Intermedia

What's the ROI of your ROI efforts?

Communication and engagement metrics continue to fascinate me. Our profession continues to debate everything from their legitimacy ("You can't measure what we do.") to their application (likes are the new ad dollar equivalencies, to those of us who grew up in media relations).

To me, it's always been pretty simple. We need diagnostics to know if what we're doing is working or not, so that we can know whether to do more or less of it. And, given all of the pressures on organizations to find efficiencies, if we don't come up with those diagnostic tools, someone else will. And that person probably won't be a communications, marketing, alumni or advancement professional.

Yes, you've heard me sing this song before but I've added a new verse. This one is all about making sure what you're measuring matters, and there's an easy way to figure it out. Does anyone aside from you or your team care? When you talk about your metrics, do you have to make a case for why they matter or is it obvious?

No matter what discipline you focus on, there are metrics that can be applied at the micro level - media placements, Facebook post likes, retweets, alumni event attendees, donor renewals, etc. - but how do each of those matter to the macro goals for your institution? I'd argue that each of them does, but depending on today's macro goals and pressures, not in equal proportion.

Knowing what your big picture divisional and institutional goals are and aligning resources in support of those goals allows you to align your effort and energy with those goals, and use your micro metrics to ensure each effort is on point. It's just a variation of what you're probably already doing. All it takes is some good, direct conversation about institutional direction - and what matters most to your leaders. Being proactive about your metrics will be appreciated.

photo credit: Marco Bellucci via photopin cc

Redesign: Launch, splash, ripple

Every time I see the launch of an ambitious new website, magazine, social media campaign or other design and content-rich platform, I wonder about the maintenance and improvement plan. Yes, I am that much of a geek.

I used to question the need for large-scale redesigns, which consume a great deal of effort and resources, vs. moving to an ongoing redesign process - a ramp rather than a ladder. I've come around though, perhaps because it's more realistic but still think the big splash often is just that - a huge step followed by either stagnation or moderate steps until the next big overhaul.

It seems some fundamental questions should be asked up front to ensure that the big splash has a long-lasting ripple effect.

- Is our design supported by a solid content plan?
- Do we have a stable content management system?
- Do we have the people and technology to maintain this level of quality (particularly as it relates to photos, video, etc.)
- Have we set benchmarks for success that are related to institutional priorities/strategy?
- Do we have the proper tools to collect and report out on progress?
- If we are not hitting goals, do we have the flexibility to adjust course?

Redesigns feel good because they show progress and can often get us to the front of the pack in terms of technology, design and visual presentation. The trick is to figure out if that improvement actually moves the needle and whether we can sustain it. You know. Geek stuff.

photo credit: Sergiu Bacioiu via photopin cc

Executing vs. Doing

People are drawn to productivity. It's the whole "look what I made!" instinct that is built in from the time we were kids in school. It feels good to get things done, but it's not necessarily always for the best.

Given how much content - much of it noise - that we're all confronted with every day, it seems like we should be taking the time to be sure that what we produce is actually additive, meaningful, and has a clear purpose. Problem is, all of this requires planning... and clearly-stated goals... and a strategy. And making sure all of these are in places requires us to stop the "doing" machine, or at least slow it down a bit. 

What we really need to be doing is "executing" - following through on those plans, making sure that we have a deep sense of purpose behind our messages and projects. Does every piece of work we produce need to change the world? No. Should we have a good answer to "Why'd you do that?" Probably.

We live in a fast-paced culture that is fast because that feels good. It feels productive. It feels like we're keeping up with the pack. Thing is, I'm not terribly interested in the pack. In fact, I think taking time to focus, and actually slowing things down a bit can make us stand out. Now wouldn't that feel good?

photo credit: Robert S. Donovan via photopin cc

Inchworm innovation

You know how an inchworm crawls right? Flattens out, humps up, flattens out, and so on. Probably not the scientific way to explain it, but I'm going for a visual here.

In reading up on today's annoucement of Facebook's new social graph feature, I couldn't help wonder what most Facebook users would make of it. Best guess? They have no idea that it's happening. Why? They use Facebook to share pictures of their kids. And rant about politics. And pics of cats stuck in shoes.  

Point is, Facebook technology is geared for the super user while the Facebook interface is designed for, well, the kid/rant/catshoe people. You see, my guess is that innovation on these platforms moves a lot like the inchworm. Just as the space between users and the technology is at close to being bridged, the system takes another leap forward, the inchworm flattens out, and users eventually pull  themselves forward to a point where they're making the most of the new features. With social graph, the inchworm has been flattened. How's that for a declaration? 

Same goes for any type of advance you make with your technology or programs. Remember that you're going to have folks who are right there with you at the head of the worm, but in all likelihood the bulk of your constituents will be riding the wave or holding onto the tail. 

photo credit: Bjorn1101 via photopin cc

Can vs. should

Strategy is a tricky thing. 

Being strategic requires planning. It requires discipline. It requires flexibility. It requires us to ask questions before getting started and, in some cases, saying no. (audible gasp)

No matter your area of focus or expertise, we are often pulled in the direction of what we can do - whether to prove that we're being responsive, to show  that it can be done or because it's satisfying to take something on and accomplish it. Problem is, just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should do it.

"Can" is a slippery slope. Given the right mix of time and energy, just about anything can be done. Heck, last year I saw a squirrel water ski. (true story) 

"Should" requires a few important things. You need to understand goals and purpose. You need a way to know how much time and effort should go into the project so that you don't over- or under-do it. Should has a clear purpose and outcome.

It's a simple swapping of words, but give it a try. Rather than making a decision based on whether something can be done, think about whether it should be done. Just having the conversation is a step in the direction of strategy.