The SIRE campaign entitled ‘For whom are you doing it?’ started this year with a teaser, or rather a social experiment, which involved SIRE secretly establishing The Good Life Agency. Monalyse – a partner of SIRE – monitored and analysed all publicity behind the scenes. Now that the campaign has come to an end, we're taking look back with the Monalyse team.
Four days of intensive monitoring, analysis and evaluation for a client that actually doesn't exist. What was that like?
Very exciting. We did not know how things would go, but immediately thought it was a really cool idea. Together with SIRE, N=5 and Bijl PR, we spent the past few months secretly working towards this week.
What was so special about this project for Monalyse?
This project was a special challenge because it involved two campaigns in one. First the campaign for The Good Life Agency, TGLA for short, and now the ‘For whom are you doing it?’ campaign. They go together, but each one requires a different approach. The enthusiasm of all partners, and their desire to work together, made this an extra special social project.
The first part of the campaign is now behind us. What can you say about it?
The first part, namely the campaign for The Good Life Agency, was aimed at starting a debate about the role of social media in people's lives. We also liked the fact that the campaign primarily took place on social media: the campaign ran for three and a half days, and 30 messages appeared on online websites, radio and television, compared to 721 messages on social media. We also identified the most commonly shared messages on social media, and thus the most important social influencers in this campaign.
What were your main challenges in this campaign?
The layout we normally use for sentiment (negative, neutral and positive) was not enough to analyse the debate at the level required by N=5 and SIRE, because they also wanted to know exactly which emotions played a role. For instance, N=5 expected people to be disgusted that we live in a society where a company like TGLA would be established. And we were able to demonstrate that this disgust was real. In some cases, sentiment went further than disgust and we decided to qualify reactions as 'pessimistic’. For example, someone wrote: ‘I actually believe this is real. That's the kind of world we now live in’. In addition, we saw that many people did not believe, or doubted, that it was a real company. All analyses were carried out manually; after all, a computer cannot distinguish between emotions like disgust and pessimism. The assignment was thus a real undertaking.
Which opportunities did the campaign give you as a team?
We were heavily involved when the campaign was being set up and were able to match the analysis accordingly. This was proven when we further specified the sentiment. During the preliminary discussion, it also became apparent that several media knew about the secret part of the campaign. And this is something we considered in our analysis; we examined whether the sentiment, emotions and frames in these media differed from media not aware of the complot. As a result, we noticed that enthusiasm for TGLA primarily came from complicit social media, particularly TGLA's own channels.
Has it now finished or will there be a sequel?
This is definitely not the end. We will continue monitoring and evaluating the “For whom?” campaign. This is a completely different type of campaign, with another approach. So it’s a case of 'to be continued’!
If you would like to learn more about the “For whom” campaign by SIRE.