Archive for the ‘measurement’ Category

After 14 years of practicing integrated marketing communications (IMC), I never thought I’d write a post about it.

I guess there was an assumption on my part that after all these years that most marketers were already integrating their efforts…until I saw this comment on David Mullen’s blog post: 

“I’ve heard many people in our industry scoff at the idea of integrated marketing communications. It was always great in theory, but hard and messy in practice.”

Scoff? Hard? Messy? 

The definition of IMC on Wikipedia: 

“a planning process designed to assure that all brand contacts received by a customer or prospect for a product, service, or organization are relevant to that person and consistent over time.” 

Sounds easy to me…

In their book “Integrated Marketing Communications: Putting it all Together and Making it Work” (1993), Don Schultz and Stanley Tannebaum state that IMC is also about “talking to people who buy or don’t buy based on what they see, hear, feel, and so on, not just about your product or service.”

What’s the problem? Why is IMC such a struggle? My first thought was to wonder how many agencies and corporations still exist with information silos. Perhaps a lot and maybe that’s the problem? 

According to “Developing a Creative and Innovative Integrated Marketing Communications Plan“ by James R. Ogden, one insight might be: 

“The problem with the integration of the marketing concept into today’s businesses and organizations is that many top executives learned different methods of management. The old adage ‘You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,’ may be one of the stumbling blocks to the adoption of a customer orientation.” 

The book then goes on to state: 

“Many businesses are organized around departments, which are set up to specialize in given tasks. With this system, companies and organizations build fences around their duties. They become territorial in nature and want no part of corporate overlapping. Each territory needs to be protected by departmental managers, who may fear for their jobs. Because of these organizational structures, it has been hard to sell the marketing concept to many businesses and organizations, but without it there are decreased sales and profits.” 

James Ogden wrote his book in 1998. Here is it 16 years since both books were written and it seems that businesses are still struggling with moving towards customer-oriented communications. 

Back in the day, IMC referred to all the traditional marketing goodies: direct mail, PR, advertising, e-mail marketing, sales promotions, Internet marketing, etc. 

But today, simply put, communication silos don’t work because marketers cannot silo how audiences & communities string together & respond to all the communications they receive. ( “Dear Customer: This message is from PR. That message is from Advertising. And the other message is from E-Marketing. Please don’t confuse the three as they serve different purposes, contain different messages and you must react to each separately so we can tell our VP of Marketing that our individual campaigns worked.”) 

Like I said, I’ve been fortunate to have always been doing IMC, so I can’t comment on what the challenges are today. But I’d really like to gain some insights in to the mindset that David describes. If you are working in an agency or corporation that has not embraced IMC, would you be willing to share with us your insights, challenges and experiences? 

And one final thought… what happens when we add social media to the mix? Will social media finally force companies out of their communication silos? 

If you are a marketer interested in learning more about IMC, check out Amazon’s selection of books on IMC. Medill also offers the Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications. 

NOTE: Integrated Marketing Communications was pioneered at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism. However, other than a Digital Marketing course that covers social networking, it doesn’t appear that social media has been added to the curriculum.

I had an interesting conversation with Peter Kim while out at SXSWi last week about my recent personal branding post and the comments he left a comment asking me to expand my thoughts from a corporate perspective and to explore the parallels between corporate and personal approaches. During our conversation Peter said that he thinks that most people will have a personal brand over time, so I asked him what he thought that would mean from a corporate viewpoint. He asked me to write a post on what I thought it meant and, well, you know me, I have lots of opinions and thoughts…so here goes.

I agree that most corporate people will begin to create online ‘personal brands’ by setting up LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, insert next new cool online tool here, accounts. But is that enough from the corporate perspective?

Having these accounts doesn’t automatically grant people with personal brand equity. And I think that’s the disconnect that I have with personal branding. Having a bunch of online accounts doesn’t just automatically equate to equity. But what you do with those accounts including the conversations you have and the people you are connected to does have the ability to establish online personas and reputations that might equate to equity and that’s what corporations are interested in. It’s like the new sales person showing up with an already established network. The sales person is implying that they have established relationships that will help to generate revenue (and their bonuses!). Sales people sell against a revenue number and that’s the potential equity they bring to the table. But what if you aren’t in sales? As a marketer, what does your personal brand bring to the table in the form of equity?

Let’s take a step back and wrap our heads around traditional corporate branding (there’s a method to the madness and boring definition review).

