Measuring the effectiveness of social media marketing is a fairly fuzzy activity. Putting a little structure around it can therefore be useful.
There are three main types of measurement you can consider. There's absolute data – data that measures size. There is trend data – data that measures change. And there is comparative data – which you could use for benchmarking.
Absolute data is factual – I might have 5000 Twitter followers, or 37 people might have commented on this blog post. Or perhaps 6000 people viewed my video on YouTube. Or my brand was mentioned 5000 times in forums. Etc etc. Some of this can perhaps be assigned a value in media terms. And while it isn't always easy to assign an appropriate value (what is a Facebook fan worth?) at least you can make a start.
Trend data is also factual – but as you are comparing two sets of data, as you can with tools like Alterian's SM2, the important fact is the change in the data. Thus if there are 10,000 positive mentions of my brand through social media in August that may or may not be good: it's hard to know. But if there were 9000 in July and 12,000 in September I can be pretty confident that I am going in the right direction and that the value of those mentions in September is 125% of the value in July.
And there is comparative data. I might have 12,000 positive brand mentions in September. But if my competitor got 50,000 that month I'm not looking so bright!
We can also separate the results of social media conversations into four areas: views, conversations, actions and effects.
First there are views. Sometimes it's possible to measure the number of people who have seen some of your social media conversations – for instance by measuring visitor numbers to your blog. You won't always be able to measure that – but where you can this may be a helpful metric.
Often these numbers will be small – perhaps too small to be relevant in media terms. But they might not be. If Sony Bravia gets a couple of million views of its ad on YouTube then that's worth something. Probably more in fact than 2 million OTSs on TV.
Then there are conversations. These are simply mentions of your brand or your competitors in various places – forums, blogs, file shares etc. They can be good, bad or indifferent (and you should be measuring that). At its simplest it equates to your PR agency counting the press clips.
Next there are actions. This is when people have done something – taken an action of some kind, perhaps signing up to follow you on Twitter, or responding to a comment you have made in a forum.
Again often the numbers here will be very small – and the real value may not be in terms of media but in terms of the opportunity they bring to engage with brand advocates.
And finally we have effects. This is when you can see that social media activity has had an effect on something else you are doing. For instance, and at its simplest, you could measure the effect (or at least some of the effect) of social media on web traffic by tracking people from appropriate sources such as social networking sites.
Other effects might only be measurable through data analysis, for instance identifying links between social media campaigns and calls to a call centre or online sales.
Of course the effect might well be softer than a measurable and identifable action. It may be a shift in purchase propensity or brand favourability on the part of people exposed to your social media. That's harder to measure although not impossible using standard quantitative research techniques.
So there you have it. A little 3 by 4 matrix that should help you put some rigour into the process of evaluating social media.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
jeremy@mcand.co.uk
Monday, 22 February 2010
Friday, 5 February 2010
Mobile Media Metrics: a good start by the GSMA. But...
The GSMA announced the launch of their mobile media metrics tool, delivered by Comscore, at the London Imax yesterday.
It was certainly a popular event, and massively over-subscribed by all accounts. So I went along ready to be impressed.
Well, to their credit, the GSMA have managed to get the five main UK mobile operators, O2, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile and 3UK, into one space, sharing usage data to allow robust reach and frequency numbers to be accessed by media planners.
That’s useful. We can see that 16 million people in the UK accessed the web via mobile devices (by which they mean phones – small screens, limited ease of use, but always on and always with you).
And we can see where they go: Facebook, Google, the operators, the BBC… (Actually, when you look at the figures in a bit more depth and examine page views and minutes of use, you find that mobile media is really little more than Facebook Media, but that’s another story.)
And, because GSMA have negotiated a survey of a section of mobile users we can even make some assumptions about the socio-demographics of mobile web site visitors. (Although these are assumptions and I believe will be open to some question.)
But. And it’s a very big but:
There is still no independent data. At the moment all the data comes from the operators. So you buy some media. And the operators will tell you whether or not it has been delivered.
