have a suggestion for a follow up question, please share it as us a comment below.

CATEGORIES: Industry Perspectives

TAGS: ad bike marketing MAX portland Social Media tax

Click here to cancel reply.

70 Comments

Justin Kistner
2009-08-17
17:46:15
Daniel, we never pretended to be conducting anything other than a marketing campaign. Additionally, I'd be more persuaded by the "loaded question" argument if we had asked, "Should cyclists start paying road taxes?" or "Should cyclists also pay road taxes?" or something like that. But we didn't ask those questions. However, even if we had asked one of those blatant questions, I still wouldn't feel the need to apologize. The fact is that the only usage based taxes on the road are paid for by motor vehicles.

We all contribute to the sales, property, and income taxes that pay for the majority of our roads. We also pay for schools regardless of whether or not we send children to them. We also pay for police cars, but we can't use those. So paying for public infrastructure out of regular public taxes is not the same as paying usage taxes. Since our question focused on cyclists, it could have also been "Should motorists pay a road tax?" *That* would have been problematic as motorists do pay additional per vehicle taxes that are usage based.
Daniel Miles
2009-08-18
14:02:16
Ok, great point about usage tax vs the general tax. "Should cyclists pay usage-based taxes for roads" is a question worth asking. My objection is that but both usage-based taxes and general-fund taxes are "road taxes" when the money is applied to roads, and the combined funding from the two types is what you asked about. there's nothing in the question about usage-based vs general taxation so I'm having trouble swallowing this post-hoc explanation.

I also agree that there are ways to word it that would have transmitted a STRONGER assumption than you did but I still think this one was loaded. If you really don't think the question as you asked it transmits an assumption, I'll go away satisfied that even though you and I disagree about the meaning of language, at least webtrends didn't set out to make a name for yourselves at the expense of Portland's cyclists. Can you at least reassure me on that score?
Justin Kistner
2009-08-18
15:59:03
Ultimately we saw a range of interpretations of our question and agree that it has broad interpretation. Since we had no real agenda for the data, like lobbying for an issue or evaluating market size, we don't consider a broad interpretation undesirable. I'm cool with the opinion that are question could have been better, because it comes from constituents who really do have an agenda, which makes the conversation richer and that was our real agenda.

The majority of us do not arrive to work by car. I personally take the bus everyday and am in the process of selling my car. We have many, many people that bike to work. I can assure you, we have no interest in making a name for ourselves at the expense of Portland's cyclists. We have and will sponsor more bike events.
Calliope
2009-08-21
14:45:57
Justin, you can "assure" all you want, but WebTrends' actions speak louder than your words. You've done a lot of damage to yourselves in the local community, and standard-issue pablum-speak won't nearly fix it.

But this might help: When will WebTrends live up to its word in the post above, and put a follow-up message on the MAX?

And _this_ time, maybe do something to support vulnerable road users rather than prompt loonies to aim deadly weapons at them, as Daniel Miles and others have reported.

I suggest "Cyclists DO pay for roads: cyclistsdopay.com" and of course set up that domain and populate it by working with the BTA, Bike Portland, etc.

Come on, WebTrends, you amped up the risk of injury and death for a lot of people. Own up, and clean up your mess--don't just walk away from it like a toddler.
Justin Kistner
2009-08-22
13:23:36
Calliope, Daniel asked me for that assurance after a multi-day, thoughtful discussion and I was happy to reassure him.

We obviously don't see eye to eye on our ad and I don't want to fight with you. I respect your opinion and am glad you shared it here.
Calliope
2009-08-24
12:35:05
Justin, I don't want to fight with you either. I and many others want WebTrends to repair the damage it caused, to the extent possible.

Please tell me when WebTrends will make good on its offer from nearly six weeks ago (in post above) to "progress the conversation" with a follow-up message on the wrapped MAX train, the same venue as the original message.

Unless and until that happens, your assurances mean nothing. WebTrends aimed loonies at vulnerable road users, recorded data, and ran.
Justin Kistner
2009-08-24
15:01:04
Calliope, this is the second time you've called people loonies. We don't tolerate hate and your label is riddled with it. Please keep the conversation productive and I'll continue discussing with you.

