Posts Tagged ‘measurement’

  • Measuring

    Picture 2Picture 1

    I’ve been thinking of how to measure engagement in the digital space for a while now, so I wanted to aggregate my thoughts and put them in one place. This post is intended to be provocative and get people thinking about how the current thinking of measurement of social media should change. It isn’t meant to be a one-size-fits-all solution – more an articulation of things that people should consider more and more when they embark on work in the online social space.

    Assessing necessity

    Some brands do not need to engage with their customers online, period. Products like bread or socks, for example, are not the kind of things that people want to have a social relationship with anywhere, forget online. It just makes them look silly.

    Defining engagement

    Defining what engagement means to you as a brand at the outset is important. Is it having a certain number of comments? Getting people to contribute ideas to a wiki? Making sure they spend x amount of time on a site? It is only later that the ‘how’ of engagement should come into play. The answer to ‘how can we measure the impact of our website/community’ can only be given when you answer ‘what exactly am I looking for’ first.

    Areas of engagement

    If brands do engage online, where they engage is more important than how many places they are active online. I’d rather pick my battles (Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, for example) and fight them well rather than have my social finger in too many pies (all the above plus MySpace, Bebo, YouTube, LinkedIn, Hi5, Friendster, Orkut etc.) and not be able to have meaningful conversations with anyone.  Of course this depends on where your audience is. They could well be in Second Life and Vimeo, and if they are, then that’s where you should be – not Facebook. (more after the break)

    Read full post

  • Agile measurement

    Anjali’s blog post on ‘Measurement versus engagement‘ made me think.

    We’ve spent a great deal of effort over the last two years smashing painstakingly integrating Agile thinking into the strategy and design practices, but at the other end – the delivery end of the process – Agile is too often neglected soon after launch.

    This shouldn’t be surprising.

    It’s difficult, if not impossible, to keep all that innovationism going for extended periods of time. Often, the innovation team within a client organisation moves off onto new projects and hands the service to less risk-friendly teams, where people have KPIs set by line-managers who don’t know about very much about the project and almost certainly have no idea of probably much less understanding of the Customer Value.

    Sometimes the fervent adoption of Agile methodologies that happened during the Vision and Service Definition phases turns out to be superficial and temporary. Who doesn’t like Agile when there’s tons of new code and excitement being demonstrated on a daily basis, and when you can get things done with less pain and far more rapidly than you ever did before? It’s definitely more difficult infinitely more challenging to adopt Agile as a culture, over the long term. “Iterative” and “emergent” are best intention ideas that make total sense during the Vision phase – but are VERY difficult to do on an ongoing basis, especially if the culture at large within the client business doesn’t get it, which is a big ask let’s face it!

    But occasionally, even on innovation-geared projects, it’s the metrics what kills it.

    Typically, there may have been a conversation early on in the project where you were asked to make some guesses about traffic and registered users. You may have been reassured that these would not be treated as promises, and you probably made the point that it’s very risky to make those kind of predictions with an innovative and emergent service like yours, I mean – how could you possibly predict these things, and they’re not the right things to measure anyway..? Whatever. A metrics time-bomb has started ticking.

    Agile gets rid of fixed scope/fixed budget which is great – but that means nothing if you replace them with some dumb fixed metrics. So, I’m arguing here not for less measurement or no measurement, but for an Agile approach to measurement – which, obviously, I absolutely understand the need for.

    Agile measurement should focus on simplicity and Customer Value. It should make it easier to measure the things that matter to make the service better for its users – to improve the value exchange. Instead of asking what success looks like, ask what value looks like.

    It follows then that Agile measurement should measure fewer things. There is a risk – especially with all the new tools and dashboards and diagnostics – of measuring far too much. Measurement is in danger of becoming an end in itself. A smaller set of metrics and diagnostics – “just enough”, in exactly the way as Agile methodologies treat other types of documentation – should help. Even trying to find the “one key metric” that rules them all – and is tied to the economics investment and supported by executive management – is suggested in this awesome paper I found online and have plundered ruthlessly for this blog post. That makes so much sense.

    You should also try and measure “outcome” rather than “output”. It’s not about big numbers, it’s about having the biggest impact on Customer Value. A small community of incredibly engaged, high-value customers is much more valuable than 1 million people who registered to win a car. Obviously, you’ll have first needed to have defined upfront what Customer Value actually is – for you, your project and the business sponsoring it. If you’ve been working Agile from the outset, you should have a pretty good idea of your customer/end-user and their needs, and the value exchange that’ll get them returning hopelessly addicted.

    Maintaining a living, ongoing dialogue with users will certainly help – and is essential where the one key metric is for example a softie, like brand perception. But you should generally focus on a small set of engagement health indicators: like the number of visits per user per month, dwell time,  participation, recommendations to friends, positive buzz across other social networks leading to sustained referrals. I’ll also add receiving offers of help from partners and people wanting to be involved, and good ideas from users – and the holy grail: people start using the site for purposes never envisaged. Remember, EBay realised there was an online market for cars when they found customers selling grown-up cars in the toy section.

    Lastly, you should be able to review targets, metrics and diagnostics to optimise your ability to understand Customer Value as the service evolves. Within an emergent, iterative innovation-geared project, you may not even understand the true value and how to achieve it until much later.

    What does anyone else think?

  • Engagement vs. measurement

    I went to a talk on measuring social media earlier this week, and was thoroughly disappointed. One of the things mentioned was that measurement should be built into the strategy of a social media campaign, to which my immediate thought was: you can have success metrics, but will people come to your site once it’s built? And then what happens to your forecast? I’m reading Groundswell at the moment so it may be a sort of ‘Groundswell hangover’, but the truth is that a project or campaign that is built for the client and not the people is looking at failure even before it launches. It may be the most beautiful Flash application ever created, but unless it brings value to the user, will they come the second time around, after looking at it once and murmuring ‘Oh, beautiful site’? So considering the metrics and having them as a guideline is good, but it is best not to have that as a benchmark of success.

    Another issue that was mentioned was measuring interaction with a brand if it was not on the brand’s social media landing page. I’m not sure that’s even relevant. You may upload a video on your site, but you need to face the fact that thousands of people will find it on YouTube, and they may not visit your home site. If keeping it off YouTube is your solution, then think of all the lost opportunity. You cannot control what people do on the web. If they want to watch your video on YouTube or your presentation on Slideshare, then that’s where they will look for it.

    Two thought-provoking things were mentioned though: one, that we need to be careful that measurement (or our obsession with it) does not kill innovation, and the second, that the language of digital measurement is quickly becoming the language of all measurement. I’m not quite sure about that last bit but I’ll leave it to bubble in my mind a bit.

    I was interested when the panel discussed the 2 criteria that are important to consider while measuring the success of a social media campaign – the overall health of the brand it was created for (which is a long-term issue), and the effectiveness of the campaign itself (which is short-term). The overall health bit ties into what I said about benchmarking success earlier – overall health to a large extent is about engagement. I just heard about the Altimeter Group’s EngagementDB report, which effectively helps to measure the health of a brand (edit): via its engagement with consumers (thanks Mike!). It takes into consideration the number of digital touch-points with a consumer and the respective level of engagement within each channel. Bonus points were awarded for corporate/executive involvement because it meant that conversation with customers was a priority for the company.

    Google Analytics will get us only so far. (Edit): Engagement will take over from there – and I’ll wager engagement is way more important an indicator of brand health than Google Analytics, which is probably a decent indicator of existence.

Our latest tweets

Categories

Archives

Find us on the web