For mobile media to have any credibility (and Michael Smith of the COI was quick to point this out yesterday) we do need to see independent campaign data such as that which is delivered by third party ad servers in “fixed” internet advertising.
Without that (and irrespective of whether you feel the heavy dominance of Facebook is an issue), it will be hard to justify serious spending on mobile media.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
It was certainly a popular event, and massively over-subscribed by all accounts. So I went along ready to be impressed.
Well, to their credit, the GSMA have managed to get the five main UK mobile operators, O2, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile and 3UK, into one space, sharing usage data to allow robust reach and frequency numbers to be accessed by media planners.
That’s useful. We can see that 16 million people in the UK accessed the web via mobile devices (by which they mean phones – small screens, limited ease of use, but always on and always with you).
And we can see where they go: Facebook, Google, the operators, the BBC… (Actually, when you look at the figures in a bit more depth and examine page views and minutes of use, you find that mobile media is really little more than Facebook Media, but that’s another story.)
And, because GSMA have negotiated a survey of a section of mobile users we can even make some assumptions about the socio-demographics of mobile web site visitors. (Although these are assumptions and I believe will be open to some question.)
But. And it’s a very big but:
There is still no independent data. At the moment all the data comes from the operators. So you buy some media. And the operators will tell you whether or not it has been delivered.
For mobile media to have any credibility (and Michael Smith of the COI was quick to point this out yesterday) we do need to see independent campaign data such as that which is delivered by third party ad servers in “fixed” internet advertising.
Without that (and irrespective of whether you feel the heavy dominance of Facebook is an issue), it will be hard to justify serious spending on mobile media.
Jeremy Swinfen Green, Digital Director
Thursday, 28 January 2010
DRTV exists - honest!
On Tuesday I was invited, along with some of my colleagues, to Response TV – an event organised by ITV to present some research they had conducted with the DMA to prove that TV advertising makes other media work harder.
Well, I can tell you I went with high hopes that ITV were finally going to acknowledge that DRTV exists. And that it is a good thing.
We arrived at Television Centre and were invited to watch a film. The voice-over stated: “It is widely accepted that TV advertising works by building brand associations over the long term. ... However, the responsiveness of TV campaigns could historically only be estimated by long-term sales figures or post-campaign research. Response was almost impossible to calculate accurately and brand owners would shy away from television”
Right – so I’ll just get my coat then as clearly I have been making up all of those phone calls generated in direct response to a TV ad.
No wait – once again it's simply a case that DRTV doesn't actually seem to exist. The only thing worth talking about seems to be 'Brand' television advertising.
I do get a bit cross at times – DRTV is estimated to account for 35-40% of all TV advertising. Based on 2009 Neilson figures that would put the value at between £1.2 and £1.35 billion!
But let me forget my grumpiness for a minute. A study being done by a reputable trade body such as the DMA backing up what we have been saying for quite a while now is fantastic.
At MC&C, we have numerous case studies showing that TV uplifts other activity – DRTV, inserts, doordrops, search etc. And it's nice to have someone back it up.
Anything that gets brands back to spending on TV has to be good for everyone in the media and advertising industry. This might help the TV stations get back the nearly £1/2 billion revenue lost from 2008!
Nicky Legg, Broadcast Director
Well, I can tell you I went with high hopes that ITV were finally going to acknowledge that DRTV exists. And that it is a good thing.
We arrived at Television Centre and were invited to watch a film. The voice-over stated: “It is widely accepted that TV advertising works by building brand associations over the long term. ... However, the responsiveness of TV campaigns could historically only be estimated by long-term sales figures or post-campaign research. Response was almost impossible to calculate accurately and brand owners would shy away from television”
Right – so I’ll just get my coat then as clearly I have been making up all of those phone calls generated in direct response to a TV ad.
No wait – once again it's simply a case that DRTV doesn't actually seem to exist. The only thing worth talking about seems to be 'Brand' television advertising.
I do get a bit cross at times – DRTV is estimated to account for 35-40% of all TV advertising. Based on 2009 Neilson figures that would put the value at between £1.2 and £1.35 billion!
