8/11/2019 87965639

1/14

An Integrated Marketing Communications

Perspective on Social Media Metrics

VictorA. Barger

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Lauren I. Labrecque

Loyola University Chicago

ABSTRACT: Marketers are being inundated with social tnedia metrics, but there is little consensus on what one

should be measuring, let alone how these measures inform marketing strategy. This article attempts to bring clar-

ity to the situation by adopting an integrated marketing communications perspective. By screening extant metrics

for alignment with social media communications objectives, seven key social media metrics are identified. These

metrics are then described and their application to social media marketing from an integrated marketing communi-

cations perspective is discussed. Finally, limitations of the m etrics are considered to arrive at suggestions for future

research.

Social media metrics are all the rage. In 2009just

three years after Twitter launched and Facebook

opened registration to the general publicBerkowitz

(2009) identified exactly 100 social media metrics.

Now, hardly a day goes by without a new article or

blog post proclaiming, "5 Social Media M etrics You

Should Be Monitoring"; "14 Social Media Metrics

You Can Use Right NOW "; or "50 Key Social Media

Metrics E very M arketer M ust Know." Yet for all the

new metrics, marketers maintain they are only slightly

more informed than they were at the beginning of the

social media revolution (Margiloff 2012). Calls for

standardization of metrics have gone unheeded

(Wurtzel 2009), and both practitioners and academics

lament the preponderance of "nice to know" (Fogel

2010) and "vanity" (Madison 2012) metrics over met-

rics that lead to meaningful action. Romaniuk (2012,

398) aptly sums up the state of social media metrics as

follows: "an available metric is not necessarily a use-

ful metric."

Metrics are necessary for the development and

evaluation of integrated marketing communications

programs (Kitchen, Kim, and Schultz 2008). As social

media continues to lure audiences away from mass

media, marketers can no longer rely on traditional au-

dience measurement (Kliatchko 2008; McDonald

2008).

The measurement challenge is further compli-

cated by the consumer-to-consumer interactions that

social media enables (Wind and Sharp 2009). Upper

management is also demanding more attention to mar-

keting metrics. Seggie, Cavusgil, and Phelan (2007)

suggest that this is due to three factors: (1) demand for

accountability from all units of a firm; (2) dissatisfac-

tion with subjective measures of performance; and (3)

the availability of technology for collecting data for

metrics. Rust, Ambler, Carpenter, Kumar, and Srivas-

tava (2004, 76) warn that "lack of accountability has

undermined marketers' credibility, threatened the

standing of the marketing inction within the firm,

and even threatened m arketing's existence as a distinct

capability within the firm."

This crisis in measurement comes at a time when

marketers are steadily increasing their social media

spending. In 201 2, a survey of marketers and advertis-

ing agencies revealed that 59% planned to increase

their spending on social media marketing (Del Rey

2012). Despite the increases, marketers may still be

underspending on social media (Briggs 2012).Without

informative metrics, however, efforts to optimally al-

locate advertising funds will continue to be impeded

(Schultz 2011).

This article attempts to bring clarity to the situation

by viewing social media metrics

fi om

he lens of inte-

grated marketing communications. We begin by de-

scribing the primary communications objectives for

social media. By screening extant metrics for align-

ment with communications objectives, we narrow the

list of social media metrics to seven key metrics.

64

8/11/2019 87965639

2/14

These metrics are then described and their application

to social media marketing from an integrated market-

ing communications perspective is discussed. Finally,

we conclude with sugg estions for future research.

SOCIAL MEDIA OBJECTIVES

At the core of an integrated marketing communica-

tions program are the communications objectives.

These are specific, measurable tasks that can be

achieved using adveriising and other forms of com mu-

nication (CoUey 1961). Metrics are employed to (1)

establish b aselines for comm unications objectives and

(2) track progress towards achieving each objective.

Since the selection of metrics depends on the objec-

tives,

we must first identify a set of potential social

media objectives before discussing social media met-

rics. In this section we consider two types of social

media objectives: short-term and long-term.

Short Term Objectives

The primary purpose of short-term social media ob-

jectives is to generate revenue. The three short-term

objectives that we consider are (1) gaining considera-

tion, (2) stimulating trial, and (3) encouraging repur-

chase.

Gaining consideration

Consumers are increasingly

turning to social media for product and service recom -

mendations. By monitoring and responding to re-

quests for advice, marketers can help ensure the

consideration of their products and services. For ex-

ample, a snowblower manufacturer might monitor

Twitter for tweets containing the keyword "snow-

blower"; when a match is found (e.g., "Can someone

recommend a good snowblower?"), the marketer could

reply with information. A more ambitious program

may involve monitoring social media for problems

that the marketer's product or service can solve. For

example, a retailer of ergonomie furniture could watch

for complaints related to workstation ergonomics

(e.g., "M y wrists are killing m e from typing all day "),

to which the retailer could respond with commisera-

tion and a link to a page on ergonomics on the re-

tailer's website.

Stimulating trial Marketers have long used consumer-

oriented sales promotions to stimulate trial of products

and services (Farris and Quelch 1987; Gupta 1988). It

is perhaps not surprising, then, that one of marketers'

primary uses of social media today is communicating

sales promotions (Schultz and Peltier 2013). Common

forms of online sales promotion include printable

coupons, discount codes, contests, sweepstakes, and

games. As an example, Starbucks frequently an-

nounces discounts on new coffee dritiks on Facebook

and Twitter to encourage followers to try the new bev-

erages.

