Canada Media Marketplace, Tim Marklein, April 12, 2010

1,825 views

Published on

This was my professional development presentation on "Evaluating & Measuring Online Media Coverage," presented April 12, 2010 to the travel PR and marketing leaders at Canada Media Marketplace in San Francisco, hosted by the Canadian Tourism Commission (Weber Shandwick client)

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,825
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
22
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Canada Media Marketplace, Tim Marklein, April 12, 2010

  1. 1. Evaluating Online Media Coverage + Getting “Inline” Canada Media Marketplace, SF April 12, 2010 Tim Marklein Executive VP, Measurement & Strategy tmarklein@webershandwick.com Twitter: @tmarklein Slide 1 -- April 12, 2010
  2. 2. Audience poll • How many of you are currently monitoring online media for your brand, city, resort, province, etc.? Slide 2 -- March 23, 2010
  3. 3. Audience poll • How many of you are as comfortable engaging online media as you are traditional media? Slide 3 -- March 23, 2010
  4. 4. Audience poll • How many of you are engaged in social media channels, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and/or others? Slide 4 -- March 23, 2010
  5. 5. Audience poll • How many of you have clearly defined goals for your online and social media engagement? Slide 5 -- March 23, 2010
  6. 6. 2009/2010 = Transformational time Economy : Cold Measurement : Hot Slide 6 – March 23, 2010
  7. 7. Current state of PR/comms measurement THE GOOD Everyone agrees: Measurement is important Basic standards, tools in place for measuring media CMOs, CFOs and CEOs are asking for more THE BAD Still lots of lip service without investment “What tool should I use?” – that’s the wrong question Quarterly reports are shelfware, don’t drive decisions THE UGLY Comms. metrics aren’t translated into executive terms Not enough definition or accountability for outcomes “Random acts of measurement” – not enough integration Source: Weber Shandwick Slide 7 -- March 23, 2010 Measurement & Strategy practice
  8. 8. Watershed moment: Moving beyond AVE • Oct’09: IPR Measurement Commission “condemns the name, concept and practice of ad value equivalencies” • No evidence that earned media space = paid media space • Simply measures media “cost,” doesn’t measure the “value” • Misused as a cheap proxy for ROI – distracts from outcomes • IPR and AMEC working on alternatives, transition plans • Shift focus to business outcomes – awareness, understanding, attitudes, behaviors, engagement, sales, market share, etc. • Always evaluate media quality and message, not just quantity • Options for comparative “cost” evaluation: CPM, targeted reach, “weighted media cost,” engagement/CPE, market mix analysis Slide 8 -- March 23, 2010
  9. 9. Traditional/digital integration: New metrics, data sources and concepts measures: Assess how content is accessed, shared, adapted, amplified across various sites and media properties measures: Assess the volume, engagement, sentiment and reach of content shared via the web. measures: Assess the paid and organic search rankings for company content, brands and keyword associations measures: Assess the volume, engagement, feedback and reach of content shared via company’s web properties measures: Analyze volume, content, sentiment of conversations about company/brands across sites, media measures: Assess audience, reach and “touch points” of company content/conversations across sites, media • Outcome measures: Assess how the content, conversation and community measures correlate with desired outcomes Source: Weber Shandwick Measurement & Strategy Slide 9 -- March 23, 2010 practice, “Inline” measurement framework
  10. 10. Traditional/digital integration: Media cross-over effects, in both directions Slide 10 -- March 23, 2010
  11. 11. Traditional/digital integration: The challenge of “scale” and how to adapt • What’s more valuable? • Chicago Tribune print story • WSJ.com online story • Industry blog post • Key considerations • Total impressions vs. targeted impressions • Total engagement vs. targeted engagement • Earned Media Value – consistency of source data • CPM vs. CPE – very different scales Slide 11 -- March 23, 2010
  12. 12. Online media: The integration challenge • Old world, meet new world • Integration of traditional, digital and social media • Integrating WOM and other new influence patterns • Silo #1, meet silo #2, silo #3, etc. • Integration of PR with other communication disciplines • Integration of PR with other marketing disciplines • Integration across business units, products, geographies • Measurement, meet strategy • Integration of metrics, data sources, tools, dashboards • Integration of data and insights into decision-making flow Slide 12 -- March 23, 2010
  13. 13. Measurement, meet strategy: “Insight” doesn’t live in silos, aggregation is key Media Media Web Keyword Analysis Analysis Analytics Analysis (traditional) (social) (site) (search) WOM Brand Customer Employee Analysis Tracking Satisfaction Satisfaction (surveys) (surveys) (surveys) (surveys) Lead Gen Events & Analyst Data & Ind. Awards & Sales data DM data Reports & Scorecards (CRM) (CRM) (third party) (third party) Source: Weber Shandwick Measurement & Strategy practice – Slide 13 -- March 23, 2010 ARROW Measurement Suite, February 2009
  14. 14. Integrating new influence patterns: Advocacy takes center stage More than just word-of-mouth… 45% ADVOCATES High intensity (9%) Sharing advice Low intensity (36%) Making recommendations 20% Making their loyalty visible BADVOCATES Reaching out broadly Making fast decisions INFLUENTIALS Taking action OPINION ELITES Slide 14 -- March 23, 2010 Source: Weber Shandwick’s New Wave of Advocacy™ with KRC Research, March 2007
  15. 15. Sounds great, right? Be careful what you wish for… Slide 15 -- April 12, 2010
  16. 16. …“badvocates” are everywhere, too… Slide 16 -- April 12, 2010
  17. 17. …and they wield significant influence Slide 17 -- April 12, 2010 Source: Weber Shandwick’s New Wave of Advocacy™ with KRC Research, March 2007
  18. 18. Integrating new influence patterns: Re-thinking channels, reach, influence “Inside” Advocacy Sources “Outside” Advocacy Sources DAY-TO-DAY HUB EXPERT HUB Who in their personal or work lives does What kinds of experts (specific people, your audience trust for information and categories of people, or specialized advice? publications) does your audience seek out when they want information Who in turn do they contact and and advice? influence? How does this contribute to their decision-making? What groups, clubs or networks What brands, celebrities or (online or offline) does your cultural trends have caught audience turn to for information the attention of your audience and advice? and are most influential in their decision-making? Who do they in turn communicate with? SOCIAL HUB MEGA HUB Slide 18 -- March 23, 2010 Source: Weber Shandwick & KRC Research
  19. 19. Integrating new influence patterns: We can’t assume or pretend they’re linear “Inside” Advocacy Sources “Outside” Advocacy Sources DAY-TO-DAY HUB EXPERT HUB Experts Sales Trade show Home E-mail Reps Telephone Podcasts Customer Service Work Vertical place Business Media Lifestyle SMS Media Media Pundits Mobile Brand WOM Authors Phone Website Social Blogs Branded Celebrity Organizations Entertainment Community Search VOD Print Direct Groups Mail Cable Social Clubs Social Broadcast Television Networks Television Branded Opinion Sites Radio Applications Business Internet TV Organizations ARG’s Video games SOCIAL HUB MEGA HUB Slide 19 -- March 23, 2010 Source: Weber Shandwick & KRC Research
  20. 20. Integrating new influence patterns: Customers aren’t necessarily who they seem SALES THOUGHT: Eric = $500K IT budget THE REALITY: Eric = $76M IT impact inside, $200M total in 40 companies $500,000 IT Budget Slide 20 -- March 23, 2010
  21. 21. Integrating new influence patterns: Tracking WOM conversation volume, quality Low Volume / High Quality High Volume / High Quality Nationwide Prudential Industry All State Average Quality of Advocacy (%) State Farm Metric Score Industry Share of Conversation 10% 4% Net Favorability -62% 18% Net Recommendation -24% 29% Propensity to Relay 31% 50% AIG Low Volume / Low Quality High Volume / Low Quality Share of Conversation (%) Source: Weber Shandwick Measurement & Strategy analysis, Slide 21 -- March 23, 2010 based on Keller Fay TalkTrackTM survey data Jan’08-Dec’08
  22. 22. Putting the data into context: An integrated measurement model activities reach relevance outcomes worth What activities Did you reach Were you What business What is the were performed your audience? relevant to your results did you estimated dollar to achieve How many audience? Were achieve? value of your results? impressions, you credible? Awareness? communication web visits, Did your ideas Engagement? efforts? What reports, and messages Reputation? was the ROI? attendees, etc. resonate? Did Leads? Sales? were you drive Loyalty? generated? conversation? Advocacy? Quantity/Output  Quality/Outtakes  Business Impact  Value/Efficiency Communications Team  Marketing Team  Executive Team Source: Weber Shandwick Measurement & Slide 22 -- March 23, 2010 Strategy practice, “ARROW” measurement model
  23. 23. Proving communications value: Focus on outcomes • Start by defining clear, precise, measurable goals • Even if you don’t think you can measure PR’s impact on the outcome, start with the assumption that you can – and then work backwards to figure out how to measure it • Anecdotal evidence • Data-based evidence • Correlation • Contribution • Causation • Read and internalize outcomes definitions from PRSA and IPR’s Measurement Commission http://comprehension.prsa.org/?p=628 Slide 23 -- March 23, 2010
  24. 24. Thank You!!! Email: tmarklein@webershandwick.com Blog: www.allaboutadvocacy.com Twitter: twitter.com/tmarklein - 24 -

×