But let me forget my grumpiness for a minute. A study being done by a reputable trade body such as the DMA backing up what we have been saying for quite a while now is fantastic.
At MC&C, we have numerous case studies showing that TV uplifts other activity – DRTV, inserts, doordrops, search etc. And it's nice to have someone back it up.
Anything that gets brands back to spending on TV has to be good for everyone in the media and advertising industry. This might help the TV stations get back the nearly £1/2 billion revenue lost from 2008!
Nicky Legg, Broadcast Director
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Is L’Oreal wrecking your magazine recruitment strategy?
The Daily Mail is re-launching its highly successful Weekend Magazine on the 30th January. MC&C have seen the dummy and, as you might expect from the deep pockets of Associated, it looks great!
Further refined focus on the female readership with celebrity photo shoots & interviews, fashion, shopping and food, with the usual support in the back half from the weekly TV review, gardening and travel. All in the best possible taste – Darlings!
Issue sizes will increase from 72 to 80 pages and advertising pages will also increase by 3 or 4 an issue. It will benefit from a national marketing re-launch and we would expect the magazine to have traction with the readership and deliver strong numbers.
So what’s the problem? Well if you are a direct response advertiser, then advertising will be restricted to a minimum 4 page “classified” section at the back of the title, with no opportunity to book covers or opposite display editorial pages. As a result, this stalwart of the mail order sector will reduce in its ability to deliver volume, optimum ROI efficiency, as well as brand traction.
So why have The Daily Mail done it? You guessed it – revenue! The national press supplement market has been traditionally reliant on DR revenues for its income. As traditional media channels have diversified and online grown spectacularly, DR advertisers have been spending less.
So who did they turn to? L’Oreal and the other brand fashionistas! But they won’t book into low quality editorial or a editorial environment that contains any DR advertising whatsoever. So media owners have had to fundamentally change their product in order to chase the money.
But Hey! How difficult is this decision really? It’s a no brainer! You Magazine blazed the trail almost 10 years ago, morphing into a quasi Marie Claire / She magazine and banishing all but the blandest of brand/DR ads from the magazine altogether. Live followed – they similarly upgraded their male focussed content two weekends ago – but have not taken DR for over 3 years.
The real “sit up and smell the coffee” moment has been News Group’s Fabulous. On the 3rd February 2008 they scrapped Sunday Magazine , relaunched as a female magazine and banished DR altogether. Sources indicate that this magazine actually saw a double digit revenue increase year on year in very challenging times. This has not gone unnoticed by other publishers.
So how long can Mirror Group & Express resist this move? Even the likes of the weekly magazine groups like IPC and Bauer have done very nicely thank you last year on reduced pagination and FMCG advertising – pushing DR advertisers out because they pay less!
So what to do about it? Yes re-negotiate your rates. But this does not address the fundamental issues of replacing volumes and growing quality customer bases.
So if you thought online was just PPC – think again. Are you engaging with the even larger number of online readers that traditional media owners often reach? Partnerships, video, cost per acquisition deals. No? Colour classified in newspapers? You have never got DRTV to work? And what about pre-rolls and VOD?
MC&C think ahead for our clients and look to manage the risk of evolving recruitment strategies proactively as the marketplace evolves. Remember: the next time you see a lipstick advert in a national press supplement – you are probably kissing a frog!
John Willacy, Trading Director
Further refined focus on the female readership with celebrity photo shoots & interviews, fashion, shopping and food, with the usual support in the back half from the weekly TV review, gardening and travel. All in the best possible taste – Darlings!
Issue sizes will increase from 72 to 80 pages and advertising pages will also increase by 3 or 4 an issue. It will benefit from a national marketing re-launch and we would expect the magazine to have traction with the readership and deliver strong numbers.
So what’s the problem? Well if you are a direct response advertiser, then advertising will be restricted to a minimum 4 page “classified” section at the back of the title, with no opportunity to book covers or opposite display editorial pages. As a result, this stalwart of the mail order sector will reduce in its ability to deliver volume, optimum ROI efficiency, as well as brand traction.
