This item over at Nielsen is interesting to me for the way in which they have sought to represent "buzz" on social network sites. The topic (General Motors) will likely be of less interest to the community, but this graph should.
Do you find this an effective visualization? Why or why not?
1 comment:
The orig article says "View Nielsen’s proprietary Brand Association Map (BAM) for GM, which charts the attributes most closely associated with the company in online discussions. The BAM analysis provides an unaided, unsolicited, real-time barometer of consumer perceptions of and attitudes toward a topic discussed online." To me, this sounds like a stretch in itself acting as a barometer of consumer chatter. It is interesting in terms of information clusterings which do not seem to overlap or intersect at all. Clusters of chatter spin out from where it matters most at the center and does not even reach it. There is no information about where consumer chatter was being polled, there are no numbers of what the icons represent on the map. It only indicates the various clusters, and this may not represent anything useful either, as it may just be representative of a particular thread, a particular website, blog arrangement, or corporate GM intranet. If a visualization map was attempted using other methods, say to reflect consumer "chatter" of plant workers worried about losing their jobs, as shown last night on the Obama 30 min. ad from Louisville KY, plant workers were not accessing information from a computer, but from a phone bank set up at the union office. It will be biased here with clusters of more likely corporate gurus checking their 401k status rather than the little people trying to hold on to their jobs to support their basic living. This is taken from online chatter / buzz and in general represents a cluster of "something" but may not be of any real value to anyone.
I do like the universe theme with GM at the center, it just doesn't represent enough of anything.
Post a Comment