We need to use- and measure- social media as part of our marketing

No Gravatar
Logo for the Addicted to Social Media Blog
Image via Wikipedia

We know that “Social Media” is not a fly-by-night concept anymore.  To keep up with the Jones’, our companies must be invested to generate customers and revenue.  But, just throwing anything against the wall is not the answer.  We need a business and/or marketing plan- and to include the use of social media to extend that plan- AND we need metrics.

Before we consider metrics, we need to integrate our social media strategy into business/marketing plans- or we will waste time and money. Why are we planning to use social media (other than because everyone else is- which is NOT a valid answer)? Are we trying to connect with industry gurus or consumers (and which ones)?  Are we offering something new (for us, for the world)?  Once we have a strategy and plan, then we can consider if what we are doing is working.  (If we have NO strategy and NO plan, how would we know what success means? )

In spite of what we think happens- most people access social media at work.  So, posting items on the weekend gets you nowhere.  Monday afternoons are probably best, as are most other work days.  Friday’s post may have to be earlier in the day to augment your return.  The problem really is the metrics.

I have been hit repeatedly by vendors trying to sell me ROI metrics for social media (and even taken a slew of seminars trying to find the answer).  The ubiquitous “Google Search” is no help- only because the responses exceed 2 million.  (One of my big complaints is that the weighting applied to such responses provides even less information.)

Donna L. Hoffman and Marek Fodor (MIT Sloan Review) have provided us some interesting answers.  [Of course, it would be the quant business school!] They analyze social media effects from the consumers’ point of view, not from our traditional business ROI measurements. Rather than employing the costs of marketing and customer responses (“reach and frequency”), they suggest we measure the investments made by customers to engage with our offerings (i.e., what is the consumer motivation behind her efforts).  Doing so incorporates our goals to increase sales (from social media campaigns) or to reduce support costs (due to online fora), as well as augment the long-term value obtained from social media investments.

The conventional ROI analysis computes the cost of social media launches and examines the return of sales from that type of media (blog, twitter, etc.).  Hoffman and Fodor (HF) suggest we examine the consumer motivations- brand engagement, consumers’ desire to learn about new products and/or describe their product experiences- and link these items to our marketing objectives. Instead of solely employing monetary computations, we need to include number of site visits, time spent on our sites, bounce rates, citations (e.g. via Twitter and Facebook), and the like.  As such, ROI would employ the metrics of brand awareness and ‘word-of-mouth’ experiences.

HF remind us that consumers are in control of their online experience; their cloud experiences involve connections with other consumers, creating and consuming online content (not really marketer generated). HF denote four key motivations (the Four C’s): Connections, Creation, Consumption, and Control; furthermore, the parochial focus (assuming this is just another media type) ignores qualitative objectives that only exists from the cloud. (“What is the value of a tweet about a brand?”)

We need to stop monitoring direct sales and cost reductions when analyzing the social media marketplace.  We can assume that revenue generated after a campaign is related to that campaign, but connecting all the dots between the two is more than a little tenuous. How do we monitor the costs involved when consumers populate their own user responses on FAQ sections or help desks?  Or where consumers provide input on product concepts and/or product improvements?

HF provide a chart of relevant metrics (way too long to include here).  (You need to remember this is only a starting point.) One good example was “brand awareness”, where our traditional methods employ surveys and tracking studies.  These are of little utility when considering social media.  HF described the results from Tom Dickson and K-Tec’s blender (his firm) demonstration videos.  Tom attempted to “blend” various objects (golf balls, smartphones, etc.); the humorous videos went “viral”. Product sales grew fivefold, with more than 100 million views on YouTube.  HF provided similar examples to explain brand engagement and word-of-mouth metrics.

In such analyses, it is clear that the various social media, which share the same underlying motivations, are more similar than one originally considered- so integrated marketing campaigns are more manageable and tied to consumer behavior.  And, looking at their 2X2 matrix, the goal is to move from fuzzy to quantifiable measurements.

quantifiable failing succeeding
Manager’s Ability to Measure Effectiveness Measure and Adjust Iterate for Success
Dead End Naive Optimist
fuzzy Manager’s Subjective Valuation of Effectiveness

 

When we are in the ‘dead end’ quadrant, there’s a sense we are failing and employing fuzzy measurements. This typically resulted from the “let’s try anything and see what happens” scenario. This is not where we wants to be!

Moving to the “measure and adjust” quadrant, we’re still not positive we are succeeding, but there are impact measurements; we have a reason to adjust our offerings.  As we do respond to the metrics, we can migrate to the “iterate for success quadrant”.

Of course, if we did employ the ‘throw it against the wall’ concept, it is entirely possible that we’ll find ourselves in the ‘naive optimist” quadrant instead.  We thing we are succeeding (the campaign is working), but our proof is pretty fuzzy.  With such “mushy” proof, we have no clue how to optimize our offerings and efforts.  And, the odds are we will find ourselves moving left- back to the “dead end”.  We need to find and use quantifiable metrics to move to the top right quadrant (iterate for success).

This means we are back to the Four C’s: connections, creations, consumption, and control.  We need to monitor blog comments, have customers register and/or subscribe to our sites, let users tweet a selection or post it on Facebook, among other items.  These consumer actions are not under our control, but the framework under which they operate are absolutely controllable by us.  We need to listen (examining the activity of the consumers)  and act upon those activities. Posted comments need replies.  Consumer reactions to posted videos should be positive- or we alter or remove it- quickly.  We need to monitor ‘click-throughs’ to our traditional or transactional websites as part of the metrics.

I am watching you 🙂

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Share

6 thoughts on “We need to use- and measure- social media as part of our marketing”

  1. The concept of the consumer rules is still a difficult one for most marketers to comprehend. I heard a story of a major ad campaign in NZ that no one understood except the ad agency and the marketing department. Advertising is flawed if it fails to connect. (no longer does the consumer want to be told what to think).
    ROI on social media is currently the latest “buzz” with all the BS and crap being promulgated by people who neither understand social media or marketing
    Roy, the article you refer to is worth the read. This topic is going critical for business to wrap its head around.

    1. Roberta:
      i worry about any campaign- social, print, or education- that is only understood by an outside agency and one part of the company. It either means “we have a failure to communicate” or that “the emperor has no clothes”!
      We never just spout answers to our clients. Ok, we do- but then we go over and over with the concept until we are certain that they understand the whos, whats, whens, why, and wherefors.
      ROI is a tough concept. And, any ROI is based upon someone’s choice of a valid “interest” or “return” rate. Which means each of us has to make our own criteria.
      Thanks for the WONDERFUL additional comments to round out the dissemination of information.
      Roy

    1. I have found (in a NOT scientific study) that many of the Facebook likes come about because friends are guilted into liking or others are induced to like a site for a return like. So, that analytic (sic) proves nothing- except it is a critical component to obtain a page with a vanity name.
      Given that, the choice of analytics- and agency to provide that analysis- is more a function of one’s treasury, one’s need to discern trends, and the various agencies internal biases. I wish I had the perfect answer. But, I clearly don’t.
      Given those “facts”, I suggest tracking Google, Facebook, Alexa, and Awstats (at least two of them) routinely to discern what is or is not happening with blog posts. Checking with one’s customers/clients and how they found you is one NOT to be missed, either.

Comments are closed.