The Measurement Silver Bullet Does Not Exist – So Stop Searching
Measuring social media was one of many hot button topics of 2011. Chances are good that it will be the hot button topic of 2012, and every year thereafter until we have a standard set of metrics for brands to use.
Unfortunately, the chance of arriving at a standard set of metrics for every brand is small. Brand goals differ, as do the metrics tied to those brand goals. It has been this way in public relations for years, and it’s likely to be that way with social media as well.
Similarly, communications professionals should be leery of approaches that advocate measuring social like we’ve measured advertising, or any other communications discipline. We’ve seen this story before with Advertising Value Equivalencies. Not only do AVEs assume that public relations and advertising carry the same value within an organization, but the math behind some of the calculations is suspect at best. If you would like to read more on the subject, check out Don Bartholomew’s blog. It’s a treasure trove of posts discrediting the use of AVEs.
If standardization isn’t likely and comparing social media measurement to other communications disciplines directly is problematic, what can be achieved? For me, I think we can do two things to improve social media measurement.
#1 – Understanding basic measurement principles – It seems that with the explosion of social media, we’ve lost sight of proper communications planning. That includes:
- Benchmark research – Through listening and the examination of brand pages, social media provides a wealth of data for analysis. That doesn’t mean, however, that we should abandon primary research methods as well. Surveys and focus groups are necessary to truly understand underlying behaviors before launching a program.
- Objective setting – The objective needs to clearly articulate what the program is trying to achieve. Most importantly, a proper objective includes the behavior you are trying to impact; a rate of change and a period of time you think it will take to change that behavior.
- Identifying metrics – This is a pretty obvious step, but it is often done retroactively when it needs to be considered in each stage of the program, planning included. These metrics should match the strategies and objectives. If they don’t, pick new metrics.
- Strategies and tactics – Again, somewhat elementary, but the number of times that strategies and tactics don’t match objectives would stun a team of oxen. Don’t make that mistake. Keep the broader objective in your passenger seat at all times.
The other critical component of Measurement 101 is understanding how all of this ties back to what the business is trying to achieve. This speaks mostly to objective setting, but it’s worth calling out separately. If your objectives and subsequent tactical elements do not speak to making the business money, saving the business money, driving up intent to purchase, making a customer more likely to recommend your product or increasing loyalty you should consider revisiting those strategies and tactics. I guarantee you it is the only thing your client or bosses boss cares about at the end of the day.
#2 – Integrating communications to create one measurement framework – Recently, FastCompany posted an interesting approach to measuring all digital components using an aggregate score. That approach is certainly useful, but I think it’s time we start thinking about all communications when we’re conceiving a measurement framework. Social media doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and neither does traditional (whatever that means anymore) communications. An aggregate score is likely the best approach, but we have to start thinking about measurement like we think about communications – a strategic and holistic marketing practice tied to business objectives, not a singular tactic. Otherwise we’re measuring each of the channels without any context.
As my friend Tom Webster would say, you have to do the work. The solution to your measurement conundrum isn’t going to be presented on a silver platter. But, if you incorporate the measurement basics and think about how the measurement framework you’re developing can be integrated, you’ll be one step ahead of the competition.
What about you? What measurement challenges have you faced?
Chuck Hemann is currently Director, Analytics for WCG in Austin, Texas. For the past seven years he has provided strategic counsel to clients on a variety of topics including digital analytics, traditional measurement, online reputation, social media, investor relations and crisis communications. Chuck can be found online on Twitter and on his blog.
Posted on: January 17, 2012 at 9:57 am By Todd Defren
Subscribe by Email
RSS Feed
i agree. as a nonprofit communications professional
Thanks Chuck, you’re saying what so many feel. Measurement and ROI will always be more of an art form than a science with marketing. Market up against your market, engagement and create likability typically leads to a more successful business or brand. Having spent several years in traditional media guaranteed results or ROI can’t be given with anything…
This is a kick-ass post! Well done, Chuck! Glad to see you pointing out Don Bartholomew’s blog as well!
I completely agree with you Chuck. I think it is extremely difficult to measure a product based upon social media. For example, say a company has a Facebook page. That company can’t measure how many views that page has received or how long a person has stayed on one page. To tell you the truth, I’m don’t know how companies and public relations professionals are going to come up with a way to measure this. Yes, you can base your results on how my likes a page has, or how much of the public is engaging the company on the said page, but I think that is only half the equation. You can’t measure how many people are looking at the page and I think that part of the equation is key.
Chuck, first let me say it’s a first on your blog and I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there. But I must say, I think we’re missing the point here. Social is the internet. Your customers are on the internet talking about your brand, so how you interject or provide service is up to you. But trying to put a dollar value on that is silly.
Sure you can launch marketing campaigns on Facebook supported with ads that give you 100,000 likes, but provide no value to the user, just so the ‘social media manager’ can report back and say look at these huge numbers. But in reality most of those brands have little to no engagement on their pages. Think, you don’t think about ROI when an irate customer is transformed into a brand advocate after having a pleasant experience on Facebook, just like you wouldn’t ask “what’s the ROI of the discussions my customer service department has everyday?” Social is more about connections and humanizing your business or brand, rather than pushing marketing messages to consumers and reporting back to executives on how many likes you got.
I think the question is more how does social tie into your marketing or business goals of reaching new customers and satisfying current customers. And use the platforms the social internet has created to reach those goals.
Full disclosure: I’m the CTO at mBLAST and your post interests me greatly. We’ve struggled with the meaning of “one number” now for the past couple of years as we aggregate and rank ALL media (articles, blogs, and social along with commentary) and needed to think deeply about how they integrate into some sort of uber-score for an individual. I do think that having that integrated score makes it easy for people to think about someone’s relative impact or likely impact in the market, but frankly it’s more complicated than that.
First of all a number is meaningless without context. So in a useful business sense, you can’t have just “one number to rule them all” unless you look at context. The same goes for a person’s “reach” versus a person’s “subject matter expertise”. And what you’re looking for varies with the reason why. And looking at what people are telling you is worse than useless because what people *say* they are interested in or writing about is seldom what they *actually* are. Many people will tell you “Oh I write about B2B business solutions” yet you’ll never find those words in any post or writing.
There is also my most used example: I want to raise money for flood victims in my non-profit. Who are the most important people talking about this subject right now? So what is this person interested in…a subject matter expert on floods or weather (subject matter expertise) or reach? Do I want to reach someone like Lady Gaga for my effort because I know 2 Tweets or blog posts will cause people to donate, or do I want a flood expert? What does the concept of “one number” mean in this context?
So we’ve taken a very different route to this and not only carefully analyzed *what* people are *actually* writing, but also left the component parts adjustable. So that “one number” is actually adjustable by what sort of person you’re looking for (expert, popular, writes in fan blogs, high level blogger, best selling book)not baked into the product or our idea of what it means. This is because, in the end, people are looking for what is appropriate to the subject AND the purpose of what they are doing. And “one number” just doesn’t work.
So I agree with you wholeheartedly: there is no one magic number. Context counts.
Chuck, you knew I’d have to weigh in here. obviously I agree that we shoudln’t use questionable and out of date metrics in social media, but I have to disagree about the subject of standards. Last fall representatives of more than a dozen organizations came to my house and agreed on what needed to be measured and standardized in social media measurement. We’re meeting again to continue the discussion and we’d be delighted if you’d join us. Are we going to come up with “one standard metric?” Of course not. Your CFO doesn’t go into the board of directors and present only one number, and neither should you. The point is that these groups are coming together to establish standard definitions, so when organizations obey your rule number 1 they will be at least using common definitions.
Hi Katie – Thank you for the comment, and I know we agree on most of the points above. I wasn’t aware of the commission you are referring to, but would definitely like to be a part of it if possible. Thanks again.
Enjoyed this article, Chuck. Though, I feel like #1 contradicts #2. If you do a good job on all the points in #1, you will have a completely customized metric. Which, to my mind, negates the need for #2. It seems to me that measurement for pr and social media generally boils down to reach, sentiment, audience growth and conversions. These are going to be completely different for every company. I’m very suspicious of aggregated scores, because what could be a successful number for one company wouldn’t be for others. And they tend to miss a lot.
You might want to check out Chris Bevolo or Chris Boyer. They both have a lot to say on Social Media ROI, particularly as it relates to the healthcare communication realm, which is possibly the most sticky industry there is for measurement. Lots of hard to quantify things going on in medicine!
Thanks, Susan. Yes, agree with your point that aggregated scores can be a bit dicey. However, they can work across the board if a common methodology is agreed too. What would change from company to company to how much weight you put on a particular metric based on your internal goals.
i agree. as a nonprofit communications professional who has worked heavily in social media for the past 4 years, i’ve seen the real value in crisis communication, as opposed to advertising/ROI measurements.
social media gives voice to the voiceless, and communicators would do well understanding that; using this knowledge to help frame their message instead of relying on the old agenda setting theory. we can’t really measure that and our organization has moved from an outputs evaluation (# of friends/fans) to an outcomes based evaluation (stories of impact, testimonials, customer service, key message penetration).