Daily Archives: March 8, 2015

Is Social Media Actually Helping Your Company’s Bottom Line?

image

When it comes to business, we talk too much about social media and expect too little. It’s like the old joke about sales people: one person says, “I made some valuable contacts today,” and the other responds, “I didn’t get any orders, either.” Companies measure the market results of their sales investments. But few have measures or even have accountable managers in place for their social media investments, and only 7% say their organizations “understand the exact value at stake from digital.” Meanwhile, according to a Gallup survey, 62% of U.S. adults who use social media say these sites have no influence on their purchasing decisions and only 5% say they have a great deal of influence.

Consider:

The most common metrics for evaluating social media are likes, tweets, reviews, and click-through-rates (CTRs) for online ads – not cause-and-effect links between the medium and market results. The basic investment logic is typically no deeper than a version of “Fifty million tweets or likes can’t be wrong” . . . or can they? There is justifiable skepticism about this data. Farming services spike these numbers, with evidence that one in three online reviews is fake. For $50, you can buy 1,000 Likes, 5,000 Twitter followers, or 200 Google +1s. With real people, moreover, 8% of internet users account for 85% of clicks on display ads, and 85% of social media updates come from less than 30% of a company’s social-media audience. One online reviewer, Harriet Klausner, has reviewed more than 25,000 books.
A Forrester study found that posts from top brands on Twitter and Facebook reach just 2% of their followers (note: that’s followers, not new customers) and only 0.07% of those followers actually interact with those posts. As others have noted, people are more likely to complete a Navy Seal training program or climb Mount Everest than click on a banner ad.
There are, as always, opportunity costs. Since 2008, according to a McKinsey study, companies have devoted more time and money to social networks and 20% less to e-mail communications. Yet, the same study found that humble e-mail remains a more effective way to acquire customers – nearly 40 times more effective than Facebook and Twitter combined. Why? Because 90% of U.S. consumers use email daily and the average order value is 17% higher than purchases attributable to those social media.
Technology changes fast – remember MySpace and Friendster? – but consumer behavior changes more slowly. As a result, people tend to overhype new technologies and misallocate resources, especially marketers.

When banner ads first appeared their CTR was 10%, but that soon fell due to heavy usage by firms, and clutter. Research has long demonstrated that ad elasticities are generally very low, that firms often persist with ineffective ad media (because they have the wrong measures or no measures), and that companies routinely over-spend on ads (due to ad agency incentives, the fact that ad expenses are tax-deductible, and companies’ use-it-or-lose-it budgeting processes). Other research indicates that traditional offline consumer opinion surveys (when they use representative samples) are better at predicting sales than clicks, number of website visits or page views, positive or negative social media conversations, and search (although online behavior is good at tracking the reasons behind week-to-week changes in sales.)

With new media, therefore, great expectations are common and missing the goal is understandable: it takes practice and learning. But changing or dismantling the goal posts is a different story.

It’s now common to say that social media is “really” about awareness, not sales. Companies that “get” social media should be “relentless givers [who] connect instead of promote.” In fact, forget “traditional” ROI (that lovely qualifier), focus on consumer use of social media and, instead of calculating the returns in terms of customer response, measure the number of visits with that social media application. How convenient: to be evaluated with a metric without tangible marketplace outcomes. But it’s wrong, a circular argument, and smart companies should not follow this flawed business logic.

The value of any advertising, online or offline, depends on what effects it has on purchases. As Bill Bernbach, David Ogilvy, and other ad execs have emphasized, “our job is to sell our clients’ merchandise, not ourselves.” Those effects are difficult to measure, because consumers buy (or not) for many different reasons and even good ads in the right media have both carryover and wear-out effects that vary over the product life cycle and an ad campaign. But to justify an investment by activity and not outcomes is a tautology – we advertise because we advertise – not a meaningful business argument.

Even an activity measure, moreover, assumes the consumer can see the ad. Did you know that a display ad is deemed “viewable” if at least half of each ad is visible on your computer or smart phone for a minimum of one second? Data released in 2014 by comScore indicated that more than half of online display ads appear on parts of a web page that are not viewable. In response, the Interactive Advertising Bureau noted that for various reasons 100% viewability is “not yet possible,” but the industry should aim for 70%. In other words, hope that “only” 30% of your intended ads are not seen by anyone for at least a second!

Further, what we now know about shopping and social media activity says that online and offline behavior interact. They’re complements, not substitutes, and you ignore these interactions at your peril. The vast majority of communications on social media sites are between friends who are within 10 miles of each other. The same is true about the available data on buying behavior. As Wharton professor David Bell documents, the way people use the internet is largely shaped by where they live, the presence of stores nearby, their neighbors, and local sales taxes.

For years now, we have heard big talk about the big data behind big investments in social media. Let’s see who is behind the curtain. It’s time to expect more from social media and prove it. The Association of Advertising Agencies has refused to endorse the 70% goal and wants 100% viewability, which means if an advertiser buys 1 million impressions from a site, that site must display that ad as many times as it takes to ensure a million viewable impressions. In 2014, The Economist guaranteed those who buy space on its apps and website that readers will spend a certain amount of time there. For instance, it will guarantee that a site containing an ad appearing for three weeks will receive X hours of readers’ attention – documenting, not assuming, engagement with the medium.

Other companies try to trace the links (or not) between online platforms and sales outcomes. They buy point-of-sale data from retailers and have systems that purport to match Facebook or Twitter IDs, for example, with a given campaign and subsequent retail sales for a product. The validity of these approaches is still to be determined. And the FTC has raised concerns about privacy issues and disclosure practices, and has urged Congress to pass legislation to give consumers the right to opt out. But shining light on what does and doesn’t happen here will be a good thing.

Business success requires linking customer-acquisition efforts with a coherent strategy. You can’t do that if you are not clear about the differences between hype and reality when it comes to buying and selling. And we should care about this distinction for reasons that go far beyond making even more ads more viewable. Companies’ abilities to make better use of their resources are important for society, not only shareholders. It spurs productivity, and productivity – not just tweets and selfies – is what spurs growth.

HBR

Advertisements

Trevorrow, Spielberg reunite for sci-fi thriller

image

Los Angeles, March 8: “Jurassic World” director Colin Trevorrow has re-teamed with filmmaker Steven Spielberg for a new sci-fi thriller film “Intelligent Life”.

Trevorrow co-wrote “Intelligent Life” with his “Jurassic World” partner Derek Connolly, reports aceshowbiz.com.

Spielberg and Frank Marshall will be co-producing “Intelligent Life”, which is based on “The Ambassador”, an earlier concept Trevorrow and Connolly originally plotted as a sequel for their debut movie “Safety Not Guaranteed”.

The film follows a United Nations worker in a department that was to represent humankind in the event of alien contact. The man falls in love with a mysterious woman who turns out to be an alien.

BC

29 Percent of Sri Lanka Female Journos Experienced Work Place Sexual Harassment

image

COLOMBO: Almost 29 percent of Sri Lankan female journalists have experienced sexual harassment in the work place according to the latest survey conducted by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).

Dilrukshi Handunnetti, the author of the survey report, told Express on Sunday, that out of the 45 female respondents, 13 (ie: 28.8 percent ) said that they had experienced sexual harassment in the work place.

But this could well be the tip of the iceberg as most cases are not reported, for a variety of reasons. Such incidents are brushed under the carpet partly because there is lack of support from colleagues, female as well as male; and partly because complaints lodged are generally ignored by the organization.

One of the victims, a Colombo-based English language journalist, told Handunnetti: “When I complained to the department head that I was being harassed sexually by the Associate Editor, there were other men who were old enough to be my father, advising me not to upset colleagues. When I objected to lack of action by the Head, I was offered free advice by other men, who told me to avoid spitting on my own face by raising these issues.”

Shockingly, the victim’s female colleagues advised her to ignore the incident “for the sake of peace.” But the last straw was when her Department Head asked her to withdraw her complaint and sign a document claiming she had “misunderstood” the situation.

Three other journos, including two in supervisory positions, had their buttocks touched by a middle-aged male colleague. But they did not complain because their colleagues described the act as “normal male behavior”.

More than half of the women who had experienced sexual harassment (69.23 percent) said that the perpetrator was a colleague; 30.77 percent said it was a superior and 15.38 percent said it was an interview subject.

“The absence of complaints and redress mechanisms contributes to the reluctance on the part of women to complain against incidents of sexual harassment, ” Handunnetti further said.

TNIE

White House on lockdown after loud bang: pool report

image
The White House was put on lockdown on Saturday after a loud noise was heard on the South Lawn moments before President Barack Obama and his family were due to take off by helicopter, a White House pool report said on Saturday.

It said the noise prompted Secret Service agents to move the press back into the briefing room, lock the doors and put the building on lockdown.
Obama and his family were not yet on the South Lawn when the noise was heard.

“Lockdown continues, although it doesn’t appear as though there’s a high level of consternation among Secret Service walking outside,” the pool report added later.

No further details were immediately available.

Obama and his family were about to depart by helicopter to Andrews Air Force Base to board Air Force One and travel to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a civil rights march.

DH

%d bloggers like this: