Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing?
Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing?
FA L L 2 0 1 0 V O L . 5 2 N O. 1
R E P R I N T N U M B E R 5 2 1 0 5
Donna L. Hoffman and Marek Fodor
COURTESY OF FLICKR USER CVRCAK1, STARBUCKS, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, TARGET, DELL, SQUARE ENIX, BURGER KING FALL 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 41
AS MANAGERS BECOME more comfortable with including blogs and social networks as part of their integrated marketing communications, they have naturally turned their attention
to questions regarding the return on investment of social media. Clearly, there is no shortage of
interest in the topic. A quick Google search recently for “ROI social media” returned over 2.5
million hits, many seemingly relevant. Internet marketing and online retailing conferences now
devote attention to ROI issues, and managers are asking themselves every day, “What’s the ROI
of [substitute social media application here]?” Blog posts, white papers and case studies pre-
pared by social media gurus, consultants and industry analysts abound, yet the answer remains
largely unsatisfying. That isn’t good, especially when the CEO and CFO are demanding evidence
of potential ROI before allocating dollars to marketing efforts.1
M A R K E T I N G
As social media applications like Facebook (here, cofounder Mark Zuckerberg) have changed the ways consumers interact with brands, companies have struggled to keep up. Target, Dell, Burger King and more are trying to learn what’s effective.
Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing? You can. But it requires a new set of measurements that begins with tracking the customers’ investments — not yours. BY DONNA L. HOFFMAN AND MAREK FODOR
THE LEADING QUESTION How can you tell whether social media are working?
FINDINGS Forget traditional ROI. Instead of cal- culating the return on the company’s investment, mana- gers should assess consumer motiva- tions to use social media and measure the social media investments cus- tomers make as they engage with the marketers’ brands.
Measuring cus- tomer investments in a social media relationship reveals the likelihood of a long-term payoff, not just short-term results.
42 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW FALL 2010 SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU
M A R K E T I N G
We understand the pressures and the desire to
quantify the return generated by investing in social
media, but we believe most marketers are ap-
proaching the issue the wrong way.
Effective social media measurement should start
by turning the traditional ROI approach on its
head. That is, instead of emphasizing their own
marketing investments and calculating the returns
in terms of customer response, managers should
begin by considering consumer motivations to use
social media and then measure the social media
investments customers make as they engage with
the marketers’ brands.
Handling the measurements this way makes much
more sense. It takes into account not only short-term
goals such as increasing sales in the next month via a
social media marketing campaign or reducing costs
next quarter due to more responsive online support
forums, but also the long-term returns of significant
corporate investment in social media.
We will explain our reasoning in detail and sug-
gest some guidelines for better integrating social
media into your overall marketing strategy, but first
a quick example of the kind of radical rethinking
we believe is called for.
Turning Your Thinking Upside Down In calculating social media ROI, most marketers
start by measuring the cost of launching a blog, for
example, and then seek to calculate the return on
sales, say, from that social media investment. But a
company could also start by thinking about what
marketing objectives such a blog might satisfy (e.g.,
brand engagement), why its customers would visit
the blog (e.g., to learn about new products) and
what behaviors they might engage in once they got
there (e.g., post a comment about a recent con-
sumption experience) that could be linked to the
company’s marketing objectives.
These behaviors then can be considered (and
measured) as customer investments in the market-
er’s social media efforts. This suggests that returns
from social media investments will not always be
measured in dollars, but also in customer behaviors
(consumer investments) tied to particular social
media applications. Consumer investments include
obvious measures such as the number of visits and
time spent with the application (the blog in this
case) as well as more active investments, such as the
valence of blog comments and the number of Face-
book updates and Twitter pages about the brand.
These investments can then be used to measure key
marketing outcomes such as changes in awareness
levels or word-of-mouth increases over time.
Although what we are proposing might seem
radical, we believe you have no choice.
Traditional media measurement seems almost
quaint in today’s dynamic and increasingly com-
plex media environment. Marketers are struggling
with social media measurement partly because the
frameworks are still largely driven by “reach and
frequency” and are ill-suited to the interactive
media environment.
