Should we be applying web 1.0 measurement tools to Social Media?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ryan Wilcox on April 10, 2009 at 8:45am

Where I come from, marketers rely on results to determine whether a project was worth the worthwhile, but returns have always been challenging to capture accurately in direct marketing, so it's only reasonable that electronic media are going to create more problems because there are more variables. Getting stuck on ROI is going to make it difficult to continue funding experimental projects in social media and web 2.0 apps because the experience is so varied. Someone who spends five minutes using your Facebook app is going to get much more from it that someone who lands there for a few seconds, either way you can consider it a click-through, but whoever stuck around is going to remember it.

At this point, I think one should consider successful anything that causes waves on the internet, the more links from users, the better. It shows that people are willing to pass it on, which is significantly more important to web 2.0 than clicks and counting traffic.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on April 10, 2009 at 8:52am

Advertising is a numbers game. The advertiser needs eyeballs exposed to a message. The more volume, in theory, the better the results...or at least the volume of eyeballs gives us something to measure.

Social media seems to be about connecting people. When people are connected, ideas spread. From a commercial perspective, then, I suppose the goal of social media for an "advertiser" would be to inspire word of mouth.

But to inspire word of mouth, you first need to deliver a product or service that is so great that people talk about it. And if you do that, you probably won't need to TRY to create viral campaigns. People will do it for you.

Also, one often overlooked aspect of social media...it gives us a chance to "listen" to what the market is saying. Perhaps that's a good place to start. Listening. I know it's an underused and undervalued skill among most advertisers, but one that can lead to discovering what the client really wants...which can lead to delivering a great experience...which can inspire word of mouth.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew Ball on April 10, 2009 at 9:34am

Back up 60-70 years ago and the same comments were being made about radio and TV advertising. New methodology will be developed to determine impact and effectiveness. The click through issue of how long does one stay on a site is not much different than flipping through pages in a magazine or newspaper and skipping the ads. The publication will tell you their circulation #'s but that doesn't mean the ad will be seen. Ditto for the click through rate. And thanks to Tivo/DVR's, the mute button and the audience's attention span of a flea, TV ads are easily missed. Social media is new and being watched but could, and probably will, become like its forerunners- common and taken for granted. Measuring methodology will need to develop to keep up.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Erik Deckers on April 10, 2009 at 10:48am

I don't think the problem lies in measuring Web 2.0 with old school tools. I think it lies with expecting old school results.

The problem lies in the fact that marketers have been lied to by traditional marketing and PR.

"The Golf Channel has a global reach of almost 80 million homes."

Ooh, thinks the marketer, if I advertise on the Golf Channel, I'll be seen by 80 million people.

Not so. You'll be seen by very tiny fraction of people who actually play golf. According to the National Golf Foundation, that number was 26 million in 2005.

In other words, the Golf Channel is making us think we're reaching 80 million homes. In truth, the number of people who might be interested in the Golf Channel (i.e. golfers) is not even one-third of that total. And of that 26 million, how many are actually watching the channel? I don't know, but it sure ain't 26 million.

But therein lies the problem. There isn't a real way to measure the number of viewers on a TV channel. But we've been conditioned to think that we're reaching 80 million.

The same is true for PR. A newspaper has a print run of 500,000 copies and a readership of 750,000 (keep in mind, this is estimated), and the PR person says, "we potentially reached 750,000 readers with our message)

Now that we've got some great tools to measure social media, people aren't seeing numbers of millions or even hundreds of thousands, they're seeing thousands, and sometimes even hundreds.

And what's better is we can even measure the passion of those readers/viewers, and how much they love the company or brand. One passionate reader is worth more to me than 20 people who glance at my column. The passionate reader will tell their friends, and they'll become readers who tell their friends. The cool thing is, social media measuring tools can follow that train. It shows where the passionate readers are talking, and how often they're doing it.

There may not be a standard method of measurement, but that's because there are too many methods. We're spoiled for choices, and because this is such a new way of doing things, the people who find out the best way and can standardize it will own social media measurement.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Johnnie Firari on April 10, 2009 at 5:28pm

I do agree with using web 1.0 measurements as a form of measurement but prefer to see it used more as a source to collect data. True measurement is going to come from those speaking to the paying client and doing their research on what made them buy or hire a product or service.

Most sales are generated based on relationships, cost and branding. As we all know the easiest sell is with those we have or feel we have a relationship with. Look at your barber or hairstylist and ask why you tend to stick with the same person? It is the relationship(trust, conversation, etc..) that you have with this person, not the price or name of the shop (actually someone probably referred you to the barber or hairstylist). Not all of us can spend 20 or 30 minutes talking to just one client but we can spend 20 or 30 minutes talking to a group of potential and old clients. Social Media Tools allow us to at least provide some emotional attachment to the client. Social media drives sales based on relationships, which in turn results in better customer loyalty. Using web 1.0 tools, you can see if you are engaging with clients, get instant feedback or if they are viewing your website, blog. With this data you can at least know it leaves them less time to view a competitor.

Web 1.o measurements is just the starting point to measurement. If it is the starting and end point then yes Richard Stacy, we are missing the point. As for looking at a ROI to early will leave many "penny wise and dollar foolish!".

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by janice smith on April 11, 2009 at 9:30am

Hi Kyle,
Good questions here...
Nice to run into you the other day; thanks for the encouragement!
Keep it going...
Janice

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris Tomlinson on May 8, 2009 at 9:57pm

Maybe we need to go back to the basics... refocus on completely understanding a new medium that is changing our entire communication formula.
Or maybe we need to refocus on how we actually advertise. I'm a HUGE fan of Seth Godin and I think he's spot on when he talks about the change of media and how we advertise. For decades advertising has revolved around "to the masses we go! to the masses we go! hi ho oh merry o' to the masses we go!" and for quite some time it worked. But that time is over and people are more apt to use a company/service because of a relationship.

I think by using social media to actually interact with our customers/clients and build relationships we can find a better way to measure the ROI. Forget the numbers related to hits, pageviews and click through rates and instead look at how much you're interacting with your customers.

--- Did you receive five comments about your recent product release last month and of those five, how many did you interact with?
--- How many people subscribed to your blog last month and how many of those did you send an email to thanking them for joining?
--- When your company gets a new follower on Twitter, do you return the favor and follow them? Do large corporations even do that?

It's still all about numbers, but I think social media needs to be evaluated on a different set of facts.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on May 10, 2009 at 6:45pm

Pat - Totally agree.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on May 10, 2009 at 6:45pm

Kyle, most social media campaigns are not measurable for three reasons:

1. Poor marketing discipline and disorganization diffuse costs through an organization in a way that makes matching costs impossible.
2. Gain is being measured on subjective criteria leading to the entire results of the campaign not being credible.
3. Poor selection of measurement points that lead to a focus on activity and not on objective results.

In Indiana, especially most companies do not assign value to marketing assets, which makes it difficult to see what value that your campaign created beyond sales. This is a real problem with how many Hoosier companies market because it leads to a wild ride on the sawtooth wave of doom as your marketing changes focus from list building to lead generation to list building to lead generation ad nauseaum...

▶ Reply to This