ANNEX 2 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

(1)

ANNEX 2

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

(2)

(3)

ANNEX 2 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

This review identified the current social media presences of Defence in order to understand the organisation’s official penetration of social media, the coverage of unofficial pages, and the impact of unofficial pages on the brand.

The review used Alterian SM2 to analyse the period of four months between 1 March and 30 June 2011. This social media software can analyse a range of internet sites, including social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, news media sites and forums. While social media monitoring can be highly effective in identifying key conversations about a brand or company, it does not cover 100% of the internet and social media. In addition, limitations resulting from Facebook privacy restrictions and Twitter data purchase affect social media monitoring results. However, this type of monitoring is effective in establishing baselines and identifying trends that allow for comparisons to be drawn between datasets. Sentiment or content tone is automatically assigned by the software through keyword analysis. Keywords such as ‘war’ have a generally negative connotation to them (as defined by the software); however, in relation to Defence, discussion about war does not immediately signify negativity.

Although the Defence community refers to itself as ‘Defence’ or ‘the Department of Defence’, the traditional media and the general public who use social media more commonly use terms such as ‘the Australian Defence Force’ or ‘the ADF’. For this reason, search terms such as ‘ADF’ and ‘Australian Defence Force’ were used in the monitoring, in order to gather the most appropriate public conversations.

(4)

Australian Defence Force – Public perceptions

The number of mentions in the media and the top domains data show that conversation about the ADF was driven mainly by news stories.

ADF conversation volume

Notable peaks in the data occurred on 6, 7, 11 and 12 April due to extensive media coverage of the ‘Skype incident’, which was first aired on Channel Ten news on 5 April.

The incident became a major conversation driver for news.

Figure A2.1: – ADF conversation volume – March to June 2011

Legend – Green and blue columns represent alternating weeks. The purple line represents a 10–day rolling average.

Social media conversation over the four-month period totalled over 9,000 mentions, with an average of 74.4 mentions per day. The highest peak of conversation occurred on 11 April 2011, when there were 562 mentions due media coverage of the Skype incident.

The lowest number of mentions (4) occurred on 16 March 2011.

ADF conversation sentiment

Conversation sentiment was assigned automatically through keyword analysis. The sentiment of conversation about the ADF tended towards the negative, particularly because of recent and previous that were brought to light in the media.

Figure A2.2: – ADF conversation sentiment – March to June 2011

(5)

Some examples of conversation are identified below.

Negative

‘Weakening the ADF in the name of equality’

29 June 2011 – ABC The Drum Opinion

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2776294.html

This was an opinion piece published on the ABC website that criticised the ADF for letting women take positions that put them on the front line.

The article prompted a lot of discussion: there were 358 comments on the opinion piece, some for and some against the views.

Positive / Negative

‘Girls in ADFA post’

Began 24 March 2011 before the ADFA Skype incident.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1665687

On 6 April, the ADFA story was brought into conversation and argued about before being closed by a moderator who asked for the Skype incident discussion to continue an already existing thread on the topic.

Before the Skype incident, the thread contained opinions, both positive and negative, about the treatment of females. Male and female contributors, and service members and civilians, offered opinions.

(6)

ADF share of voice – channel analysis

While it is important to note the volume of conversation about the ADF, it is also important to note the channels in which the conversation is occurring . Share of voice channel analysis assists in identifying the key channels for conversation about the ADF.

Figure A2.3: – ADF share of voice

Online media are significant contributors to the ADF conversation, mentioning the ADF 6,227 over the four month period. Four of the five top domains for ADF conversation were news sites; the other was a news site Twitter account.

Figure A2.4: – ADF top domains for conversation

(7)

The media conversation was heavily driven by the Skype Incident and the death of servicemen overseas during the period of analysis. It is important to note that conversation on social media channels is often prompted by conversations in the traditional media.

Australian Army – Public perceptions

Australian Army mentions in the social space are significantly lower than ADF mentions as the Army is usually spoken about only when there are Army-specific issues or news reports.

Army conversation volume

Conversation volume for the Australian Army had four major peaks across the period.

