Straits Times in its article,"Singapore may have gained over $700m in exposure as host of Trump-Kim summit: Analyst Meltwater" wrote that more than S$700 million in exposure by hosting the historic Trump-Kim summit, according to a media intelligence analyst.
The report which was reproduced along in The New Paper, quoted Media intelligence firm Meltwater which has estimated that the advertising value, based on global online media mentions over the three days that US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un were here, added up to S$270 million. And if one was to take into consideration coverage since May, the advertising value balloons to about S$767 million.
"The number would likely have been higher if the expected value of print, broadcast or social media mentions was also tracked." wrote ST.
The S$700 million value is said to come from Meltwater's estimates by multiplying the number of people the coverage reached by 0.025, which is the probability that someone will read an article, and then by 37 cents, which is said to be the industry formula for the monetary value of someone reading an article.
Now I am not sure about whether Meltwater had gone on the angle of the worth of media exposure with its data, as the data TOC received was more from an angle of media exposure and social media engagement of the summit. So it seems that Meltwater was answering a question of how much worth of media coverage was generated, in light of the S$20 million spent on the Trump-Kim Summit by the Singapore government.
Based on the figures that I have been given by Meltwater, a significant portion of media traffic came from US and frankly not much of Asia. United States had 324k postings over the course of three months, from 1 March till 12 June, while the next highest country, Canada – with a far difference in numbers – had 22.7k postings.
In comparison, China had 5.1k, Japan, 9.4k, South-Korea, 5.1k, Malaysia 3.3k, Indonesia 3.7k and from North Korea where their revered leader is the star of the show, only 739.
It is still too early to say whether the coverage will help improve tourism in Singapore but we can have a look at the figures by next year via the Singapore Tourism Board statistics.
The ST article also wrote: "Media monitoring firm Isentia said it was also meaningful to analyse the sentiments of such coverage, estimating that 69 per cent of the buzz generated by the summit was positive, compared with 24 per cent which was neutral and 7 per cent that was negative."
It is weird that ST chooses to quote from Isentia on its analysis of sentiments of the coverage, as Meltwater also produced its report on the sentiments. Based on the figures from Meltwater, the coverage was 185k negative versus 65.9k positive – Quite a stark contrast with the figures generated by Isentia.
One might say ST as a nation-building publication sure knows how to pick and choose which agency to quote figures from.