As for measuring negative press, our software does have the capability of measuring tonality. However, for this project, we were more interested in the viral aspect of the story.

That said, for the next project we’ll add it in when it’s not so one-sided. Almost every single story was negative for United.

Like you, I personally believe that the mainstream media is still well entrenched as the gatekeepers of opinion and information and they will be seen as the trusted source for awhile.

As for a “tempest in the teapot”, over the long term, you could be right. We’ll keep monitoring the situation. Maybe this is where social media comes in and keeps the embers burning.

That said, I guarantee you, every time someone from United walks by a guitar, they cringe.

Sorry it’s taken me so long to chime in. I was counting on some sweet VIA wi-fi this weekend but their system was down.

Anyway, I really appreciate the followup on this issue. Your numbers are interesting in the way they show that while some would like to proclaim the death of traditional media in favour of tools like Twitter, it still seems that social channels draw heavily from ‘trusted’ sources.

What this means for the future of paid media is a question that deserves a study of its own, of course.

Where I’m still left wanting, though, is in some sort of analysis of the actual tangible impact of this negative press for United. I realize that goes a bit beyond MediaMiser’s scope but that’s where most of my skepticism stemmed from.

Yes, the buzz around the videos was intense and, as you have shown, not limited to the Twitterverse the way that other ‘scandals’ were. For that reason, I’m more inclined to believe that there was a hit to United’s bottom line.

But unless the damage to the brand translates into something tangible from a business perspective, it’s hard to see how this is more than a tempest in a teapot.