- Image via Wikipedia
Esquire – the greatest magazine in human history – has a monthly column called “The Indefensible Position.” In it a writer argues against conventional wisdom, often against the ethos of the magazine itself, as a way of challenging readers and revealing bias. It’s like a little blast of cold air each month, and some of my favorites include:
- Road Rage Is Good For Humanity
- Michael Douglas is the Actor of Our Time
- Imitation Syrup is Better Than The Real Thing
In this same spirit of constructive provocation, I’d like to take an indefensible position of my own.
It is this: “Engagement” is bullshit.
My argument stands on 3 pillars; Conceptual, Practical, and Observational.
Conceptually speaking…
Engagement is the means, and not the end. As David Meerman Scott is fond of pointing out, social media is a cocktail party. For brands it’s the kind of cocktail party at a Vegas trade show, though, not the kind at the Johnson’s up the street.
This is not to say brands need behave in social media like shiny-suited vodka jockeys with porn star mustaches and a stack of crisp singles. No. My point is simply that brands pay to play in social media not for the play itself, but – as with any marketing medium – to change what some meaningful number of people think, feel, or do.
Practically speaking…
Our attempts to measure something as abstract and internal as Engagement invariably lead to convoluted logic and precarious assertions. Does more content always equal more value? Is staying longer always better? Is a Re-Tweet worth more than a Follow? On one level I understand the cottage industry such questions are spawning. But on another, who gives a flying hoo-ha?
Which brings me to my Observation.
Talk to the head of a business. It can be a small business, like a local restaurant or salon, or a big business, like a national brand, or packaged goods manufacturer. The plain truth is that the guys who write the checks in these businesses don’t write them to increase Engagement. They care about sales, brand perception, coupon redemption, survey response rates, and maybe genuine product insights.
If social marketing wants a seat at the grown-up table, those are the needles it needs to move. If Engagement provides some kind of leading indicator on those things, then use it. But in doing so don’t forget that while the social equity we build through participation creates the potential for value, in the end it’s all about activation.
So, measurement mavens… How is this wrong?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Creating a World Wide Rave (marketing.blogtanker.com)
- Creating a World Wide Rave (ducttapemarketing.com)
- International Social Media and Online Marketing Event, Wellington: Marketing NOW! (seomashup.blogspot.com)
- The Power Behind Social Media (marketing.blogtanker.com)
- Your Brand Is Not Batman (rohitbhargava.typepad.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8d9124ef-89e8-47bd-97be-b56e5eba2bfb)
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Right on Mike – my feelings exactly.
'Engagement' is a good thing – but if you can't measure it, you can't manage it – and the CFO isn't going to fund it. Period.
Right on Mike – my feelings exactly.
'Engagement' is a good thing – but if you can't measure it, you can't manage it – and the CFO isn't going to fund it. Period.
I think the question / statement needs to be modified, or else the wording becomes all wrong with this portion:
"don’t write them to increase Engagement. They care about sales, brand perception, coupon redemption, survey response rates, and maybe genuine product insights."
What is engagement if it is not sales, brand perception, coupon redemption, survey response rates, and maybe genuine product insights?
I'm probably on the "strange end" of social media measurement since my team works from the audit and competitive end of different departments in larger companies. I am not a fan of "fluffy" and most of the business driving metrics that can be affected by social media occur within internal communication and competitive information collection channels (IMHO)
I think the question / statement needs to be modified, or else the wording becomes all wrong with this portion:
"don’t write them to increase Engagement. They care about sales, brand perception, coupon redemption, survey response rates, and maybe genuine product insights."
What is engagement if it is not sales, brand perception, coupon redemption, survey response rates, and maybe genuine product insights?
I'm probably on the "strange end" of social media measurement since my team works from the audit and competitive end of different departments in larger companies. I am not a fan of "fluffy" and most of the business driving metrics that can be affected by social media occur within internal communication and competitive information collection channels (IMHO)
Hi Mike –
I'm not sure I agree completely. Yes, sales are obviously critically important but if a customer get to the transaction and they are not also brand advocate as well, companies miss an important thing. In this age where you need a network of employees and customers to help spread positive information, the transaction alone is not enough.
Also – from a more theoretical perspective – as society moves up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we want more meaning out of the choices we make and again, buying something without the associated feeling that it brings us something more ephemeral than the thing itself is becoming more important and that type of thing can only be transferred to customers via engagement.
We've had chats about this – I think margin-based businesses will have to become more mission-based. Maybe that is wishful thinking because of my own interested and the current economy will stall some of the movement in that direction but I do think meaning and mission is becoming more important in the business equation.
Rachel,
I have long said that our economy is the greatest proving ground for Maslow in recalled history. I disagree that we should move to a mission based economy, I just recognize that to some extent we have moved away from margin based fundamentals. In many ways it defines our current economic plight, while much of the world is becoming better at driving margin we are taking ourselves out of the game.
I believe social media allows us to engage in new ways, but we need to use it to create activiation that leverages the only real advantage we have anymore, productivity. Productivity below the gross margin line is incredibly important to the restructuring of our economy, while driving gros margin above it.
Maslow addresses human desire, fueled by security, to move up the heirarchy. That is at the core of the American dream, but I think we need to remember that the security can be fleeting if we move too far away from the fundamentals that created it.
Just some thoughts.
Hi Mike –
I'm not sure I agree completely. Yes, sales are obviously critically important but if a customer get to the transaction and they are not also brand advocate as well, companies miss an important thing. In this age where you need a network of employees and customers to help spread positive information, the transaction alone is not enough.
Also – from a more theoretical perspective – as society moves up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we want more meaning out of the choices we make and again, buying something without the associated feeling that it brings us something more ephemeral than the thing itself is becoming more important and that type of thing can only be transferred to customers via engagement.
We've had chats about this – I think margin-based businesses will have to become more mission-based. Maybe that is wishful thinking because of my own interested and the current economy will stall some of the movement in that direction but I do think meaning and mission is becoming more important in the business equation.
Rachel,
I have long said that our economy is the greatest proving ground for Maslow in recalled history. I disagree that we should move to a mission based economy, I just recognize that to some extent we have moved away from margin based fundamentals. In many ways it defines our current economic plight, while much of the world is becoming better at driving margin we are taking ourselves out of the game.
I believe social media allows us to engage in new ways, but we need to use it to create activiation that leverages the only real advantage we have anymore, productivity. Productivity below the gross margin line is incredibly important to the restructuring of our economy, while driving gros margin above it.
Maslow addresses human desire, fueled by security, to move up the heirarchy. That is at the core of the American dream, but I think we need to remember that the security can be fleeting if we move too far away from the fundamentals that created it.
Just some thoughts.
Sorry, I think there's a flaw with your argument.
Here's my logic:
1. Everyone's getting pitched on something by someone they don't know or barely know. Marketing fatigue is deeper than ever.
2. The average person is WAY busier than in past years. (Look at hrs per week worked, cost of homes relative to hh income, day care attendance trends as a % of the pop, etc).
3. In order to buy from you (the needle that matters most) they need to know you, trust you, believe in you – and, in many cases, need to have arrived at that conclusion from sources Other than you.
4. In any in-person selling situation (auto, higher ed, professional services, etc.), social media engagement metrics can demonstrate credibility and trust. Sales people can actually point to the proof of their pitch by pointing to a screen showing vibrant online activity. I've seen this up close several times.
5. In consumer-focused businesses, engagement is a vital leading indicator of upcoming sales. If they're not buzzing about you online, it stands to reason that they're not going to be buying from you online, either.
So, maybe what you really mean to say is, "if social media marketers want to sit at the big table, they need to directly and convincingly connect social media metrics (like engagement) to those matter, such as brand perception, sales, etc etc."
Making that connection would be powerful for businesses, because it would provide an important leading indicator that would allow executives to course-correct. Alternatively, it would also allow them to make cost-savings decisions.
In both client-side and agency-side roles, I was fortunate enough to work with leadership that intuitively understood this connection, but didn't have an "engagement index" from which to draw correlations.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
I don't think we're far apart here. I'll concede that "engagement" can have value as a leading indicator of more concrete objectives, if you'll concede that contact which begins and *ends* with "engagement" has little or no business value.
Sorry, I think there's a flaw with your argument.
Here's my logic:
1. Everyone's getting pitched on something by someone they don't know or barely know. Marketing fatigue is deeper than ever.
2. The average person is WAY busier than in past years. (Look at hrs per week worked, cost of homes relative to hh income, day care attendance trends as a % of the pop, etc).
3. In order to buy from you (the needle that matters most) they need to know you, trust you, believe in you – and, in many cases, need to have arrived at that conclusion from sources Other than you.
4. In any in-person selling situation (auto, higher ed, professional services, etc.), social media engagement metrics can demonstrate credibility and trust. Sales people can actually point to the proof of their pitch by pointing to a screen showing vibrant online activity. I've seen this up close several times.
5. In consumer-focused businesses, engagement is a vital leading indicator of upcoming sales. If they're not buzzing about you online, it stands to reason that they're not going to be buying from you online, either.
So, maybe what you really mean to say is, "if social media marketers want to sit at the big table, they need to directly and convincingly connect social media metrics (like engagement) to those matter, such as brand perception, sales, etc etc."
Making that connection would be powerful for businesses, because it would provide an important leading indicator that would allow executives to course-correct. Alternatively, it would also allow them to make cost-savings decisions.
In both client-side and agency-side roles, I was fortunate enough to work with leadership that intuitively understood this connection, but didn't have an "engagement index" from which to draw correlations.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
I don't think we're far apart here. I'll concede that "engagement" can have value as a leading indicator of more concrete objectives, if you'll concede that contact which begins and *ends* with "engagement" has little or no business value.
Way to go Mike! It's not so much that engagement is bullshit, it's just that it is only a component of selling. Many social media pretenders are trying to make it out to BE the "solution." You need to Trap the customer (hee hee) — or engage them — but then you need to sell them. My pops, back in the day, wrote lots of articles in Ad Age about engagement. It was his thing. Today, I'm so tired of the term. It's pop marketing. Next up: authenticity.
Way to go Mike! It's not so much that engagement is bullshit, it's just that it is only a component of selling. Many social media pretenders are trying to make it out to BE the "solution." You need to Trap the customer (hee hee) — or engage them — but then you need to sell them. My pops, back in the day, wrote lots of articles in Ad Age about engagement. It was his thing. Today, I'm so tired of the term. It's pop marketing. Next up: authenticity.
I'm a few thousand years late to this discussion, so forgive me.
In television, “engagement” has a rigid, well-defined meaning, and a strict methodology to measure it. Nielsen's IAG (http://www.iagr.net) has proven time and time again that real engagement on TV translates directly to sales.
In TV “engagement” is science.
Online, “engagement” is an undefined, amorphous notion that some number of people are paying attention to us in some way or other and that somehow all that stuff adds up in a way that's magically delicious and creates sales.
Online, “engagement” is absolute 100% grade D bullshit.
While I'd love to see a similar methodology applied to Social Media, I doubt that this is possible. For TV, there's a defined and limited number of programming hours in the day. This isn't true online. I have no idea how you can make it work, though you can bet Nielsen is trying.
Also, engagement is fundamentally different online, especially when a person is highly task-focused. I believe engagement can actually work *against* advertising online (http://tjcnyc.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/inattent…)
To get a seat at the grown-up table, happy thoughts and Tweets about unicorns and rainbows aren't enough.
Here's a challenge for my friends in Social Media. Please either:
A) Find a way to make “engagement” as clearly-defined online and methodologically sound as it is on TV; or
B) Quit using it because it's a meaningless buzzword that doesn't advance the cause.
I'm a few thousand years late to this discussion, so forgive me.
In television, “engagement” has a rigid, well-defined meaning, and a strict methodology to measure it. Nielsen's IAG (http://www.iagr.net) has proven time and time again that real engagement on TV translates directly to sales.
In TV, “engagement” is science.
Online, “engagement” is an undefined, amorphous notion that some number of people are paying attention to us in some way or other and that somehow all that stuff adds up in a way that's magically delicious and creates sales.
Online, “engagement” is absolute 100% grade D bullshit.
While I'd love to see a similar methodology applied to Social Media, I doubt that this is possible. For TV, there's a defined and limited number of programming hours in the day. This isn't true online. I have no idea how you can make it work, though you can bet Nielsen is trying.
Also, engagement is fundamentally different online, especially when a person is highly task-focused. I believe engagement can actually work *against* advertising online (http://tjcnyc.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/inattent…)
To get a seat at the grown-up table, happy thoughts and Tweets about unicorns and rainbows aren't enough.
Here's a challenge for my friends in Social Media. Please either:
A) Find a way to make “engagement” as clearly-defined online and methodologically sound as it is on TV; or
B) Quit using it because it's a meaningless buzzword that doesn't advance the cause.
{ 1 trackback }