Tag Archives: social media metrics

Let’s Play 20 Questions: Social Media Measurement Style

1 Oct

On August 6, I gave a webinar for Carma, co-sponsored by PRNews called, Social Media Measurement at a Crossroads. The webinar focused on the current state of social media measurement with an emphasis on efforts to develop social media metrics standards. You may download the presentation courtesy of Carma here. There were many good questions asked by the webinar participants. I thought it might be fun to capture 20 of the questions and share the answers I gave in response. And it might be cool if you disagree with an answer, to share your different opinion in the comments.

Q1. What level of social media measurement do you think should be taught at Undergraduate level in PR or Communications degree courses?

A1. Most schools only require one research class in undergraduate education. In this class, all forms of research including measurement are covered. I think all schools should have one general research and analytics course and another specifically for measurement. I would cover traditional and digital in both courses with an emphasis on digital techniques.

Q2. What needs to happen for businesses to be able to integrate Communications Performance Management with Business Performance Management?

A2. Did Philip Sheldrake ask you to ask this question? Well, the first thing that would have to happen is for companies to start demanding it. I’ve not seen much demand for this. Once demand builds, smart people will figure out how to make it happen. The AMEC Social Media Measurement Committee is going to take on the challenge of developing a balanced scorecard approach to the social media valid framework to see where that takes us.

Q3. Speaking about social business, are you suggesting social media becomes the strategic imperative with marketing, customer service, PR, employee engagement subordinate?  So these functions will be driven by SM specialists?

A3. No, not at all. I think what we’ll see if that social media permeates all of these functions and creates new capabilities and connections between groups and between customers and companies. It is up to PR or HR people to learn something about social media, SM specialists are not going to take over the world.

Q4. Are the proposed standard social media metrics valid for native ads as well?

A4. I have not thought much about this, but my initial reaction is that the metrics for native ads would be same. A promoted tweet would have the same engagement metrics as any other tweet, although one would certainly hope the performance on some of the metrics would be better.

Q5. What do you mean when you say triage social media content for customer service and support?

A5. This would refer to evaluating and routing social content to different entities or people within an organization (customer care versus technical support versus legal, for example) that are best able to understand and act on the feedback and/or respond to the post.

Q6. Don, what do you put more emphasis on these days, Likes and Follows or Shares and Comments?

A6. I believe the emphasis should be on the stronger indications of engagement, shares and comments, than on simple Likes and Follows.

Q7. How well-known and widely accepted are the Conclave standards in the social space as a whole?

A7. The first complete set of standards were published in early June, 2013. They are known by social media measurement insiders, but I think it is fair to say they are not yet widely known. We need to promote their existence and use.

Q8. How would you measure perception and attitudes through social media?

A8. Generally we would measure consumer conversations about a topic and then do some analysis to see if there are clusters of comments that represent different and distinct viewpoints, attitudes or opinions about the issue or topic. We might also want to do an audience segmentation analysis to see how these attitudes differ by stakeholder group.

Q9. Any specific comments geared towards non-profit organizations?

A9. The basics of measurement – write measurable goals, align goals with organizational KPIs, assess performance against targets –  are the same for for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. How value is created is the primary difference.

Q10. Any suggestions to measure business impact for B2B organizations? Is there a way to understand the impact of social for B2B organizations?  

A10. Most B2B companies have a focus on sales leads. Therefore demonstrating how social is helping create leads or improve lead closure rates is important. There are a lot of uses of social listening in B2B companies as well – how the company is positioned on key issues, who is talking about the company, how products and services are being discussed, etc.

Q11. What are your favorite tools to use in terms of actually measuring your programs/channels/campaigns? Do you identify the tools as you are defining the metrics (do we have the ability to measure X, Y, Z?) or do you select tools after you define your metrics (this is what we need to know, let’s find A, B, C, solutions to measure these things?)?

A11. Generally Google Analytics, a social listening platform (Radian6, Brandwatch, Netbase, Visible, etc.), channel analytics programs like Facebook Insights and also Excel. Ideally you should define metrics first, then the data required for each metric, then look at the tools best able to get the specific data you need.

Q12. What are the most common or most surprising questions you have gotten from CMOs or other key stakeholders regarding social media measurement?