The peaks were due to the following events:

5 April 2011 – Sarbi the dog awarded Purple Cross 25 April 2011 – Anzac Day

4 June 2011 – Dead soldier honoured in Afghanistan 6 June 2011 – Fallen diggers arrive home

These events were discussed in the media, social networking sites and forums.

Figure A2.5: – Australian Army conversation volume – March to June 2011

Total conversation over the period was 1,689 mentions, with an average of 13.8 mentions per day. The highest peak of conversation occurred on 4 June 2011, with 72 mentions due to the Skype incident media coverage.

Army conversation sentiment

The sentiment of conversation about the Australian Army was identified as neutral, and negative sentiment was significantly lower for the Army than for the ADF. Because conversation about the Army is driven by Army-specific events (such as the deaths and funerals of servicemen), it is important to note that no Army-specific ‘scandals’ , or at least none that gained traction, appeared in the traditional media over the period.

(8)

Figure A2.6: – Australian Army conversation sentiment – March to June 2011

Negative

Soldiers what did they die for?

31 May 2011

http://lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/05/31/Afghanistan-What-did-they-die-for.aspx This article criticises the Australian Army’s continued involvement in Afghanistan. While it cannot be said to involve extreme negative sentiment, it must still be recognised as a negative opinion about the Army in the social space.

Positive

Tweet by the Australian Army 1 July 2011

http://twitter.com/#!/australianarmy/statuses/86637414403158016

The Australian Army’s contributions in the social media space were also collected by the monitoring system, so the figures for the sentiment and volume of conversation represented more than contributions by members of the general public.

(9)

Negative

Tweet about Australian Army 30 june 2011

http://twitter.com/#!/nattyness/statuses/86320054332964864

Some mentions of negative sentiment should not be a major concern for the Australian Army, as members of the public merely communicate ideas or emotions that are important to them.

Army share of voice – channel analysis

The share of voice channel analysis has identified where the conversation in the social space about the Australian Army was mainly occurring.

Figure A2.7: – Australian Army share of voice

The Australian Army conversation was shaped mainly by online news media, which made 1,096 mentions over the four-month period. Four of the top domains for the conversations were news sites. The remaining domain, the Australian Army Twitter account, produced 124 of the 438 microblog results for conversation. Most of the

microblog conversation can be attributed to the Australian Army Twitter account in some way, as its tweets were retweeted by other Twitter users.

(10)

Figure A2.8: – Australian Army top domains for conversation

Royal Australian Navy – Public perceptions

As for to the Australian Army, mentions of the Royal Australian Navy in the social space are significantly fewer than mentions of the ADF. Discussion was primarily prompted by Navy-specific issues or news reports, very few which occurred or gained much traction in the March to June 2011 period.

Navy conversation volume

Conversation volume for the Royal Australian Navy had three major peaks across the period. The peaks were due to the following events:

14 April 2011 – Australian Navy rescues hostage from pirates / US sub visits Brisbane 25 April 2011 – Anzac Day

5 May 2011 – WWI digger dies

Figure A2.9: – Royal Australian Navy conversation volume – March to June 2011

Conversation over the period total over 1,203 mentions, with an average of 9.9 mentions per day. The highest peak of conversation occurred on 5 May 2011, with 67 mentions due to the death of a 110–year–old World War I Navy veteran.

(11)

Navy conversation tone

The tone of conversation about the Royal Australian Navy was mainly neutral. As with the case of the Australian Army, the negative sentiment was significantly lower in comparison to overall ADF results. Conversation was driven by events, and the lack of Navy-specific ‘scandals’ was a contributing factor to the low volume of conversation and low volume of negative sentiment.

Figure A2.10: – Royal Australian Navy conversation sentiment – March to June 2011

Negative

Tweet at the Royal Australian Navy and Australian Army 7 April 2011

http://twitter.com/#!/melwuv/statuses/55975108531077120

This tweet was from a member of the general public, in relation to the Skype incident. The tweet was about the Services taking responsibility for the actions of the cadets.

Negative

The Royal Australian Navy should urgently return to Thursday Island off Cape York, Warren Entsch says

27 June 2011

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/navy-thursday-island/story- e6frg8yo-1226082641300

The news article discusses the need for Thursday Island to be protected by the Royal Australian Navy, as it left a gap in the defence of the country. This article criticises the withdrawal by the Navy in 2010.

