Social Media Metrics

by Chris Kenton on December 6, 2006

I participated in a great dialog in Palo Alto last night about social media and metrics, hosted by Factiva. It’s one of the more focused gatherings I’ve been to recently on social media—which typically refers to the kind of content that connects people, as exemplified by blogs, forums, wikis, peer networks and other similar channels. It was more like a working session among practitioners to try and define some of the parameters for how social media should be measured–should we be looking at influence, engagement, audience reach, demographics? Jeremiah Owyang has a full write up of the event, including the outcome of our prioritization of metrics.

What was striking to me was that even in a room full of social media-savvy people from all sides of the industry, the discussion was still somewhat chaotic, with a lot of semantic negotiations over the meaning of words like "relevance" and "engagement". This reflects a similar level of disarray in the community at large over how to tackle measurement now that demand for it rising. So I want to step back for a minute and think about the context for social media metrics. Why is there a growing demand for measurement? Who wants to measure what? Why does it matter? And what is the likely impact of measurement on the evolution of social media?

One of the most incisive comments of the evening came from Linda Kozlowski from Flieshman Hillard, who said "suddenly everyone wants to make a pie chart out of social media," and that’s exactly the mile marker we’ve reached in the evolution of the medium. Social media has moved out of the realm of early adopters, where people engaged and propelled the medium from a sense of passion and vision, and has moved toward the mainstream, where audiences are growing and businesses are trying to adapt the medium to promote business objectives. Podcasts, for example, are no longer the exclusive domain of true-believers broadcasting on their favorite passion from their basement, they’re being developed more and more by marketing departments and even networks who see an audience rapidly reaching critical mass. As more money flirts with social media, the tone of development quickly moves from passion and vision to effectiveness and ROI.

So now a lot of businesses want to get into social media, and their reasons are all over the map. Some truly want to engage their audience and see how it impacts their business, ostensibly by improving customer responsiveness and product development. Others want a new channel to connect with their target audience. Others just want to be part of something cool. But in the current business environment of intense focus on business process and metrics, almost everyone is asking how they can measure success with the new medium. The promise of cash flowing into social media development, but gated by pointed questions over metrics of success, has a lot of people scrambling to come up with incisive measurements to populate the CMO’s dashboard–like measuring the degree of influence certain bloggers have with an audience, or measuring the degree of engagement over a key issue. New metrics are a great idea, but I think there’s a deeper discussion that has to happen before this issue really shakes out.

First of all, why is measurement really needed? The most poignant answer is that anyone in the social media business is not going to get any money if they can’t put a value on what’s being purchased. The companies with money to invest want to buy insight, access and influence with a targeted audience. Ironically these same companies accept very tenuous metrics in mediums where they allocate huge budgets. Look at advertising. Across every traditional medium, from television to print, metrics are notoriously tenuous in linking investments to bottom-line returns, and businesses have learned how to negotiate pricing and enhance measurement of impact in creative ways. On the Web, where tighter measurement of traffic is possible, measurements of behavior and action are available–like click throughs and purchases–instead of just impressions. But if you really look at the dynamics of advertising on the web, it seems that tighter metrics are more a feature of less powerful channels, which need to provide more justification to potential buyers to stimulate demand. The heavy hitters–the large networks with massive audiences–don’t need to price their space on delivery of measurable actions, because the demand for impressions is high enough that they don’t have to.

I would argue that the same dynamic is shaping the development of metrics in social media today. Interest in moving into social media is high, but companies don’t have a context yet in which to place social media alongside other costs they already understand, like PR and advertising–even if the effective measurement of those other costs remains somewhat tenuous. So they’re going to ask a lot of questions about how to measure the value of what they’re buying, and they’re not going to be satisfied with the answer that measurements in social media are really no better than measurements in traditional media. Social media companies will race to provide metrics that show impressive results, but that’s not necessarily a good thing, especially given the ways measurement may shape investment and in turn shape the evolution of social mediums.

Last night, the metric that popped out as being the highest priority was “engagement”. If you’re going to have a social medium, it’s useful to know just how social it is. Are people actively commenting, debating, sharing ideas? If this becomes the metric of a successful channel, what does that really mean, and how will that narrow the perception of, and investment in, different types of social media channels? Some topics, and some communities, drive tremendous levels of dialog and engagement. The audience is comfortable engaging online, and passionate about their views. But some topics and communities attract a lot of “lurkers”, people who will hang out and listen, but not step out on a limb and comment, for any number of reasons ranging from fear of a slap-down, to concern over having their comments Googled when they apply for a job. One of the interesting things about SecondLife is that unlike a forum or blog, you can physically see all the lurkers watching from the sidelines. If your goal is to drive brand awareness, these lurkers are tremendously valuable, and just because they’re not engaged in the verbal discussion, doesn’t mean their presence isn’t valuable to a marketer. How should a metric of “engagement” be valued alongside “presence”?

This is already a long post, so I’ll pick up the thread again tomorrow on some other issues. But to wrap this up, I think it’s important for social media gurus to take a breath before racing down the track to deliver new metrics, and start asking some critical questions about why these measurements matter, who they matter to, and what the implications are of adoption. Are the measurements designed to aid in gaining insight into market issues and trends? Or to refine and direct influence over market dialogs and impressions? Are the proposed metrics really an accurate measurement of value, or just a reflection of a particular bias toward one form of social dynamic? And perhaps most importantly, what are the potential unintended consequences of leading investors to value particular measurements of social media interactions? (Think of Nielsen ratings for pricing television advertising, and the stupid spectacle of sweeps week.)

Kudos to Factiva and Jeremiah Owyang for putting together a great dialog, with a great meal in the bargain. This is only the first round of an important conversation.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Glenn Fannick December 6, 2006 at 2:30 pm

It took several years for the corporate world to understand the likes of email and the value of corporate Web sites and now they’re asking the same question about blogs. They seem to be getting it faster than they did with other technologies. The questions are now moving from “what is it?” to “how can it help me?” That’s where many of Factiva’s clients seem to be now. The logical discussion that usually follows is about ROI — which is all about measuring. So I think the time is perfect for this discussion.

maggie fox December 6, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Great post, Christopher – you have motivated me to travel around and read everything everyone has to say about the roundtable – wish I could have been there!

Chris Kenton December 6, 2006 at 2:40 pm

That’s true–though blogs have been around now for, what?, 7 years or so, and many marketers still aren’t sure how to determine whether they have value for them or not? It seems like a classic “Crossing the Chasm” kind of transition, where we first had the excitement of the Early Adopters, but now that we’re moving toward the Mainstream, we have to deal with an audience that is largely resistant to change. Change means risk, and risk is not good. You need a lot of justification to get over that resistance to change, until the tipping point arrives and the herd mentality moves people over just to avoid being left behind. We’re at the point now of trying to manufacture the requisite justification to get marketers to come on board with social media–my only concern is that we do that with a good deal of attention to the law of unintended consequences.

Jeremiah Owyang December 6, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Wonderful insight, thanks Chris.

For many corporate folks that have to deploy Social Media demonstrating the benefits in a measurable way is pretty important.

Chris Kenton December 6, 2006 at 4:02 pm

“For many corporate folks that have to deploy Social Media demonstrating the benefits in a measurable way is pretty important.”

Absolutely. The questions are, what do they need to measure, why do they need to measure it, and what metric will accurately measure what they want to know?

Quite frankly, most people, even very experienced and intelligent marketers, don’t know what they need to measure, and the “why” is often as simple and arbitrary as having to validate a budget line item to a CFO or to the board. There’s no such thing as an ROI measurement for social media if you can’t chart a direct path to either revenue created or costs eliminated. So what does “engagement” for example really measure, and what does it mean to a marketer?

Most likely we’re talking about the ability of a social medium to disseminate a meme, and either a) return actionable intelligence that might, say, eliminate the cost of a focus group, survey or market research, b) generate awareness that reduces the cost of other branding activities and programs, or c) generate direct buying behavior that creates revenue. All of these are good things that social media can do, but different objectives inform the required measurement in very different ways, and to be accurate, they probably have to be created in ways that are not only measured in a vacuum, but can be measured directly against other programs trying to achieve the same objective.

Linda Kozlowski December 9, 2006 at 1:48 pm

Great post! It is true that measurement is tough at this point. The reason I made the “Piechart” comment is there is such preasure to measure every nuance of ROI, but some things just require a leap of faith at first, and this is one. I don’t think we are far from finding great ways of measuring influence in this realm, and I look forward to that… but until then, we just need to participate.

Glenn Fannick December 10, 2006 at 3:40 am

Sometimes measuring is very easy because the goals and the audience are very specific. Take for example the Factiva Social Media Roundtable that started this line of discussion. Factiva right now is asking itself about whether the event was successful and whether it was a good use of our money and our people’s time. The answer here is an easy “yes”. Did we need complex metrics to answer that? Nope. Quite simple because we spent a relatively small amount of money on the event since it was targeted at a small number of people. And the results (volume of data produced and new faces we reached) easily exceeds that. It’s more of a gut-feel success ratio. However, if you’re trying to measure the success of, say, a $100 million product launch there are so many diverse inputs that getting your hands around them is tough and normalizing those data even tougher. So I think the need for measurement increases along with budgets and complexity.

Vario Creative Blog December 11, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Online Marketing and Measuring Social Media

Both David Churbuck and Rob ORegan have are right on my wavelength this morning.  It must be something in the air.
Churbuck has an excellent list reflecting the lessons hes learned in 11 months at Lenovo (as he terms it, a $14 bil…

Mike Carrieri February 24, 2008 at 9:38 am

I have a new idea for a product that would collect personal information across WebSites/Blogs. It could be available as a personal or enterprise license. Please contact me if you are interested.

Mike Carrieri February 24, 2008 at 9:42 am

I have a new idea for a product that would collect personal information across WebSites/Blogs. It could be available as a personal or enterprise license. Please contact me if you are interested.

Markus Hübner May 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Looking foward to the next conversation coming up.

tatianahunt download May 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Useful topic
Thanks
I have found two interesting sources http://fileshunt.com and http://filesfinds.com and would like to give the benefit of my experience to you.

Leave a Comment