VW Marketing Stairs

Also check out new social e-commerce site for artists: www.artistsforartists.com

35 social media KPIs to help measure engagement

Posted 30 October 2009 14:30pm by Chris Lake

36 interaction KPIs to help measure engagement Social media measurement is something that I think should be undertaken with a sense of perspective, by standing back and looking at the big picture.

A widescreen approach to social media measurement ultimately looks at the things that really matter: sales, profits, customer satisfaction and loyalty. Besides, honing in on the detail might not be the best use of your time, given the obvious difficulties that arise, particularly with attribution.

But standing back and looking at the bigger picture is not going to be enough for your data-mad boss, is it? It’s a bit too soft focus, right? He or she is going to want to see proof that all this social optimisation is actually working.

If that’s the case, then don’t worry: there are lots of things you can measure...
It’s all about engagement

When we talk about social optimisation (a term I prefer to 'social media') we're really talking about driving engagement and interaction. The goal of any social optimisation strategy is to provide the right tools so that people can engage with your brand / people / products / services onsite and offsite.

Here’s what you want to happen:

* You want people to make a noise.
* You want people to store and share things.
* You want people to love your website.
* You want people to visit more frequently
* You want people to refer your company to their friends.
* You want people to buy into your brand.
* You want people to buy your products.

Engaged customers and prospects are far more likely to do some or all of the above. So how can you boost customer engagement?
Give people the right tools

The tools and onsite functionality you need is going to depend on your business, your strategy and your goals. What you're ultimately looking for is a wide range of tools to help people interact. It doesn’t matter whether this interaction happens onsite or offsite, but only that it happens. You can measure it either way.

This list of KPIs / metrics should help you figure out what can be measured (at a nano level) and also what kind of tools / functionality you may want to introduce. I still think it’s best to measure from a distance but if your boss wants the detail then this list should help you work out what to look at. In doing so you’ll able to determine the relative success and adoption of new features. You may also unearth trends and spot opportunities or issues.

In any event, taking a top-down look at interaction - and monitoring how customer engagement changes over time - can really help you position your company as a community-centric organisation, by proving that an investment into customer engagement is a wise one. Your boss should be happy if all goes to plan.
Making interaction a game

This list has been largely informed by a new social commerce startup that I’m working on. It’s essentially a marketplace that connects buyers with sellers. I created a ‘kudos’ algorithm that helps us curate the website. Items that are highly rated and that attract lots of comments / bookmarks / followers will gain kudos points. We apply different weightings to different interactions (for example, a ‘love this’ rating is worth less than a ‘follow item’). Editors / curators can then spot the buzz and act accordingly (better promotion, interviews, videos, etc).

We created ‘kudos’ for a few reasons. Firstly, we want to learn from the crowd. Secondly, we want the website to be highly interactive. Thirdly, we want it to feel like a game for the sellers, just like Digg is for the article submitters.

So tracking and making sense of interaction is a fundamental part of our web venture. Many of these metrics are factored into our algorithm, and in the same way you can score different interactions to create some kind of interaction index. It might help you condense all of this data noise into a more digestible format.
Caveats!

Before we jump into the list there are a few caveats...

* Not all websites are equal. Not all of these will be relevant to all sites (e.g. 'Posts' won't be any good for sites without blogs and contributors)
* Not all interactions are equal. 'Print page' as an engagement measure is barely worth looking at... or is it? In any case, some of these things are more important than others (hence my scoring / ‘kudos’ algorithm).
* There is some crossover. For example ‘bookmarks’ and ‘wishlists’ may be the same thing on your site (although they’re not on mine).
* Some metrics will have sub-metrics.
* Avoid curve balls. If the widget sucks then it doesn’t matter that 10,000 people installed it last week. It will still suck and they’ll hate it.
* Human power is needed to really understand the detail behind the numbers, and to act on that knowledge. Interpretation is key.
* It’s about quality not quantity. Don’t go counting those spam comments!
* This is a bit of a braindump and I’ll certainly have missed out various things, so please leave your pointers and suggestions in the comments section below. What are you measuring?