(12)

Positive

Navy culture very good, says chief 29 April 2011

http://www.theage.com.au/national/navy-culture-very-good-says-chief-20110428- 1dyw4.html

Rear Admiral Steve Gilmore defended the Navy culture in an article, in response to comments from the general public regarding the Skype incident and the HMAS success report.

Navy share of voice – channel analysis

Share of voice channel analysis of identified where the Royal Australian Navy conversation in the social space was occurring.

Figure A2.11: – Royal Australian Navy share of voice

Media was the main channel for conversation about the Navy, with 1,203 mentions over the four month period. Four of the top five domains for the conversation were online news sites. The fifth was the ‘Defence Talk’ forum, in which there were a range of military discussions in the ‘Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates’ category.

(13)

Figure A2.12: – Royal Australian Navy top domains for conversation

Royal Australian Air Force – Public perceptions

RAAF conversation mentions were significantly lower in volume than those for the ADF.

Discussion was primarily prompted by Air Force-specific issues or news reports. In the Skype incident, the female at the centre of the incident was identified as an RAAF cadet.

It is for this reason that the RAAF conversation was notably higher than that for the Army or Navy.

RAAF conversation volume

RAAF conversation had three major peaks across the period. The peaks were due to the following events:

30 March 2011 – RAAF marks 90 years of flying 24 April 2011 – Pre Anzac Day news material

18 May 2011 – RAAF Roulette plane crash at East Sale base Victoria

Figure A2.13: – Royal Australian Navy conversation volume – March to June 2011

Total conversation over the period of four months gathered by the system was 3,322 mentions, with an average of 27.2 mentions per day. The highest peak of conversation occurred on 24 April 2011, with 154 mentions (the day before Anzac Day). The lowest number of mentions (4) occurred on 16 March 2011.

(14)

RAAF conversation sentiment

RAAF conversation sentiment was primarily neutral. Similar to the Army and Navy results, negative sentiment for RAAF was significantly lower than for the ADF.

Conversation was driven by events, and the RAAF connection in the Skype incident raised the number of mentions.

Figure A2.14: – Royal Australian Air Force conversation sentiment – March to June 2011

Negative

Fuel failure led to crash at RAAF East Sale 6 June 2011

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/faulty-fuel-system-behind-raaf-crash- 20110606-1fo98.html

The article was identified as having negative sentiment due to the words ‘crash’ and

‘injuries’.

Positive

Tweet at the RAAF’s twitter account 5 May 2011

http://twitter.com/#!/twileague/statuses/65990796217827329

This tweet was identified as having positive sentiment due to the word ‘proud’.

(15)

RAAF share of voice – channel analysis

Share of voice channel analysis identified where the RAAF conversation in the social space was occurring.

Figure A2.15: – Royal Australian Air Force share of voice

Media was the main channel for conversation about the Navy, with 2,378 mentions over the four month period. Four of the top five domains for the conversation were online news sites; the other was Australian Aviation magazine.

Figure A2.16: – Royal Australian Air Force top domains for conversation

(16)

Public perceptions – Discussion

News - The conversation catalyst

The social media monitoring data in this review demonstrated that the conversation about Defence during the four month reviewed was primarily driven by the traditional media and online news. Four of the five top domains for the conversation were online news sites, which contributed an overwhelming amount of conversation compared to other channels, such as microblogs or forums. The discussions in forums and microblogs and Twitter retweets about Defence were driven by reports in the media.

Sentiment - Defence contributes positively

When Defence self-promotes in the social media space, and those mentions are assigned positive sentiment by the monitoring software. Most mentions for the Australian Army in microblogs were tweets by the official Australian Army Twitter account, or retweets of that material by other users. It is important to discount the contribution by the brand itself when discussing levels of positive sentiment.

Conversation - not all about Skype

Positive conversation about Defence generally concerned events such as Anzac Day or medal awarding ceremonies. The review of public conversation indicated

that conversation about all three Services was more widespread just before and on Anzac Day.