A12. CMOs want to know how social media contributes value to marketing – if they are sales funnel oriented they want to know how social is helping drive the funnel for example. They are also interested if you are helping on front-end or downstream funnel metrics.

Q13. What advice do you have for small businesses for use of and measuring success of social media campaigns effectively (few resources).

A13. Start with the free tools (Hootsuite, Excel, Facebook Insights, Twitter Analytics, Google Analytics) and then work your way up to some of the paid social listening platforms. There is no ‘best’ platform to start with – it really depends on your needs and what you intend to do with the platform. Many companies start with measuring their own channels and evolve to listening to earned/ shared social conversations.

Q14. Which social media analytics do the C-suite find most valuable?

A14. The C-suite don’t really care about social media analytics so much, They care about how social media is helping drive the business metrics forward. That said, C-level folks are usually interesting in competitive benchmarking in social and positioning on key issues and topics that are important to the business. Anything pertaining to online reputation is also an area of interest for many.

Q15. How do you determine what are the correct things to measure?

A15. Measure what matters to the organization. Measurement is about performance against objectives so make sure your measurement program is aligned with business objectives. Don’t measurement ‘social media’, measure what you are trying to accomplish with social media.

Q16. How can someone who is interested in the movement toward standard metrics get involved helping to move the PR industry forward? In other words, how can someone get involved in the debate?

A16. I would suggest interacting directly on the smmstandards.org website. Volunteer to help. Leave suggestions. You could also get involved through one of the PR associations – IPR, PRSA or CoPRF.

Q17. What software would you recommend be used by PR firms to most cost effectively measure social media efforts for clients?

A17. A good social listening platform, Google Analytics, Facebook Insights and the other packages offered by the channels, and good old Excel. Beyond that it really depends on the nature of the social media effort.

Q18. I think a lot of the issue with measurement is confidence in the measurer (i.e., your source). Whenever you cross-reference measurements (e.g. what Google analytics says vs. what your web marketing automation says like HubSpot), you can get wildly different answers. That has stopped me from putting too much faith in my metrics process. Thoughts?

A18. I might separate the issue of the measurer from the sources of data – really two different issues. Regarding sources of data, this is a true issue in that different databases yield different estimates for things like audience size. Compete versus ComScore is a notorious example. However, I don’t think this is a reason to not measure. It simply means we must state assumptions and sources and be consistent over time in using comparable sources. I believe that standard metrics will eventually lead to sanctioned sources for audience data like Arbitron (now Nielsen Audio) for radio or Nielsen for TV.

Q19. Let’s say a social media post leads someone to a landing page, but they do not take immediate action. But they come back the next week and complete the conversion funnel. How do you credit the original social media post…is this a matter of tracking cookies for x number of days? What is practical?

A19. Yep, most people count the first click and then track for a period of time depending on the type of product. It gets even more complicated if you try to suggest there should also be credit given to what happened before the first social media click – for example, money invested in building the brand. Value attribution is an inexact science for sure, with lots of assumptions and compromises.

Q20. What are best ways to measure target audience reach and engagement rather than wide general reach?

A20. Thanks for asking this. The best way to measure is to clearly define your target. If the target is Females 18 – 34, then you should only take credit for reach and engagement of this specific audience only. Given that most tools rely on voluntary bio data, the information is inconsistent and difficult to come by.

Thanks for reading. @Donbart

Social Media Measurement at a Crossroads

21 Aug

We are at a crossroads in social media measurement. Expectations for rigorous and relevant measurement have risen more quickly than delivery. Too many are fixated on quantitative outputs – speeds and feeds – at the expense of understanding the outcomes achieved by social media marketing and social business. There is still too much emphasis on vanity metrics and not enough on business results. And, if you take a step back, there is simply too much talk about all this and not enough action. At the risk of exacerbating the last point, let me explain.

 

Social Media Measurement Started with the Wrong Orientation

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, digital measurement focused on website analytics. The orientation was heavily quantitative. How many unique visitors? How many page views? How long did people remain on site? By 2007, with Facebook now three years old and Twitter completing it’s inaugural year, social media measurement was becoming a hot topic.

