1000 Heads

Helping brands’ stories travel further and faster
  • Mail
  • Twitter
  • linkedIn
  • instagram

Social media serendipity

by Tim Denyer on 21 April 2011

There was a great story on the radio the other morning about the Serendipity Awards. These are given to researchers who have spotted and seized unexpected opportunities for economic and/or societal impact arising from research.

hands1The story went as follows. It was an open day at the University of Nottingham and a group of researchers in body representation were showcasing their latest MIRAGE technology which creates body distortion illusions. Apparently the technology takes a real-time video capture image of a hand and then fools the brain into believing the hand is stretching or shrinking.

One of the people visiting the University that day was the grandmother of a prospective student. She suffered from osteoarthritis in her finger. Being inquisitive and open to new ideas, she requested a demonstration of the technology.

Amazingly, during the demonstration the grandmother realised that her finger didn’t hurt anymore. The illusion of her finger being distorted triggered something in her brain that meant she no longer felt the pain.

This led the researchers to contact experts in arthristis to notify them of their discovery. They then tested this technology on a number of volunteers diagnosed with arthritic pain in their hands. The results showed a notable reduction in pain, on average halving the discomfort for 85% of volunteers. This obviously has huge potential and further research is now being conducted by both the Nottingham team and by specialists in arthritis.

Independent of anything else, I just love this story.

However, it does also make me think a little bit about what we do.

Most clients are now doing some form of ‘buzz monitoring’ either in-house or with an agency. I wonder, however, how many are actually doing it in a way that would allow them to uncover unexpected opportunities like the above. My suspicion from the conversations I have had is that too many are being too prescriptive or metrics led with what they are looking at – they are looking to prove what they already know, rather than allowing room for surprising discoveries that might disrupt the status quo.

What isn’t happening? Where else is interesting stuff going on? What are the anomalies, the bits that don’t fit?

For me, as opposed to focusing too hard on the what, the how much and the who, we should all be using conversations to uncover the what ifs.

That’s what will drive great insights, and lead to true progress.

Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on and is filed under Our thoughts . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
  • http://twitter.com/mrtomasz Tom Planer

    Agree with the general idea behind what you are saying, but if you are running buzz metrics for a brand receiving thousands of mentions/comments etc daily, then you need to be metrics led to some extent otherwise you are creating an endless task. I think the real benefit lies in finding the perfect balance between quant and qual. Quantitative figures should lead the qualitative investiagtion which uncovers insight.

  • TimDenyer

    Hi Tom – thanks for the comment. Totally in agreement with what you are saying about a balance. What I find important when looking at metrics is not to get too bogged down in purely social metrics; you need to also look at the impact these metrics are having on the business. Definitely another topic of conversation as, again, I am unsure as to how many people have cracked that.

    So, if you aren't getting value out of looking at the metrics then it is great to take a step back and get a 'pain-killer' insight (sorry but that was too easy) as mentioned in the post.

  • Molly Flatt

    Shame on you for that, Denyer.