I haven't had the opportunity to blog in awhile, but I want to revisit and expand upon my last blog post from June - "Measuring Tactics vs. Measuring Success."
Having had more time to really think about this, I've decided that a better way to think about campaign measurement is by developing "output metrics" which examine a certain tactic or execution of a specific program along with "outcome metrics," which take a wider more encompassing view of a marketing communication campaign.
The difference is that individual tactic metrics can be developed to include the quantitative and the harder to measure qualitative engagement metrics while outcome metrics look at the total effectiveness or combined impact of communication tactics to drive overall brand awareness, market share, share-of-voice, consumer engagement and business development goals.
I know this idea isn't new. It's presented many different ways in our industry. I've found, however, that presenting ROI in terms of output (tactics) and outcome metrics gets clients excited about the immediate return on investment while focusing on long-term campaign objectives. For those in b-to-b or b-to-g communications where sales cycles are long and campaigns must focus on long-term objectives and engagement, including output and outcome metrics allow for consistent feedback on reception of messages and content.
What types of output or outcome metrics do you suggest clients use when measuring their communication campaign's effectiveness?
