Communilytics is the act of measuring the acquisition, mobilization, contagion and outcomes of your online communities, whether on your own platform or someone elses.
We don’t know if this term has been coined yet – if not, then I guess we just did.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
Here’s the simplest possible analytics model.
This is a “funnel” -- the usual way to visualize the conversion of web visitors to folks who do what you want them to.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
For example, the number of people who come to a site, but then leave right away, is called the Bounce Rate.
In addition to bounce rate,
There are KPIs for shopping cart abandonment
Or traffic volumes
Or volume of comments
Or content creation rate
There are other things that happen before the visitors come to the site, we see that there are many other factors that form what we call a “long funnel.” They’re all part of a campaign. For example... (clicks) What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
There are other things that happen before the visitors come to the site, we see that there are many other factors that form what we call a “long funnel.” They’re all part of a campaign. For example... (clicks) What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
There are other things that happen before the visitors come to the site, we see that there are many other factors that form what we call a “long funnel.” They’re all part of a campaign. For example... (clicks) What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
There are other things that happen before the visitors come to the site, we see that there are many other factors that form what we call a “long funnel.” They’re all part of a campaign. For example... (clicks) What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
There are other things that happen before the visitors come to the site, we see that there are many other factors that form what we call a “long funnel.” They’re all part of a campaign. For example... (clicks) What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
ALISTAIR START Consider two key attributes of your community’s members: Followers and reach. Followers is “naive” popularity; Reach is their ability to deliver the goods.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
But it’s not this simple. In addition to followers, we have to consider reach. In a Twitter model, for example, each community member may amplify things. I’m much more likely to amplify certain people than others.
(If you think this isn’t the case, then ask: Why is Twitter formalizing Retweets? Simple -- this is how you calculate Pagerank for people, which you can then monetize. And why )
Let’s talk for a minute about what a community might do.
It might spread a message to others
If that message is popular and interesting, it will amplify itself
It might accomplish a goal you want it to achieve
It might accomplish a goal you want it to achieve
It might accomplish a goal you want it to achieve
It might accomplish a goal you want it to achieve
It might accomplish a goal you want it to achieve
It might accomplish a goal you want it to achieve
The goal might even be to help other people become community members (enrolling, subscribing, and so on)
The goal might even be to help other people become community members (enrolling, subscribing, and so on)
The goal might even be to help other people become community members (enrolling, subscribing, and so on)
The goal might even be to help other people become community members (enrolling, subscribing, and so on)
Well, each of those users has a chance of turning their impression into a goal conversion.
Putting all of this together, we can start to imagine a communilytics funnel that reaches far beyond traditional web funnels, and incorporates measures of spread, amplification, and reach.
Putting all of this together, we can start to imagine a communilytics funnel that reaches far beyond traditional web funnels, and incorporates measures of spread, amplification, and reach.
Putting all of this together, we can start to imagine a communilytics funnel that reaches far beyond traditional web funnels, and incorporates measures of spread, amplification, and reach.
Putting all of this together, we can start to imagine a communilytics funnel that reaches far beyond traditional web funnels, and incorporates measures of spread, amplification, and reach.
While you’re watching communities to see what they say about you, you may as well see what they’re saying about your competitors.
For example, a community you want to spread a message to virally means you have to focus on making it easy to amplify the message.
By contrast, a campaign like a fundraiser might involve a small, influential set of seeders who have considerable reach.
If you want a community to do something (like signing a petition) you care about the ratio of impressions to clicks a lot.
We built a simple website encouraging people to “buy their country a beer” on Canada Day
We launched the event by mentioning it, knowing others were ready to amplify and seed the message. But we (I) made a mistake -- anyone see it?
Over time, the message spread. We used tools like Streamgraph to understand what was being said, and join in with the conversation according to the sentiment.
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
We reached prominent online personalities -- though it was only around 20, they had hundreds of thousands of followers, giving us a 1:35,000 seed ratio. A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high. The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”! We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
Very spiky traffic profile reflects the short-lived campaign.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
Most community management processes involve several stages, starting with the creation of something (a message, an offer, a destination.) Then, as you’re engaging a community, or running a campaign, you’re constantly adjusting, tweaking, amplifying, and mitigating what’s happening. The message is out of your control, but you’re shepherding it.
