Intermedia

Measurement - Track behavior, consistently

I'm a fan of measurement. It's part of my practical, "why am I doing this?" nature. So, I tend to write and talk about it quite a bit. What's bugging me recently is the number of folks who either say, "You can't measure [fill in the blank], because the stats are unreliable or something seemingly reasonable. I don't buy it though, at least when talking about internal measures.

If you're trying to measure efforts or outcomes of your operation, all that really matters is consistency. Pick the thing you're going to measure -- anything, really -- and get a benchmark, then repeat to see if you're improving, declining, staying flat. The other key, I'm coming to realize, is that you measure behavior (which, for some reason, I've started spelling behaviour), not activity. There's just to much unknown, particularly on the web, with measuring action/activities. What does a click, or path, really mean? What's the behavior you are trying to cause -- apply, visit, give, register, etc. By taking your measurement to this level, you keep the strategies and tactics in the right place and don't focus too much on the small things.

2.0 and web stats, oh the irony

I fully embrace the idea that statistics are open for interpretation -- numbers without context are essentially meaningless. Fine. I don't, however, understand why I can't find reliable stats on just about anything happening on the web.

What's the average age of a Facebook user? Not sure. Facebook gives limited data and even some of ComScore's data has been called into question. Oy.

Want to compare apples to apples across sites. Good luck.

There's something ironic about this. The web, particularly the "social web" that so many of these sites are a significant part of, is about open conversation and the democratization of information. It would make sense (to me at least) that these sites would agree to make their states open. The lock-down these sites put on their numbers just doesn't seem in line with their mission.

A roving horde of marketers is looking for you

There's a bit of a scary trend (hence the scary post title) in regard to "tapping into the power of social networking sites" that, I think, has the power to really botch up a good thing.

Articles and seminars abound, advising marketers to harness the power of social networking. The problem is that social networking sites weren't built for marketers. They were built for (gasp) people. The temptation to do said harnessing is understandable. These sites, by gathering groups of people of similar interests in one place, provide those with a related sales opportunity or communication initiative the ability to hit them all at once. The snag is that social networking sites aren't meant to be awesome targeted marketing opportunities, they're spaces for people of like interests and affiliations to form and manage community. That's it.

The more companies and organizations intrude these community spaces, the less people will want to gather there. Think of it as a cocktail party that happens to be attended by people who like luxury cars. How much fun would it be if the guy from the Benz dealership showed up uninvited and started yakking about his new line? Or, not to be too intrusive, he just slipped a bunch of brochures under the door. Not good times.

The increasing openness of networking, thanks to the web, means that we communicators need to exert more self control and plain old good social skills.

Step away from the analytics tool

I love analytics. Show me a graph or chart of how a particular campaign, site, or any type of effort is performing over time and I'm happy. I also love personalization. At this point, I think we all expect a certain level of customization with targeted marketing efforts. These are good, useful tools that can help build relationships... unless they fall into the wrong hands.

A few days ago, I received a solicitation from a company offering some type of service that I didn't quite understand from the description. So, I moved on. Today, though, I got this message (details on the company removed because, well, that would be mean):

Follow Up

I noticed that you had looked at the email that I sent you.

We you able to go to our site, xxxxx and have a look around?
Was there something that turned you away?

If you have any questions about what we do or how we can help you please let me know.

Thanks

Ick.

"I noticed that you had looked at the email that I sent you." This is a textbook violation of the creepy rule. There's a fine line in the personalization world between "I know you" and "I'm watching you." People want to feel respected as individuals, particularly after they've shared information with by filling out a form or making an inquiry.

Following up based on what your stats package is telling you is a good idea, and the text should recognize that you're making a fresh contact -- but it has to be done in a way that still asks permission since there hasn't been any kind of positive response yet. Going beyond that crosses a line.

Use the tools wisely, young marketer.

Godin nails it on engagement and giving

Seth Godin just made a great post about his thoughts on modern philanthropy that I just had to include here as it's relevant to this blog's most recent thread on engagement. He makes great points about the declining role of direct marketing and the proper place of the Internet (beyond transactional) which you can go to the post to read. One section in particular, though, blends so nicely with the current conversation that I wanted to post it here:

"The big win is in turning donors into patrons and activists and participants. The biggest donors are the ones who not only give, but do the work. The ones who make the soup or feed the hungry or hang the art. My mom was a volunteer for years at the Albright Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York, and there's no doubt at all that we gave more money to the museum than we would have if they'd sent us a flyer once a month."

This all goes to the point that people tend to invest in the things that they help build. The first link in the chain is engagement. That means real engagement -- not just a handshake. He makes the good point that you have to let people get their hands dirty in the work, trusting that you'll end up in a better place than you began even if it means letting go a little. It's the whole we are better than me thing, right?

Measuring alumni engagement

I've spent a lot of time thinking about how best to measure alumni engagement, which I've found to be trickier than it might seem. Coming from a media relations background, though, makes one used to the concept of measuring the immeasurable.

I used to think of alumni engagement as a straight line, from disengaged to engaged -- pretty simple. Too simple. There are all kinds of engagement -- some visit regularly, some volunteer, some give financially, others glow with pride and spread the word, as it were. Each of these, and many others that I didn't list, are important elements of engagement and impossible to stick at the endpoint of a single straight line. For that reason, I'm not starting to think of engagement as an inverted pyramid (again with the media relations, I know).

The bottom point is disengagement. The top line represents the many points of measurement of engagement that are specific to an institution. Here's an example:

Once categories are established based on institutional priorities, you could then map individuals or groups based on their participation, drawing lines from disengaged to fully engaged in each area. Are certain class years or eras highly engaged at reunion but not giving financially? Are certain groups of graduates giving generously but not engaging with campus life? This diagram, I think, could help us get to some answers.

The next logical question, then, is what to do with it. That's the fun part. Talk with people. The pyramid and any other measurement is a good way to mine data, but the only real way to get to good answers and potential solutions is through conversation. See if you can draw some dotted lines between trends based on what you're hearing. Show folks what you've found and see if they can help you figure it out.

I'm going to keep thinking about the pyramid and other models for measuring engagement, as I'm fully aware that there is no silver bullet. I'd love to hear what you're up to.

Update: Jan. 2
Well, it's a new year and I already have a lot more to say about this particular post and topic. Most of my new observations and thoughts come as a result of a great exchange I've had with Andy Shaindlin of Alumni Futures. I'll paraphrase our back and forth here:

Why can't you do this with a regular graph?
Good point. This comes from how I was thinking that the relationships grow -- which is outward. I think there is a zero point for engagedness -- the point at which people just don't care, or think about you, at all. From there, they can get more engaged along a specific line (say, they start volunteering for admission), but it's important that you have the ability to separate that single element of engagement out from the others (say, reunion attendance or annual giving). Again, each institution has to decide what is the most important part of engagement.

Still not convinced it needs to be a pyramid (actually, Andy points out it's a triangle).
Well, I also like the triangle because you can define how broad of a band at the top you want each element to have AND you can rank the elements of engagement, left to right. So, ideally, you're moving people to that upper right point of engagement. "What?" Okay, that was a little much for one thought. Lemme 'splain.

In reality, though, it should be a radar chart -- the "zero" point in the middle and progress toward each point going out from there. When you have enough data, you should (remember this is all hypothetical) be able to generate some examples of what types of charts do and don't produce results for particular people or groups. This allows you to do some basic modeling of your programs AND see what is worth pulling back on and what is worth investing in more significantly.

Navigation, emotion and giraffes

Web content guru Gerry McGovern is one of my favorite bloggers -- mostly because some of his posts at Giraffe Forum give me a nervous twitch. Don't get me wrong, I read McGovern pretty closely, but every once in a while he strikes a nerve.

In a recent post in which he argues that every website is NOT different, he writes, "Please don’t think about your website from the point of view of emotional branding. Don’t fall into the trap of designing for exceptions." He concludes with, "There are now solid rules for managing websites. The first one is: Design for what is common, not for what is exceptional."

In many ways, I agree, but I don't think it's that black and white. I think you need to focus on what's common and anticipate the exceptional. I think Jeff Bezos was the first to talk about accelerated serendipity as a design model on the web. Think about how Amazon is built. You go there knowing that you want McGovern's book Killer Web Content but learn about Avinash Kaushik's book on web analytics, Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think, and Jakob Nielsen's book on eye tracking. Not a bad set of books that you might not have known that you should read and only found because they anticipated.

I think this extends to interactive content as well. In the university context, there are certainly times when prospective students are on a navigation mission. They want to know the majors, location, price, financial aid, weather, etc. and that's it. So, here McGovern's principles are dead on. But, we also know that they use the web heavily to get a sense of place. They want to see photos, videos, read some short stories, etc. Good .edu web design, in my opinion, allows for both. The site is quickly and easily navigated but also has plenty of opportunities to highlight the "experience."

This is where the accelerated serendipity happens. A student might be looking to see if there is a film studies program -- but once they're on the page, it's a missed opportunity not to show some student-produced films or stories about film on campus that they didn't necessarily know they'd find. This allows them to connect with the people -- the faculty, the current students, and others on campus -- who they will study with once they enroll. Here's where I really depart with McGovern's argument. A college website isn't strictly transactional -- the emotional draw is just as important as access to key content, but perhaps not at the same time in the college search process.

Measurement: Tracking the life of content

What good is a measurement tool that doesn't track the success of content at the article/content level? Probably not much. Think about it, how many times have you navigated to a website and then just sat there and stared at it? Right. Never. Because you're not there just to look at the pretty website, you're there to get a piece of information, to make a transaction, or to be entertained. Those are the things that have to be tracked.

Just looking at hits on the sitewide scale makes no sense -- it's too big a pot of stew to understand. The content, though, tells you a lot more about what they want, need, and are interested in -- and you can do it over time because content never dies (or at least it shouldn't), while the container (design) changes pretty rapidly.

The trick is getting this done. Google Analytics appears to be emerging as a tool of choice for many in higher ed. Makes sense -- it's free, it's easy to understand, and it works. Pretty much a winning combination every time. Some of the off-the-shelf tools are expensive, ridiculously hard to understand, and often bog down systems because of their massive log file demands. [Buzz] Not a good combination.

The problem with Analytics is that it tracks at the page level, not necessarily at the article/content level, which is pretty limiting. The bigger tools do handle such tracking, but refer to the whole expensive (which makes them not an option for many shops), hard to understand (which makes them not an option for shops without a programmer or stats guru), and big log file (which makes them not an option for shops without adequate/dedicated IT support) issue.

So what's a pro to do? This is actually another one of those volley posts, because I don't have an answer. Seriously, what are you doing?

Viral, awareness and alignment

Two days ago, I had no idea what (or where) William Woods University was. Today I know that it's a liberal arts institution in Fulton, Missouri. I also know that they have a marginally unhealthy obsession with ducks. Why do I know this? Because I stumbled upon their microsite GotDuck.com.

The site is creative, funny, and worth visiting more than once. It's also informative -- cast as a campus map with helpful "tour" tips that help visitors get to know the place. It's viral done right... I think.

Aside from the fact that I now know that WWU is a liberal arts u. in Mizzou, the site gave me some general "brand" impressions about the place. This is where I often have trouble with viral campaigns. It's great to get eyeballs -- and I think this one will -- but the experience has to be more than just plan cool, it has to be aligned with the institution's identity. So, if WWU is a place that pushes the borders, is bold and supportive of students' creative AND edgy ideas, has a great sense of humor, etc. than this site is spot on. Check out the site and you'll know what I mean. Ir those things aren't part of their core identity though, it misses the mark and the online and on-campus experiences won't be aligned. Not a good thing.

Their institutional site is pretty straightforward and doesn't reflect the edginess of the microsite. That's fine, but it does make me wonder a bit about alignment between the Ducks site and the institutional mojo.

All in all, I think they've done something bold and fun here and a bit outside the normal "safe" box for higher ed. Go ducks.

Integrating "big social" into an alumni site

This is a quick follow up post...

A while back, in a post about alumni and social networking, there was some discussion on this blog about iModules plans to pull Facebook into its alumni application. A post from a few weeks ago on the iModules blog (good for them for blogging, by the way), there was a post called "The Facebook Challenge," in which blogging VP Mike McCamon discusses their intended approach to integration with social networking sites such as Facebook. He writes,

"later this year we plan to make it easier for our users to include their Facebook badge inside their profile page of our community software.  We also plan in that same timeframe to integrate 'views' into many other social networking sites like flickr, YouTube and others.  The idea is to offer a variety of simple ways for our communities to link to content in those social networks without risking data integrity in our clients' systems."

So, that question is answered. It will be interesting to see how it works. Sounds like they're not going so far as to fully integrate any social apps into their product, but they will provide links. I wonder if it works on the flipside -- will they create Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and other apps that allow alumni to post from their social accounts into their alumni accounts? Could be useful.