On one side are the managers in the trenches
whose experience and gut feelings tell them that so-
cial media are important, even as they struggle with
how to quantify this. On the other side is top manage-
ment, who may not be 100% convinced about the
value of social media or fully understand them —
and even if they “get it” in principle, they still want to
see the numbers. This tension explains the constant
questioning about ROI in emerging advertising
media like Twitter.
While managers certainly need hard numbers to
know whether their investments are paying off,
they represent a narrow “show me the return” focus
rooted in a traditional mainstream media. This
narrow focus has two problems. First, it is oriented
to the short term (“show me how my company’s
tweets will improve sales next quarter”). Develop-
ing meaningful relationships with customers takes
time because online relationships involve interac-
tive “conversations,”2 and some managers still do
not fully appreciate that they are entering a brave
new world of “relationships” with customers.
This is a world in which customers are fully in con-
trol of their online experiences and where their
motivations lead them to connect online with other
consumers while they create and consume online con-
tent, much of it user- rather than marketer-generated.
These four key motivations — connections, creation,
consumption and control — drive consumer use of
social media.3 This “4c’s” perspective is important be-
cause it leads to a consumer-oriented framework for
evaluating social media. Most managers still consider
SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU FALL 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 43
social media applications as “just another” tradi-
tional marketing communications vehicle. That is a
mistake. The social media environment is largely
consumer- — not marketer- — controlled. And mar-
keters who don’t understand that do so at their
peril. (See “The Worst That Can Happen Is Worse
Than You Think.”)
Second, and more importantly, the narrow focus
ignores more qualitative objectives — such as the
value of a tweet about a brand — that flow from the
unique capabilities of the Internet and have no ob-
vious analogues with traditional media metrics.
This is a powerful point that is often overlooked.
Both these things call for a different way of
thinking about how to measure social media. Let’s
talk about how you might do it.
Social Media Objectives Drive Social Media Metrics As a first step, marketers should focus on objectives
that explicitly recognize the value of operating in
the social media environment. Most managers feel
pressure to emphasize traditional objectives such
as direct sales, direct cost reductions or increases in
market share from social media. Ultimately, of
course, outcomes like these are the bottom line for
any manager. And a marketer who wants to know
the immediate effect on sales of a particular social
media campaign can do so relatively easily by
tracking the revenue generated from the dollars
spent, even if tying social media actions directly to
sales is difficult. It is becoming increasingly obvi-
ous that social media can lead to real cost savings,
such as when customers serve as their own version
of a company’s toll-free help desk through FAQs
on user forums. It is also clear that social media
can improve the efficiency of market research ef-
forts when, for example, marketers set up online
prediction markets to crowdsource new ideas or
mine online forums that allow customers to com-
ment on product concepts and offer improvements
for existing products.
Sales, cost efficiencies, product development
and market research are obvious objectives, but in
our development of appropriate social media met-
rics we want to emphasize objectives that take
advantage of the distinctive characteristics of social
media. In the social media environment, marketers
THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS WORSE THAN YOU THINK Marketers often think the worst thing that can happen during a marketing cam- paign or support forum is no activity or response. They are wrong. The “rules of engagement” and the dynamics of interaction in the social media world are often quite different from traditional marketing.
Several companies that are considered marketing experts have learned the hard way that even well-intentioned social media efforts can go embarrassingly wrong. And while social media blunders may not necessarily negatively impact sales, managers need to be mindful as the results of social media experiments gone awry live on, just a Google search away, for years to come.
Case Study: Raging Cow. In 2003, Dr. Pepper/7UP elicited con- sumer anger with its Raging Cow campaign. The company enlisted a group of six teenagers and 20-somethings to post fa- vorable reviews and spread positive word of mouth about its new flavored milk drink, without disclosing that the enlisted bloggers received incentives like product samples, T-shirts and gift certificates. On the surface, the blogs looked impartial and did not appear to be affiliated with the company or the drink, except for a few obligatory links to the Raging Cow site. But closer examination by a group of suspicious bloggers revealed that the company was behind the blogging effort. The marketing campaign was subsequently attacked in the blogosphere. Bloggers started a boycott, and the product disappeared.