A list of social interaction metrics / KPIs

1. Alerts (register and response rates / by channel / CTR / post click activity)
2. Bookmarks (onsite, offsite)
3. Comments
4. Downloads
5. Email subscriptions
6. Fans (become a fan of something / someone)
7. Favourites (add an item to favourites)
8. Feedback (via the site)
9. Followers (follow something / someone)
10. Forward to a friend
11. Groups (create / join / total number of groups / group activity)
12. Install widget (on a blog page, Facebook, etc)
13. Invite / Refer (a friend)
14. Key page activity (post-activity)
15. Love / Like this (a simpler form of rating something)
16. Messaging (onsite)
17. Personalisation (pages, display, theme)
18. Posts
19. Profile (e.g. update avatar, bio, links, email, customisation, etc)
20. Print page
21. Ratings
22. Registered users (new / total / active / dormant / churn)
23. Report spam / abuse
24. Reviews
25. Settings
26. Social media sharing / participation (activity on key social media sites, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Digg, etc)
27. Tagging (user-generated metadata)
28. Testimonials
29. Time spent on key pages
30. Time spent on site (by source / by entry page)
31. Total contributors (and % active contributors)
32. Uploads (add an item, e.g. articles, links, images, videos)
33. Views (videos, ads, rich images)
34. Widgets (number of new widgets users / embedded widgets)
35. Wishlists (save an item to wishlist)

TV Advertising... Is There This Much Value?

Syndicated from 'Sunday Night Football' Remains Costliest TV Show
By Brian Steinberg
Published: October 26, 2009

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- NBC's "Sunday Night Football" continues its reign as the most-expensive fall program for advertisers, with a 30-second ad commanding an average of $339,700, according to an Advertising Age survey of media buying firms. The NBC Sports broadcast has commanded the most expensive advertising time for two consecutive years, reflecting the value of live programming that reaches big audiences who are less likely to skip past commercials with a digital video recorder.

AP
NBC's 'Sunday Night Football' has commanded the most expensive advertising time for two consecutive years. That's not to say that scripted fare doesn't bring in big bucks. Of the 10 most-expensive shows on prime-time broadcast TV, the back nine are all scripted (though two are animated). A 30-second spot on ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" costs an average of $240,462, while a 30-second ad on ABC's "Desperate Housewives" costs an average of $228,851.

Ad Age calculated ad prices for each show by using the upfront prices agreed to by as many as seven different media-buying agencies and other sources. According to our survey, TV prices seem to be on the decline. In the 2008-2009 season, NBC's "Sunday Night Football" commanded an average of $434,792 for a 30-second commercial, compared with this season's average of $339,700. ABC's "Grey's" brought in an average of $326,685, compared with this season's $240,462.

The other programs commanding top ad prices are CBS's "Two and a Half Men," in which a 30-second ad costs an average of $226,635 (vs. last year's $276,433); Fox's animated "Family Guy," in which a 30-second ad costs an average of $214,750 (vs. 2008's $231,306); Fox's animated "The Simpsons," which commands an average of $201,920 (vs. last year's $250,000); CBS's "CSI," which got an average of $198,647 (vs. $262,600 in '08); CBS's "The Big Bang Theory," during which a 30-second ad costs an average of $191,900, an improvement over last year's $135,357, thanks to a better time slot); and NBC's "The Office," which commands an average of $191,236 (vs. last year's $213,164) for a 30-second commercial, according to Ad Age's survey.

Some of TV's most-expensive programs won't make their debuts until 2010. According to the Ad Age survey, Fox's "American Idol" is fetching between $360,000 and $490,000 for a 30-second ad. Prices in the popular program often hinge on whether or not the ads run in those shows closer to the time when judges crown a winner.

Sunday night, filled with NBC's football and Fox's animation block, continues to be the costliest night of the TV season. CBS, bolstered by the success of its Monday-night comedies, sophomore drama "The Mentalist" and debuts of "NCIS: LA" and "The Good Wife," has usurped ABC as the costliest network on which to advertise. Meanwhile, ABC's "Flash Forward" is the most-expensive new program of the season, commanding an average of $175,724 for a 30-second ad. Fox's much hyped "Glee" comes in as the fourth most-expensive new show of the fall, at $127,350, as ABC's "Flash Forward," Fox's "The Cleveland Show" and ABC's "Modern Family" take the top three slots.