Crossroads1Early social media measurement practitioners generally came from the web analytics world. Early social media measurement efforts focused on quantifying outputs and not addressing the outcome of the program. The orientation was on ‘How Many?’ and not ‘What Happened?’ The quantitative orientation also came at the expense of qualitative assessment. The emphasis was on getting easily accessible statistics and not on content analysis to understand meaning and implications. These issues remain today, although we have made significant progress toward shifting the orientation to outcomes and business results.

In the early adopter phase of social media, social media measurement was under little pressure to go beyond quantitative output analysis. Many brands, companies and organizations viewed social media participation as a bit of an experiment to see how it best could be used within their organizations. But this was soon to change.

Struggle Between Easy/Superficial and Hard/Meaningful

It is difficult to pinpoint when social media crossed the chasm into a mainstream business activity. An IDC study in the Fall of 2009 suggested the state of social media still best fit the early adopter and not mainstream use pattern at that point in time. 2011 felt like the year the leap happened to me. With it came a new and emerging set of expectations around social media measurement.

Crossroads2In measurement, it is a truism that the metrics that are easiest to measure are seldom the ones that are most meaningful. It may be easy to measure outputs, but it is often much more difficult and expensive to measure outcomes. It is much easier to determine brand mentions in social media than it is to assess whether or not social programming has changed opinions and attitudes of the target.  It is infinitely easier to measure unique visitors per month than it is to determine the return on investment of a social media initiative.

Now that social media clearly is a mainstream business activity, the pressure to demonstrate the impact and value of social media has greatly increased. As the resources and investment against social media and social business become meaningful line items in the budget, the game changes. Demonstrating business impact and value requires an understanding of the business model of the company or organization and how social media/business creates impact (e.g. change in awareness, increase in purchase consideration, increase in active advocates around an issue) in that environment. Measuring impact is more difficult than measuring audience or engagement. It often involves primary audience research so the price tag is higher.

This is a key struggle we face – will we continue to take the easy, less expensive, minimal-value-of-the-findings approach or we will take social media measurement to another level, focusing on outcomes, investing in audience research and applying rigorous analytics to get at meaning and insight? The imperative is clear, how we respond will be telling. 

A Final Turn to the Right

One of the key themes at this year’s AMEC measurement conference in Madrid was creating a bias toward action. The time to (just) talk about measurement is in the past, the time for action is now. I might suggest this goes double for social media measurement. Here are three areas we can address that will help make the leap from talk to action.Crossroads3

  1. Every social media initiative has a measurement plan. Let’s make this happen. Literally any social media initiative, program or activity should have a measurement plan defined before implementation begins. Start with writing social media objectives that are measurable. Align social media metrics with business KPIs. Select metrics across multiple dimensions – programmatic, channel-specific and business-level metrics, for example. Or perhaps paid, owned, earned and shared metrics if your program is integrated across these dimensions. Collect data. Assess performance against objectives. Rinse and repeat
  2. Take a stand on standards. An exciting cross-industry effort has produced a set of proposed standards for social media metrics. Adopting standard definitions and metrics for social media is an important stage of measurement maturity that other marketing disciplines like advertising and direct marketing have already reached.
  3. Understand, articulate & demonstrate business impact.  The heat is on to demonstrate how social media is helping drive the business or organization forward. We must do a better job of connecting the dots between business KPIs, social media objectives and social media metrics and measurement. In some cases, we want to go beyond understanding attitudinal and behavioral changes to understand the financial value of the impact created. Capturing the financial value of social media requires expertise, data, time and money. We would always like to measure impact, and when it makes sense, we may push further to attribute financial value.

It will be interesting to see what the next year in social media measurement brings. The move toward standardization alone should be fascinating to watch. I have tried to make the argument we are at a crossroads or inflection point in social media measurement maturity. What ‘worked’ for us in the past will not work in the future. We know the expectations. The great unknown is how we respond.

Note: This post was inspired by a Carma webinar,co-sponsored by PRNews, I gave recently. You may download slides from that webinar here.

Social Media Measurement at a Crossroads

25 Jul

Please join me on August 6, from 2:00 – 3:00pm EDT for CARMA’s fourth quarterly webinar, co-sponsored by PRNews, titled “Social Media Measurement at a Crossroads.” Here is a little more information on the webinar:

With social media clearly entrenched as a mainstream business activity, the need to measure the impact on the organization has never been greater. While social media practitioners talk about Like or Follower growth, organizations want to understand how social media is helping drive the business or cause forward. 

