DISQUS

Shawn Collins · 1 year ago

I think real time sounds great in theory, but I'll give you an example of a big impact via Twitter where real time was immaterial.

I posted a message about Comcast on Twitter, and got a response 74 minutes later.

That turnaround could easily have been achieved by monitoring RSS feeds.

Anyhow, it was considered so significant that a company got back to me that fast that it made national news.

Examples from Philadelphia and Los Angeles...

http://cbs3.com/seenon/3.On.Your.2.798935.html
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/...

Not bad for a latency of more than an hour.

Sam Harrelson · 1 year ago

nope, not bad for a start. however, the shorter the latency the
greater the value.

Shawn Collins · 1 year ago

Please provide data to support that assertion.

I don't see how a response that was an hour faster would have garnered a better response for Comcast in this situation.

Sam Harrelson · 1 year ago

look at the example above with Weezer or think how marketers can (and
do) engage people with real time info when they express interest or
concern over a particular keyword.

Shawn Collins · 1 year ago

I read the entire article, and nothing there indicated to me that real time makes a marked difference over a response delayed by an hour.

There are theories and opinions, but hard facts are lacking.

Sam Harrelson · 1 year ago

Yet again, we'll have to agree to disagree on your conception of "hard
facts" and "lacking."

Shawn Collins · 1 year ago

Did I miss some case studies that proved a real time response move the needle?