One of the cheapest new shows of the year is NBC's much-hyped "Jay Leno" program, where a 30-second spot can be had for an average cost between $48,803 and $65,678, depending on the night of the week.

The figures should be taken as directional indicators, not gospel. The estimates are based on what advertisers paid for ad time during the recent upfront market, during which marketers commit to pay for predetermined amounts of ad inventory months or weeks in advance in exchange for locking down price guarantees.

Already, the market has noticed that prices for scatter inventory, or ad time purchased much closer to air, is up "mid-to-high single" percentages above upfront prices, according to Wells Fargo Securities. That's good news for TV broadcasters, but not such good news for marketers readying holiday-season ads. Broadcasters held back, on average, 10% to 15% of time normally sold in the upfront, betting that they'd command higher scatter prices.

And it's worth noting that most TV advertising is typically purchased as part of larger negotiations, not on a one-off basis. Prices often depend on the advertiser's relationship with the network, the volume of inventory being purchased and the presence of nontraditional advertising, such as product placements.

The drops should come as little surprise to those who took part in one of the most prolonged upfront sessions in recent memory. With the economy weighing on marketers' ability to spend, advertisers waited until late August -- and until they felt TV prices had been negotiated down somewhat -- before committing to the fall schedule. Indeed, networks dithered over whether of not to hold back scatter until the last possible minute.

Also check out new social e-commerce site for artists: www.artistsforartists.com

Why Charging for Online Content (Mostly) Won't Work

Want to Monetize the Web?
Here's How by Judy Shapiro Published: October 21, 2009

Judy Shapiro

The "give away free content so advertisers can reach an audience" model has been around for decades, starting with free broadsheets, then radio, TV and, most recently, the internet. But the internet has, almost stubbornly, not been able to follow the inevitable ad-supported formula that accompanied "traditional media" for so long -- that consumers will accept your content in exchange for viewing ads. What went so wrong so fast?

What went wrong is that the internet is not just another media channel. It disrupted the basic laws of supply and demand. Before the web, content was a tightly controlled and distributed commodity -- a limited amount of content was distributed through highly controlled and limited channels. This was the ultimate "push" model.

The internet was the game changer because it is one big "pull" engine -- users pulling what they wanted, when they wanted it: services, connectivity and, yes, content. The tight control the media industry had on content was gone forever. Users could access content from a wider variety of sources and anyone could create content and distribute it at will.

Unfortunately, this macro, platonic and violent shift from traditional media's "push" business model to the internet's "pull" model was abrupt and claimed print media titans because they were unlucky enough to be hit with a double whammy -- high cost of print production and high cost of content creation.

And the shock waves are also being felt as they roll through the online media world's chase for a profitable business model. The internet's ad-revenue engine has proven unreliable for a few reasons. It can't guarantee a predictable "friendly" environment for advertisers given its user-generated content. It can't guarantee impressions because online ads are easy to bat away. It can't even guarantee large audience reach efficiently and predictably. And on top of all that, online ad revenue is highly sensitive to the larger economic forces that makes it all the more unpredictable and unreliable.

No wonder we have a disconnect. No wonder content producers swing wildly from wanting to give away all their content free in exchange for ad revenue to creating a gated-content model by charging for subscriptions. I get queasy sometimes just thinking of it. But there is a way out of the quagmire and that is to evolve our understanding of how the online content monetization engine can work and why.

To monetize content requires a shift in thinking because one must move from sticking with the traditional push business model to accepting the web's "pull" approach. In making this transition we uncover where people will place value (and their dollars).

Use content to attract audiences
Content is really good at attracting audiences -- but it's not so great at directly generating revenue through gated-content subscriptions. Sorry, but you just need to get over it (unless you are the exception: The Wall Street Journal). Most people can get most content one way or another and circumventing the gated-content model is not that hard for users. Media companies trying to figure out how to plug all the naturally leaky ways content gets out there is like trying to win at whack-a-mole. Frustratingly unsatisfying.