Another challenge in social media measurement is the lack of standard definitions, approaches and metrics. In response, a cross-industry push to define social media standards was initiated and initial standards recently published. Social media measurement is clearly at a crossroads where new thinking and approaches are emerging.

In this session you will learn:

  • How to align KPIs and metrics to demonstrate organizational impact and value. 
  • What industry efforts are being made toward standardization and the implications for how you approach social media measurement
  • New models, metrics and frameworks you can use today to develop more effective social media measurement programs.

I will be joined by PRNews Group Editor Matthew Schwartz, who will moderate the discussion and lead a Q&A session.

Here is a link to register for the session. Feel free to leave a comment with any questions you would like answered during the webinar and I will do my best to address them. Hope you can join!

New Framework for Social Media Measurement – Update & Debate

21 Jun

The complete presentation, including speaker notes, I gave at the AMEC Summit in Madrid on June 7 introducing the AMEC Social Media Valid Framework is now available for download here. Please visit and download the slides if you are interested.

Whenever you throw a new idea or concept out there you really hope people see it. And you really, really hope they care enough about it to comment. Or better still, to challenge it and debate its merits. Simply put, critical thinking makes the concept better. Enter stage left, our provocateur, Philip Sheldrake, author of The Business of Influence. Philip has also been an active thought leader in the whole push toward social media standards through AMEC committees and the work of The Conclave. I respect his opinion very much. Philip wrote a rather long essay on his blog in response to my original post on the new Valid Framework for Social Media. Richard Bagnall, Chairman of the Social Media Measurement committee of AMEC posted a response to some of Philip’s concerns. I would like to address a few others now.  

First, one area I am not going to address in this post is whether or not any framework for social media measurement should be driven by Business Performance Management (BPM) principles and approaches. That subject is being debated very well in the comments under Philip’s original post – pretty interesting thread.

Stakeholders v. Customers v. Audiences

Philip questions if the framework, based on the words chosen to describe it, is oriented more toward customers (i.e. social media marketing) and not the broader concept of stakeholders. The intent was and is the make the framework broad enough to comprehend the majority of use cases for social media. Marketing is just one of the use cases. To be fair, the use of ‘audience’ in the description of Impact is a direct lift from the proposed standards document. We were trying to not reinvent the wheel. That said, I agree with you that saying stakeholders or publics is a more accurate description than ‘audience’ in many cases.

Influence

Hard to argue about influence with the guy who wrote a book on it, so I won’t. Philip makes the point that the model offers a definition of influence (Ability to cause or contribute to a change in opinion or behavior) but does not include the qualifying statements or concepts from the WOMMA Guidebook – the potential to influence (before) and the actual, observed influence (during/after). He goes on to say he prefers emphasis on the second. Fully agree. The short definition was offered for clarity and brevity. We will plan to reword this slightly to broaden. You’ll note the illustrative metrics shown in the framework with metrics are consistent with the during/after (e.g. change in purchase consideration) rather than before orientation. If you think about it, the before piece is really about targeting (who are the influencers we should engage?) rather than measurement (did we change opinion, attitudes or behavior of our target stakeholders?).

Value

Philip makes the point that in the model verbiage, the only reference to Value was financial impact whilst the standards definition reads, “the importance, worth or usefulness of something”. Philip also acknowledges this definition was a “last minute tweak”. It was actually being debated as the slides were being developed. We’ll broaden the definition to include tangible and intangible value to be in lock-step with the standards document.

Advocacy

Philip poses two great questions regarding this phase. His first point is a good model that includes advocacy should also be able to comprehend opposition and advocacy for competing agendas. Fully agree these are important to consider and the model certainly does not preclude that. Comprehending these factors would be addressed by one or more metrics within the framework (e.g. Net Positive Advocacy – positive minus negative advocacy) or simply as a point of analysis rather than measurement per se.

Philip’s second question is simply why Advocacy is shown after Impact. It is shown in this order to recognize the fact that most advocacy actually occurs post impact or conversion event. For example, in a sales context, advocacy generally occurs after someone has bought and had great experiences with the product or service. To be more accurate, we might also show Advocacy after Influence and before Impact. Certainly issue advocacy often happens as a direct outcome of a change in opinion or attitude. Rather than show it in two places, to keep it simple, we choose to show it in the sequence where it is most relevant. In practice one could have both pre and post-impact advocacy metrics in your measurement plan.  

Paid Owned Earned  

Philip simply questions the strategic value of this taxonomy and says it props-up organizational silos and reinforces misconceptions such as PR equals (only) Earned Media. I think the questions are valid ones. But as a practical matter many companies and organizations do use the taxonomy. That is a key reason why it is one of the framework alternatives. And while it can reinforce silos and misperceptions, I have actually seen it have the opposite impact – it recognizes integrated programs require integrated measurement and bring three key elements (different departments and sometimes different agencies) together under a common framework. Interestingly in PR, we now routinely develop programs that include earned, paid and owned elements. This reinforces the positive perception public relations today is not simply equal to earned media.

Impact

Finally, Philip questions whether any framework can consider programmatic-level or channel-specific metrics in terms of Impact. I think it can and does. Impact refers to outcomes. We can have macro and micro conversions. And we can have outcomes that are specific to programs (e.g. event attendance, voter registrations, subscriptions to a content series) or channels (download a whitepaper from the website); although I will agree there will be few channel-specific outcomes.

Keep in mind the metrics shown in the frameworks are illustrative, as Richard pointed out in his remarks, they are not meant to be exhaustive, definitive or recommended. They are illustrative of the emerging standard metrics for social media.

 

Thanks for caring.  

A New Framework for Social Media Metrics and Measurement

12 Jun

Last week in Madrid, AMEC (International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communications) held their 5th European Summit on Measurement. This one was entitled, Unlocking Business Performance – Communications research and analytics in action. One underlying premise of the program this year was that the time for talk is behind us and the time for action and putting into place the principles and practices of sound measurement is upon us. The later part of the program featured an update from Salience Insight Commercial Director Mike Daniels on social media standards including the recently published standardization effort from the cross-industry group called The Conclave which may be found here.

Once Mike discussed where we are with respect to standardization, Richard Bagnall (@richardbagnall), Chairman of the AMEC Social Media Measurement Group, and I as his vice-chair, presented a session on creating a new recommended framework for social media metrics and measurement. Essentially we tried to answer the question: how do we take the standards work coming from The Conclave and operationalize it to create proper social media measurement? Here is an overview of what we presented and what we are encouraging everyone to adopt and use. The framework templates, usage guide and a short video synopsis will be available for download from the AMEC website, Social Media Measurement section, in the next week or so.

Valid Metrics Framework and Social Media

Our journey begins with the Valid Metrics Framework, a measurement planning framework and template developed under the auspices of AMEC. The framework was designed to be flexible enough to address multiple aspects of public relations within a consistent measurement framework and approach.

VMFII

Some of the most positive aspects of the Valid Metrics Framework are that it:

  • Provides a mechanism to link activities to outputs to outcomes
  • Tracks through the familiar sales funnel
  • Helps create a focus on outcomes.

One of the applications of the Valid Metrics Framework was for use with social media programs. Two potential issues were surfaced by early adopters of the framework in social programs. The intermediary effect, which in traditional public relations is the impact on the media, seemed at odds with the social world of direct interaction between consumers and brands, and consumers with each other. And use of the marketing sales funnel, while familiar, was only relevant in a percentage of social media use cases and perhaps not the best way to model common uses of social media like customer relations and building relationships with stakeholder groups. Also, thought leaders like Forrester Research and McKinsey & Company had noted the traditional communications funnel was not necessarily funnel-shaped in social media. They described the discovery process that occurs when investigating companies and brands that often cause the consideration set to expand rather than be reduced, and the fact that a lot of engagement around brands happens post-conversion event. For all of these reasons our task was develop and recommend a better framework and approach.

Models and Frameworks

When we use the word model, we are referring to a representation of a system, in this case social media. In the original Valid Metrics Framework, the model used was the traditional sales funnel. A framework adds additional dimensions to the model and is operationalized with metrics. In the Valid Metrics Framework the additional dimensions are the phases – activities, intermediary effects and target audience effects. We looked at both of these aspects individually and collectively when considering alternative approaches.

We studied and evaluated about fifteen different social media and communications models. A couple of common patterns emerged. Several of the models, including Forrester’s Customer Lifecycle and McKinsey’s Customer Journey showed a post-purchase engagement/experience step. We judged this important to include in our recommended approach. And we considered the importance of Engagement and Influence, as two key concepts in social media marketing and measurement, and decided to try to make these two elements explicit in our model as well.

Suggested Social Media Metrics Model

The model we developed is derivative of the categories chosen by The Conclave (Note: Richard Bagnall and I also participate in The Conclave) to organize social media metrics and definitions. We took a slightly different perspective on the front end of the model and reordered the back-end to create this model for our new framework. The descriptions of the stages use the definitions from the smmstandrards.org work wherever possible.

New Model

You will note Engagement includes both interactions with owned social channels as well as earned social conversation of people ‘talking about you’ in social channels. The definition of Influence is clear and concise, the result of a lot of discussion and prevailing clear thinking. The concept of Impact includes the outcomes of social initiatives as well as the Value those initiatives created. (I usually advise to always attempt to measure impact, and attribute value when it is feasible and makes sense.) Advocacy includes a very helpful definition and conditions that exist with advocacy.

Creating the Framework

To create the framework, we explored various ways to address the ‘phases’ of the Valid Metrics Framework. Two ideas stood out:

  • Use a simple structure that captures social media metrics from three key perspectives – programmatic-level, channel-specific and business. Programmatic metrics are those directly tied to social media objectives. Channel-specific metrics are just that, the metrics that are unique to specific social channels – tweets, RTs, Followers, Likes, Talking About This, Pins, Re-Pins. Business metrics are used to show the business impact of the campaign or initiative.
  • Use Paid, Owned, and Earned media metrics for integrated programs containing these elements. Borrowing the definitions from Forrester, Paid are social channels you pay to leverage (e.g. promoted tweets, display ads), Owned are channels you own and control (e.g. website, Facebook page) and Earned is where customers become the channel (e.g. WOM, viral)

There are certainly other ways to think about this (e.g. Business Performance Management) and we intend to possibly add others based on industry feedback and suggestions.

The AMEC Social Media Valid Framework

Currently we have developed both versions with sample metrics (taken from the smmstandards.org work where applicable). We are calling them The AMEC Social Media Valid Framework. Here is the version with Program, Channel and Business Metrics shown.

Valid Metrics Framwork

Where Do We Go From Here?

Look for the completed frameworks on the AMEC website shortly. We encourage you to adopt the frameworks for use by your company or clients. If you like them and find them useful, please help promote them widely. And please provide your feedback on the proposed framework on this blog, or through the social channel of your choice. We’re listening and looking forward to the dialogue.

Three Fundamentals of Great Social Media Measurement

20 Feb

If you want to evaluate the robustness and effectiveness of your approach to social media measurement, ask yourself these three fundamental questions:

  • Does the approach measure the ‘right’ things in order to show the business impact of the programs and initiatives? 
  • Will stakeholders of the report receive the data and actionable insights required to make strategic decisions?
  • Are the data and insights presented in a clear and concise manner that tells a story and makes it easy to understand and act upon?

Measuring the ‘Right’ Things

Social media metrics are derived from three primary sources:

Ideally, a robust social media measurement program will have a rich metrics set that contains metrics from all three areas. Metrics tied to program objectives allow for direct measurement of program success. Fundamentally, measurement is about assessing performance against objectives. It is surprising how often social program objectives are slanted toward channel-specific metrics (e.g. Likes or Followers) and not the specific outcomes desired for the program – what you hope to accomplish by implementing the program. Also, relying too heavily on channel metrics limits you to what you can measure rather than what you should measure. Business outcome metrics are used to connect the dots between social media programs and the business results they are designed to drive. Social programs that cannot answer, or at least address, the management question, “How is this impacting my business”, are more susceptible to resource allocation scrutiny (#pleasecutmybudget). Stated another way, if management asks how we’re doing in social media and we reply, “great, post virality is up 6.1% this month”, we make it difficult for that individual to understand how social media/business initiatives are helping move the business forward.

Getting to Data and Insights that Inform Strategic Decisions

Expectations for social media measurement and analysis have risen. In addition to sound analysis and reporting of performance against key metrics and KPIs, understanding audience dynamics and developing actionable insights are rapidly becoming de rigueur. Insights may be defined as synthesizing and interpreting data to provide actionable information and knowledge that informs strategic decisions. Too many social media measurement programs take a social-centric rather than a business-centric approach to insights. They often feature insights and recommendations that are tactical in nature – the best time of day or how many times to tweet, or what type of content seems to be most successful. Ideally, insights and recommendations in social measurement reports would be operating one level above this, informing strategic decisions about how social programs and conversations are impacting, or could impact, the business. To do this requires an understanding of the business function (e.g. marketing, customer service) impacted by the social program and an ability to ask the right questions prior to starting a social media analysis. 

For example, let’s say Company X plans to introduce a new video game. A social listening program has been implemented to analyze the early consumer reaction to the game. Based on the listening analysis, changes to the packaging, marketing or even the product itself are possible. If you are in charge of the marketing campaign for the game, what are the types of social media insights you need to make decisions about the game and the marketing campaign?

  • What is the level of buzz about the game?  What is the overall sentiment? How does this compare to previous game launches?
  • What are people talking about in social media – availability, cost, specific features of the game, packaging, marketing campaign?
  • What features of the game do consumers seem to like most?  Least? Specifically, what do they like or dislike?
  • What are the most influential gaming enthusiasts saying about the product?
  • Who are the promoters and detractors? What is the ratio of promoters to detractors? How does this compare to promoters and detractors from previous game launches?
  • How much social media conversation contains recommendations or expresses purchase intent?  How does this compare to previous launches?

Answering these types of questions provides actionable insights that provide context and can inform strategic marketing decisions.          

Presenting Results

Dashboards have gotten a bit of a bad rap – not because dashboards are not useful, but because some have used them as THE measurement report rather than just one aspect of a good report. I’m a dashboard proponent for a few reasons:

  • Deciding which metrics to feature on a dashboard is a good strategic exercise requiring you to focus on the very most important and relevant metrics for the intended audience
  • Online, dynamic dashboards are an effective user interface that can be used as a launching- off point for drilling into data to understand the underlying story
  • Good dashboards present a snapshot of overall performance that is easily absorbed and understood.   

A dashboard-driven social media measurement report is versatile and effective in many situations. A typical report might consist of one of more dashboards and then a deeper dive on each of the key metrics featured on the dashboards, along with audience insights, strategic insights and recommendations. This format provides a quick snapshot (dashboard) of results, ideal for those stakeholders interested only in topline data, and provides sufficient depth to satisfy those more interested in the underlying drivers of the metric  

Social media measurement programs that are built around metrics tied to business outcomes and show how programs are performing against objectives are important. Reports that deliver clear insights that inform strategic decisions are important. And delivering those reports in a compelling format that enhances usability and effectiveness is important. How do your programs stack up?

Bringing Some Clarity to Social Media Influence

10 Dec

The emphasis on influencer marketing in social media has reached a fever pitch in 2011 and with it a flood of tools and opinions on how to navigate the influence waters. This is interesting in that one of the most powerful aspects of social media marketing is the ability to establish connections and relationships directly with prospects and customers and not have to go through an intermediary to communicate. But we’ll leave that to the social strategists to reconcile and justify. Influencer marketing is hardly a new strategy. Through the years, much work in traditional public relations utilized influencer targeting (e.g. market analysts, financial analysts, KOLs, other customers) to help amplify and endorse a brand or a company’s products and services. So why is there so much discussion and confusion about influence in social media? Let’s explore.       

Influence Basics

A definition I like for influence is: effecting change in another person’s attitudes, opinions, beliefs and/or behavior. I believe the most overlooked word in this definition is change.  Without change influence has not truly occurred. One challenge here is influence can happen without any resulting short-term observable action. Influence takes hold primarily between the ears, not necessarily with hand on mouse or wallet. This creates fundamental challenges when trying to measure the degree to which influence has occurred.

Another challenge we face is that influence is contextual not absolute. People who influence others do so primarily in areas where they have specific expertise or authority. It is common to be influential in one area but have little or no influence in others. One of the main issues with current influence tools are they do a relatively poor job of establishing contextual relevance.

The distinction between creating influence within a target audience and who/what has influence over the target has a tendency to get muddled. To clarify, determining who has the potential to influence the target audience, (the influencers), is a targeting question. Have we created influence, (changed attitudes, opinions, beliefs and/or behavior) is a measurement question.   

Influence is purposeful. In real life or digital life, when we set out to change the opinion, attitude, beliefs or behavior of another person or group, we do so with a downstream motivation – for them to take a specific action. The list of possible actions is lengthy – buy a product, visit a website, tell a friend, vote, wave a sign and donate to name a few. Of course, not all desired actions are equal in terms of amount of influence required for change. Opinions might be easier to change than an attitude. An attitude is easier to change than a belief. Behavioral change can range from relatively easy to nearly impossible depending on the specific behavior. In marketing, the ultimate behavior or action we try to influence is purchase behavior. It is important to think through the specific actions you hope the target will take as a result of being influenced. This is also the sweet spot for influence measurement.

While creating an action/behavior change is the ultimate reason for influencing someone, it is helpful to think of the process of influence as two stages – opinion, attitude or belief change – and then, because of this change, did an action occur or was a behavior changed. Stated another way, the opinion change is an intermediate or micro outcome and the desired action is a final or macro outcome. Depending on the type of purchase decision there may be a time lag between the micro and macro outcomes that make it difficult to connect the dots. In his book The Business of Influence, Philip Sheldrake presents a concept called the “Maturity of Influence Approach”. Basically it melds two important concepts to use when thinking about influence measurement – focus on the influence, not the influencer (Philip refers to this as “influence-centric), and to start at the macro outcome/action and trace the path of influence back to the source(s) of influence. One simple example of this in a B2B context would be to ask the prospect at the time they are ready to make a purchase, “what sources of information or opinion were most valuable to you in making your decision to buy our product?” A similar question or two can be asked using a pop-up survey in an ecommerce situation. 

Influence and Engagement Confusion

A primary source of influence confusion is failing to distinguish between a simple act of engagement and the process of being influenced. If someone in my Twitter stream sends out a tweet and I retweet it, have they influenced me to retweet or have I simply engaged with that individual’s content? Many who have written about social media influence have suggested that in RTing the tweet, I have been influenced to do so. I do not believe that is the case. I have engaged with the content, but have there been any true changes in my attitudes, opinions, beliefs or behavior? Again, the operative word here is change. Does the act of RTing constitute a behavioral change? Probably not. Engagement – yes, influence - no.

Engagement is a necessary pre-condition to Influence. (This social media measurement model addresses the distinction) Without engagement you don’t have the opportunity to influence. Influence, however, only occurs if that engagement leads to a change in attitudes, opinions, beliefs and behavior.   

Influence, Popularity and Celebrity Confusion

There also seems to be some confusion about the difference between influence, popularity and celebrity. Although related, and in some cases overlapping, they are three distinct concepts. In my opinion, at least some of the confusion stems from Klout and other influencer tools that seem to measure popularity but call it influence. So what is the difference?

Popularity is the state of being popular – widely admired, accepted or sought after.

Celebrity is a famous person, renown and fame. 

If popularity is about being well-liked and celebrity is about being well-known, influence is more about being well-respected, with associations like knowledge, persuasion and trust. Some of the confusion lies in the fact that some celebrities do have influence over the types of behaviors that make the cash register ring. Oprah comes to mind. Other celebrities, while very popular, don’t really have the ability to create meaningful influence. They can get content re-tweeted (WINNING!) but do they have any influence over the types of actions brands really value?

Keeping Online Influence in Perspective  

As we discuss the intricacies of digital influence we should also keep in mind the majority of influence occurs in the analog world. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 70 – 90% of influence occurring by offline WOM. It’s personal. It’s about real family and friends and not Twitter friends. Influence is about a relatively small number of people (Dunbar’s Number suggests humans have a finite cognitive capacity to have around 150 social relationships with other humans), and not mass influence. The fact that most influence happens offline presents another significant measurement challenge.

In summary, I’ll leave you with a few sound bites on social media influence:

  • Influence is about change
  • Engagement leads to influence
  • One can be popular but not influential
  • Measure the influence not the influencer
  • Don’t forget offline when measuring online influence.

Thanks for reading.  See it a different way?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers