So the double elimination resulted in the loss of Katie and Wagner. Our results from yesterday showed that we successfully predicted two of the bottom three (Katie and Mary) but that Wagner’s Twitter analysis did not match the public vote. According to our analysis he looked safe and in fact had trended well all week in context with winning words.
So what went on? This is an interesting question, and gives an insight into the dangers of taking at face value what people post on the internet. If we examine the words that are in context with Wagner based on Saturday’s data (i.e. before the elimination), then a picture emerges that concurs with our initial analysis. This can be seen in the figure below, where the closer the word is to the centre, then the closer that word is in context to Wagner.
The analysis shows how there is a campaign on twitter to either encourage people to vote for Wagner, or an expression of the hope that they would like Wagner to win. This does not necessarily mean that people have actually voted, and here we can see a disconnect between what is being said (i.e. Vote for Wagner!) and what is actually happening (i.e. people who tweeted did not vote for Wagner to the same scale). This is important to note from a brand management perspective – just because online content seems to be saying one thing, it does not mean that the users of that brand will actually do it.
When we look at the other words surrounding Wagner in context, we see a different point of view emerging. Words such as: annoying, ruin, going home, shite, too long, shit, kill. These words are all of a negative context and relate to an emerging theme which would show that people have had enough of the joke of keeping Wagner in the competition. In fact there are very few positive words coming through at all.
This highlights again the need to ensure that data sources are identified that cover all demographics so that the data analysis is not too biased on way or another.
If we turn to Katie, we can again analyse what words are in context with her based on Saturday’s data (i.e. before the elimination). Again, the closer the word is to the centre, then the closer that word is in context with Katie.
This time we see a different picture. We do not see words like win or vote come up close in context to Katie. Instead we see a number of different contestants such as Mary, Wagner and Cher. This is related to discussions that were being had by the general public on who would be likely to be eliminated, as we see by the words Sunday and eviction also coming through. We also see Olly Murs coming through strongly in context, relating to the interview that he gave where he talked about Katie. We also see a large number of negative sentiment words, such as: murdered and killing, which relate to her performance of Sex on Fire. Interestingly we do not see much comment on her second song ‘Everybody hurts’, which does not appear to come through as closely in context.
However it can be seen here that there is largely a negative reaction to her performances and so it is clear why she was voted out.
Finally we can look at Mary. Again the analysis is based on Saturday’s data (i.e. before the elimination) and the closer the word is to the centre, the closer that word is in context with Mary.
Here we see very little comment on her singing performance. However we see a number of words coming through in context that may initially surprise us as being in context with Mary – bearing in mind she is over 50! We see the word thong very close in context along with other words: lucky, Tesco, value, smells. Although this would at first glance appear to be some form of mistake, it is related to the story that Mary has taken to wearing her ‘lucky Tesco value thong’ when she goes on stage, but that since she has been wearing it for every show, it now ‘smells’. Not a very nice mental image, whichever way you look at it!
This highlights once again how the analysis of the data in a contextual manner brings out unexpected and new information about a brand or person, and gives an insight into the public’s view on any particular topic.
We will continue our analysis in the run up to the semi finals next week, where we will focus on the positive sentiment to identify who is most likely to be safe from the dreaded elimination. Will Twitter match the actual votes made? Now that Wagner has been removed from the competition, will we see more of a convergence of twitter trends and actual voting trends? In other words, will brand loyalty as evidenced on twitter convert to real votes in the show? As always, we will complement our scoring analysis with contextual analysis to reveal the reasons behind the voting decisions that the public have made – and highlight again how contextual analysis is the only method that fully explains the diverse views of the public and what they are thinking.