The Illusion of Accountability In Social Media
The Illusion of Accountability
The Illusion of Accountability

This may sound slightly ironic, coming from me, but I think sometimes we fall a little too in love with metrics. The Internet has trained a new generation of marketers and brand managers to expect that every impression, message, action and conversion should be measurable and trackable, and “less measurable” media such as TV, Print and Radio have suffered as a result. Today, social media is part of that conversation, and the tools and techniques to measure social engagement efforts are legion.

Last Wednesday, at the Inbound Marketing Summit in Boston, I spoke about all the things that we miss when we measure social media exclusively through online means. The short course: social media engagement influences a variety of online and offline behaviors, attitudes and yes, actions that take place online and offline throughout all parts of the “marketing funnel.” The funnel is still valid – but with social media, prospects and customers are no longer “required” to enter the funnel at the top – they can slide in anywhere from brand-aware to brand evangelist. Your company’s social engagement efforts play a role throughout the process whether they are tied to a click or not.

Vintage abacuses
Image by H is for Home via Flickr

Still, online measures are crucial to gauging the full import of your social media efforts, but those measures don’t often mean what we assume them to mean. Even basic measures, like a simple accounting of brand “mentions,” are often assigned greater value than they are, in fact, able to support. Mentions themselves are a bit of a random walk, and we can often succumb to hindsight-derived reasons for troughs and spikes that may or may not have any relation to the truth.

An even more sinister aspect of “mentions,” however, is that I often see them conflated with “awareness” or even consideration. In my IMS presentation, I purposefully dropped a brand mention for Audi early in my talk, and then later asked someone in the audience who was about to start car shopping to name some brands – Audi was not one of them. Sure, he may have heard of Audi – I’m sure he has – but the brand had not filtered into his top-of-mind consideration set for a variety of reasons. My “mention” provided exposure to the audience at IMS, but it didn’t necessarily provide awareness on anything more than a superficial level. Exposure is not awareness.

When we measure brand mentions, we are collecting a base metric that could be used in a variety of helpful ways, and may in fact serve as the core metric for some vital measures. By itself, however, the meaning of a brand mention is nebulous at best. Yet (and I do the same thing here, admittedly), when we see our brand mentions double or even triple from period to period, we feel good. We know there is something positive about increased mentions, but if pressed, we really can’t put our finger on the tangible benefits of these mentions. We have a subjective view of an apparently objective number. In short, we have been seduced by the illusion of accountability that these metrics provide.

Yet, determining the linkage between brand mentions and awareness isn’t a black box mystery (and yes, I say this a lot). I can ask a cohort of potential customers to name brands of golf clubs they are considering and rank them by some category I care about. Then I can engineer some social media activities designed to goose mentions of my brand of club, and afterwards ask that same cohort to repeat the exercise. There will or will not be a spike in awareness, and that spike will or will not be correlated with a concomitant spike in mentions. At the conclusion of this process, you will know whether or not increased social media mentions have benefits for your brand, and you’ll know how to process that data in the future.

Until you do this, however, you just have a number.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About the Author

Tom Webster
Tom Webster is Vice President of Strategy for Edison Research, sole provider of U.S. National Election exit polling data for all major news networks. Webster has 20 years of experience in market and opinion research, with a particular emphasis on consumer behavior and the adoption of new media and technology. He is the principal author of a number of widely-cited research studies, including Twitter Usage In America, The Social Habit, and The Podcast Consumer Revealed, and is co-author of the Edison Research/Arbitron Internet and Multimedia Research Series, now in its 18th iteration. Reach him on Twitter at Webby2001, or on his blog at BrandSavant.
  • Thanx! I agree.

  • Pingback: Portable Media Player review of the DVR Station is it the perfect accessory? | Archos AV()

  • Pingback: The Illusion of Accountability | BrandSavant()

  • Stephen

    I like the point you bring up that social media allows prospects and customers to enter into the sales funnel at any point – they don't necessarily have to enter from the top.

    As far as mentions go…think about it from the cold-calling, sales perspective. If my metrics show me I have to call 20 people to get 1 “yes,” then all 19 “no's” are useful–they mean I'm getting closer to my yes. If I know out of 100 cold calls I'll probably only get 5 people to move to the next stage in the funnel and only 2-3 of them will ultimately buy, then all 100 calls, all 5 appointments are useful because they are getting past the negative responses and moving me towards the positive end result.

    In the same way, maybe it takes 200 mentions to amount to a truly meaningful, positive exposure. But I'm not going to throw out the 199 “meaningless” mentions b/c they were required to get me to #200. I'm sure this is oversimplified, but I believe it has some merit.

    If we are honest, much of social media, and marketing in general, is throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. The longer we do it and the more creative ideas we try, the more we will be able to have EXPECTED results based on past performance and the more we will be able to measure our results up against previous campaigns.

  • ahanelly

    I'd argue that mentions are equivalent to exposure, but exposure does not necessarily increase recall or retention.

  • Conversions? yes. Impressions? Not so sure.

    Just finished reading Jeffry Ma's The House Advantage. (He's the MIT guy who made millions in blackjack.) VERY different take on stats and metrics–his world is COMPLETELY controllable (OK, MIT, what would you expect?). Interesting perspective, but it starts to melt when “people” and “free choice” and softer results come into play–like Tweets.

    Does Audi make full-size pickups?

  • I feel like this the old PR and advertising battle of impressions and not a new argument. Ultimately, you have the top of the funnel which needs to translate into the bottom of the funnel, results. Outcomes are what need to be measured not impressions. End goal is all that matters, not how you got there (so long as it's on budget and profitable or worthwhile, as an outcome isn't necessarily a sale or donation).

  • Thanks for the post, Tom!

    I agree, basic metrics are good enough for some distance, although there are two things that should be considered before taking things further:

    1) How do mention (or discussion, or unique site, or what have you) amounts compare to your competition and/or category? 1,000 might feel like a lot, whereas it could be a lot less than the 10,000+ of your competitors.

    2) What is the context? It doesn't help to get dozens of mentions if they are just that and nothing more. It's the context that counts. Is Audi just dropped somewhere, or is someone saying something good or bad about the car brand? Are they asking a question regarding a certain model? Did someone see an interesting Audi ad and wants to share it?

    These are the things I feel people should think about, in order to make analyzing their social media metrics more sensible and objective-driven.


Social Media Jobs

VIP Explorer’s Club