Justifying Engagement: the Search for Metrics
By Tom Chandler on Nov 10, 2006 in Engagement Marketing, Marketing
Many companies are starting to view engagement as a viable marketing strategy, but according to a handful of relevant blogs, the search for suitable metrics is hampering adoption.
Social Media Marketing cites the lack of metrics as the single largest hurdle to the adoption of social media marketing.
The Marketing Pop Culture blog dives in with a “Whither Engagement?” post, where he suggests the recent focus on engagement metrics is helpful:
“…marketers are now getting serious about how to place value on soft measures.”
Both seem to assume that large organizations will drive engagement marketing, and their need for measurable ROI could slow or halt the engagement train.
I’m not at all sure that’s the case.
[Update: I left out an excellent post on the Copywriter's Crucible]
Bottoms Up.
Lest anyone forget, social media were not invented by large organizations, and neither will the engagement marketing book be written by them.
Engagement marketing is still largely a guerrilla tactic, and it offers small and medium-sized businesses a chance to cost-effectively beat their larger brethren.
While big companies search for metrics, smaller companies can look hard at the monthly cost of a blog, realize it’s a fraction of the cost of a single print ad, and see the benefit.
One of the principles of engagement stipulates that engagement takes place only when a company’s passions align with that of its customers.
Frankly, that’s something a smaller firm should do better than a large company.
And while the mega-brands will no doubt be watched with rapt attention, it’s likely that engagement marketing - like social media itself - will explode from the bottom of the business food chain first. I certainly hope so.
Technorati Tags: engagement, social media, engagement metrics
I think part of the problem is marketing departments trying to apply old models i.e. relying on measuring responses to calls to action to gauge a blog’s success. Software companies are now developing programs to try and measure each visitor’s level of interaction so investment in it can be justified with cold hard figures. Engagement marketing is definitely growing - its just going to take time to be work out how to measure the ROI.
Matt Ambrose | Nov 11, 2006 | Reply
I agree. And I’m sorry for overlooking your excellent post when compiling mine.
I truly wonder what metrics will define an engagement success - especially in the small and medium business arena.
The traffic generated by a typical blog far outstrips that drawn by a static Web site, and the SEM opportunities of a blog would also sweeten the pot.
Obviously, these are of little interest to Coca-Cola, but should prove interesting to a medium-sized business — especially those in passion-based markets.
Thanks for your thoughtful post!
Tom Chandler | Nov 11, 2006 | Reply
Tom,
In the moment of writing my blog post, stating that “engagement” and “attention” measurements were crap, i could have probably explained myself a bit better. ;)
What I mean is that until easy-to-understand metrics for measuring engagement are defined and accepted, the *idea* of engagement or attention as a measurement remains just that.
I’ll also say this: *If* metrics for engagement can be created in a compelling, accurate and widely- accepted measure, then I truly believe that it could become just as viable of a measurement as page views, unique visitors, etc.
So, again, the problem lies in defining how this is measured. I’d love to hear some of your thoughts on this, but some things that can be measured that might go into this equation which I’ve been kicking around in my head are:
- Return visits
- Time spent on site
- Page views per visit
- Causality of increase in sales related to increase in the above metrics.
There has to be some way to measure these things - some formula to be applied that can get, at the very least, a rough measurement.
Do you know of any headway that’s been made in these areas, or other discussions as to these metrics?
Thanks for your reply on my blog - It’s allowed me to find another blog I’ll certainly be keeping up with :)
Will you be attending PubCon next week?
Ben
Ben Wills | Nov 11, 2006 | Reply
As is the case with breakthroughs, it is the smaller, more nimble companies that get their arms around new ideas, technologies and audiences. However, my focus is not on whether or not big companies will drive the adoption of engagement and its attendant metrics. I’m much more interested in seeing the discussion broaden beyond advertising and encompass the full spectrum of marketing activities. Taken together, it’s advertising, PR and promotion that create the engagement effect.
Rob Fields | Nov 11, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the thoughtful comments!
Measurement is tough in any activity that isn’t directly tied to revenue. And frankly, it seems to me that metrics in other disciplines weren’t developed because they provided a complete picture.
They were simply the best available.
I see very few PR projects held to the same level of scrutiny as some want to hold a blog. Engagement is a largely online activity, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that its going to deliver the same metrics an AdWords listing might…
I certainly agree that viewing engagement marketing as a multi-dimensional channel is the only cogent viewpoint.
In fact, it’s one of those *obvious* beliefs I hold so closely that I’m blind to the fact that many don’t automatically see it that way.
Thanks for making that excellent point.
And no, not headed anywhere for a while. And I’m really enjoying this conversation with the other engage-meisters… 8-)
Tom Chandler | Nov 12, 2006 | Reply