So, there is an interesting and lengthy article on BuzzMetrics, an arm of Nielsen, on its Enterprise level services, in which they leverage their ability to track buzz in the socialsphere to help established companies understand what people are actually saying, thinking and feeling about their products and brands.

The article is interesting because of the examples they use (the one about Lexus advertising being viewed as Gay adverstising, for example), but also because it acknowedges something that many bloggers and forum goers have known for years: people talk about brands whether or not brands like it or not. And the element of control that brand managers think they have has been illusory for years.

What I wonder about it all, though is the human element of brand watching in the socialsphere — sure, there are fancy analytics and data mining tools to suss out trends, buzz, and no doubt rich tools to visualize it all.

But the real key in it all is context and understanding.

The NYTimes article does mention the following, for example:

While their specific approaches vary slightly, all use some form of Web search engine, analysis programs and human analysts to help organize data and provide a narrative that clients can understand, Ms. Riley said. Their ultimate goal, she said, is “to find out the deep thoughts of consumers and help clients understand what’s happening in their markets.”

How good are these human analysts? No idea.

They might be great.

But if you’re looking for opinions with perspectives and a view point – well, doesn’t that sound like what bloggers do? The answer, of course, is a resounding “Yes.” Sure, BuzzMetrics tracks blogs as well, but to aggregate the feeling and opinion behind a particular brand, thse brand monitoring companies should reach behind the data to opinion leaders amongst their brand “fans”. They might be more visible in some industries than others, but the model behind this idea for me would be political bloggers.

Famous political blogs are not only fanatical in their opinion, but also fanatical in their coverage of a given area. More than that, they have a huge fanbase which is feeding them information all the time — and more than THAT have connections on their own within the party of choice.

Many of these blogs are also put on retainer by the same party of choice.

Perhaps what brand monitoring companies should do is actually approach the people who have an existing fascination with the brand at hand, thes brand leaders, and similarly make them an offer. Not, for example, that the money will ever change what you think, feel, or report on.

But rather that news about the brand, good or bad, needs to reach them first. So that they can tell the brand managers and owners.

Is it “squealing”? I don’t think so. If many consumerist advocates take the most umbrage with how slow companies react to what looks like painfully obvious marketing and product gaffes, all this will do is improve their ability to respond.

Rather than head down a road that they mistakenly believe to be bordered with roses and lilies, it may in fact lead to somewhere sulphurous and quite warm (after all, good intentions pave the road to H-E-double hockey sticks).

Heck imagine if Zaptoni was listening to what the gaming crowd was saying.

What “people” are talking about is fine.

But Bloggers, for the sheer love of it, analyze and contextualize the issues already. The biggest (and best ones) have connections, and an ear to the ground in a way that no piece of software can ever replicate. And they’ll be able to issue an opinion on what it all means faster than any piece of software or “paid employee” will ever be able to report.

If brand monitoring services REALLY want to get an idea of where a brand is going, they’d be smart and go to people who know it already — and throw bags of cash at them to get them to do it right. At the rate that bloggers can be paid for ($10/ post?!), my thinking is that they could be had for a song — and the dividends would be huge.