What Is Communilytics? : A community analytics funnel in practicePresentation Transcript
Communilytics
Or: if you Tweet it, will they come?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3330228604/
Everybody has goals.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itsgreg/446061432/
com⋅mu⋅ni⋅lyt⋅ics (kə-myōō'nĭ-lĭt'ĭks):
Communilytics is the act of measuring the
acquisition, mobilization, and contagion of
online communities and tying them to
business outcomes.
ATTENTION
SEARCHES
TWEETS
MENTIONS
ADS SEEN
ATTENTION
SEARCHES
TWEETS NUMBER
MENTIONS OF VISITS
ADS SEEN
ATTENTION
SEARCHES
TWEETS NUMBER
MENTIONS OF VISITS
ADS SEEN LOSS
BOUNCE
RATE
ATTENTION
NEW
VISITORS
SEARCHES GROWTH
TWEETS NUMBER
MENTIONS OF VISITS
ADS SEEN LOSS
BOUNCE
RATE
ATTENTION ENGAGEMENT
NEW
VISITORS
SEARCHES GROWTH
NUMBER PAGES
TWEETS
PER
MENTIONS OF VISITS VISIT
ADS SEEN LOSS
BOUNCE
RATE
ATTENTION ENGAGEMENT
NEW
VISITORS
SEARCHES GROWTH
NUMBER PAGES TIME
TWEETS
PER ON
MENTIONS OF VISITS VISIT SITE
ADS SEEN LOSS
BOUNCE
RATE
ATTENTION ENGAGEMENT CONVERSION
NEW
VISITORS
SEARCHES GROWTH CONVERSION
PAGES TIME RATE
TWEETS NUMBER
OF VISITS
PER ON x
MENTIONS VISIT SITE
GOAL
ADS SEEN LOSS
VALUE
BOUNCE
RATE
Unpaid search Community Email Banner ad
mentions campaign
Visits
Shopping cart
Payment options
Conversions
Unpaid search Community Email Banner ad
mentions campaign
• Google PageRank
• Sessions-to-clicks
ratio
Unpaid search Community Email Banner ad
mentions campaign
• Google PageRank • Cost of ads
• Sessions-to-clicks (CPM)
ratio • Clickthrough
rate
Unpaid search Community Email Banner ad
mentions campaign
• Google PageRank • Open rate • Cost of ads
• Sessions-to-clicks • Opt-out rate (CPM)
ratio • Clickthrough
rate
Unpaid search Community Email Banner ad
mentions campaign
?
• Google PageRank • Open rate • Cost of ads
• Sessions-to-clicks • Opt-out rate (CPM)
ratio • Clickthrough
rate
Megablogger proponents
Seed (starting
Emphasis on
community)
convincing highly-
Reach followed, highly
(impressions)
acted-upon seed
Visits group to spread
the word.
Shopping cart
Payment options
Conversions
A call to action
Reach
(impressions)
Visits
Shopping cart Emphasis on
maximizing
Payment options impression-to-
click ratio within
Conversions the community
Create Seed Watch
something of value it online its growth
Create Seed Watch Respond
something of value it online its growth to it
Create Seed Watch Respond Lick
something of value it online its growth to it your wounds
Amplify
any interest
Create Seed Watch Respond Lick
something of value it online its growth to it your wounds
Repurpose
in new ways
Amplify
any interest
Create Seed Watch Respond Lick
something of value it online its growth to it your wounds
Repurpose
in new ways
Amplify
any interest
Create Seed Watch Respond Lick
something of value it online its growth to it your wounds
Mitigate
mistakes honestly
@seanpower @acroll
Communilytics: Applied
Community Analytics
@acroll & @seanpower
Let LinkedIn power your SlideShare experience
+
Let LinkedIn power your SlideShare experience
Customize SlideShare content based on your interests
We will import your LinkedIn profile and you will be visible on SlideShare.
Keep up to date when your LinkedIn contacts post on SlideShare
Vijay Konduru
1–3 of 3 previous next Post a comment
We don’t know if this term has been coined yet – if not, then I guess we just did.
For example... (clicks)
What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
For example... (clicks)
What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
For example... (clicks)
What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
For example... (clicks)
What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
For example... (clicks)
What should we track for communities? That’s communilytics.
Consider two key attributes of your community’s members: Followers and reach. Followers is “naive” popularity; Reach is their ability to deliver the goods.
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).