A short while back, most likely near the beginning of January, I printed out a document titled, "Social Media Measurement 2011:  Five Things to Forget and Five Things to Learn.  I most likely came across the article as I was determining my own predictions for the upcoming year.  It's written by "metricsman" or after a quick Google search, Don Bartholomew, VP of Digital Research at Fleishman Hillard. Let's see what he had to say.

First, Don tells us to forget about impressions.  Historically, success has been reported through the lens of quantity vs. quality.  I would add that advertising measures successes in much the same way.  You could easily generate millions of impressions without seeing one result.  Then again, there's something to be said about general awareness and branding rather than measuring against a strict figure such as sales results. 

Don goes on to say that we also need to worry less about fans and followers.  Once again, I'd agree with his point. It's great to measure fans/followers as a benchmark for influence, but I don't think it can be a catch-all resource for measurement.  For instance, if someone says they are a social media superstar or "very active" on Twitter but they only have 37 followers, most likely they don't have a good grasp on the platform.  Flip the switch to a recent ad campaign that I worked on, and things are quite a bit different. One of the fan pages that we created only generated 53 followers over a 12-week period.  However, those followers generated roughly 539 clicks through Facebook. That's more clicks than we had on a banner ad that ran on a high-traffic site targeted at the audience we were aiming for.  There, I would argue that the number of followers becomes meaningless in regards to the measurable results.

Where I agree with Don the most is in regards to his stance on impact, measurement, and attribution of media in the social space.  First, he offers insight that ROI comes in two forms: financial- a percentage of dollars returned for a given cost, and impact- awareness, engagement, and influence that will eventually create value between a consumer and a brand.  For instance, the ROI of a coupon is pretty simple.  You determine how much it costs to print/produce/distribute the coupon,  the amount of money you spend actually lowering the cost of your item and ultimately compare it to sales numbers after the coupon period expires.  It's a short financial gain/loss that is easily measurable.  For something like social media, things could often take a while.  A tweet about toothpaste could spark a dinner table conversation that leads to a purchase decision two weeks down the road.

Don also goes on to talk about the PESO model his firm uses.  In the age of digital, social, and traditional, it's important that agencies remain wide in scope and integrated across all platforms.  Earning media alone often isn't enough.  Paying for it isn't always enough either.  By expanding through as many consumer touch points as possible through paid advertising, earned media, shared content (often created by consumers) and owned online properties (Web sites, microsites, blogs, social media profiles) you truly can increase the liklihood for consumer conversions. 

Now onto the only piece of the editorial that I don't neccesarily agree with: the hypothetical ROI model.  Don states that through logic, we can come up with data that could essentially determine the value of social media engagement.  For instance, if you push out a tweet to "x" amount of people, "x%" will see it, "x%" will share it, and "x" percent will change thier behavior when they come across it.  I believe you can use these metrics and make them sound believable, but if a company is so on-the-fence that they have to resort to determining the price point of a single tweet, the outreach is probably plagued to begin with.

You don't have to be a math major to get this social media stuff.  But it does help if you have a foundation to measure your media outreach.  The metricsman is on to something, it will just take time to see if his predictions continue to come to life.

In case you missed the link above, check out my 8 Trends for 2011 post from way back when.  I'm still confident that I'm on to something.

I’ve meaning to get to this post for a while now.  My interest in the way we behave online has been growing over the last few years, and ever since the first iAd pop up in my mobile RSS, I’ve been anxious to approach the topic of online advertising and how I think it’s changing.

People, in general, aren’t as affected by advertising as they have been in the past.  Not very often do you find someone who’s actually anxious to see an online banner ad.  I know firsthand that this is the case.  On a movie review site where I act as an editor, Popcorn Jury, I picked up a few banner ads and placed them front and center in highly visible locations.  Their message was tailored to the content (Netflix, Groupon, and Movie Trailer ads) and traffic is always pretty steady.  So how many clicks do I get on an average day?  I’d say a good estimate would be 1-2.  The content just isn’t compelling.

I decided to take things a step further and test a social theory.  I would use social media to ask people to click my banner ads.  Could a personal outcry to fans and followers truly encourage uninterested individuals to click on an advertisement?  You bet it can.  I made $13.00 that day (as opposed to the usual .32 cents).

What does this prove?  It proves that people, not the medium, are the true platforms. 

Before I get myself into trouble, please note that I’m not discounting the advertising industry or promoting PR.  Quite frankly, I don’t think PR is doing anything out of the ordinary right now either.  People aren’t watching PSA’s, people care little about what they see on the news, and editorial content is getting lost with the declining readership of each and every issue.  What I’m stating is this: we need to make advertising engaging for people who don’t necessarily want to be engaged.

One thing that I believe to be a game changer is the use of new platforms like the iAd network.  These ads aren’t just clickable; they are highly interactive and offer an experience to a consumer, not just a premeditated message.  Take for instance the Nissan Leaf ad below.  I’m not interested in a car, most definitely not an electric one, and I would never click on a banner ad promoting one.  However, when you see something like “meet the future” and the minute it opens up you're treated to an interactive, cinematic story, you can’t help but become interested in what the product has to offer and encouraged to click around.

Looking at another example, the True Blood takeover that took place on the Variety.com iPhone app.  For people that clicked on the entertainment section of the app, they were treated to a nice surprise when their fingertips smeared blood on the screen of their mobile.  Next, blood begins to drip down the device.  Sure, it’s disruptive, but it’s functional and innovative, and consumers accepted it with open arms rather than getting angry.  What’s even better?  Once clicked, the trailer loads immediately in Quicktime, not requiring an open browser, more clicks, or a website redirect that takes time and energy away from the consumer experience.

Don’t think that this engagement is constricted to mobile alone. Take the AT&T Augmented Reality head ball banner ad that allows users to put their face in the game and swivel their head for a quick score. It’s this type of engagement that gets consumers talking, sharing, socializing, and spreading the word about a brand. The click-through rates on these ads alone are worth the price of admission.

Don’t get me wrong; none of these examples truly solve the problem that marketers are always inherently asked, “Does this drive sales, increase market share, etc?” But if you’re going to spend money on banner advertising as a medium, you need to do something engaging, entertaining, and out of the box. People aren’t clicking on the promotion; they’re waiting for the experience. It’s up to advertisers to provide it.

Right now, there’s no clear structure as to what online advertising does and how we’re supposed to react. We aren’t sure what to do, so 99% of the time we don’t click. If the site is trusted, we feel more comfortable, but at the same time, rarely do we react. It’d be great if we could just click on an ad coupon on the side of the webpage, and instead of taking us to a whole new site in a whole new window, we’d just be prompted to print. Make is simple, make it safe, and make it secure, but most importantly, make it something we want to click on.

Pt. 2 of this post coming Wednesday.