Another alternative to the Ad Value nightmare

So I've been talked down off the ledge and am led to believe that perhaps ALL my efforts to disabuse the Marketing and Advertising nabobs of their  obsession with counting eyeballs are not in vain, when there are so many more important things that you can and should measure. One more time – who CARES how many eyeballs you reach if they don't do anything with the information you send them?  They all seem to have the direct mail disease that seems to think that it's great if 90% of your effort is wasted.

But here's another take on it. Let's assume that your internal data says that reaching eyeballs really does lead to sales or market share or something meaningful to your bottom line. And lets assume that your competition can draw the same conclusion. Presumably the most important metric, therefore would be your share of the social media conversation. (SOC).  Forget about the actual number of eyeballs – what really matters is that you get more than the other guys, right?

Now obviously you only care about certain conversations that matter – and regardless of how you define "matter"  no one can argue that there are different levels of authority/influence/rankings depending on what industry you're in.  So if you define the universe of conversation of which you need to be a part, based on ranking, authority, or personal preference, your share of  that conversation (can we call it BRP Blog  Rating Points?) would be a key metric.  And, while it might not have a monetary value  like a  Gross Rating Point, GRP) since most of the cost to reach that universe is undefined or free, it pretty quickly tells you how you're doing in the marketplace. And, if you must to put a dollar figure on it, rather than look at CPM, look at a cost per SOC – i.e. what did it cost you to purchase 1 percentage share of that universe. Take the total cost of your social media marketing program and divide it by your share of discussion.

The formula looks like this:  CSoC = Social Media Budget / SOC where CSoC (Cost per Share of Discussion) is equal to the total Social Media Budget divided by your Share of Discussion.

So if you spent $100,000 and your share of discussion in your marketplace was 25% your CSoC would be $4. Which would be great unless of course the competition also spent $100,000 and got 50% share of discussion. It's CSoC would then be $2.

Thanks to Sally Falkow and Dunkin Donuts Caramel Latte for inspiring this entire train of thought before breakfast!

Comments

[Edward O'Meara]

I agree with the thought that it's all about cost of relative share against specific hard objectives. The people I've known and worked with across advertising, direct marketing, events and PR use this manner of approach. Their purpose in using certain metrics, such as "counting eyeballs" is less about putting a dollar value on all the eyeballs than it is to establish a competitive share/cost metric for purposes of measuring improvements or impact. I also agree that the most dangerous folks are those (usually PR) who report that they delivered 3 gazillion dollars in ad-like value.

[Meryl Steinberg]

At last, someone making metric sense. Albert Einstein had this sign over his desk: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".

[kdpaine]

Mike, I don't know of any polling that's been done but I've been encouraging organizations who ask me what they should do to ask their customers, not me! So maybe someone will get the idea.
Kami,
I have to argue that "share of conversation over time" doesn't show value. Obviously if you're not increasing your clients share of conversation there's no value. But if you show that over time, your client's voice is increasingly being heard in the marketplace, or that its positioning or messages are increasingly being incorporated into the conversation, why wouldn't that be of value?

[Kami Huyse]

Are you getting high on Caramel Lattes again, lol? By the way, I love caramel in ANY form.

I like the idea of Share of Coversation, and figuring the cost of getting to that conversation is an interesting academic excercise; however, most of my clients won't use it. This measure just emphasizes that we are a cost center and over time it doesn't show value - which is what I am always trying to get at. That is why I like the cost comparison among marketing tactics and so on. Maybe a Share of Conversation among marketing tactics would be a good way to go.

I am open to your thoughts.

I do think that you are on to something in looking for more competitive analysis. However, you will have a hard time ever knowing the budget of your competitor.

[Mike Chapman]

Hello. Great blog and I hear really good things about your efforts in this area. I don't know how you do it but it seems to me that the effectiveness of the individuals involved in a social media campaign will make the real difference. Their ability to connect online and to influence others using interpersonal skills. Of course that is still a very micro measurement. Have any major corporations polled their customers to see what percentage of them have been motivated by social media communications? Is there any data from traditional sources that blends with new measurement techniques? Thanks again for being such a leader on this. I hear so many good things about you and your work.