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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.