Posts filed under ‘Social media monitoring’
The study looks at what they call “vanity metrics” for online campaigns that they define as “data that are easily manipulated, are biased toward the short-term, often paint a rosy picture of program success, or do not help campaigners make wise strategic decisions”. Examples of vanity metrics include: number of petition signatures; web traffic, number of “opens” (of emails I guess).
So what do they recommend campaigns should be measuring?
They have plenty of good suggestions and insights. Here are some of the metrics they mentioned that could be more significant (and possible to measure online):
- Monthly members returning for action
- Actions per member (rather than size of lists)
- Number of members actively part of a campaign
It could have been predicted…The most sophisticated network mapping tool of social networks has been developed for espionage…
“A multinational security firm has secretly developed software capable of tracking people’s movements and predicting future behaviour by mining data from social networking websites.”
Avinash sets out metrics for the following areas:
- Economic Value
View his concept here, it’s interesting reading…
Digging deeper into their proposed standards, I found interesting their preliminary guidance on how to “standardise” the following terms, as I summarise here:
Reach & impressions: how to compare visits/viewers/circulation?
They caution against using any type of “multipliers” given that it is probably overestimated the number of people actually “viewing” content, e.g. an estimated 10% of your “friends” see your average Facebook post.
Opinion/advocacy: this needs to be broken down into types: e.g. “opinions” (it’s good), “recommendations” (try it), “feeling” (makes me feel good) intended action (going to do it).
Influence: it is multi level and multi-dimensional – difficult to rely on an automated measure alone.
Engagement: occurs after reach, consider it at different levels:
Low: Facebook “like”, Twitter “follows”
Medium: Blog/video comments, Twitter “retweets”
High: Facebook “shares”, original content/video posts created by users.
Read more about #SMMStandards Initiative here>>
At the recent AMEC Measurement Summit there was an interesting discussion on setting standards for social media – a group of specialists have been working on this for the past years – as more and more companies use social media and wonder how to measure the outcomes- and it would be useful if some common standards were set…View the presentation below for an update on the latest developments:
I’ve been looking into recently what constitutes a ” visit” or “action” on social media platforms. This may seem straightforward as on websites it’s well established what constitutes a “visitor“. However, in social media there is a lot of variation in what constitutes a “visitor” or “action”. Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in the Dealbook blog about what Facebook considers as a “visit”. He notes that Facebook says it has 483 million “daily active users”. Within this it counts visits to its web and mobile websites – which seems legitimate. But it also includes those who visit third party websites and click on a Facebook “Like” button; those who share a Twitter post on their Facebook page; and those who leave a comment on such a website that then gets fed into Facebook. Rightly so, Sorkin is astounded by including such “visits” (which largely inflates visitor numbers of course).
For me, Facebook should count these so called “active users” as “actions” – they are more so actions using Facebook features/tools but not actual visits to the website.
Measuring activity on Twitter also throws up some interesting questions. There are many services that measure activity on Twitter, mostly based on the use of the Twitter #hastags. You can find out all sorts of interesting statistics such as how many people used a hashtag, how many people and how many times they received a Tweet containing a hashtag, etc. For example, you can see that a hashtag generated by a campaign was used by 1000s of people that then reached millions. But what does that actually mean? In reality it means that millions have received a Tweet containing a hashtag that they may or may not have looked at – and the hashtag may or may not have been used in a Tweet in a way compatible or not with the original intention of the campaign that created it. So there is more work to be done as to what is the impact of message exposure through Twitter and other social media.
For those interested in this subject, here is an interesting post from Metrics Man on three fundamentals of social media measurement>>
There is an ongoing debate about setting standards for social media measurement. Here is an interesting contribution from the Measurement Standard that reports on a recent meeting of specialists in the US organised by PR measurement guru K.D Payne.
One conclusion which I agree with is the need for the so-called “Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP)” for social media reporting, particularly in defining the following areas:
- Reach /Engagement
- Impact and Value
Read more on the Measurement Standard >>