So why have The Daily Mail done it? You guessed it – revenue! The national press supplement market has been traditionally reliant on DR revenues for its income. As traditional media channels have diversified and online grown spectacularly, DR advertisers have been spending less.
So who did they turn to? L’Oreal and the other brand fashionistas! But they won’t book into low quality editorial or a editorial environment that contains any DR advertising whatsoever. So media owners have had to fundamentally change their product in order to chase the money.
But Hey! How difficult is this decision really? It’s a no brainer! You Magazine blazed the trail almost 10 years ago, morphing into a quasi Marie Claire / She magazine and banishing all but the blandest of brand/DR ads from the magazine altogether. Live followed – they similarly upgraded their male focussed content two weekends ago – but have not taken DR for over 3 years.
The real “sit up and smell the coffee” moment has been News Group’s Fabulous. On the 3rd February 2008 they scrapped Sunday Magazine , relaunched as a female magazine and banished DR altogether. Sources indicate that this magazine actually saw a double digit revenue increase year on year in very challenging times. This has not gone unnoticed by other publishers.
So how long can Mirror Group & Express resist this move? Even the likes of the weekly magazine groups like IPC and Bauer have done very nicely thank you last year on reduced pagination and FMCG advertising – pushing DR advertisers out because they pay less!
So what to do about it? Yes re-negotiate your rates. But this does not address the fundamental issues of replacing volumes and growing quality customer bases.
So if you thought online was just PPC – think again. Are you engaging with the even larger number of online readers that traditional media owners often reach? Partnerships, video, cost per acquisition deals. No? Colour classified in newspapers? You have never got DRTV to work? And what about pre-rolls and VOD?
MC&C think ahead for our clients and look to manage the risk of evolving recruitment strategies proactively as the marketplace evolves. Remember: the next time you see a lipstick advert in a national press supplement – you are probably kissing a frog!
John Willacy, Trading Director
Thursday, 21 January 2010
3D: the future of advertising?
Took myself and the boys off to see Avatar at the weekend. OK Sci Fi story but the 3D special effects were magnificent.
It has to be the future of video – and video advertising. Cars would leap out of the screen at you; well-honed bodies would thrust beauty and grooming products at you; and you’d positively want to reach into the screen to help those poor freezing meercats.
But is this realistic? Whether or not film studios decide that 3D is the future of block-buster movies, the future of TV is far more uncertain. It isn’t that 3D-capable TVs would be massively expensive to manufacture. Or that home audiences would be reluctant to wear 3D glasses.
There just isn’t a lot of money around in TV studios at the moment. Sky (buoyed up by subscription revenues) is planning a 3D TV channel later this year. But it is unlikely that many other commercial broadcasters will be spending a lot of money on creating 3D programming. Even with the benefits of Moore’s Law, this would require an unrealistically large investment in new equipment for several years yet, as well as the development of new skill sets within TV production and artistic staff.
Nonetheless 3D advertising does have an allure that perhaps advertisers will find hard to resist. So if they cannot find an outlet in TV, where will they look?
Well, cinema of course is one place. Wrigley launched a 3D cinema ad last summer. And more recently brands like Royal Caribbean have created ads that do make good use of 3D technology. But cinema, although a fine place to display high quality advertising, is limited in terms of reach and frequency.
Perhaps the future lies elsewhere. Increasingly TVs come ready for connection to the internet. And “watching” the internet on TV – whether it’s for catch up TV, looking at Youtube videos or simply communicating via Facebook – is increasingly common. Is there an opportunity then for TV-delivered internet to be the place that 3D advertising comes alive?
Hmm – I can’t see many people donning those 3D glasses to just to watch advertising! So if 3D advertising is to succeed it will have to be placed in a context where people are already wearing their specs. Where could that be? Well, some might argue that 3D effects make more sense in a video game than in a movie. And certainly 3D video games are going to be big business in the next months…
Could “in-game” or “advergaming” be the future of 3D advertising? The medium has beeen around for years (remember the Peperami animal game?). But it’s never really taken off. Perhaps this time round it will.
Jeremy Swinfen Green
Digital Director
It has to be the future of video – and video advertising. Cars would leap out of the screen at you; well-honed bodies would thrust beauty and grooming products at you; and you’d positively want to reach into the screen to help those poor freezing meercats.
But is this realistic? Whether or not film studios decide that 3D is the future of block-buster movies, the future of TV is far more uncertain. It isn’t that 3D-capable TVs would be massively expensive to manufacture. Or that home audiences would be reluctant to wear 3D glasses.
There just isn’t a lot of money around in TV studios at the moment. Sky (buoyed up by subscription revenues) is planning a 3D TV channel later this year. But it is unlikely that many other commercial broadcasters will be spending a lot of money on creating 3D programming. Even with the benefits of Moore’s Law, this would require an unrealistically large investment in new equipment for several years yet, as well as the development of new skill sets within TV production and artistic staff.
Nonetheless 3D advertising does have an allure that perhaps advertisers will find hard to resist. So if they cannot find an outlet in TV, where will they look?
Well, cinema of course is one place. Wrigley launched a 3D cinema ad last summer. And more recently brands like Royal Caribbean have created ads that do make good use of 3D technology. But cinema, although a fine place to display high quality advertising, is limited in terms of reach and frequency.
Perhaps the future lies elsewhere. Increasingly TVs come ready for connection to the internet. And “watching” the internet on TV – whether it’s for catch up TV, looking at Youtube videos or simply communicating via Facebook – is increasingly common. Is there an opportunity then for TV-delivered internet to be the place that 3D advertising comes alive?
Hmm – I can’t see many people donning those 3D glasses to just to watch advertising! So if 3D advertising is to succeed it will have to be placed in a context where people are already wearing their specs. Where could that be? Well, some might argue that 3D effects make more sense in a video game than in a movie. And certainly 3D video games are going to be big business in the next months…
Could “in-game” or “advergaming” be the future of 3D advertising? The medium has beeen around for years (remember the Peperami animal game?). But it’s never really taken off. Perhaps this time round it will.
Jeremy Swinfen Green
Digital Director
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
India: A massive emerging DR opportunity
I have just had four of the most energetic and enervating days that I have had for a long time. One of our clients asked me to join them for a trip to Mumbai to review the media scene there, and the opportunities for recruiting subscribers to their organisation.
Before I went I guess my understanding of India was hazy to say the least - major inputs being Slumdog Millionaire and EM Forster.
What I found was a group of bright, creative, motivated entrepreneurs. And that applied across the board from the smaller organisations right up to big corporates.
We met with a bunch of media owners, clients and agencies. What we found was a media scene of extremes. Fewer than 10 million broadband internet connections. More than 350 million mobile phones. The largest circulation newspaper at just 5 million copies, but pay TV penetration at nearly 100 million homes.
Direct marketing as a discipline is still fairly immature. It is used mostly for CRM (airline loyalty programmes, financial services cross selling). There is little direct mail for acquisition as data sets are small and of dubious quality.
But the DRTV scene is alive and flourishing. The suburban Indian housewife has discovered the delights of slow cookers, teeth whiteners and exercise equipment in the same way middle America did. And DRTV is beginning to creep into the mainstream marketers lexicon, with financial services and charities conducting campaigns that we would recognise in the UK.
It's potentially a very interesting opportunity for DM acquisition. A growing market of affluent middle class (numbers vary but think more middle class Indians than Americans in the next 10 years), very low media rates (say 10%-20% of UK rates) and a sophisticated call centre infrastructure.
I’m going back. I don’t know how yet, but I am sure India represents volume and value opportunities for our clients and ourselves.
Mike Colling, Managing Director
Before I went I guess my understanding of India was hazy to say the least - major inputs being Slumdog Millionaire and EM Forster.
What I found was a group of bright, creative, motivated entrepreneurs. And that applied across the board from the smaller organisations right up to big corporates.
We met with a bunch of media owners, clients and agencies. What we found was a media scene of extremes. Fewer than 10 million broadband internet connections. More than 350 million mobile phones. The largest circulation newspaper at just 5 million copies, but pay TV penetration at nearly 100 million homes.
Direct marketing as a discipline is still fairly immature. It is used mostly for CRM (airline loyalty programmes, financial services cross selling). There is little direct mail for acquisition as data sets are small and of dubious quality.
But the DRTV scene is alive and flourishing. The suburban Indian housewife has discovered the delights of slow cookers, teeth whiteners and exercise equipment in the same way middle America did. And DRTV is beginning to creep into the mainstream marketers lexicon, with financial services and charities conducting campaigns that we would recognise in the UK.
It's potentially a very interesting opportunity for DM acquisition. A growing market of affluent middle class (numbers vary but think more middle class Indians than Americans in the next 10 years), very low media rates (say 10%-20% of UK rates) and a sophisticated call centre infrastructure.
I’m going back. I don’t know how yet, but I am sure India represents volume and value opportunities for our clients and ourselves.
Mike Colling, Managing Director
Friday, 15 January 2010
Improving measurability between off line and online media
We now understand more about the link between online and offline media. And we know more about the customer journey. But are we using this understanding to measure the journey a consumer takes between offline and online media?
Is it sufficient to say we know that offline media drives consumers online when we can't measure the success our offline media has in driving potential customers online?
How can we identify which of our offline media drives our search? We can monitor the search uplift in and around television adverts, as we know what time the messages are consumed by our audience so any spikes can reasonably be attributed to these spots.
It's trickier where press and out of home are concerned because when the media are consumed is harder to pin-point. And of course increased time shifting behaviour with TV (e.g. PVRs and ITV Player) makes even TV's effect on online harder to measure.
But what if we told our audience what to search for online within the creative copy?
Potentially we could use one word for tube car panels that is relevant and memorable to the campaign, one for our press adverts and a different one for TV. The copy could simply read “to find out more search…….”, or “to take advantage of this offer search……”.
There's another benefit. If the key words or search terms used are different to those your competitors are using then this could mean you to pay less per click to obtain a customer compared to the more expensive generic search terms that are used by people who have not seen an offline advert.
And you are more likely to convert your audience. Sometimes if you are not at the top of search listings you lose a potential sale to one of your competitors (which you really earned because you paid for the offline ad which drove them online in the first place!)
This problem can be alleviated by using the “search for” mechanism as none (or certainly fewer) of your competitors should appear in the search listings.
Measurable, cheaper and more effective. Media-relevant campaign search terms are a powerful tool!
Christopher Bell, Media Assistant
Is it sufficient to say we know that offline media drives consumers online when we can't measure the success our offline media has in driving potential customers online?
How can we identify which of our offline media drives our search? We can monitor the search uplift in and around television adverts, as we know what time the messages are consumed by our audience so any spikes can reasonably be attributed to these spots.
It's trickier where press and out of home are concerned because when the media are consumed is harder to pin-point. And of course increased time shifting behaviour with TV (e.g. PVRs and ITV Player) makes even TV's effect on online harder to measure.
But what if we told our audience what to search for online within the creative copy?
Potentially we could use one word for tube car panels that is relevant and memorable to the campaign, one for our press adverts and a different one for TV. The copy could simply read “to find out more search…….”, or “to take advantage of this offer search……”.
There's another benefit. If the key words or search terms used are different to those your competitors are using then this could mean you to pay less per click to obtain a customer compared to the more expensive generic search terms that are used by people who have not seen an offline advert.
And you are more likely to convert your audience. Sometimes if you are not at the top of search listings you lose a potential sale to one of your competitors (which you really earned because you paid for the offline ad which drove them online in the first place!)
This problem can be alleviated by using the “search for” mechanism as none (or certainly fewer) of your competitors should appear in the search listings.
Measurable, cheaper and more effective. Media-relevant campaign search terms are a powerful tool!
Christopher Bell, Media Assistant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)