Striking the Balance - Tipping Towards Integrated Measurement

"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." --Benjamin Franklin

Traditional media vs. New media.

Counting impressions vs. Measuring engagement.

Measuring share-of-voice vs. Overall return on investment.

Lately I've been reading a lot of articles, blog posts and even Twitter conversations that seem to focus on the dichotomy of balancing the traditional model of communications/PR with the established social media and digital practices that are increasingly popular. Everything I read points out that there must be a balance or strategic approach to all activities (traditional or new) that justifies the cost and spend of any communication investment. 

What strikes me now is that I see a tipping point where agencies, companies and government entities are starting to look beyond the traditional communication metrics and take a more encompassing integrated approach to evaluating and gathering information about their outreach activities. I see less emphasis on the estimated number of impressions and more on the engagement and conversion rates to measure the success of or if necessary, tweak the direction of a communications campaign. 

Integrated measurement of communication tactics is not new. It's just a happy trend that I see becoming increasingly popular as private and public organizations seek to integrate social and digital communications into their traditional marketing and awareness campaigns.

Last week, Commentz pointed me to Olivier Blanchard (@TheBrandBuilder) presenting The Definitive Social Media ROI Presentation. It is the first time I have come across a presentation that articulates how companies should approach and measure the effectiveness of their social media and traditional marketing communication activities. Engaging as well as informative, Blanchard's presentation is the first one I've seen to talk about the non-financial impact (the focus of most social metrics initially) and mapping those to overall business metrics/analytics that accounts for and tracks real dollars and cents. I highly recommend viewing Blanchard's presentation. It struck me as the most articulate and accurate way to discuss the real business value (not just awareness and frequency) with C-Suite executives.

I also came across this article in today's Advertising Age which articulates how MS&L, Weber Shandwick, and Porter Novelli are tweaking their PR metrics to measure not just the effectiveness of their communication campaigns, but how their communication strategy can be mapped back to sales and conversions for their clients. While this is not new (a lot of IMC agencies have been doing this for years), it is exciting to see that "PR" firms are taking the lead on measurement and are not just using the data to evaluate the campaigns effectiveness, but are gathering information to tweak campaigns and raise client's situational awareness to address issues and engage in real time. 

"PR" is becoming less about controlling the message and more about collecting, analyzing and acting upon intelligence from all stakeholders. Are you seeing more agencies, companies, and organizations moving towards a more integrated approach to measuring ROI? Are more resources (monetary or other) being devoted to listen and get actionable intelligence?

Output vs.Outcome metrics

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?

Measuring Tactics vs. Measuring Success

I met with a fellow PR Pro tonight and we got to talking about measurement. As we discussed levels of engagement, number of clicks/views, downloads, comments made, number of e-mails sent, sign-ups for white papers, promotions and other sorts of "lead generating" content, it dawned on me - this is a tactical discussion-we're only talking about the measurement and results related to a specific communications tactic (e.g. a video, white paper, etc.). What are we and our clients doing to actually measure the long term strategic success of communication campaigns? Is quantitative ruling our reporting? And if so, what are we losing/missing by doing that?

Lately, it seems everyone is advocating the use of social media for business intelligence and situational awareness in the B-to-B marketplace. The webinars and events I've attend recently surrounding ROI and measurement seem to focus on the numbers game and less on on the qualitative analysis and looking at the larger picture of how a specific tactic relates back to a larger strategic communication plan that should be focused on furthering a company's business development, reputation and revenue goals. If a PR program doesn't drive or further business - then what's the point?

So how then should we be measuring the larger impact of communication campaigns? Number of views is nice. Number of unique views is better. And number of qualified stakeholder views is key. Traffic does not equal sales or influence. It may equal greater share-of-voice (which looks nice on a chart or in a clip report) or even awareness, but not necessarily influence, thought leadership or let alone sales/revenue. So what should companies be asking of their agencies in terms of measurement? I think it depends upon the companies goals. If counting views makes a company's executive team sleep better at night because their latest product video has gone "viral," then by all means count it a success. But if the on-the-ground marketing team is talking to the same company's clients and they aren't aware or because of firewall restrictions in their offices can't see the 'must view' viral video from this company, it's not as effective as it could be. Content for content's sake is not effective. Making sure your content is seen and appreciated by the right audience is key. So a video going viral with millions of downloads may be a success in the awareness and visibility category - but not in the long term business development goals of your company. 

I think one of the best ways for companies to gauge what is and is not tracking among their key stakeholders is to conduct focus group and mass audience recall surveys at least once a year (quarterly is better; monthly is ideal). This well help address key messaging gaps and provide insight on what types of content (not just advertising) is resonating among key audiences. What are your thoughts on how to shift the conversation from one of measuring individual communication tactics to measuring overall program success?