Do Social Media 'Experts' Overestimate Their Abilities?
- by Gavin O'Malley @mp_gavin, July 17, 2009
Perhaps because it's still a relatively new
field, interactive marketers seriously lack confidence in their ability to measure the relative effectiveness of social media campaigns, according to a new study by Forrester Research. Of 119
interactive marketers asked between May and June to rank such measurement capabilities on a scale of 1 to 10 -- 1 being novice and 10 being expert -- the average response was 4.5. "We find this
average ambitious considering that social media is still less than four years old," said Emily Riley, Forrester Research analyst and author of the report. Indeed, few respondents reported having any established metrics for their social marketing campaigns.
On average, marketers' confidence in measuring the effect of their online brand-building campaign didn't fare much better at 5.3 out of 10. By contrast, when asked to rank their ability to measure the effect of direct-response campaigns, the average response was 6.3.
That is not surprising, according to Riley, "considering marketers have more experience with direct response tools like email and paid search compared with newer online tools like online video or blogs."
Yet, as consumers continue to spend a greater share of time with social media, how should marketers proceed? "In order to measure the value of all types of online campaigns, marketers must move beyond easy metrics to focus instead on ones that indicate brand affinity and ROI," said Riley.
Particularly among brand marketers, interactive metrics that are used most measure activity -- like clicks, impressions, or registrations -- rather than a customer's engagement. However, clicks and impressions -- i.e., metrics that are easy to track -- measure little more than campaign volume, according to Forrester.
Mature direct-response marketers, according to Riley, therefore eschew easy metrics -- as only one respondent reported using impressions, while 10% listed clicks as a key performance indicator.
Meanwhile, online brand marketers cling to easy metrics, as 35% of them reported using clicks as a key performance indicator.
"Richer metrics vary depending on objective," Riley said. Engagement beyond activity can be measured for both brand and direct campaigns, although only 14% of respondents actually reported tracking brand awareness as a key performance indicator.
Specifically, mature measurement of interactive brand marketing should include qualitative research gathered through surveys, focus groups, or listening platforms.
Gillette, for example, uses a "sentiment map" created with J.D. Power and Associates to monitor how consumers' brand attitudes change as they run various campaigns.
Forrester recommends that advanced direct-response marketers measure as far along the purchase process as possible. The University of Phoenix, for instance, links its site analytics tool to its customer database to measure the quality of the leads -- based on length of time enrolled -- generated by its different online campaigns.
Social media measurement, meanwhile, should employ a variety of metrics. "Most social marketers have brand goals ... We recommend that marketers start with brand-oriented (key performance indicators) for their social campaigns," said Riley.
For example, she suggested engaging the same listening platforms and survey partners as for display campaigns. New tools -- like some from Razorfish -- are beginning to tie the involvement and interaction pieces of social media to purchase behavior, she assured further.
I'd disagree with two items in this sentence:
"Of 119 interactive marketers asked between May and June to rank such measurement capabilities on a scale of 1 to 10 -- 1 being novice and 10 being expert -- the average response was 4.5. "We find this average ambitious considering that social media is still less than four years old," said Emily Riley, Forrester Research analyst and author of the report."
So, on a 1-10 scale, if you rate yourself in the middle (4.5) -- which I would think is "average" -- that's ambitious? Seems like the respondents looked at their overall capabilities as in line with others.
And, social media is not less than four years old. Heck, my blog is four years old, and it was definitely not one of the first. Social media, in taking generally accepted activites like blogging, social networking, etc., has been around since the early 2000s. (Phil Gomes' blog is at least seven years old.)
One correct thing the article pointed out is the need to consistently use metrics and set the right ones (which are based on a campaign or long-term objectives).
-Mike
Moving beyond “easy” metrics and figuring out how to quantify brand affinity and ROI within social media will take time, but the industry is making initial steps to establish some new rules. Worth noting the IAB’s recently launched definitions – it will be interesting to see if/how advertisers might apply this thinking: http://www.iab.net/media/file/SocialMediaMetricsDefinitionsFinal.pdf
While measuring social media is tough, this new study published today shows the net correlation between social media engagement and the most important financial results: revenue and profit. It turns out that the brands that engage most deeply and broadly (in many social channels) are the ones who have the best revenue and profit growth. See this study we published today with Charlene Li of Altimeter Group. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/20/the-most-engaged-brands-on-the-web/
Thank you Mike for your comment above. I logged in to post my comment the second I read "ocial media is still less than four years old"
I started my agency, calling it a SOCIAL MEDIA agency in Oct 2005 and I felt like I was late to the game back then!
Also, I have found that there are people with diverse business backgrounds who have been working with social media for a year or two who are better experts than those who have had a blog for 5+ years. The reason is that it is not about the tools, but about understanding how to use tools to meet business objectives.