![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Vol.
6, No. 10, Feb 2008|
To The Editor
| Subscribe | Back
Issues |
MeasuresOfSuccess.com | Masthead |
Advisory Board | Reprint
Information | |
||
To return to the current issue's contents page, click here. To return to the contents page of the issue that this article appeared in, click here. Comments
Please! |
The Paine of Measurement
Why
Are Political Lawn Signs Like YouTube Downloads? Ever wondered what the effectiveness of political lawn signs is? Supposedly, every lawn sign represents six votes for the candidate. Or maybe ten votes, depending on what you read. And there's a theory in political circles that if you can get someone to put out a lawn sign, then that person is committed enough to not just vote for you, but also to encourage his or her friends to vote for you as well. So, each additional lawn sign means more than just one more vote, it means more of something even more valuable and a lot more difficult to pin down: more loyalty or commitment or what we in communications call engagement. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a scientific study of how lawn sign displays influence voting habits. But my completely unscientific study of New Hampshire lawns this fall more or less predicted the outcome of our First in the Nation primary: Everywhere you went there were lots of Obama and Ron Paul signs, and both did much better than the polls predicted. Now let's transfer this scenario into the world of social media. Can online measures of engagement predict votes? I argue that they can and have done so recently:
And in the end, Obama did better in the primaries than the early polls suggested. The primary results have proven that Obama has a stronger than expected following, as hinted at by the strong online engagement we found. The point here about engagement is bigger than just politics. How and why is engagement a stronger or different measure than just impressions? If, by joining a group, rating a video, or following someone on Twitter, you are actually thinking or behaving differently than if you just viewed an ad or a message, then measuring these signs of engagement is critical to every marketer. In order to hang on to advertising dollars, media companies will need to provide this data. And the good news is that the data is there, they just need to release it. And finally, I can't help but see engagement as a kind of bridge between measuring outputs and measuring relationships. (Most of you are aware of my recently published book Measuring Public Relationships, learn more here.) If you measure an output like impressions, you only know what has happened to an audience. But if you measure engagement, you are measuring what is done by an audience as the result of their relationship with your output. How does measuring engagement fit in with measuring relationships? That's a good question, let me know if you have the answer. Here's wishing you large measures of success,
|
|
||
|
|
Three Reasons Why You Should Subscribe to The Measurement Standard: 1. Youll learn how to use hard numbers to prove the results of your PR efforts. (Plus, it's free.) 2. Youll learn which are the right vendors for your measurement projects. (Yes, it's free.) 3. Youll learn how to design your program right from the start to be easily measureable. (Plus, yes, it's free.) |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
177 Main Street, Berlin, NH 03570 |
|||