The key to deriving this insight was deliberately starting the campaign as “social only” with no other media and extensive measurement capabilities already onboard. Then, gradually launching new layers of media, each with their own tracking so incremental value could be established and media interaction measured. Thanks to Shaina Boone at Critical Mass for a fantastic job managing the Leaf project with such measurement discipline.

As I recall, Old Spice had a very heavy TV sched which is not mentioned much when people sing the glories of how successful a “social” campaign that was…

You mention the point below: are you able to expand on this and provide an example?

“Some of the most productive uses of Social I have seen is when it’s paired with TV as the “2nd step” – TV gens the Awareness, then Social amplifies the result by creating Interest (buzz, chatter, etc.)”

Mark

There are exceptions of course, particularly small businesses which typically have no or very low advertising budgets. Here social can be quite an effective tool, though one has to wonder if in fact much new Awareness is being generated. Most situations I have seen the response is really coming from current customers who have already had an experience.

@Jim, completely agree that I am blurring Awareness with Interest. Certainly like the idea of using AIDA to give social measurement a bit more of a rigorous approach and structure.

Many thanks for the comment back. Very useful indeed.

In your example above, I would say the TV ad generated Awareness, and the following events are about Interest (as in AIDA model), not “more Awareness”. In other words, the person in now taking action on the Awareness by following through, being proactive after the Awareness generated by the TV ad. This research mode called Interest can then result in Desire and then Action (AIDA).

That said, I think the point we are *both* making is one better define what they mean by “Awareness” before trying to measure whether an exposure increased it or not. Of course, it’s really convenient not to be rigorous about this, but that’s precisely why folks will find the amount of Awareness generated by Social is far below what is currently believed.

In the end, I think we’ll find Social is much better at generating Interest and Desire than Awareness, with the exception of new launch situations as we both pointed out.

Perhaps it’s a good time for people to start thinking about the AIDA model in the context of social? Some of the most productive uses of Social I have seen is when it’s paired with TV as the “2nd step” – TV gens the Awareness, then Social amplifies the result by creating Interest (buzz, chatter, etc.)

Perhaps that’s the real question here: is social *more effective*, pound for pound, at generating Awareness or Interest?

I’d guess Interest, since that’s where the social part of social – the ties – creates the most leverage and potential to change behavior. In other words, the social part of “social media” is much more powerful than the media part – meaning the value is more about Interest, not so much Awareness.

Thanks for the great comment!

Great piece and some interesting comments. I totally agree with your main thrust when you write:

“Alternatively, folks who honestly (read: using the scientific method) want to find this “missing” social value should start doing customer analysis, and look in the retention / loyalty area, where the whole idea of social is a natural, rather than a forced, fit. Customers being people (as opposed to events) who generate recurring value.”

On the awareness/acquisition side I also agree with the main argument that on most cases there is likely to be little value or less value than is being currently apportioned and it is most often a personal confirmation of one’s interests and tastes.

However for some product/brand launches I suspect (although I can’t scientifically prove it :-) as I don’t have access to any data) there is strong value in social media generating awareness. I am thinking of examples such as the launches of Dropbox and Spotify. As you rightly say it depends on the business model and environment.

A second point that I would like to challenge on is the concept that if a BFF sees a TV ad (or other advertising channel) before seeing a Like, that that Like has had no impact on generating awareness. Imagine the scenario where I am the BFF and I am sat happily in the sitting room with the TV in the background and an ad runs for Product X and I pick up some of the information about Product X but not everything. I then use some form of social media and notice a friend has liked Product X whether that is a facebook page, blog article etc. I then go and read that content and get further information and clarity on what Product X is and my awareness of the product has increased. I would argue in this case the like button + associated social content has played a significant role in generating awareness of Product X. What I am trying to highlight in a very much roundabout way is that a strong awareness of a product/service is often not generated through just one channel but across many. I would admit that this scenario is more likely when Product X is fairly new to the market place.

However going back to your last comment I would strongly agree that in most cases the value is on the whole overestimated by marketers and analysts and the focus of finding value should be found in loyalty and retention.

Similarly, I’m really asking, what is the specific hypothesis behind social measurement? Because without a hypothesis you can “prove” anything ;)

If the hypothesis is “new awareness”, then Lucy has some ’splaining to do, because to honestly affirm a “Like” that person has to be aware already. Not sure folks can get away from that logic; to argue otherwise brings up the uncomfortable idea of “don’t really Like” Likes of all kinds.

This would create a situation similar to “we’ll pay you to view ads”, one of the stupidest biz models ever, where the value prop was proven false.

For example, what if a Like really does not mean the person Likes the entity, but the person is brainlessly auto-Liking for some social reason? What % of Likes do not represent a person actually Liking the entity? What does this idea do to all those “spread the word” models that are out there , e.g. is a person really an “influencer” if they are also an auto-Liker?

Then, as Benoit pointed out, you have a 3rd scenario, a pure awareness play that might not even involve a Like, but could. Person Likes an entity their BFF was totally unaware of, and this BFF does not auto-Like it, but explores it first, then potentially Likes it later on.

This specific scenario, seems to me, is the one folks should be exploring if the hypothesis is “social creates new awareness”. The value of this scenario is mitigated by the potential for BFF’s to already know each other’s favorite companies / products / concepts at a deep level – the Like may be new but the awareness is not.

Which leaves a subset where truly new awareness is created – new company / product launch. Person discovers a brand new idea and Likes it; BFF sees the Like and it’s indeed new awareness because the concept did not previously exist – if BFF has not seen new launch TV spot, online display ad, etc.

Great, it works! What % of the overall activity is this scenario, and what is the incremental value of it? Is this value anything close to what so many analysts are projecting it is?

Folks interested in further investigation into these ideas, tons of real research out there – search on:

weak ties – strong ties

Again, I’m not saying “social media doesn’t create value”. I’m saying if social does create incremental value, the majority of this value is not likely in the “new awareness” area, seems to me.

Tim’s argument is based/founded in advertising constructs. That is: We don’t need to understand, we need to simply trust (that something works) and be motivated by fear of “missing out” on something great. It’s how the ad industry has trained CMOs to behave for years. And they’re reaping the results: 30% approval ratings and falling.

To say that science cannot explain the impact of social media is false. And to suggest that what we’re after here is “better prediction” is to get at the heart of the matter:

What are we after with social– a better way to serve an ad or a means to achieve a sale? Most CMOs will choose the better ad. Bold CMOs will choose the sale. When you strip away this constant navel-gazing of “what is ROI?” and measurement– and define it as “a sale” it gets scarey simple.

I just wrote a book (www.oth.me/buyOTHM) on how the science of direct response and neurolinguistics is allowing small and large businesses to make PROVE-ABLE sales via social.
—
Social events such as “Likes” or comments are simply representations or affirmations of awareness already created by other media, so by themselves, create little value. In other words, events such as Likes might track the value of other media spending, but may not create much additional marketing value.
—

Are you kidding me, Jim? This is so fantastically lucid. I need to quote you here there and everywhere on this one!!