Brand: A name/mark intended to identify and differentiate a product/service of a seller

Brand Mark: The part of the brand that appears in the form of a symbol, design, distinct color/font

Brand Name: The part of the brand that can be vocalized (words, letters, numbers)

Brand Loyalty: A buyer’s commitment to repurchase the brand

Brand Equity: The value the brand adds to the product/service

For generations marketers have been branding with these terms in mind (think Coca-Cola, Nike, Amazon.com, etc.). But let’s look at it from a personal perspective in relation to working for a company, government agency, non-profit, university, etc. (the “corporate” perspective).

Personal Brand: A name/mark intended to identify and differentiate a product/service of a seller

Personal Brand Mark: part of the brand that appears in the form of a symbol, design, distinct color/font

Personal Brand Name: The part of the brand that can be vocalized (words, letters, numbers)

Personal Brand Loyalty: A buyer’s commitment to repurchase the brand

Personal Brand Equity: The value the brand adds to the product/service

So how do the definitions change when “personal” is added? And what should corporations look for or expect? You didn’t think they should hire you just because of your cool online presence, did you?

• What are you selling? How does your unique skill set, experience, reputation, etc. achieve corporate goals and objectives?
• What’s your brand mark? Perhaps you have a personal logo or an avatar (photo). Are you distinct?
• What’s your name? That’s obvious. But is it a well known name that a corporation would embrace? Is it a name recognized and established in the industry?
• How much loyalty do you have banked? Can you bring ready-to-buy customers/prospects to the table upon hiring? Does the brand loyalty you’ve established help shorten the sales cycle? Do you have marketing/PR relationships that help save money or generate revenue?
• What is your personal brand worth in revenue? What value does it add to the existing corporate brand? (Or does it conflict?) Does your personal brand help propel the corporate brand forward or create buzz?

The last one, personal brand equity is of a lot of interest to me. Years ago there was a push to make marketing professionals accountable (brand valuation) for the financial well-being of corporation brands. Wikipedia explains it this way: “[to] measure the brand as a financial asset. In short, a calculation is made regarding how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset. For example, if you were to take the value of the firm, as derived by its market capitalization–and then subtract tangible assets and “measurable” intangible assets–the residual would be the brand equity.”

From the brand equity perspective, what I am wondering is that if you feel strongly about personal branding, would you stake your income on it? Would you be willing to derive a portion of your income based on how much you positively or negatively influence brand valuation from an accountant’s viewpoint? (i.e. if it’s positive, more income; if it’s negative, less income perhaps even termination).

From the corporate perspective, should corporations pick people with established online personal brands over those that do not? What if their skill sets are the same? Should someone with an established online personal brand be paid more?

From a personal approach, what if you are the personal brand that owns the company? Do you view your personal brand equity stake to be even higher and therefore riskier?

Would a company full of personal brands that were compensated on personal brand equity provide a better customer experience?

What are your thoughts? What am I missing? What would you add?

[Image: iStock]

Marketers with enough years under their belt know what spin is and pretty much know they can’t get away with it —prospects and customers are just too savvy these days. Marketers involved in social media know what transparency is and know that customers expect it.

Recently I came across a press release from Cone [hat tip: @JackiePeters] regarding their recent 2008 Cone Business in Social Media Study.

According to the survey:

• 60 percent of Americans use social media, and of those, 59 percent interact with companies on social media Web sites.
• 93 percent of Americans believe a company should have a presence in social media while an overwhelming 85 percent believe a company should not only be present but also interact with its consumers via social media.

(Social media was defined as: Technology facilitated dialogue among individuals or groups, such as blogs/microblogs, forums, wikis, content sharing, social networking, social bookmarking and social gaming. According to their spokesperson Andrea Larrumbide, the survey was conducted with a “pre-existing panel of respondents. We screened for prior usage of social media.”)

Those numbers didn’t sit quite right with me, so I relied on the numbers I’ve shared in the past. There are 301,621,157 people in the USA, of which 220,141,969 have Internet access.

Now stating that 60 percent of Americans use social media and 93 percent believe a company should have a social media presence (93% is about 204,732,031) seems to be a bit of a stretch.

I’d venture to guess that if I went to Any Town, USA and asked a group of Average Joes/Janes if they use social medial and believe companies should have a presence, I am pretty confident they wouldn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about. Heck, some marketers I speak with don’t even get social media!

eMarketer reported on September 3, 2008 a recent survey from Synovate that stated only 40% (5,200 of the 13,000 surveyed globally) of the Americans surveyed knew what a social network was. The eMarketer report also shared stats from a Universal McCann survey that states only 23.4% of the American population utilizes social networking with blog readership at: 23% daily, 42% weekly and 19% monthly.

These numbers seem to be a little more realistic.

Knowing about the above surveys, I reached out to Andrea Larrumbide and asked for a copy of the survey and the results (an executive overview like Universal McCann’s would have been great) and was told that they only share that information with paying customers. Interesting.

Skepticism aside, what can we learn about social media surveys and how we share data at a time when social media has become an important part of how we interact and do business?

• Don’t spin findings. Doesn’t “93% of those surveyed believe…” work better?
• Share your survey and findings in an executive format—it’ll provide credibility (that’s a no-brainer)
• If you are going to invest money in primary research, survey people outside the echo chamber

And for those researching social media or utilizing social media research to justify their plans, etc., don’t get caught up in research numbers that state what you want to hear. Question them.

Having done a fair amount of market research for the purposes of PR and thought leadership, I understand the urge to want to spin results and be the one company with the findings that justify its existence, but I am not a market researcher by trade.

That said, what’s your impression? Do you agree with my spin factor assessment? What tips would you offer to marketers and social media professionals when it comes to research?

[Photo: iStock]

There have been a lot of discussions around how to measure social media. While most seem comfortable measuring the “media” aspect (after all, it’s what we are comfortable with) there is an uncertainty around measuring the “social” part. Mainly because there’s a lot of confusion―especially within corporations and agencies—as to what “social” actually means.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been compiling a list of measurements that have been offered by Chris Brogan, Brian Solis, Larry Weber and from recent conversations on Plurk with two social media practitioners, Amber Naslund and Jane Chin. The list includes:

• Links
• Traffic
• Threads
• Comments
• Page views
• Trackbacks
• Registrations
• Unique visitors
• Net Promoter Score (NPS)
• Number of positive mention
• Customer Lifetime Value (CLV)

It contains a lot of metrics that marketers are used to―or at least should be familiar with. Typically, the discomfort and confusion occurs when marketers try to tie these metrics back to ROI.

During a recent Plurkshop, hosted by David Alston of Radian6, the measuring of social media effectiveness was discussed and a question kept popping up…

Is ROI the right measure for social media? The very interesting responses suggested that perhaps the “I” should be measured as Initiative, Involvement or Interaction.

Another important area also surfaced during the Plurkshop: listening. Ultimately, listening is the most important―and valuable—aspect of social media. That said, can you effectively measure the impact of listening as it relates to the new ROI? Maybe. Maybe not.

But, here’s an example of how not listening makes the argument for a new ROI:

Recently, a business associate made a virtual introduction via LinkedIn. This person’s only intent was only to connect two marketers that might have some common interests, networks, etc. The person introduced to me was with an agency. I reached out, sent a note saying hello, introducing myself, etc. The response received: “when can we set up an appointment to discuss our services with you?” What?! Are you kidding? But you probably new that was coming, didn’t you?

My next response, “I think the purpose of the introduction was to get to know each other, etc., etc.” Their response: “We do have a PR offering, so if you ever have a need, please keep us in mind.”

It’s obvious that this person only wants my business and could care less about developing a relationship. So, I ask a test question: “do you offer social media services?”

The response: “[Yes]. We also perform social media audits, and participate in blogging on behalf of our clients. We actually do quite a bit in this area. Please tell me if you would like to learn more.”

Interesting. (Yes, I know, the response is wrong on so many levels. A topic for another time.) If this person would have “listened” to my suggestion of getting to know one another and perhaps stopped to consider having an actual conversation, about something other than the services the company offered, they would have learned something very valuable.

As a rule of thumb I never hire a new vendor without having a relationship first—a rule that I have followed for over 14 years. (And I don’t mean a long standing relationship, but heck a conversation or two would have been nice.)

The value of not listening? On a project basis, let’s call it $10,000. On an on-going basis for a year, let’s say $50,000. Perhaps it’s not a lot of money, but it is money that they will now never earn.

Listening: $10,000-$50,000
Not Listening: $0

And that, my marketing friends, is an example of the new ROI (Initiative, Involvement, or Interaction) and the “social” of/in social media!

(Note: To help preserve anonymity, I did not include all information in the e-mail transactions, but the essence of the conversation is factual and is being used only to show an example.)

[Image purchased from iStock]