Create a community to coalesce audiences
This is the magic moment when content can begin to drive revenue because once you have the audience -- thanks to your content -- you have the mechanism to create compelling community experiences. The benefit of a community is that this shifts users' loyalty from just your content, available in lots of online places, to your site because of the community. The revenue possibilities expand as your community creates the all-important "sticky" user experience.

Successful communities utilize all the new social-networking tools and technology to create vibrant user interactions. They introduce technology that lets members engage in real time with each other, they permit many forms of self-broadcasting and publishing, and they provide a platform for members to connect around a shared passion or issue.

Ignite passion in your community and the content monetization engine begins to stir.

Leverage the power of your community to drive revenue
Once you have established a core community of users, this is where monetization can occur because now you are in a position to: a) offer a variety of services or products to your members; b) leverage the power base you have created; and c) you will probably see more ad revenue (though probably not for some time).

Here are some examples of effective community revenue opportunities:

• Provide services to enhance community connectivity using video and audio
• Offer products to introduce "fun" into user interactivities (Facebook does this better than anyone)
• Integrate technology to provide members with video, broadcasting, and content creation tools
• Enable new ways for members to access content via multiformat services
• Create new programs where community members can be rewarded for their participation (e.g., converting members into affiliates)

Anything that captures your community's passion is an opportunity for new revenue.

In case you are wondering whether this monetization engine works in the real world, there are great examples to study. Sites such as TechCrunch, Huffington Post and Mashable (click here as Mashable's CEO explains its business model on Bloomberg) are particularly effective at attracting users through content and then sustaining user engagements profitably through enriched community experiences.

Now that the engine is in place, hear that content monetization engine roar. Or, should I say, cha'ching.

LinkedIn: The Purposefully Unsticky Social-Media Site

An Interview With Founder Reid Hoffman

Produced by Hoag Levins on 10.19.09 @ 07:41 AM

Are static billboards within digital gamescapes really effective?

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- LinkedIn may be the least glitzy of the major social media sites but it's also one of the most successful. Launched in 2003, it's been making a profit since 2007 and, despite the recession, some of its ad categories continue to sell at CPMs of $50 or more. Unlike Facebook or MySpace, it doesn't offer games or apps designed to maximize the time users spend there. It's a network for business people and its goal is to minimize the time its users spend to get what they need from each other. In this eight-minute interview, founder and chairman Reid Hoffman discusses LinkedIn's current operations.

Also check out new social e-commerce site for artists: www.artistsforartists.com

Razorfish Employees Take Compensation Hit in Publicis Deal

Staffers to Lose Some Stock Options, Benefits in Transition to Holding Co.

Posted by Michael Learmonth on 10.06.09 @ 03:24 PM

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Staffers at Razorfish are realizing that leaving Microsoft for Publicis Groupe is going to hit them in the wallet.

Razorfish staff was informed Friday that when Publicis closes its $530 million deal to acquire the digital agency, they're going to lose 75% of their unvested stock options, a key incentive Microsoft had used to retain employees.

Razorfish employees have long been compensated as they would at a startup, and when aQuantive was acquired by Microsoft, employees were issued equivalent new options in Microsoft shares. But that won't be the case when Publicis closes its deal to acquire Razorfish.

Instead, Publicis told Razorfish employees they'll get 25% of the value of their options, but they'll have to stick around until June 1 to receive it.

"It's a slap in the face," said one staffer. "There are a lot of people here talking to lawyers. Some of them blame Publicis."

Publicis doesn't offer stock-based compensation widely, and doesn't feel obligated to match the incentives Razorfish employees had as Microsoft employees. As of publication, Publicis had not yet responded with comment.

The flap illustrates the difference in culture between a digital shop that has been run in many ways like a tech company and a traditional holding company. Employees of tech companies and startups are typically compensated with stock options. At advertising holding companies? Not so much. It's hard financially for them to pay Microsoft-style options and benefits.

So Publicis had a choice: continue to honor its new Razorfish unit's stock options and risk alienating current staff that doesn't have them, or just discontinue them. A former Microsoft Advertising senior staffer said it sounded like Publicis was "trying to get away paying pennies on the dollar."

Holders of shares in aQuantive did quite well when Microsoft acquired the company. But Razorfish hasn't been owned by Microsoft long enough for much of the new stock options to vest.

Now the question is how many senior staffers will stick around until June 1 for a quarter of their invested options -- and how many will stick around after. That could figure into the plans of Razorfish clients as they plan for 2010 and beyond.

"The challenge for the holding company is how do they motivate these people," said Bruce Eatroff, partner at Halyard Capital. "My guess is some will stay and some who are more entrepreneurial will go elsewhere."

Publicis is exchanging Microsoft employee stock awards with the equivalent value of Publicis stock, and those grants will be made within 10 days of the close of the deal. Microsoft recently disclosed Razorfish lost $50 million on $360 million revenue in fiscal 2009, which ended June 30.

FTC Cracks Down on Blogger Payola, Celebrity Tweets

Rules on Endorsements and Testimonials Extended to Social Media

by Michael Learmonth
Published: October 05, 2009

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on blogger payola.

The agency, which protects consumers from fraud or deceptive business practices, voted 4 to 0 to update its rules governing endorsements, and the new guidelines require bloggers to clearly disclose any "material connection" to an advertiser, including payments for an endorsement or free product.

It's the first time since 1980 that the FTC has updated its rules on the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. In addition to covering bloggers, the new FTC rules state that celebrity endorsers can be held liable for false statements about a product, and all endorsements must include results consumers can "generally expect." Previously, an advertiser could cover their claims by the disclaimer "results not typical."

But the new rules on bloggers are the most far-reaching attempt to stamp some guidelines of conduct on the blogosphere, which generally operates according to informal codes and the notion that "inauthentic" bloggers -- including those not disclosing commercial relationships -- will suffer in the web's court of public opinion.

The new rules go into effect Dec. 1, and penalties include $11,000 in fines per violation. The FTC wasn't specific about how disclosures must be communicated but said its decisions would be made on a "case-by-case" basis.

Rules for everyone
Specifically covered in the new rules is the use of social media, such as Twitter, by celebrities to endorse a product. That's now a no-no unless the commercial relationship is disclosed. So, too, are celebrity mentions of products in other media, such as talk shows.

But the new rules on blogging will have the farthest-reaching influence. They are, in effect, the first rules imposed on a general public that no longer needs access to TV, print or radio to publish opinions or create a personal media channel.

"In 1980 most of all advertising was disseminated by the advertisers themselves; today a good part of that advertising is being disseminated by users," said Richard Cleland, assistant director- division of advertising practices at the FTC.

The government agency has been reviewing its nearly 40-year-old rules on testimonials and endorsements for the better part of a year, and marketers have been anticipating a change.

The new guidelines for social media are "relatively consistent with preexisting principles that have applied to traditional forms of advertising," said C. Lee Peeler, president and CEO of the National Advertising Review Council. Some think the rules could spur brand involvement in the social media space by better defining what's OK and what's not.

Clearing the air
"The legal departments of big brands don't like ambiguity, and that has been a challenge for us," said Joe Chernov, VP-communications for word-of-mouth marketing firm BzzAgent.

Now that the dust has settled, the rules are more or less clear, he said. "If a consumer's speech has been materially influenced by a marketer, it must be disclosed. That speech, the consumer's speech, also must be restricted to their own personal experience," he said.

Within the text of the new rules, the FTC gives many hypothetical scenarios, including that of a college student who maintains a "blog where he posts entries about his gaming experiences." If that student receives a console from a gaming company and posts a review, "the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge."

Mr. Cleland said the guidelines include posts on review sites such as Yelp or online stores such as Amazon, where the writer is being compensated in some way. That would include an employee of a restaurant giving it a stellar review, or the author of a book.

~ ~ ~
Contributing: Abbey Klaassen

2008 Hourly Billing Rates from the 4A's

2008 Hourly Billing Rates

	Average Hourly Rate Billed to Client
Position	50 or less employees	Over 500 employees
Director Client Services	$203	$533
Executive Director Account Planning	$240	$601
Executive Research Director	$266	$427
Chief Creative Director	$271	$964
Executive Media Director	$194	$478
Executive Director Print Production	$134	$391

Web Mentionables

Here is something I pulled from AdAge, however the metrics weren't clearly defined enough for me. Have a look though. It's definitely an interesting perspective.

Apple, Microsoft Are Megabrand Kingpins in Social Radar Index

Fox, AT&T, Dannon Round Out Top Five in Analysis of Online Conversations

BATAVIA, Ohio (AdAge.com) -- The Mac vs. PC war hasn't just played out on TV. It's also the biggest brand battle in social media.

For the month ended Sept. 25, Apple and Microsoft finished in the top two spots of the Social Radar Sentiment Index, a social-media analysis of Advertising Age's 200 Megabrands by Infegy. The firm tracks more than 20 million web pages, including all the leading social-media sites, and bases its index on comment volume, percentage of positive mentions and percentage of overall brand mentions within social-media that showed signs of sentiment.

Advertising Age's Top 200 Megabrands, ranked by social media conversation volume.

Apple beat Microsoft handily in the weighted index, largely on the basis of its overwhelming conversation volume, generating more than 900,000 mentions in a month. But Microsoft actually edged its seemingly hipper rival in percentage of conversation that was positive, and it still had the second-highest volume of any Megabrand for the month.

Tech, gaming, consumer electronics and telecom brands dominated the top 10, but Ford, the lone major U.S. automaker not to get a government bailout, slipped in at No. 8 with an 87.6% positive rate.

Getting a government bailout, though, didn't seem to hurt General Motors or its brands much. Five of its six brands had positive buzz rates of 80% or more, including the discontinued Pontiac. The laggard was Saturn -- which is being divested -- with a 70.6%. General Motors itself had a 71.4% positive rating.

Upsets
Seemingly low-involvement package goods weren't all that low on the Social Radar. SC Johnson's Glade came in at No. 21 with 165,000 mentions, 82.6% of them positive. Dove generated more than 141,000 comments, 81.6% positive, still appearing to benefit from the "Campaign for Real Beauty" and viral "Evolution" video three years after it first appeared. Dove beat rivals such as L'Oreal, Garnier, Neutrogena and Olay by factors 20 to 100 times or more in conversation volume.

Walmart (32) may be beating Target handily in the market, but Target (11) beat its rival 82.8% to 59.3% in percentage of positive commentary, despite Walmart's 141,000 to 107,000 edge in conversation volume. Among fast feeders, Sonic (26) was a surprise leader, beating McDonald's (34) and Burger King (76), despite the former's ubiquity and the latter's edgy ads.

Prescription drug brands generally came in very low both in conversation volume and percentage positive, with cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil turning in the lowest positive score among the 200 brands at 16.9%.

Infegy analyzes online buzz by the sentence, rather than just counting the number of positive words, in an effort to get a more accurate read on whether mentions are positive or negative, said President Adam Coomes. To validate its methods, Infegy compares its positive/negative rankings to those found in Gallup Polls on topical issues, he said.

By Jack Neff
Published: October 05, 2009

Also check out new social e-commerce site for artists: www.artistsforartists.com

PR Metrics Evolve to Show How Discipline Drives Sales

Rise of Social Media, Digital Spark Shift for Ms&L, Weber Shandwick

By Michael Bush
Published: October 05, 2009

Three keys for effective PR measurement:

Measurement is still very client- and industry-specific. But PR professionals say more and more they are finding commonalities across verticals that allow them to standardize a majority of their measurement programs. Here are three components an agency and client need to have in place in for effective PR measurement.

Client and agency must hammer out a clear understanding of the campaign's objective and what it is intended to affect (sales, reputation/brand equity, employees or public policy) to establish exactly what needs to be measured -- media impressions or engagement.

Find a "fit-for-purpose solution," as Joseph Russo, head of global research and measurement at Porter Novelli calls it, or an approach to measurement that takes into account the size of the PR program so that the measurement approach can be sized accordingly. The goal is to avoid spending more on measurement than the overall cost of the PR program.

Establish a clear communication of impact and results with the target in mind.