A Method for Measuring Marketing Effectiveness in a Multi-Channel, Multi-Device, Fuzzy World

Posted on by

Over the past few months I’ve written several posts about the shift I see coming to analytics, marketing analysis and ROI measurement. As the digital funnel becomes clouded with the realities of complex shopping behavior, what once seemed so certain is now clearly anything but. Whether from multiple channels, the emergence of second, third and fourth screens, or the extension of the purchase window beyond the tracking duration, the path is littered with steps outside and back in revealing a far more complex loop than before. With all these changes coming together, I firmly expect that any business involving real consideration time, any product with a choice of paths, will find directly attributable sales less and less meaningful and more a distraction to identify only the end and not the source of motivation.

Even still, marketing should not be about hunches or favorites, what we “think”, or “just know”. Those are only useful in where to start, what to test first. After that, it has become, and should be, about something you can compare, even if on different basis as, even a cloudy path is still littered with many indicators pointing the ay.

To that effect, I’ve started mapping out a set of factors that, when adjusted to the particulars of a campaign and business, should bring a means for measurement that’s something beyond the fuzziness of “awareness” or “reach” of traditional marketing and yet more honest about the nature of conversions than the current view -> click -> sale approach. A method for measuring very different campaigns into a very standard outcome.

1. Outside Indicators:

    • Views of an ad x Format
    • Format
      • 1 = Text
      • 2 = Text + Image
      • 3 = Small banner
      • 4 = Large Banner
      • 5 = Interactive Media
      • 5 = Page take over
    • Type of reach
      • 1 = Run of Web
      • 2 = Run of a Related Site
      • 2 = Rough Targeting
      • 3 = Advanced Targeting
    • Type of visitor
      • Goal for new / repeat audience by campaign

2. Activity to the Site:

      • Visits to Site
      • CPV = Cost Per Visitor x Weighting Factor
      • Duration of Stay (time x pageviews)
      • Reduction of alternative interest visitors (CS / support / unqualified)

3. Actions Towards the Goal:

      • 1 – 2 = Intermediate Soft Actions
        • Configurator / Product Selection
        • Quote Request / Pricing Pull
        • Social / Email Share
      • 1.5 – 3 = Intermediate Hard Actions
        • Email Sign Up
        • Social Follow
        • Lead Form / Download
        • Wishlist / Gift List
      • Multi-Channel Actions
        • Store Lookup / Stock check
        • Phone activity
      • Indirect (assisted channel) Sales / Sign Ups x Weighting Factor
        • Direct Sales / Sign Ups

4. Adjustments for Exposure Type:

      • Subjective comments based on the campaign nature & goal
      • Positives: Social Campaign, Partnership (high residual, low conversion expectation)
      • Negatives: Direct Response, Retargeting (low residual, high conversion expectation)
      • Weighting Factor = Criteria / 100

5. Pulling It All Together

      • Effective Reach = Duration x CPV x View Count
      • Effective Value = Soft Actions + Hard Actions + Indirect + Direct
      • Adjusted for weighting factor
      • Divided by visitor count

While I’ve always tracked marketing campaigns across a range of metrics, this is my first stab at weighting it together into a formula so please, let me know what you think… What am I missing? Over stating? Or perhaps you have something to say about my underlying assumption in the first place? Either way comment below.

Selling Social Media Up the Chain: Drop the Buzz, Talk About the Benefits

Posted on by

We all know the conversation: some executive or high ranked colleague starts talking about how Twitter is all about your day, Instagram photos of your food, Facebook who you’re dating, and next thing you know they’re asking how any of that could be related to business. While it sounds ridiculous, if we want to be taken seriously, we need an answer… anything that uses resources does.

Since the days of forums, I’ve tried just about every argument to get past this point and make social stick. From case studies to stats customer adoption and big world news, there’s a lot to say, but to someone who isn’t a common user, it’s still just buzz words… the hot trend of the day and that doesn’t tend to get you far.

Continue reading →

Please, don’t use that reply ever again [there's nothing "social" about canned].

Posted on by

It’s fantastic to see how quickly “social” is growing with everyone down to the local flower shop getting involved in driving reviews, photos, check-ins, and all sorts of other activities. But, as social goes mainstream, we all run the risk of turning engagement into a checkbox action item… a task done for the sake of being done… and nothing shows that more than the same thank you / apology / follow up message getting repeated time and time again.

Sure all of us “strategists” told you to respond, and yes, a comment back to everything does seem nice but this is not some in person interaction where a script is heard and forgotten; what is said is there forever. Just look on the hotel reviews sites where guest comments get the same affirmation time after time. On social networks, it’s someone thanking people for every comment, contributing, or whatever, with a response the last guy got. Anyone who thinks they’re going to interact, is aware within seconds that all they’re getting is filler and that’s not very “social.” Continue reading →