Case Study: Motrin. Johnson & Johnson’s Motrin brand launched a video campaign in 2008 targeted to “baby-wearing” mothers. This was a 45-second com- mercial in which the voice-over of a supposed mom talked conversationally about the burdens of wearing your baby in a body sling. A number of mothers were so offended by the video, which was viewed as both con- descending (“Wearing your baby seems to be in fashion” was the opening line of the spot) and exploi- tive in promoting Motrin as a cure for the back-breaking pain of baby wearing, that they took to Twitter and the blogosphere to criticize the brand in real time. Riding off the momentum of enraged tweets from baby-wearing defenders, the “Motrin Moms” debacle immediately became a top trending topic on Twit- ter Search. But instead of quick damage control, Motrin did nothing. Only after mainstream media coverage, during which countless social media experts weighed in and branded the effort with a unanimous thumbs down, did Kathy Widmer, McNeil Consumer Healthcare’s vice president of marketing, finally offer a limp apology. What’s particularly relevant here is that the bulk of these events unfolded over the course of 24 hours on a weekend.
have unique opportunities to develop social media
programs that tackle awareness, engagement and
word-of-mouth objectives. Social media applica-
tions can fulfill any of these objectives, where the
appropriate set of metrics depends on the objective.
(See “Relevant Metrics for Social Media Applications
Organized by Key Social Media Objectives,” p. 44.)
To get an ROI estimate, managers would link
the social media metrics to an additional set of
proxy benchmarks (e.g., the likelihood of future
44 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW FALL 2010 SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU
M A R K E T I N G
SOCIAL MEDIA APPLICATION BRAND AWARENESS BRAND ENGAGEMENT WORD OF MOUTH
Blogs •number of unique visits •number of return visits •number of times bookmarked •search ranking
•number of members •number of RSS feed subscribers •number of comments •amount of user-generated content •average length of time on site • number of responses to polls, contests, surveys
• number of references to blog in other media (online/offline)
•number of reblogs • number of times badge displayed on other sites
•number of “likes”
Microblogging (e.g., Twitter)
•number of tweets about the brand •valence of tweets +/− •number of followers
•number of followers •number of @replies
•number of retweets
Cocreation (e.g., NIKEiD)
•number of visits •number of creation attempts • number of references to project in other media (online/offline)
Social Bookmarking (e.g., StumbleUpon)
•number of tags •number of followers •number of additional taggers
Forums and Discussion Boards (e.g., Google Groups)
•number of page views •number of visits •valence of posted content +/-
•number of relevant topics/threads •number of individual replies •number of sign-ups
•incoming links •citations in other sites •tagging in social bookmarking • offline references to the forum or its members
• in private communities: number of pieces of content (photos, discus- sions, videos); chatter pointing to the community outside of its gates
•number of “likes”
Product Reviews (e.g., Amazon)
•number of reviews posted •valence of reviews • number and valence of other users’ responses to reviews (+/−)
•number of wish list adds • number of times product included in users’ lists (i.e., Listmania! on Amazon.com)
•length of reviews •relevance of reviews • valence of other users’ ratings of reviews (i.e., how many found particular review helpful)
•number of wish list adds • overall number of reviewer rating scores entered
•average reviewer rating score
•number of reviews posted •valence of reviews • number and valence of other users’ responses to reviews (+/−)
• number of references to reviews in other sites
•number of visits to review site page • number of times product included in users’ lists (i.e., Listmania! on Amazon.com)
Social Networks (e.g., Bebo, Facebook, LinkedIn)
•number of members/fans •number of installs of applications •number of impressions •number of bookmarks • number of reviews/ratings and valence +/−
•number of comments •number of active users •number of “likes” on friends’ feeds • number of user-generated items (photos, threads, replies)
• usage metrics of applications/ widgets
•impressions-to-interactions ratio • rate of activity (how often members personalize profiles, bios, links, etc.)
• frequency of appearances in timeline of friends
•number of posts on wall •number of reposts/shares • number of responses to friend referral invites
Video and Photosharing (e.g., Flickr, YouTube)
•number of views of video/photo •valence of video/photo ratings +/−
•number of replies •number of page views •number of comments •number of subscribers
•number of embeddings •number of incoming links • number of references in mock-ups or derived work
• number of times republished in other social media and offline
•number of “likes”
RELEVANT METRICS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA APPLICATIONS ORGANIZED BY KEY SOCIAL MEDIA OBJECTIVES This table organizes the various social metrics for social media by classifying them according to social media applications and social media performance objectives. While it is not exhaustive, it should give marketers a useful starting point for measuring the effectiveness of social media efforts because all of the metrics listed are easily measured.
SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU FALL 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 45
purchase by a user engaged with the company’s
brand through a specific social media application,
or the reach of a specific word-of-mouth element
and subsequent conversion to future sales). For
example, a popular personal care brand ran a large-
scale integrated ad campaign on MySpace in the
second quarter of 2008 and used matched con-
sumer panels to link online social media behavior
to survey measures of purchase intent as well as
actual in-store sales. The results showed an ROI of
28% for the ad campaign.4
As this example shows, companies are starting
to see some success measuring the ROI of their so-
cial media experiments, including some that offer
the consumer a relatively complex social media ex-
perience. For example, in 2007, Kellogg created an
integrated digital media experience for the “Special
K Challenge” featuring a support website that
offered consumers the opportunity to customize a
diet using Special K cereal, participate in online
forums with pointers from experts, join a Yahoo!
e-mail support group and click through to Ama-
zon.com to purchase the cereal. Kellogg, which was
able to translate those website interactions and
click-throughs to market response over 18 months,
found that the online ROI for Special K cereal was
twice as large as that from television.5 Vocalpoint,
Procter & Gamble’s social networking site, has over
350,000 members who talk about P&G products;
by linking these customer investments in brand
conversation to sales, the site is credited with mar-
ket response increases of up to 30%.6
To be sure, there is some complexity involved in
calculating the ROI of a sophisticated social media
campaign, not necessarily limited to determining
the size of the test and control samples and the
ability to match online customer profiles with
offline purchases. However, even small-scale social
media efforts can benefit from plugging in seg-
ment-level estimates and proxy measures to
quantify how the customer investments from brand
awareness, brand engagement and word of mouth
affect the purchase decision funnel and, ultimately,
the bottom line. We expect that over time the num-
ber and quality of the necessary inputs will increase,
but marketers can find even rough proxy estimates
useful in the meantime to generate the calculations
necessary to link marketing investments to cus-
tomer investments and market response.
Below we discuss three social media objectives
and provide several examples of each.
Brand Awareness Traditionally, brand awareness
is measured through tracking studies and surveys.
Online, however, marketers have a number of ways
to track brand awareness.
In the social media environment, every time a
person uses an application designed by or about the
company, the company gains increased exposure to
its brand, often in highly relevant contexts. For ex-
ample, several days before Election Day 2008,
Starbucks ran a spot on the “Saturday Night Live”
show as well as on YouTube, promoting a free coffee
giveaway. Twitter mentions of Starbucks skyrock-
eted, averaging a mention every eight seconds,
which translated into a sizeable increase in brand
exposure.7 Such usages enhance and strengthen
associations of the brand in customers’ minds
through increased exposures. Thus, brand aware-
ness is a key social media objective.
Another example is Naked Pizza, a New Orleans,
Louisiana-based business catering to health-con-
scious pizza lovers, which tweeted about its pizzas
in 2009 and successfully drew around 4,000 follow-
ers in just a few months. The company also kept
track of sales that were spurred by a billboard out-
side its shop encouraging customers to follow it on
Twitter. The microblogging campaign’s success cul-
minated in the company breaking its one-day sales
record, with more than 68% of its sales coming
from customers who were Twitter followers. Also
on that day, 85% of the company’s new customers
claimed they had been motivated to buy from
Naked Pizza because of Twitter.8
Finally, in what have rapidly become classics in
the social media sphere, K-Tec’s blender brand
Blendtec posted a series of humorous demonstra-
tion videos in which the company’s founder, Tom
Dickson, posed the question “Will it Blend?” and
then proceeded to blend iPhones, glow sticks, golf
balls and many other products previously thought
unblendable using his line of hardy blenders. The
“Will It Blend?” campaign quickly went viral and as
a result saw its sales grow fivefold. The BlendTec
videos have now been viewed more than 100 mil-
lion times on YouTube.
46 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW FALL 2010
M A R K E T I N G
COURTESY OF TARGET
Brand Engagement Brand engagement can be en-
hanced through social media in various ways, and
the results can be strikingly positive. In an effort to
engage its customers, Southwest Airlines revamped
its “Nuts About Southwest” blog with podcasts, vid-
eos and other social media tools. Visits to the new
and improved blog rose by 25%, page views increased
40% and visitors stayed 26% longer on the compa-
ny’s website. The blog engaged customers on touchy
subjects like assigned seating and used the results
from 700 posts as a virtual focus group.9
Target leveraged the social networking aspect of
Facebook by encouraging its customers to join and
participate in an online environment devoid of any
apparent self-serving sales pitches. Target tracked the
success of its social media campaign by monitoring
membership sign-ups. On their own, thousands of
members generated significant buzz with regular
posts, which in turn motivated numerous others to
join and participate on the networking site. A Face-
book application called “Circle of Moms” — which
let mothers post messages, arrange carpools, set up
back-to-school checklists and click through to pro-
motions on the Target site — generated more than
20,000 visitors in six weeks.
For its 125th anniversary, Gretsch Guitars held a
contest on its MySpace page to find the next best
unsigned independent band. Nearly 900 bands en-
tered the contest, and over 55,000 site visitors voted
for their favorite bands. By soliciting participation
from both musicians and their fans, Gretsch en-
gaged its target customer and raised awareness of
the brand more broadly.
These highly engaging social media campaigns
involving user-generated content likely generate
commitment on the part of the consumer, reinforc-
ing loyalty to the brand and making the customer
more likely to commit additional effort to support
the brand in the future. The bottom-line rewards
for this kind of engagement may be observed
through delayed sales. Traditionally, marketers mea-
sure engagement through customer surveys. Online,
marketers can use one-time versus repeated interac-
tions or active participation compared to passive
consumption of social media as proxy measures.
Word of Mouth Once consumers are aware and
engaged, they are in a position to communicate
their opinions to other consumers. Satisfied and
loyal consumers communicate their positive atti-
tudes toward the brand itself or toward the social
application created by the company (be it a Face-
book application or group, a Twitter presence, a
blog or a YouTube video) to new, prospective cus-
tomers both online and offline. Dissatisfied and
disgruntled customers may also share their nega-
tive attitudes toward the brand or poor social
applications, as when technology journalist Jeff
Jarvis blogged in 2005 about the shoddy customer
service he received from Dell — his own “Dell Hell”
that spread like wildfire on the Internet and main-
stream media — and Dell saw its customer
satisfaction score drop five points in one year.10 On
the positive side, Japanese gaming company Square
Enix started an online community to stir up inter-
est in its North American release of Sony’s
Playstation 2 video game “Dragon Quest VIII: Jour-
ney of the Cursed King.” The North American
online community was a success, drawing more
than 14,000 members to join its forum, with 30%
recruited via word of mouth from existing mem-
bers; 40% of the online community pre-ordered
the game. By the end of 2009, the video game had
sold 510,000 units in North America.
In 2009, Burger King asked members of its
“Whopper Sacrifice” Facebook application to un-
Target leveraged Facebook by creating an online environment devoid of any apparent self-serving sales pitches.
SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU FALL 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 47
friend 10 of their Facebook friends in exchange for a
free sandwich. Though later pulled, the reverse word-
of-mouth campaign resulted in members unfriending
a total of 234,000 Facebook friends. These abandoned
friends monitored by the application received alerts
informing them that they had been sacrificed for a
Whopper. The offbeat campaign resulted in signifi-
cant word of mouth for Burger King.
Traditionally, companies can estimate word of
mouth through surveys that measure the likelihood
of recommendation or can use customer satisfaction,
loyalty and purchase likelihood as proxies for word of
mouth, but online, word of mouth can be measured
directly. More sophisticated methodologies are often
required to measure word of mouth because a signifi-
cant amount can occur either offline or online via
private communication, where direct measurement
is impossible. User-generated content can also embed
consumers’ favorite brands (such as in a video on
YouTube or a photo posted on Flickr) and contribute
to word of mouth — and companies can organize
such experiences on behalf of their consumers. For
example, Atrapalo.com, one of Spain’s leading online
travel agencies, included on its site a way for consum-
ers to share travel videos and customer photos.
Why You Want to Do It This Way The advantage of starting with consumer motiva-
tions, as opposed to trying to figure out what social
media application to use, is that it makes clear how
seemingly disparate applications are actually quite
similar if they share the same underlying motiva-
tions for use. This makes the job of creating
integrated marketing campaigns not only less over-
whelming for the manager but also much more
closely tied to online consumer behavior.
In other words, the question is not whether to
blog or tweet, but what objectives need to be
achieved and which set of tools with their corre-
sponding metrics can best achieve them.
Paths to Effective Social Media Strategy Once managers have a set of objectives in place for
their social media efforts and understand that con-
sumers are motivated to make investments in
companies’ social media efforts through their inter-
actions with the brand, the next step is to consider
the strategic options for social media measurement.
Our simple 2 × 2 framework, which assumes
the manager has a social media effort ongoing,
neatly summarizes the choices managers face as
they strive to develop social media strategy and
suggests better (and worse) paths toward social
media success. (See “Strategic Options for Social
Media Measurement.”)
Let’s start with the “dead end.” In this scenario, the
marketer has only a limited ability to measure his
social media efforts (fuzzy) and believes that his ef-
forts are not working (failing). Managers find
themselves in this quadrant as a result of the “throw it
on the wall and see what sticks” strategy and perform
arbitrary changes with no way to measure their im-
pact. Because measurement is fuzzy and the effort’s
effectiveness appears to be failing, the manager has
little insight or idea on what to do. The outcome is
fairly predictable: The manager will give up on social
media efforts or continue efforts that involve random
adjustments without data support. This quadrant is a
dead end. You don’t want to get stuck here!
Next is “measure and adjust.” In this scenario, the
marketer has a reasonable ability to quantify his social
media efforts, and these measurements lead him to be-
lieve that his efforts are not working (failing). This is
distinctly different than the “dead end” scenario, be-
cause even though the manager does not believe he is
succeeding, at least he is making some attempt to mea-
sure social media effectiveness. Since the components
are being measured, there are probably some good
STRATEGIC OPTIONS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA MEASUREMENT Every manager’s goal should be to move away from fuzzy measurement and toward quantifiable metrics. That way, a manager can understand what’s working and what’s not — and revise the approach accordingly.
Quantifiable
Fuzzy
Failing Succeeding
Measure and Adjust
Iterate for Success
Dead End Naïve Optimist
Manager’s Ability to Measure
Effectiveness
Manager’s Subjective Valuation
of Effectiveness
48 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW FALL 2010
M A R K E T I N G
COURTESY OF MICROSOFT
clues about what is going wrong. This means the man-
ager can evaluate and adjust the social media strategy
accordingly. If the manager can do this well, he can
move toward the “iterate for success” quadrant.
In that space, the marketer has both a reasonable
ability to measure his social media efforts (quanti-
fiable) and the belief that his efforts are working
(succeeding). Since the components are being mea-
sured, the manager can purposefully iterate to
improve even more. This is hard to do but obvi-
ously worth the effort.
The other path is “naïve optimist.” Here, the
marketer has only a limited ability to measure his
social media efforts (fuzzy), yet believes that his
efforts are working (succeeding). We believe most
marketers actually start here. They believe social
media are worth the effort, but are not quite sure
how best to measure their efforts. This quadrant is
tricky because although it is a reasonable place to
start, you want to move out of it as fast as possible
so you don’t get stuck here.
Managers have two good options for moving from
“naïve optimism” to “iterate for success” and one
poor choice. Let us examine the poor choice first.
