The headline calls attention to everything that’s wrong with how businesses measure engagement in social media today. Businesses that invest any level of marketing resources in networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and the like (get it?) are being groomed to focus on soft metrics instead of the relevant activity that signals the strength and worth of a community.
By weighing conversations, interactions, and views, businesses are fed raw numbers that demonstrate KPIs but they do not offer the insights necessary to glean ROI or deep understanding of what people do and do not want, need, or value. And that’s part of the problem as marketers and developers are focusing on stimulating movement, which by default becomes a game of competing for attention, moment by moment.
A recent study published by Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, an Australia-based research group found that less than 1-percent of Facebook “Fans” actually engage with brands. Researchers looked at the top 200 brands using Facebook’s “People Talking About This” metric as a proportion of overall fan growth over a six-week period in October 2011. As a result, the team discovered that the percentage of People Talking About This compared to overall fans was only 1.3%.
While this metric and approach is only one way to measure supposed engagement, the truth is that even by Facebook’s own standards of measurement, marketers are already boxed into a reporting process where each report serves as a benchmark for future activity. That’s the problem though. Engagement is confused with incidents and not outcomes or influence, the ability to cause desired effect or change behavior.
Businesses Take a Medium’alistic Approach
Brands and their marketers suffer from what I refer to as medium’alism, a condition where inordinate value and weight is placed on the technology of any medium rather than amplifying platform strengths and ideas to deliver desired and beneficial experiences and outcomes.
Said another way, businesses are developing for the sake of development and establishing supporting presences without regard for how someone feels, thinks, or acts as a result. In doing so, “engagement” programs are calculated, brought to life in the form of an editorial calendar that, by its very nature, isn’t not designed to really engage people at all.
See, engagement is not defined through likes, comments, shares, RTs or impressions. This activity is simply a result of engagement. Focusing on soft metrics is at the detriment of the customer experience and is potentially a distraction away from developing more meaningful connections and relationships. Engagement is by design. And, this is why businesses that are attempting to drive engagement numbers are benchmarking against lower standards. Instead of benchmarking against themselves, marketers and developers should consider benchmarking against the opportunity. Doing so is far more ambitious and as such, aspirational in the development of future strategies.
For example, I ran a quick experiment with a global beer brand to prove a point. We looked at the 1-percent engagement rate and decided to run a non-scientific experiment to not only debunk the value of the engagement number as defined, but also demonstrate the need to think through desired actions and outcomes.
In the middle of a business day, I posted a picture of a frosty mug filled with said beer with an ocean view in the distance. I added one word to the post, “cheers.” Within minutes that 1-percent engagement rate was eclipsed with people uploading pictures of their favorite moments while enjoying their favorite beer. Along with comments, Likes, Shares, etc., the marketing and digital teams were temporarily elated but quickly realized that the engagement they witnessed was only fleeting. While a simple example, the lesson is that engagement must mean something more to groom the community toward desired sentiment, outcomes, or to simply serve the needs of the community based on stated expectations or desires.
Redefining Engagement to be More Engaging
It starts with redefining engagement as we know it today to ultimately improve experiences tomorrow. I spent some time exploring existing definitions and I was surprised to find a lack clarity around such an important word. Since we spent so much time talking about what engagement is not, I invested time in researching the best practices of brands that were clearly driving communities in a particular direction through digital, social, and mobile channels. Those companies include Virgin America, Dell, TOMS, Whole Foods, Giant Nerd, among others. As a result, a working definition for engagement came into view…
Engagement is defined by how a brand and consumer connect and interact within their networks of relevance.
Simple. But, it’s also incomplete. It’s not just about the moment or competing for attention, it’s about the aftereffect.
Engagement is measured by takeaway value, sentiment or feelings, and resulting actions following the exchange.
If we look at the nature of the community in which brands are investing today, editorial programming, contests, gimmicks, campaigns, etc. lend to only one of the multifaceted sides to customer engagement. Community is much more than belonging to something, it’s about doing something together that makes belonging matter. This is why businesses must think about investing engagement by defining experiences, journeys, feelings and outcomes. Without doing so, they by default introduce experience divides that disrupt flow, hinder sentiment, and obstruct clicks to action.

Redefined engagement opens the door to new strategies and resulting metrics that lend to meaningful experiences and results. By designing more meaningful initiatives, businesses can now focus on causing effect, changing behavior, or reinforcing value where previous engagement metrics can now document the progress of progress. The ultimate measure however is now something more substantial, such as…
- Shift in sentiment
- Satisfaction
- Acquisition
- Referrals
- Conversion
- Leads
- Brand integrity/Reputation
Thinking through experiences, journeys, outcomes, and sentiment will at the very least improve the number of customer interactions and overall allegiance. It is in the relentless delivery of value that extends moments beyond merely competing for attention. Engagement is about cultivating community behavior against a defined vision, mission and most importantly, purpose. Step back to gain perspective and to see new possibilities that your competitors are missing. You are an architect of experiences and as such, you must begin with the end in mind. Then, reverse engineer the outcomes and experiences your community will value and in turn, your management will value as well.





[...] Engagement Ain’t Nothing But A Number via PandoDaily [...]
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like[...] Engagement Ain’t Nothing But A Number | PandoDaily [...]
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like[...] Engagement Aint Nothing but a number [...]
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeIt's not just about social media. You've got to take them off page for your conversions. These metrics show poor results on average because the average business and the average marketer sucks. It's even worse when you go to larger businesses says Dan Kennedy. Soft metrics are fine. If you want hard metrics, learn to drive the traffic from your social media, into your leads funnel and SELL. It's all a numbers game in the end. If you listen to Dan Kennedy, you know you have to have a message to market match. So find your damn market and interact with them in a way that they understand and with content that genuinely solves their problems. End Rant. Whether you agree go to www.millionairementorsaccess.com where I will give you a couple of tools and you can get to know me.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeVery insightful, provocative piece, Brian! As CEO of Conduit – the largest player in the engagement space – I am naturally drawn to this conversation. Clearly, the need to engage users is of paramount importance in a time of escalating demands for their time, attention, and passion. Equally clearly, developing rich and meaningful engagement metrics is not a simple calculation, as engagement levels are susceptible to constant change. "Being engaged" by someone or something is a profoundly human activity, and I suspect that experts in psychometrics will be studying and debating it for years. I also expect that innovative publishers will continue to find new ways to capture the attention of their users by leveraging Conduit’s powerful engagement platform. Lastly, I’d like to challenge your statement: "Engagement is about cultivating community behavior against a defined vision, mission and most importantly, purpose." While there are times when a collective mind is operating, engagement is – at its purest level – an individual connection. I feel that publishers can succeed most enduringly when engagement feels intensely personal. I know that even when our engineers develop our solutions for a network of 260 million, they're thinking about one person, at one computer.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeInteresting reply and challenge. I do not believe that it is currently possible to attain the purest level of engagement via electronic interface. You said it yourself, "being engaged by someone or something is a profoundly human activity". Although, if I said that I would take out "something" because complex sentient lifeforms can be engaged with something without being human... or the activity being humanistic. Engagement is not an attribute unique to humans. However, if a human is engaged by someONE (another human) that complex interaction is unique. But I digress... If your engineers are developing solutions thinking about one person, at one computer - then they are doing it wrong - and I doubt that's what they're actually doing - although it does make for an interesting, compelling and very quotable statement. Also - individuality is a term that we must examine. Individuals have thoughts and experiences that are influenced by others - their expectations and ways of viewing things and knowing how to interact with things are the result of drawing knowledge from a collective, societal conscience (especially on social networks!). So, let's say your engineers ARE thinking about one person, at one computer - that ONE person at that one computer is actually approaching whatever problem (that requires a solution) with experience that they conceptualize based on knowledge that existed prior to their encounter with said problem. Unless that one person is entirely original, and their thoughts have evolved without being "tainted" by the thoughts of others - which is doubtful - you are in fact dealing the result of a collective mindset.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThis is a good writeup Brian. But how do you measure success in experiences? Movies can do it. Sports can do it. Social Media cannot be content with "experiences" and it's growth, because that's not exactly quantifiable. I agree concentration shouldn't be on the medium nor on the spot campaigns but as marketers or investors you need some way to measure your ROI. You mentioned it in the end with Acquisition Referrals Conversion Leads But this is the same as any online marketing campaign right? What am I missing here?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeBrian - great article. Funny enough, in our case its the opposite. We (MyNextCustomer) currently focus our social metrics on the hard stuff only. In fact, we're currently able to tell customers how many phone calls, sales, or web leads they got from Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, then calculate the "hard" ROAS or LTV on these channel. But your definition of engagement to include both "hard" and "soft" metrics actually makes more sense - and makes me re-think whether we should also add softer metrics like sentiment, satisfaction, referrals, etc.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeYou and I have been doing this long enough to be coming to similar conclusions. But organizations are trained to measure numbers as KPIs. Do you think social engagement will ultimately be proven to increase sales? Isn't that the final ROI number anyway?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI wish. This is why you and I keep talking about a culture shift or the need for new leadership. In fact, we're do for another live conversation over drinks!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeTL;DR - the author thinks "the medium is NOT the message".Others disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message http://blog.marketingxd.com/post/6276652954/the-marketing-is-the-message
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeA good article that makes a valid point in a very clear way. The problem is that no matter how clearly this message is spelled out, people will always glance at the number of followers / fans someone has to decide how well they are doing. I'm afraid the fact that people want an easy (lazy) way to gauge success is an inescapable and unchanging truth.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeYou are right about easy ways but, there is no problem. "Success in social" and "success in business" is not the same, and there are enough of people who recognize the difference (or capable to do so). This material will help them, and this is the great output. (Anyway, most of us can be educated only thru own mistakes - let's them do so:) )
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like[...] awareness, much like engagement, can be a false end. A colleague and I were discussing Engagement Ain’t Nothing’ But a Number by Brian Solis. One quote is particularly relevant: Engagement is confused with incidents and not [...]
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likegreat article Brian. totally agree with your view on engagement. i was having a discussion with a client here in Malaysia on this very point. Brands need to look at creating "meaningful experiences" and most importantly measurable results from their various social media/new media activities.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeSpot on Brian... great writing!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeRight on Gabriel...thanks for taking the time.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI wrote a similar post today bemoaning the fact that so much focus is on these "empty calorie" statistics: http://bit.ly/zkqxJM There's a hesitancy to look deeper that will hopefully be overcome as people become increasingly familiar with digging through data
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeSomething wrong with the page. The place where there is supposed to be the author's signature, the whole article is reported again.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeLooks like it was fixed...thank you
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like