Social Media Measurement (Continued)

Mike Trap wrote a great post today, “Measurement is for engineers. We just need consensus” that builds on my previous post on on social media measurement. It is an important addition to the conversation and so I’m highlighting it here for anyone interested in following this topic.

Mike brings up the point of the importance of consensus amongst marketers on quantitative measures of the value of social media, saying:

All we need is “consensus.” We need to discuss and agree on metrics which - whatever their shortcomings in the assessment of metaphysical truth - are at least consistent from program to program. That is the foundation of a “market,” as distinct from the “hobby” that most social media is today.

What do you think? Must we now accept the underlying variability of social media and the disparate marketing initiatives operating within it? Or is moving beyond that to consistent if flawed measures the next step in the development of this pre-adolescent medium?

I really liked the last two questions. I added these thoughts on Mike’s blog:

Hi Mike,

Thanks so much for discussing my post and adding to this conversation. You make some great points.

I quite agree with you that not every social media program is destined to be different. Things will undoubtedly converge toward best practices over time(i.e. as consensus forms on the best approaches).

My point on the “bread & water” concept is twofold: a) consensus is much easier to achieve when there is little to choose from in the first place and b) the quality of our measurement can be higher with more and better metrics.

With a greater abundance of metrics, programs, etc., comes a greater diversity of opinions from the experts and, therefore, a more difficult path to consensus. Some will even want to claim ownership of a certain approach all to themselves. The good news is that we have much more in the way of metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of our initiatives/efforts than we ever have.

I like your last two questions. The underlying variability of initiatives using social media is a current reality. Must we accept it? My sense is yes and no. On the one hand, I think and hope that we will see a growing consensus in some areas in terms of the adoption of certain consistent measures. On the other hand, we will also continue to see variability because we will continue to have innovation, experimentation, and the medium itself is constantly changing (giving us new metrics & tools), which is very different from traditional media.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this - what do you think it will take to instigate such a consensus?

It seems to me in the past that the problem started because something could not be measured at all and then an answer appeared, albeit imperfect, that turned darkness into light. So we all ran with it as the “best answer at the moment” - consensus. Our current situation, however, is not the absence of metrics, but rather the abundance (and diversity) of metrics. Also, with traditional media, there was a center stage, a central owner - institutions that owned the medium. You had to work with them and that also had a standard setting influence. The social web, however, has no center stage and the medium is not under institutional management, but operates as a community with no sheriff.

All that said, I do think you are right on where we will end up. I’d be interested in how you think such a consensus can or will form?

Cheers,
Marcel

Thanks for the great post, Mike and for adding your insight to this conversation.

 

 

Person Mike Trap

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

January 13th, 2009 - Posted in Social Media | | 3 Comments