The first thing that I learned from the social media project is that there are a lot of free websites on the web that allow for research on a company’s social media presence. These sites provide a lot of useful information that can be used to compare one company with another. Free websites should be regarded as a starting point however, as they may not have all the features necessary to complete a marketing campaign.
Some useful variables to look at when reviewing a company’s social media are sentiment, level of buzz, associated words, and message reach. There are many tools available for each individual variable and choosing the right one comes down to personal preference and budgetary constraints. Although a marketer may focus on only a few specific variables in depth, it’s important to have at least a basic understanding of them all. Completely ignoring one would be foolish.
For our companies, Coca-cola and Pepsi co, the first variable we looked at was the level of buzz. To do this we used the website How Sociable. This essentially totals up the amount of times the company name or product has been mentioned on various social media on a given day. It not only gives a grand total, but also a total of each social media website. Coca-Cola was the more popular brand overall, but this was a close tally. Coca-Cola had 2,097 mentions on November 21, 2011 while Pepsi had 1,926. Something that could be done is to perform this test on multiple days and take an average.
One thing I noticed is that each of the brands appear to perform more strongly on some social media websites than others. In other words, while Coca-Cola had a higher overall score, it did not perform as well as Pepsi on a number of websites. There were a select few where Coke outperformed Pepsi by a great amount which gave them the overall advantage. Analyzing these numbers can provide insight on weaknesses in a company’s social media campaign. A company will probably want to increase their presence where they fall behind their competitors.
To analyze associated words, we used Twitter StreamGraphs. This provides a timeline of the most popular words over the period of a day. When Coke and Coca-Cola were compared, an interesting trend appeared. Coke generally returned results related to the drinking of Coke and the product itself. Words like diet, jack, rum, drink, cola, glass and bottle were used. A few unrelated words were also on the graph due to the dual meanings of the word Coke. Coca-Cola on the other hand returned words such as Christmas, advert, truck, driver, holiday, train, happy, media, job, manager, and social. These are all more advertisement, brand building, or even corporate related words. This is most likely due to its more formal nature as the company’s full corporate name. Also, people usually think of the red Santa themed Coke cans and commercials when they hear the name Coca-Cola.
To measure sentiment, we used Tweet Feel. This website measures the number of positive Tweets compared to the negative and gives an overall percentage. Coca-Cola faired the best, with a 62% positive score, Coke second best with 60% positive, Pepsi third with 59% positive and Pepsi-Cola the worst with 63% negative. I believe the reason that the name Pepsi-Cola performed so poorly is that it is outdated and no longer used in their marketing. Coca-Cola performed better than Coke due to its formal nature. If someone dislikes Coke, they will probably just call it Coke to save time. They also do not respect it as much, which will cause them to use the least involving name to type out. Overall, these two companies were very close in their overall performance.
Tweet Feel is useful also in that it validates the numbers provided by How Sociable. A company with a higher rate of social media buzz may seem to be in a better position than one with a lower score, but if a majority of the Tweets are negative in nature, this could actually be a drawback.
In the end, our group decided that Coca-Cola was the winner in social media presence. They performed better on most of our tested variables such as sentiment and buzz. While they did win, it was not by an overwhelming factor. It is certainly true that both of these companies have their dedicated fans and a relatively high positivity associated with them.