If the manager does not change anything, he will
likely migrate to the “dead end.” This is because the
lack of measurement will eventually lead to deteri-
oration in the effort’s effectiveness over time,
particularly as competitors are able to do it better.
There are two better options. First, the manager
simply starts to measure social media efforts, dis-
covers things are not working as well as they could
be (“measure and adjust”) and then directs his
efforts toward “iterate for success.” In the shorter
path, the manager starts measuring and discovers
the efforts are succeeding, moving directly to “iter-
ate for success” from “naïve optimism.” In either
case, the goal is to move away from fuzzy measure-
ment and toward quantifiable metrics where the
manager can get a real handle on what is working
and what is not and then follow the best path that
will get him where he needs to go.
Done Right, Social Media Strategies Put the Brand to Work for Customers Reducing social media strategy to a mere measure-
ment problem would be a mistake. Although
measuring the ROI of social media efforts is impor-
tant and necessary, it is far more important that
managers make sure their social media efforts are
effective, even if the state of ROI measurement may
be less than satisfactory. In order to maximize the
effectiveness of their social media efforts, managers
must recognize two important facts of social media
life when implementing social media campaigns.
First, while it is certainly true that consumers
have much greater control over their online experi-
ences, managers also have — and must exercise — a
fair amount of control over the rules and frame-
work for brand participation in social media. For
example, a manager can control who posts to a blog
devoted to the company’s brand. More generally,
managers certainly have at least some control over
the rules and the participatory framework of how
consumers will engage with their brands in the so-
cial media space.
Second, managers must appreciate that the so-
cial media environment is highly dynamic and
rapidly evolving. While this may seem obvious, it is
mostly overlooked when campaigns are conceived
and launched. Many managers still approach social
media as if the practices — and consumer behav-
iors — are largely fixed. Social media-savvy
managers know this is not the case, but traditional
beliefs about how to reach consumers and potential
consumers die hard.
Our premise is that social media efforts that are
developed in the context of the 4c’s — connections,
creation, consumption and control — that underlie
consumer motivations to participate will lead to
higher ROI because the company’s marketing invest-
ments can better leverage the active “investments” its
customers will make as they engage with the compa-
ny’s brands. These investments can take the form of
blog comments, registration and active participation
to become a part of a brand-related community,
private endorsements of a brand or product (a
tweet or retweet, Facebook comment, review, blog
post or offline recommendations to friends) and
the like. While the content of consumers’ interac-
tions is largely out of managers’ control, setting up
the framework to facilitate that interaction is
squarely in their control.
How managers design, launch and actively
manage their social media campaigns plays a large
Bill Gates, Bono and Dell chairman Michael Dell together at the World Economic Forum attempting to prompt good word of mouth for collaborating on (RED) to fight AIDS in Africa. In 2005 Dell suffered a word-of-mouth hit when blogger Jeff Jarvis described receiving bad customer service — and Dell saw its customer satisfaction score drop five points in one year.
SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU FALL 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 49
part in determining whether and how consumers
will participate and interact. Savvy managers un-
derstand that there is a feedback loop. They don’t
sit back once the social media campaign begins.
Instead, they listen carefully because they know
that consumers not only “consume” the campaign,
but can comment on it (“create”), share it with
their friends and anyone else (“connect”) and pro-
vide their uncensored thoughts about it (“control”)
for any and all to view. And this listening must
then lead to action. For example, if a consumer
posts a question to the manager’s blog, someone
with a face in the company must reply. If a video is
uploaded, someone must monitor the Twitter
stream for comments and be prepared to react if
problems appear.
Traditional marketing metrics with narrowly
defined ROI tend to lead to social media campaigns
that maximize short-term benefits for the brand
(or the manager!), without worrying too much
about customer motivations and the long term.
The result tends to be campaigns that expect the
customer to work for the brand. In contrast, effec-
tive social media strategies put the brand to work for
the customers by satisfying their needs to create,
consume, connect and control in the social Web.
In a well-designed social media campaign, con-
sumers are likely to spread viral videos, create
additional brand-related content, tweet about the
brand and post about their experiences on Face-
book. The social metrics that reflect these kinds of
social media behaviors are important not only
because they let marketers measure the bottom-
line impact of their social media efforts, but also
because they focus marketers’ attention on social
media strategies that take into account the objec-
tives of both the brand and the online customer.
There is reason to be highly optimistic about im-
proving the effectiveness of social media. The social
Web is a highly measurable environment, and it is a
relatively simple matter for a manager to measure
the number of product reviews, blog posts and com-
ments, retweets and appearances in the social
network timelines of the company’s brands. At the
same time, managers are often able to measure click-
throughs to transactional websites, as well as capture
the number of leads generated or conversion rates
for online sales. While there will still be those situa-
tions in which behavior cannot be completely and
accurately traced (e.g., offline purchases or offline
word of mouth), we think that carefully planned
social media campaigns afford phenomenal oppor-
tunities for relatively easy and cost-efficient
measurement of customers’ online investments in a
company’s brands.
Donna L. Hoffman is the Chancellor’s Chair and Professor of Marketing at the A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of Cali- fornia, Riverside. Marek Fodor is the cofounder of Atrapalo, one of Spain’s leading travel agencies, and was formerly its chief technology officer. Comment on this article at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/52105, or contact the authors at smrfeedback@mit.edu.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a grant from the UCR Sloan Center for Internet Retailing. The authors thank Mark Manalang for his research assistance.
REFERENCES
1. Lenskold Group, “2009 Lenskold Group/MarketSphere Marketing ROI and Measurements Study” (Manasquan, New Jersey: Lenskold Group, 2009).
2. D.L. Hoffman and T.P. Novak, “Social Media Strategy,” in “Handbook on Marketing Strategy,” ed. V. Shankar and G.S. Carpenter (Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, in press).
3. T.P. Novak and D.L. Hoffman, “Roles and Goals: Consumer Motivations to Use the Social Web” (paper presented at the INFORMS Marketing Science Confer- ence, Cologne, Germany, June 19, 2010).
4. L. Littman, J. Nagy and N. Wortman, “Advertising on Social Networks Drives In-Store Sales,” 2008, www. thearf.org.
5. E.B. York, “Kellogg Says ROI on Digital Trounces TV by ‘Factor of 2’,” Advertising Age, Sept. 6, 2008.
6. B. Cummings, “J&J Takes Baby Steps Toward Social Media,” Brandweek, Apr.13, 2008.
7. C.C. Miller, “New Starbucks Ads Seek to Recruit Online Fans,” New York Times, May 18, 2009.
8. C. Baldwin, “Twitter Helps Dell Rake in Sales,” June 12, 2009, www.reuters.com.
9. P. Berg, “Southwest Airlines: Nuts About Online Com- munication” (presentation at the Inbound Marketing Summit, Boston, May 27-28, 2009).
10. K.T. Williams, “Case Study: Dell Hell,” Feb. 7, 2009, www.docstoc.com.
Reprint 52105. Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010. All rights reserved.
PDFs ■ Permission to Copy ■ Back Issues ■ Reprints
Articles published in MIT Sloan Management Review are copyrighted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology unless otherwise specified at the end of an article.
MIT Sloan Management Review articles, permissions, and back issues can be purchased on our Web site: www.pubservice.com/msstore or you may order through our Business Service Center (9 a.m.-7 p.m. ET) at the phone numbers listed below. Paper reprints are available in quantities of 250 or more.
To reproduce or transmit one or more MIT Sloan Management Review articles by electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying or archiving in any information storage or retrieval system) requires written permission. To request permission, use our Web site (www.pubservice.com/msstore), call or e-mail: Toll-free: 800-876-5764 (US and Canada) International: 818-487-2064 Fax: 818-487-4550 E-mail: MITSMR@pubservice.com
Posting of full-text SMR articles on publicly accessible Internet sites is prohibited. To obtain permission to post articles on secure and/or password-protected intranet sites, e-mail your request to MITSMR@pubservice.com
Customer Service MIT Sloan Management Review PO Box 15955 North Hollywood, CA 91615