Obviously you and others are upset, so I respect that you feel like there was damage. It's true that we were open to rewrapping the MAX at the beginning of August to progress the conversation, but we got so little interest that there was no point. If there was real, ongoing negative impact from our ad; the pain felt would have kept people focused and engaged to take us up on our offer to update the question. But, there has been almost no discussion and participation since the initial week of buzz passed. Had Vance and Bike Portland not labeled our ad as controversial, it would have gone as unnoticed as it has been for the last couple of months.

Hat tip to you for being the first to notice that we didn't do the early rewrap! It's one of the anecdotes that will be in our final report in October. We are rewrapping the MAX then, which was our original timing. It will progress the conversation for sure.
Calliope
2009-08-24
16:13:14
Justin, your graphs above show three of the top four discussion sources as KATU, OregonLive and Twitter. Discussion clearly had a life apart from Bike Portland and Vance.

It's ironic that you claim not to tolerate hate when many perceive that WebTrends fomented it here in our city, for however brief an interval.

Hate took the form of persons intentionally steering their motor vehicles toward cyclists and yelling, "Pay up," as Daniel Miles reported. I experienced a similar incident in which a passenger door was quite intentionally thrown open in front of me as I approached a traffic light. It's the reason I now carry mace and a phone that records video.

Fortunately for WebTrends, the perpetrators were not also yelling "WebTrends" as they peeled out and gunned their motors down the road, so corellation triumphed over causality.

Please realize that many similar accounts circulate in forms that WebTrends cannot measure. No doubt in some cases, it's because victims chose not to support WebTrends' stunt with discussion that would be appropriated by the stunt (and it's why I and others have commented here and not elsewhere).

The point to rewrapping the MAX at the beginning of August would have been just for WebTrends to have lived up to its word and done the right thing regardless of the amount of interest expressed.

So that's two outs and none on. WebTrends, you're going to have to hit a heck of a home run in October to demonstrate that you've learned something about being a good citizen and a good neighbor, about not piling more risk of bodily harm on those who are already vulnerable and about simply not being evil (apologies to your competitor's slogan). We'll all be watching.
Karma-geddon
2009-08-26
01:08:31
Oh snap!

Justin, you there? Alleged perps of vehicular assault need you to defend them some more against besmirchment with the L-word.
Justin Kistner
2009-08-26
11:17:28
Sorry I haven't had more time to respond here! These are all great comments and I appreciate you sharing your opinions. These points and more will be covered in our next update in October.
Karma-geddon
2009-08-30
14:18:22
Looks like PPD has charged a driver with intentionally hitting a bike rider: ( http://bikeportland.org/2009/08/29/man-charged-with-intentionally-running-down-person-on-bike-friday/ )

Note to prosecuting attorney: To help establish a pattern of behavior, maybe look into how active the guy was---and how threatening his tone may have been---in the discussion instigated and measured by WebTrends. Maybe also get a read on how many times the guy may have been exposed to the WebTrends MAX wrap since its debut, and whether there's any evidence of a cumulative effect on tone and behavior.

But please, no one call him a l--nie; we don't tolerate that here.
Mob
2009-08-30
23:38:02
Let\'s get the torches and go after the loonies!! YaAAARRRR!!! That\'ll solve it!! HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Get \'em!!! We know it was the Webtrends guys with the ad about the taxes!!!!!

Road rage has hurt a biker. It has nothing to do with the fact that road rage exists and by definition is targeted at other vehicles. Bikes are exempt from it damnit!!! Bike hating gods of luck are unfairly targeting the bikes with road rage!!! No fair, no fair!! We know it was because of Webtrends!! We\'ve been hating them lately so it\'s there fault! Yeah!!! BBbblagahhhhhahahahhh

And if you see anyone else talking about other dangers and responsibilities of the road like taxes, registration, licensing, or insurance; GET THEM TOO!!!!

Loonies, loonies, loonies....
Calliope
2009-08-31
14:17:06
Thanks Mob; that's nearly a pitch-perfect example of the toxic froth fomented by WebTrends in the KATU and Oregonlive discussions--some of it quite specifically calling for open season on cyclists. And now someone has followed through.

And Mob, if you weren't play-acting, for cripes sake stay out from behind both the wheel and the handlebar and get some help.
Justin Kistner
2009-08-31
16:25:47
Mob, thank you for coming to my defense, but there is something to be said for remaining gracious in the face of scrutiny.

Karma and Calliope, spreading misinformation to bolster your struggling argument is disrespectful to the lives this incident has touched and complicates the community's ability to get to the truth to effect positive change. It is my sincere hope that you both really do care about the fact that a person was injured here and another is living with the fact that they caused it intentionally. We don't know the circumstances that surrounded this incident, but if we really care, we will seek to understand what really happened in order to prevent it in the future.
Calliope
2009-08-31
16:37:46
Justin, no need to be coy. What are you perceiving as misinformation?

(Aside from the "Have you quit beating your spouse yet" wording on the the MAX wrap, that is)
Justin Kistner
2009-08-31
17:13:46
Speculating this incident was caused by our ad, as WOBG is touting on Bike Portland (who was banned for his misogynistic and racist comments over a month ago).

Hating the part of the community you wish to change is an illogical strategy. How can you aspire to change the minds of people you can't stand long enough to understand them? As long as you reduce everyone down on KATU and the Oregonian as loonies spitting toxic froth, you'll always be fighting a losing battle with no end. You won't see society made up of unique people with opinions ranging from valid to fundamental. You won't hear the nuance because your preference is to focus on the ones you don't like. And as a result, you won't influence anyone. You will successfully regale yourself to hang out with only people who think just like you and speculate on why you haven't made a difference.

I am reminded of people deciding to cull sharks in Hawaii after several attacks occurred. People slaughtered sharks near the beaches where the attacks took place thinking they were making a difference. With research, they later found out that sharks traveled hundreds of miles for months after the culling never returning to the beach where the attacks occurred (with those researchers receiving heavy scrutiny the whole time from those calling for blood, mind you). All the while the dangerous sharks were long gone from the scene causing more damage as humans wasted their time killing the ones that were close. They only succeeded in damaging the ecosystem.

You can do better, right?
Calliope
2009-09-01
13:44:22
Having been assaulted with a motor vehicle, I can report that the experience is decidedly lacking in nuance.

So sure, studying sharks is fascinating---when someone else is your bait. That falls a little short of fulfilling "don't be evil," but you still have a few weeks til October.

However, if WebTrends is authentically concerned for the victim and even the accused, and the loved ones of both, an appropriate gesture might be to immediately replace the existing MAX wrap with a message of goodwill.
Justin Kistner
2009-09-01
15:29:19
I'm sorry to hear that you were assaulted by a motor vehicle, Calliope. I'm sure the experience was far from subtle. The nuance I was referring to was that not all comments on KATU and OregonLive are negative, so lumping the commenters together prevents us from seeing individuals with different opinions.

There is no bait used in the story about the sharks, so I'm not following your line of thought. The story was about people doing the wrong things to solve a problem they didn't understand.

In the case of this assault, the story appears to be that it was a fight in a parking lot that escalated into an assault with a car. I don't think it's appropriate for us to try and insert ourselves into this story. I invite you to join me in giving them space to heal and grieve.
The Open Campaign Webtrends Digital Marketing Campaign
2009-09-08
16:12:53
[...] Initial campaign results from our MAX ad - This was the second post with an update, which came two weeks after news broke. It has juicy charts and stats that breakdown the discussion that ensued. [...]
Calliope
2009-11-04
22:03:30
WebTrends, it appears you never surfaced the promised [http://blogs.webtrends.com/transparency/?p=697 , last paragraph; and at various points in the comment thread above], redemptive October report/white paper/whatever on this topic---and likely never intended to.

That's the third out, WebTrends; inning's over. You've convincingly portrayed yourselves as exploiters who heaped additional danger on the most vulnerable road users for your own gain. You've placed yourselves along the same nauseating gradient as local TV news and drive-time radio shock jocks in exploiting bike/car tensions during past Portland summers.

Perhaps you at least had the minimal decency to remove the initial, misleading MAX wrap; I haven't seen it around. Then again, maybe its paid-for time simply ran out.

Don't be evil, WebTrends. Eventually it will come back to you.