- Greg

- Greg

Go further, and it’s about how assuredly the work, as done, delivers an ROI which, when measured, is improving. IMO, the key, in all of this, is people. The more directly measures of ROI loop back into talent development + leadership, the higher the odds the whole, complex, beast will be higher performing.

Trust this adds some value.

Thanks. I’m glad to hear that things are going well with Lisa Robin Designs!

- Greg

I was going through the site and realized I gave your comment, which raised an interesting issue, short shrift. Sorry about that. My only excuse in that in my efforts to reply to every comment, I sometimes rush through and overlook some gems.

The article is indeed bullshit and not just because of the time frame issue. It is exactly this “I have an answer and now will scour the earth to prove I’m right” approach that so often discredits digital marketers.

However, I think there is a bigger issue at work: the myth of scientific marketing (coincidently, this is the subject of my post tomorrow).

The idea is that marketers should aim to have a clear idea of cause and effect. This is not only impractical, it is exactly the opposite of how real science is actually done.

The interesting problems are always in the realm of the unknown. Moving forward requires some trial and error, blind alleys and red herrings. Most of the time your hunches are wrong and nothing is ever really proven. Every once in a while, you uncover a little bit more about how things really work.

This is not only a much more reasonable approach to marketing, it also explains the data better. We understand TV extremely well, which is why it’s share of ad spending has stayed fairly constant since the dawn of the web. We don’t understand digital very well which is why it has been slow to win a serious share of ad budgets (except for direct response).

With regard to Facebook pages, I think that ROI efforts are generally misguided. I started a FB page a few months ago and have only about 140 followers, far below my other social media efforts. However, one thing I have noticed is that a large percentage of people on it are not connected to me on Twitter and LinkedIn, so I get the chance to engage them where before I did not. It seems that some people are just Facebook people.

Is it worth it? I don’t really know, and won’t know for a long while, maybe never. But the investment in time isn’t all that great and I’m learning a bit. Most of all, FB amounts to a fairly small part of my overall “brand investment portfolio” (I like that term – I think I might have just invented it. It may be a keeper). I’m fully aware that some of what I do will be a waste of time, but I don’t really care. What’s important to me is the return on my total investment, which I am happy to say is immensely positive:-))

Thanks again for your comment.

- Greg

Any plunge into the unknown is necessarily an iterative process.

Good luck and keep the faith!

- Greg

a new metric called “conversion efficiency,” which divides “event completing sessions” by “sessions,” Seton Hall was able to determine that Facebook visitors were more motivated to convert than visitors from marketing programs, natural search, referring sites, or direct load.

… and Seton Hall’s conclusion. First, it seems that this, once again, falls into the short-term ROI mindset. But it also seems to be a bit of a bullshit metric.

It seems to me that “more motivated to convert” is fairly… well… bullshit. I don’t really want to know that. That’s not really valuable to know… again, setting aside the whole time frame issue.

I would say so. And someone else always pays!

- Greg