Encouraging repurchase In addition to stimulating

trial, online sales promotions are effective at encour-

aging repeat purchases. Amazon.com, for example,

routinely provides limited-term discount codes to fol-

lowers on Facebook and Twitter. Of course, a sales

promotion is not always necessary; Panera Bread, for

example, relies on the appeal of new menu items an-

nounced on social media to draw customers back into

their restaurants. Social media also serve as a conven-

ient channel for encouraging followers to sign up for

loyalty programs and for communicating loyalty pro-

gram promotions.

Long Term Objectives

Long-term social media objectives are concerned less

with generating revenue and more with creating brand

equity and building brand relationships. The four

long-term objectives that we consider are (1) improv-

ing customer satisfaction, (2) creating awareness, (3)

building relationships, and (4) fostering commun ity.

Improving customer satisfaction Social media offer

brands a number of opportunities for improving cus-

tomer satisfaction. First, customers may contact a

company directly via social media to express dissatis-

faction with a product or service. If the company deals

with such complaints promptly and effectively, dissat-

isfied customers will be less likely to communicate

their dissatisfaction to others. Second, customers may

post messages about unsatisfactory experiences to so-

cial media. Although not ideal from a public relations

perspective, this at least gives the company a chance

to discover and address such posts before they are

widely shared. Third, a company can enhance cus-

tomer satisfaction by providing product support via

social media. Software developers, for instance, often

receive and reply to requests for technical support on

Twitter. Finally, by monitoring social media for posts

from recent customers, companies can reassure these

customers that they made a good choice and thereby

reduce cognitive dissonance.

Creating awareness

One of the primary functions of

social media is content sharing. As such, social media

is highly effective at propagating messages, particu-

larly when people find the messages entertaining, sur-

prising, and/or humorous. When a message is shared

Spring 2013 65

8/11/2019 87965639

3/14

widely within a relatively short period of time, it is

said to have gone viral. This leads to a rapid increase

in awareness of both the message and the message's

creator. Psy's Gangnam S tyle music video is a great

example of this. Within a matter of months, Psy's

video had received over one billion views, propelling

him from relative obscurity outside his home country

of South Korea to worldwide renown (Hall 2012;

Yang 2012). D r. Robert

Wagstaff

a retired dentist, ex-

perienced similar success with his invention, the

Orabrush. After eight years of unsuccessful market-

ing. Dr. Wagstaff enlisted the help of a student at

Bringham Young University to create a series of

YouTube videos promoting the Orabrush (Orabrush

2010).

Within two years, these videos had amassed

over 39 million views, prompting Walmart to decide

to carry the Orabrush at 3,500 of its stores (Wasser-

man 2011). Although social media can help create

awareness for any business, it is especially valuable

for startups and small businesses like Orabrush that

cannot afford the mass media buys traditionally used

to increase awareness.

Building relationships

Brands seek to build relation-

ships with customers to promote brand loyalty and

positive word-of-mouth (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner,

and Gremler 2002). Since brand relationships develop

as a result of repeat positive interactions between cus-

tomer and brand (Duncan and Moriarty 1998), brands

must find ways to engage customers in such interac-

tions. Prior to the advent of social media, interactions

were primarily one-way (e.g., the viewing of a brand's

advertisements on mass media), with only occasional

two-way communication (e.g., contacting customer

service to resolve a problem). However, with social

media the options for personalized one-way and two-

way communications are greatly expanded. Marketers

now routinely stimulate interactions with consumers

on social media by posting interesting and relevant

content, such as news, articles, photos, videos, and

even games. Betty Crocker, for example, posts photos

of baked goods on Pinterest for customers to view,

comment on, and share.

Fostering commimity Building on the idea of brand

relationships, Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) proposed

the concept of the brand community. Here a brand's

customers interact not only with the brand but also

with one another. Brand communities may be organ-

ized by the company that owns the brand or they may

form autonomously (McAlexander, Schouten, and

Koenig 2002); either way, these communities carry

out imp ortant functions on behalf of the brand, such as

sharing information, perpetuating the history and cul-

ture of the brand, and providing assistance . . . [and]

exert[ing] pressure on members to remain loyal to the

collective and to the brand (Muniz and O'Guin n

2001,

427). Brand communities have also been shown

to increase revenue generated from community mem-

bers, both online and in stores (Manchanda, Packard,

and Pattabhiramaiah 2011). Furthermore, brand com-

munities can serve as a resource for idea generation

(e.g., crowdsourcing) and marketing research. Al-

though online brand communities have traditionally

been hosted on discussion forums, many have moved

to social media due to the lower overhead and the fact

that consumers are already active on social media.

SOCI L MEDI METRICS

Given the large number of social media metricsand

the costs involved in monitoring each metric^the first

step is to identify metrics that will be most informative

to the marketer (Fogel 2010). Fortunately, adopting an

integrated marketing communications perspective nar-

rows the list considerably, since a metric must provide

an indication of progress towards one or more cotnmu-

nications objectives to be considered. It is further help-

ful to make a distinction between metrics developed

specifically for social media analytics and metrics de-

veloped for web analytics. Although web metrics can be

helpftil in calculating social media metrics (e.g., social

media return on investment), they are by definition

more suited to analyzing website activity, and as such

provide an incomplete view of social media marketing

campaigns. This review thus focuses on social media

analytics. The marketer must also decide whether to uti-

lize both proprietary and nonproprietary metrics or only

nonproprietary metrics. Since the means of calculating

proprietary metrics is typically unavailable for public

scrutiny, we consider only nonproprietary metrics.

With the above criteria in mind, seven social media

metrics were identified: volume, share of voice, en-

gagement, advocates, return on investment, leads gen-

erated, and response time. Each metric is applicable to

one or more social media channels (see Figure 1):

blogs (e.g., WordPress); social networks (e.g., Face-

book); photo/video sharing (e.g., YouTube); microblogs

(e.g.. Twitter); product review sites (e.g., Amazon); lo-

cation check-ins/reviews (e.g.. Foursquare); and social

bookmarking (e.g., Delicious). In the following para-

graphs, each metric is discussed in turn. (See Table 1

for an overview of the metrics and their corresponding

definitions.)

66 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Com munications

8/11/2019 87965639

4/14

8/11/2019 87965639

5/14

TABLE 1 Definitions of Common Social Media Marketing Metrics

Metric

Volume

Share of Voice (%)

Engagem ent (per post)

Engagement (overall %)

Advocates

Return on Investment (ROI)

Leads Generated

Response Time

Formula

The nu mber of mentions of

brand name over a specified

period of

time.

Often segmented into positive and negative

volume using sentiment an alysis.

Positive volume of brand

xlOO

Positive volum e of all brands in category

Th e num ber of comm ents on , replies to, likes of, and shares

of given post.

Engagement at time twith all posts to date

Num ber of views at timetof all posts to date

xlOO

or

Engagement at time

t

with all posts to date

Num ber of followers at time /

XlOO

The number of social media participants who write positive

posts about a brand during a specitled period of time.

Revenue from campaign - Cost of campaign

Cost of campaign

XlOO

The number of leads generated from social channels

(sometimes expressed as a percent of

ll

leads generated).

The amount of time elapsed between the receipt of an

inquiry or support request via social media and a response

from the company.

taking some action beyond viewing or reading (De-

lahaye Paine 2011, 60). This may include liking a

brand's post, commenting on or replying to a brand's

post, or sharing a brand's post witb others. Since eacb

platform employs its own terminology, we classify the

possible behaviors as expressing agreem ent, rat-

ing, voicing opinion, and sharing. The correspon-

ding terminology for each of the dominant social

med ia platforms is shown in Table 2.

Tracking engagement on a per-post basis enables

the marketer to gauge the audience's level of interest

in the content of each post, thereby informing the cre-

ation of future posts. As an aggregate measure, en-

gagement can also indicate the overall level of con-

sumer interest in a brand's message. To adjust for

differences in the viewership of each post, Lovett and

Owyang (2010) recommend tracking overall engage-

ment relative to the total number of views. Since the

num ber of views per po st can be difficult to ascertain,

others have advocated tracking engagement in pro-

portion to the number of followers at the time of the

posting. Even this must be viewed as a rough approx-

imation, however, as not all followers read every post,

and some followers may not even be human (Sterne

68 International Journal of Integrated Mark eting omm unications

8/11/2019 87965639

6/14

T A B L E 2 Use r Behaviors on Various Social Me dia Platform s

Platform

Posts

Primar} content

with which users

interact

Soc ia l B ookm ark i ng

Delicious

Stumbe Upon

Links

Links

Location Check ins/Reviews

Foursquare

Yelp

Product Reviews

Amazon

Goodreads

Microblogs

App.net

Pheed

Tumblr

Twitter

Locations

Businesses

Products

Books

Posts

Pheeds

Posts

Tweets

Photo/Video Sharing

Flickr_

lnstagram

Pinterest

YouTube

Social Networks

Facebook

Google+

Linkedin

Blogs

B logger

WordPress

Photos _ _

Photos

Pins

Videos

Status updates

Posts

Updates

Posts

Posts

Expressing

Agreement

Simple expression

ofagreemetilvith

a post

" l i k e " '

Like

' -

_ Sla r__ _ __

Love

Like

Favorite

Favorite

Like

Like

Like

Like

""+1 '^ "

"Tike""

+1

Like

Rating

Simple evaluation

of 1post

-

p i d n ' t j i k e

1 to 5 stars

1 to 5 stars

1 to 5 stars

Heartache

- - -

- "

Dislike

Dislike

' - - -

-

-

Voicmg

Opinion

Statementof one s

opinion\\ith

respect to apost

Comment

Til) . .

Review

Review

Review

Reply

Pheedback

Rebjojg _

Reply

C omment

Comment

C omment

Comment

Comment

C omment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Sharing

Sharing oa post

wit } others on the

same platjorm . .^^

Share link

Share

Share

Add to list

Add to bookshelf

Repost

Remix

Reblog

Retweet

Add to gallery

Repin

-

Share

Share

-

Reblog

2010) . Addi t iona l i ssues wi th engagement as a met r ic

are considered under Future Research.

Advocates

Consu mers can be viewed as progress ing through a se-

ries of four stages in their relat ionships with brands

on

social media (see Figure 2). Ini t ial ly each consumer

starts as a "bystan der" w ith respect to a specific brand ;

the consumer m ay see ment ions of the brand on soc ia l

media, but s/he does not act ively seek out posts by the

brand. In the second stage, the consumer adopts the

role of "fol lower"; here s/he seeks out the brand's mes-

sage by opt ing in to rece ive brand comm unica t ions on

social media. In the third stage, the consumer becomes

a par t ic ipant , inte rac t ing wi th the brand and the

brand's message on soc ia l media . The par t ic ipa t ion

continuum ranges fTom "passive" to "act ive" forms of

par t ic ipa t ion, depending on the type and purpose of

the act ion. Expressions of agreement (e.g. , cl icking a

"Like" but ton on a brand's Facebook post ) a re forms

of passive part icipat ion, whereas voicing an opinion

(e .g. , comment ing on a brand's Facebook post ) and

sharing (e.g. , sharing a brand's Facebook post with

one's Facebook friends) are more act ive forms of par-

t icipat ion. In the final stage, the consumer adopts the

role of brand advo cate , c rea t ing and uploading content

that act ively promotes the brand (e.g. , post ing a Face-

book s ta tus update tha t recommends or speaks favor-

ably of the brand).

Tracking the number of "fol lowers" or "fans" may

be ego-boost ing, but i t is unlikely to be helpful in en-

hancing the effect iveness of a brand's social media

marketing, due to the existence of fake and inact ive

fol lowers (Sterne 2010). More useful is t racking the

number of advocates of a brand. Not surprisingly, the

goal is to grow the number of advocates over t ime.

Spring 2013 69

8/11/2019 87965639

7/14

FIGURE

2

Levels

of

Consumer E ngagement

on

Social M edia

Bystander

Follower

Participant

Advocate

Bystanders may see mentions of a brand in social media, but they do

not actively seek out posts by the brand nor do they interact with the

brand.

Followers seek out a brand's message by opting-in to receive brand

communications (e.g., by following, friending, or subscribing), but

they do not interact with the brand or the brand's message.

Participants interact with a brand on social media. Participation

ranges from passive (e.g., liking) to active (e.g., commenting),

depending on the type and purpose of

the

action.

Advocates not only interact with the brand on social media, they

actively promote the brand by creating and uploading content

favorable to the brand (e.g., posting, reviewing).

This

is

particularly important when

a

marketer s

ob-

jective

is to

gain consideration, since friends

of

advo-

cates

are

more likely

to

consider

a

brand when

an

advocate speaks highly

of

it.

If the

number

of

advo-

cates decreases over time,

the

firm may need

to

estab-

lish

an

advocacy program

or

post more engaging

content (Lovett

and

Owyang 2010). Also

of

relevance

is

the

influence

of a

brand s advocates (Fogel 201 0).

An advocate with

a

large number

of

followers that

en-

gage with

the

advocate s postings

is

more influential

(and thus more valuable

to

the m arketer) than

an

advo-

cate with fewer followers that tend

not to

engage with

the advocate s posts.

ReturnonInvestment RO I)

Return

on

investment

is

defined

as the

revenue gained

from

a

social media marketing campaign minus

the

cost

of

the campaign divided

by the

cost

of

the

cam-

paign

(see

Table

1).

Return

on

investment

is

most

ef-

fective

at

evaluating short-term social media

objectives, such

as

stimulating trial

and

encouraging

repurchase.

For

example,

a

marketer might offer

a

printable coupon

or

communicate

a

discount code

as

part of a campaign to stimulate trial.To receivethe

discount,

the

customer must present

the

coupon

or

enter the code

at

the tim e

of

purchase. Since sales that

result from

the

campaign

are

directly attributable

to

the campaign

via the

coupon

or

discount code,

the

marketer

can

determine

the

revenue gained from

the

campaign

and

calculate

the

return

on

investment.

Caution

is

advised when using return

on

investment

as

a

measure

of

performance.

The

belief that every-

thing digital

is

measurable

is a

misconception that

can

easily lead marketers astray. Attributing sales

to

social

media

is

problema tic, particularly

for

campaigns that

do

not

offer

an

incentive. Even with cam paigns that

do

offer

an

incentive,

the

calculation

of

return

on

invest-

ment ignores potential synergies between incentive-

based

and

non-incentive-based campaigns. Return

on

investment

has

also been criticized

for its

overempha-

sis

of

shori-term returns over long-term brand build-

ing (Calkins

and

Rucker 2008). Hoffman

and

Fodor

(2010) warn that social media

is

still

in its

early stages

and that focusing

too

much

on

return

on

investment

could stifle experimentation, potentially creating

op-

portunities

for

competitors. They suggest that

mar-

keters instead view return

on

investment from

the

consum er s perspective; namely, what

the

consumer

gets

for

investing

his or her

time

and

energy

in

engag-

ing with

a

brand through social media.

Leads Generated

When a company seeks to gain consideration of its

products and services,

it

will often track the number

of

leads generated through social media. This

is

particu-

larly helpfiil when

the

firm

is

investing considerable

resources

in

monitoring and responding to requests

for

adviceonsocial m edia,asdescribed earlier un derSo-

cial M edia Objectives. Leads generated through social

media

can

also

be

expressed

as a

percentage

of

total

leads generated by the firm, in which case

it

provides

a

measure of the relative effectiveness

of

social media

at

70 International Journal of Integrated Ma rketing om mun ications

8/11/2019 87965639

8/14

generating leads. Although leads generated can be a

useful metric, it is important to note that it suffers

from many of the attribution problems that affect re-

turn on investment. This is discussed further in Future

Research.

Response Time

On the Internet, people expect quick responses, and

social media is no exception. In fact, a recent survey

showed that 32% of consumers who contact a brand

through social media expect a response within thirty

minutes (Baer 2012). To ensure customer satisfaction,

it is thus essential that brands respond promptly to in-

quiries and support requests submitted via social

media. Tracking and managing average response time,

which is the average amount oftimeit takes the brand

to reply to social media queries, can accomplish this.

In addition, it is recommended that brands routinely

follow up with a sample of recent contacts to ensure

that requests are being resolved satisfactorily.

Relationship to Traditional IMC Metrics

Traditional metrics for evaluating integrated market-

ing communications can be classified into three types

(Ewing 2009): attitudinal measures, behavioral meas-

ures,

and financial measures. Attitudinal measures are

commonly employed to ascertain the effects of adver-

tising (Schultz 2011 ). For example, in the Lavidge and

Steiner (1961) hierarchy of effects, exposure to adver-

tising is presumed to move consumers through a series

of

stages:

(1) awareness, (2) knowledge, (3) liking, (4)

preference, (5) conviction, and (6) purchase . A brand's

performance at each stage (with the exception of the

purchase stage) is determined by using survey re-

search and attitudinal measures. Behavioral measures,

in contrast, are based on actions taken by consumers

in response to marketing campaigns. For example, the

effectiveness of sales promotion could be established

by tracking the number of consumers who redeem a

coupon. Lastly, financial measures emphasize the rev-

enue generated by marketing communications. The

two most common financial measures of integrated

marketing communications are return on investment

and change in customer lifetime value (Schultz 2011).

Social media metrics span the three types of tradi-

tional metrics. With respect to attitudinal measures,

the social media metrics of volume, engagement, and

number of advocates correspond to the awareness, lik-

ing, and conviction stages of the hierarchy of effects.

Engagement can also be viewed as a behavioral meas-

ure, since it reflects specific actions that consumers

take in response to brand m essages. Similarly, num ber

of leads generated serves as a behavioral measure,

since it quantifies the number of consumers that take

action in response to a messagefi oma brand on social

media. In the financial category, the return on invest-

ment of social media mirrors traditional ROI. Finally,

although response time does not appear to correspond

to one of the traditional types, its outcomecustomer

satisfactionis clearly an attitudinal measure.

FUTURE RESE RCH

The metrics identified in this paper are conceptually

sound; however, associated w ith each are difficulties in

estimation. One source of error is sentiment analysis.

Although humans can determine the tone of a post

with relative ease, it is difficult to do so algorithmi-

cally. Unfortunately, given the huge number of posts

that are created daily, not to mention hourly, it is im-

possible to conduct sentiment analysis at scale without

automation. Sentiment analysis vendors have estimated

their systems to be 70-80% accurate (Wright 2009),

but a recent study by Schweidel, Moe, and Boudreaux

(2012) found almost no correlation (r = -.002) between

an automated sentiment analysis and a survey con-

ducted using traditional marketing research tech-

niques. Recognizing the growing importance of social

media monitoring and m etrics, compa nies offering so-

phisticated natural language processing to improve ac-

curacy and reliability have emerged (NetBase

Solutions 2012). Clearly, more research in the areas of

sentiment analysis, natural language processing, and

computational linguistics is needed.

Adding to the estimation issues associated with

sentiment analysis is the presence of robots (or

bots ), fake accounts, and inactive accounts on social

media. All three inflate counts of followers and activ-

ity. A recent study by Marco Camisani Calzolari esti-

mated that up to 46% of brand followers are bots

(Policschi 2012). The problem is compounded by the

ease with which companies and individuals can ac-

quire fake followers. For example, fake Twitter follow-

ers can be purchased for less than a cent per follower

(Considine 2012). Inactive accounts may be less of a

problem in that they do not generate posts, but they

still inflate follower and viewership estimates. Al-

though progress is being made at identifying fake ac-

counts, more research is needed in this area to ensure

accurate accounting of social media participants and

their online activity.

Current social media metrics also suffer from a

Spring 2013 71

8/11/2019 87965639

9/14

8/11/2019 87965639

10/14

should get credit for the conversion. Most web analyt-

ics program s employ a last touc h or last click

method of tracking, which assumes tbe marketing

channel most responsible for a consumer's behavior is

the channel that the consumer last touched before vis-

iting or making a purchase. In reality, consumers are

likely to have encountered multiple touchpoints across

an array of channels prior to conversion. Take for ex-

ample the consumer journey outlined in Figure 3.

Here, the consumer has enco untered the brand in a va-

riety of channels, including multiple social media

sites;

however, only the last touch, paid search, is cred-

ited for the conversion. Since the initial brand aware-

ness was driven (and subsequently reinforced) through

social media, social media should be credited for at

least a portion ofthe conversion.

There are a number of possible attribution models

(see Figure 4). The example just described corre-

sponds to last-click attribution, which is based on the

notion that the last marketing communication en-

countered by a customer is responsible for the con-

version. In this model, the value of prior interactions

is ignored and these channels do not receive any

credit. This model focuses solely on short-term ob-

jectives such as gaining consideration, stimulating

trial, and encouraging repurchase, and does not con-

sider long-term objectives. This is the most common

model and has been used since the early days of on-

line direct response.

First-click attribution takes the opposite view of

last-click attribution; namely, it gives full credit to the

initial interaction. This model places greater emphasis

on creating awareness, a long-term objective, and

views the first marketing communication as the most

valuable, disregarding the impact of other touchpoints.

Equal attribution views all interactions as valuable

and assigns identical weight to each touchpoint. In our

example, all four touchpoints would receive 25%

credit for the conversion. This model is advantageous

in that it incorporates both short-term and long-term

objectives; however, the assumption that each touch-

point is of equal value may not reflect reality. More-

over, as the number of touchpoints gro ws, the value of

each touchpoint decreases equally.

Fractional attribution recognizes that different

touchpoints play different roles and allows for each in-

teraction to be weighted accordingly. In theory this

method is ideal; not only does it incorporate both

short-term and long-term objectives, it accounts for

the respective value of each touchp oint in generating a

conversion. The assumption that marketers can deter-

FIGURE 4 Example Attribution Models

Last click Attribution

Go> sie

100%

First click Attribution

100% 0%

You fM

Co yle

Fractional Attribution

4 5 %

15%

15%

25

Equal Attribution

25

25 25

mine the appropriate weights for each touchpoint may

not be realistic, however, and technology may not be

in place to capture each touchpoint.

The point of this discussion is that marketers need

to consider the impact of multiple touchpoints when

measuring marketing success, especially in regards to

social media. Although tracking codes can be embed-

ded in links, thereby enabling the attribution of online

sales to social media sources, users of social media do

not always include these codes in their posts. Simi-

larly, many analytics programs rely on web browsers

to submit referrer information; since not all applica-

tions supply referrer data (e.g., mobile apps and e-mail

clients), these referrals may be misconstrued as direct

traffic. Even more problematic is the attribution of of-

fline sales to social media. Unless a customer men-

tions a social media cam paign w hen making an offline

purchase, the link between the sale and social media

not to mention a particular social media campaign

will not be made. The end result is an incomplete

picture of the marketing effort. Further advances in

methods of attribution are necessary to improve the re-

liability of social media metrics.

Spring 2013 73

8/11/2019 87965639

11/14

Social Med ia and Effective Integrated

Marketing ommunications

As of this writing, Wikipedia hsts 198 active social

networking websites, with a disclaimer that this list is

not exhaustive (Wikipedia 2013). Indeed, newer social

media sites, such as AppNet and Pheed, are conspicu-

ously absent from the list. As social media continue to

proliferate, effective integration of social media into

marketing communications will be increasingly diffi-

cult. We highlight some of the potential challenges

here as suggestions for areas of future research.

One issue concerns the number of social media

sites a brand should be active on. On the one hand,

there is clearly an opportunity cost associated with

each additional site; the time and resources required to

maintain a presence on a new social channel could be

spent enhancing the brand's presence on existing

channels or even dedicated to other aspects of market-

ing communications. On the other hand, a brand lack-

ing presence on a social channel may cause discord

among its customers who are engaged there. Even

worse, the brand might fall victim to a third party

masquerading as the brand on the new social channel,

potentially damaging the brand's reputation and its re-

lationship with its customers. Aside from having a

presence, how active does a brand need to be on each

social channel? Is it sufficient to maintain a minimal

presence on the less popular social sites? Or must a

brand be equally active on each site? Research is

needed to help brands answer these questions and

guide their social media strategy.

Marketers must also consider the demographics of

the social chann els. Pinterest, for exam ple, is currently

more popular among a female audience, while Twitter

is slightly more popular among males, and Pheed is

dominated by teenagers (Duggan and Brenner 2013;

Pozin 2013). These differences in demographics are

due in part to the design goals of the respective plat-

forms. Pinterest, for example, is designed to facilitate

sharing of photos found on the web. Twitter requires

users to communicate in short, primarily textual mes-

sages, and Pheed emphasizes the sharing of multime-

dia. There is also a growing number of niche social

networks that are dedicated to special topics, such as

knitting (Manjoo 2011). Just as a marketer would re-

search audience profiles of various magazines, mar-

keters will increasingly need to consider the user base

of each social channel when developing their social

media strategy.

Differences in design and user base are also re-

flected in the style of communication employed on

each social channel. Communications on Linkedin,

for example, are expected to be professional and well-

written, whereas posts on Pheed tend to be raw and

graphic. Moreover, when deciding whether or not to

participate in a social channel, brands must also con-

sider whether the style of communication is consistent

with the brand's image. A hip, modern brand targeted

at youth may find the style of communication on

Pheed appropriate for the brand, whereas a conserva-

tive,

high-end brand may not. In cases of overlap,

where multiple social channels match the brand's

image, the marketer may need to customize communi-

cations for each social channel. Twitter users, for ex-

ample, may be annoyed by brands that post truncated

versions of Facebook updates to Twitter.

Lastly, how should a brand deal w ith users who fol-

low the brand on multiple social channels? A current

practice of many brands is to post roughly the same

content on each social channel. Does this duplication

annoy consumers who see the same message across

multiple channels? Or does it simply reinforce the

message? Presumably, people who follow a brand on

multiple channels are fans, possibly even advocates.

Does posting similar messages on multiple social

channels help these users share the brand's message

with different sets of followers? Is there any advantage

to encouraging people to follow the brand on multiple

channels? Namely, can the brand post to multiple so-

cial charmels in such a way as to create cross-channel

synergies? Ifso ,how can the brand m easure the effec-

tiveness of its efforts, given the attribution problem

discussed earlier?

R E F E R E N C E S

Baer, Jay. 2013. 42% of

onsumers

complaining in social

media expect 60 minute response time

September 27

2012 [cited M arch 1 201 3]. Available from http://

www.convinceandconvert.com/the-social-habit/42-per-

cent-of-consumers-complaining-in-social-media-expect-

60-minute-response-time/.

Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch. 2012.Advertising

and promotion: An integrated marketing communica-

tionsperspective. 9th ed. NewYork McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Berkowitz, David. 2013.10 0 ways to m easure social media

2009 [cited F ebruary 15, 2013 2 013 ]. Available from

http://www.marketersstudio.eom/2009/l 1/100-ways-to-

measure-social-media-.html.

Briggs, Rex. 2012. SIRFs-Up: Catching the next wave in

marketing.

North Charleston, South Carolina: Create-

Space.

Calkins, Tim, and Derek D. Rucker. 2008. Don't overem-

74 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Com munications

8/11/2019 87965639

12/14

phasize ROI as single measure of success.

Advertising

Age,

February 4, 2008.

Colley, Russell H. 1961.

Defining advertising goals for

measured advertising results.

New York: Association of

National Advertisers.

Considine, Austin. 2012. "Buying their way to Twitter

fame." The New

York

Times,August 22, 2012.

Del Rey, Jason. 2012. Advertisers say what we're all think-

ing: Social-media spending is going to explode.

Adver-

tising Age,

March 6, 2012.

Delahaye Paine, Katie.

2011.Mea sure what matters: Online

tools for understanding cu stomers, social m edia, en-

gagement, and key relationships.Hoboken, New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons.

Duggan, Maeve, and Joanna Brenner. 2013. The demo-

graphics of social media users2012. Washington,

D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Dunean, Tom, and Sandra E. Moriarty. 1998. "A communi-

cation-based marketing model for managing relation-

ships."

Tbi/rwa/o/MarAre/wg no. 62 (2):1 -13.

Ewing, Michael T. 2009. "Integrated marketing communi-

cations measurement and evaluation." Journal of Mar-

keting Communications

no. 15

(2-3):

103-117.

Farris,

Paul W., and John A. Quelch. 1987. In defense of

price promotion.Sloan Management Review,Fall, 63-72.

Fogel, Suzanne. 2010. "Issues in measurement of word of

mouth in social media marketing."

International Journal

of Integrated Marketing Communications

no. 2 (2):54-

60 .

Gupta, Sunil. 1988. "Impact of sales promotions on when,

what, and how much to buy."Journal of

arketing

Re -

search

no. 25 (4):342-355.

Hall, Emma. 2012. 'Gan gnam ' close to billion views: Most-

watched YouTube video has life of its own as parodies

continue.

Advertising Age,

November 28.

Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne

D. Gremien 2002. "Understanding relationship market-

ing outcomes."

Journal of Service Research

no. 4

(3):230-247.

Hoffman, Donna L., and Marek Fodor. 2010. Can you

measure the ROI of your social media marketing?

MIT

Sloan M anagement Review,41-49.

Kitehen, Philip I, Ilchul Kim, and Don E. Schultz. 2008.

"Integrated marketing communications: Practice leads

theory."Journal of Advertising Researchno. 48

(4):531-

546.

Kliatchko, Jerry. 2008. "Revisiting the IMC construct: A re-

vised definition and four pillars."International Journal

ofAdvertising no.

27

(1):

133-160.

Lavidge, R obert J., and Gary A. Steiner. 1 961. "A model for

predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness."

Journal of M arketing no.

25 (6):59-62.

Lovett, John, and Jeremiah Owyang. 2010. Social market-

ing analytics: A new framework for measuring results

in social media, http://john.webanalyticsdemystified.com

/2010/04/22/new-research-on-social-marketing-analyt-

ics/.

Madison, Ivory. 2013.Whyyour social media m etrics are a

waste of time.

Harvard Business Review, December 18

2012 [cited February 15 2013]. Available from

http://blogs.hbr org/cs/2012/12/why_your_social_media

_metrics.html.

Madrigal, Alexis C. 2012. Dark social: We have the whole

history ofth web wrong.

TheAtlantic,

http://www.theat-

lantic.com/teehnology/archive/2012/10/dark-social-we-

have-the-whole-history-of-the-web-wrong/263523/.

Manchanda, Puneet, Grant Packard, and Adithya Pattabhira-

maiah. 2011. Social dollars: The conomie impact of

customer participation in a firm-sponsored online com-

munity. In Marketing Science Institute Working Paper

Series.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science

Institute.

Mangold, W. Glynn, and David J. Faulds. 2009. "Soeial

media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix."

Business Horizons

no. 52 (4):357-365.

Manjoo, Farhad. 2013. A tight-knit community: Why Face-

book can't match

Ravelry,

the social network for knitters.

Slate, July 6 2011 [cited March 6 2013]. Available from

ht tp : / /www .s l a t e .com/a r t i c l e s /t echno logy / t echno l -

ogy/201 l/07/a_tightknit_community.html.

argiloffWill. 2012. Seven years in, it's time for social to

grow up.Advertising Age, July 16, 2012.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F.

Koenig. 2002. "Building brand community."

Journal of

Marketing

no. 66 (l):38-54.

McDonald, Scott. 2008. "The long tail and its implications

for media audience measurement."

Journal of Advertis-

ing Researchno. 48 (3):313-319.

Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O'Guinn. 2001.

"Brand community."

Journal of Consumer Research

no.

27 (4):412-432.

NetBase Solutions, Inc. 2013.

Sentiment analysis with NLP

leads to more accurate understanding2012 [cited Febru-

ary 28 2013]. Available from http://www.netbase.com/

social-intelligence/the-nlp-advantage/.

Orabrush. 2013.

Story ofO rabrush

2010 [cited February 25

2013].

Available from http://ww w.orabrush.com/story.

Polleschi, Ilaria. 2013.

Robots crowd

Twitter brand

profiles.

Reuters, June 8 2012 [cited February 15 2013].

Pozin Ilya. 2013. Teens drive Pheed to 1 social app.

Forbes, March 6 2013 [cited March 6 2013]. Available

from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2013/02/20/

teens-drive-pheed-to-1 -social-app/.

Romaniuk, Jenni. 2012. "Are you ready for the next big

thing? New media is dead Long live new m edia "Jour-

nal ofAdvertising Research

no. 52 (4):397-399.

Rust, Roland T., Tim Ambler, Gregory S. Carpenter, V.

Kumar, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. 2004. "Measuring

marketing productivity: Current knowledge and nature

directions."

Journal of M arketing

no. 68 (4):76-89.

Spring 2013 75

8/11/2019 87965639

13/14

Schultz, Don E. 201 1. IMC measurem ent: The challenges

of an interactive marketplace. International Journal of

Integrated Marketing Communicationsno. 3 (l ):7-24.

Schultz, Don E., Martin P. Block, and K aylan Raman. 2012 .

Understanding consumer-created media synergy.

Jour-

nal of Marketing Communicationsno. 18 (3): 173-187.

Schultz, Don E., and Jimmy W. Peltier. 2013 . Social

media's slippery slope: Challenges, opp ortunities and fu-

ture research directions.

Journal of Interactive Market-

ing (Forthcoming).

Schweidel, David A., WendyW Moe, and Chris Boudreaux.

2012. Social media intelligence: Measuring brand senti-

ment from online conversations. In

Marketing Science

Institute

Working

Paper Series. Cambridge, Massachu-

setts: Marketing Science Institute.

Seggie, Steven H., Erin Cavusgil, and Steven E. Phelan.

2007.

Measurem ent of return on marketing investment:

A conceptual framework and the future of marketing

metrics. Industrial Marketing Management no. 36

(6):834-841.

Sterne, Jim. 2010.

Social media metrics: How to measure

and optimize your marketing investment.Hoboken, New

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Truong, Yann, Rod McCoU, and Philip J. Kitchen. 2010.

Practitioners' perceptions of advertising strategies for

digital media. International Journal of Advertising no.

29 (5):709-725.

Wasserman, Todd. 2013.

rabrush

parlays

YouTube

success

into

Walmart

deal. Mashable, September 20 2011 [cited

February 25 201 3]. Available from http://mashable.

com/2011/09/20/orabrush-walmar/.

Wikipedia. 2013.List of social networking w ebsites Febru-

ary 27 2013 [cited March 6 2013]. Available from

http: / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_network-

ing_websites.

Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Byron Sharp. 2009. Advertising

empirical generalizations: Implications for research and

action. Journal of Advertising Research no. 49 (2):

246-252.

Wright, Alex. 2009 . Mining the web for feelings, not

facts. The New

York

Times

August 23 , 2009.

W urtzel, Alan. 2009. Now. Or never: An urgent call to ac-

tion for consensus on new media metrics.

Journal of

Advertising Research

no. 49 (3):263-265.

Yang,Jeff 2012 . Gangn am Style's U.S. popularity has Ko-

reans puzzled, gratified.

TheWallStreet Journal

August

28 .

VIC TOR

A.

BARGER

is Associate Professor at Univer-

sity of WisconsinWhitewater.

LAUREN

I.

LAB R EC QUE

is Associate Professor at Loy-

ola University Chicago.

76 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Comm unications

8/11/2019 87965639

14/14

C o p y r i g h t o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f I n t e g r a t e d M a r k e t i n g C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f

R a c o m C o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d i t s c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r

p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s

m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .