How to value social media traffic
Google+. Facebook. Twitter. LinkedIn. What’s really working for you? Do you know? How would you know? It turns out the answer is easily within reach. Here’s how to set up a very quick dashboard to see what’s truly working for you.
First, I will assume that you have set up goals and goal values in Google Analytics. If you haven’t done so, you need to do so before you go any further.
Next, you’ll want to create some advanced traffic segments in Google Analytics. Let’s make one for each major social network. Obviously, if you participate in other networks besides these, make them as appropriate.
Start by opening up Dimensions, choosing Traffic Sources, finding the Source tag, and dragging it over to the right. Set the matching condition to regular expression, then insert in all of the URLs that traffic can come from that you can attribute to that network. Here’s an example using Facebook:
As you can see, Facebook sends traffic typically from facebook.com as well as their link shorteners fb.me and on.fb.me. Once you’ve set up this segment, hit save, then rinse and repeat for other networks you care about. In my own analytics, I’ve done this for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+.
Now go to your Goals page and drop down the Advanced Traffic Segments menu. Choose up to 3 custom segments. In this example I picked Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. You can see quite clearly what’s working based on the number of goals achieved.
If you did indeed set Goal Value, now you have a valuation of the traffic from each network that shows exactly how much each network has been worth to you based on your goals.
This is what the corner office wants to see. This is what the board of directors wants to see. This is what investors, advertisers, partners, and anyone who is interested in spending money with you wants to see. If you’re able to make social media work for you by generating actual revenue, then everything that comes along with it – brand, reputation, trust, SEO – comes along for the ride.
It becomes very easy to justify additional investments in social media when you can show this baseline number – and that’s what it is, a worst case scenario. This is the absolute minimum value of social media, not counting the influence of brand engagement, not counting the value of conversation, not counting customer retention. This is the barest hard dollars you can find using social media, which in turn means that you’re almost certainly doing better than this with all of the stuff that this benchmark doesn’t measure.
Set up these segmentations after you’ve set up your goals and you’ll be able to see exactly what’s working for you and where you should be spending your time and resources.
If you enjoyed this, please click here and share it with your network!
Want to read more like this from Christopher Penn? If so, please subscribe right now!
Click here to read my blog on Google Currents on your mobile!
Marketing White Belt |
Watch me speak:
Attend virtually! |
I recommend: for Twitter audience building. |
Authenticity, the real, and the ideal
I made lemonade today, and said lemonade got me thinking. Why? The lemonade I made looked like cloudy water. It was a pale yellowish milky color with little random bits of stuff floating around in it, absolutely nothing like lemonade is “supposed” to look. But when I drank it, it was like getting face-punched by a citrus-flavored Tyson, which is exactly what I wanted.
Compare that to the nearly radioactively yellow lemonade that gets served all over the place. Looks exactly like lemonade is supposed to look, but tastes deeply artificial – overly sour or overly sweet, with hints of preservatives, colors, and stabilizers in the mix. Why do we drink it? Why do we buy it? The packaged stuff looks like the ideal of what lemonade is supposed to look like, and as a result, we tend to like its flavor by our appreciation of the ideal.
One of the words we bounce around in social media so often that it’s nearly meaningless is authenticity. My question to you is this: are you making a judgement about authenticity based on its faithfulness to what is real, or what is the ideal?
Authenticity to the real means showing the ugly parts. It means heirloom tomatoes that look like produce accidents. It means employees saying something stupid on Twitter from time to time. It means relationships that have strife. That’s being authentic to what is real. The more you can be that, the happier you’ll be, because you’ll spend less and less time and energy pretending to be something that you’re not – at the cost of dealing with the consequences of who you are.
Authenticity to the ideal means showing what people expect to see. It means lemonade that is perfectly colored, even if it’s imperfectly flavored. It means the brand is more important than the product, and your time and energy are best spent on building the brand, not the product. It means relationships that tolerate no strife or disagreement. It means social media presences that are practically 140 character embodiments of Norman Rockwell. It means being who people want you to be, at the cost of never being permitted to show who you actually are.
Which you choose depends on what result you seek. There isn’t a right or wrong here, because the real and the ideal each provide value. If you only had the real, you might never chase the ideal, might never strive to be more than you are. If you only had the ideal, you might never value what you already have, might never see just how fortunate you are. Neither is better than the other.
The only danger is confusing the two. If you want the ideal but you demand “authenticity” from someone who provides the real, you will always be disappointed and let down. If you want the real but your vision of authenticity is tied to the ideal, you will always be dissatisfied and nothing will ever be good enough. Know which you really want if you demand authenticity, whether in social media or in life.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a pitcher of cloudy, pale lemonade to go drink.
If you enjoyed this, please click here and share it with your network!
Want to read more like this from Christopher Penn? If so, please subscribe right now!
Click here to read my blog on Google Currents on your mobile!
Marketing White Belt |
Watch me speak:
Attend virtually! |
I recommend: for Twitter audience building. |
Understanding and Evaluating Google+
Are there “right” and “wrong” ways to use Google+? There are right and wrong ways to use any tool. You can, for example, use a jackhammer to tenderize a steak. The result might be different, but if you’re especially skilled with it, it might work. Ultimately, the tool is theoretically capable of performing the action you want if you have enough skill to operate it. You probably can’t do open heart surgery with the jackhammer. No matter how skilled you are, that sort of work is beyond the ability of the tool.
Likewise, Google+ is a tool that has uses and as a result has some things that can be less or more effective. Let’s assume for the purposes of this article that your goal is to grow a large, valuable network that promotes real world goals for you, your organization, etc. What can we ascertain about social networks from their network and content philosophies?
Social networks generally come in two network flavors, asymmetric and symmetric. Symmetric networks are version 1.0 of social – to be my friend, I have to be your friend. To be my fan, I have to be your fan. Asymmetric networks are version 2.0 – you can follow me, but I don’t have to follow you in order for you to derive benefit from my work on the network. Twitter was the first to figure this out; Facebook took a while but finally implemented it with (Fan) Pages, and Google+ came out of the gate as an asymmetric network.
Why does this matter? An asymmetric network gives participants a great deal more freedom to post, to create, to do stuff, to be willing to connect. It gives users more choice: you can follow me, and I can choose whether or not to follow you back. The growth of our respective networks is therefore not dependent on mandatory reciprocity. Here’s the funny thing I’ve noticed about asymmetric networks: because reciprocity is optional, people seem more willing to connect than on networks where it’s mandatory, because they’re given a choice.
Social networks generally come in two content flavors as well, short form and long form. As much as we might appreciate brevity, it can be quite constraining to fit usable content inside of 140 characters. Short form networks excel at updates and notices of new content outside the network, while long form networks excel at providing usable information in-network.
To get the most out of Google+ or any social network, examine the behaviors that work well for their respective network and content types. Google+ is a long form, asymmetric network. What actionable conclusions can you gather from this? For the purposes of growing a large, valuable network, effective behavior on a short form network differs from a long form network. Effective behavior on a symmetric, mandatory reciprocity network differs from an asymmetric network.
In an asymmetric network, if you have a goal of network growth, connecting with more folks works better than connecting with fewer. This is how many of the folks who are Twitter personalities got there, especially in their early days. Why? Metcalfe’s Law provides the answer there.
In a long form network, if you have a goal of network retention and word of mouth growth, providing valuable content in network will give you better results than constantly redirecting people out of network. You don’t have to give away the shop, but you do have to provide more than just an endless stream of “New Blog Post:” updates or animated GIFs of Facebook vs. Google+. Why? Because in a long form network, your fellow users enjoy having a consistent experience of consuming things in network, rather than leaving and coming back all the time.
Can you use short form behavior in a long form network? Of course. That said, you will be operating contrary to the intended user experience, and your results may reflect this. Can you use symmetric network behavior in an asymmetric network? Of course, and in fact Google+ provides a unique hybrid that allows you to do both. You can have the attention-getting, socially promiscuous behavior using the Public circle while still maintaining a friends and family set of circles for a more focused view of certain parts of your network.
Does this mean there are right and wrong ways of using Google+? It depends on your goals, but generally, yes, there will be practices that are less and more effective for supporting those goals. Understanding your goals and then practicing the behaviors that correspond to the type of network that Google+ is will get you closer to the results you’re looking for.
Take a look at the behaviors you’re accustomed to using and figure out how they can be adapted to a network with different principles. For example, live-tweeting a conference has become very popular over the years. Twitter is an asymmetric, short form network. Google+ is long form, so instead of sending out dozens of mini-updates, you can post them all in one discussion and provide as much, if not more value, than the Twitter stream, as I did recently at the Wharton Web Conference:
What other behaviors from a short form network could be converted to long form networks? Think about things like #journchat or #smchat – instead of a large pool of tiny updates, you’d have actual, large threaded conversations that were less constrained by length of update.
Why does this matter? Because in a new network, in a new set of grounds to play in, the people who establish “base camps” first have the advantage of momentum. If you’re an industry leader (or want to be), start creating the same digital properties inside the new network, adapted to the practices that work best in its symmetry and content nature. You’ll have the first mover advantage and momentum you need to establish your goals of network growth and reputation.
Google+ is asymmetric and long form. Are you using it in a manner that makes the most of those characteristics?
If you enjoyed this, please click here and share it with your network!
Want to read more like this from Christopher Penn? If so, please subscribe right now!
Click here to read my blog on Google Currents on your mobile!
Marketing White Belt |
Watch me speak:
Attend virtually! |
I recommend: for Twitter audience building. |
Are your social media networks supporting goals?
Looking at how everyone is trying to find a place for Google+ and all of the other networks, I thought I’d share the way things are shaping up and how I use them. You might find a few ideas you can use.
I look at social media sites from the perspective of what they do and where they fit in my “funnel”. Before we talk social, I should explain that I have 3 business goals I want to achieve with the stuff I do online.
1. Grow my database. Jeff Pulver says it best: we live or die on our database. For me, this means bringing people onto my mailing list and into networks that let me keep my data, such as LinkedIn. This database is a tangible asset – it’s helped people get jobs, supported the next two goals, and done some amazing stuff all on its own.
2. Book paid speaking opportunities. Pretty straightforward.
3. Sell stuff. Whether it’s copies of the Marketing White Belt book, the handful of affiliate programs I participate in, or generating leads for my employer, WhatCounts email marketing, I want to create additional revenue using the digital platform I have.
Ultimately, if the things I’m doing don’t support at least one of those three goals, then it’s probably not worth doing – or it gets bumped to the back burner constantly in favor of things that matter.
If you are using social media for business purposes, do you have a set of business goals that guide your social media work? If not, then please save this blog post to Instapaper or Evernote, close your browser, and don’t post a single thing on Twitter/G+/FB until you have those goals written out. Your goals and my goals will be different! For example, if you’re unemployed, one of your goals is likely “find work”.
Obviously, if you’re using social media for personal and non-commercial purposes, your goals should be different but equally meaningful, otherwise you’re likely to get caught in a giant time suck.
So, with these goals in mind, how do the networks shape up now for me?
The nifty icons are from the socialize icon set.
Twitter: great for discovery of new people, which in turn feeds goal #1. Twitter is now about discovery and crossing networks/niches/fishbowls for me. It’s become the standard currency of influence for the moment until G+ releases its API. Twitter is how I find the new folks to bring into the network. Assuming I prove my value to them, they flow into goal 1 pretty seamlessly.
Stumbleupon: the dark horse of social networks. I use it, and more important, other people use it a lot, for discovering new websites. That in turn drives traffic to the website, which supports goal #3 heavily.
Google+: G+ has been a lot about engagement of an existing base. That said, because it’s an asymmetric network, there’s discovery happening there, so that does feed goal #1. Whether it will support goals 2 and 3 is yet to be determined, though I am starting to see it as a major traffic source.
LinkedIn: LinkedIn is the money network for me. It’s consistently been a powerful force behind a lot of what I do, and it’s an easy place to create social currency. Every time I forward a job request on or connect two people who should be connected, I pile up social currency, which in turn feeds all 3 goals. I’ve booked paid engagements right off LinkedIn, and its database is downloadable to feed the other databases.
Facebook: Facebook’s not doing much for me right now. It’s too siloed, too walled off to be of much benefit for SEO, doesn’t push a ton of traffic, and what it does push tends to be of low quality that doesn’t feed any of my goals especially well. I use Facebook personally to keep up with friends and acquaintances, but for supporting my business goals, it’s been a bust. Maybe my audience isn’t there or isn’t interested in behaving like my crowd while there. Whatever the case is, it’s not working for me.
A few folks responded in the Google+ thread about which networks were working for them; experiences differ I suspect largely because our respective audiences and goals differ as well.
Take some time to think about what’s working socially for you in relation to goals that matter to you. If your social media participation isn’t supporting them, either you need new goals or you need to pivot and change up what you’re doing in social and where.
If you enjoyed this, please click here and share it with your network!
Want to read more like this from Christopher Penn? If so, please subscribe right now!
Click here to read my blog on Google Currents on your mobile!
Marketing White Belt |
Watch me speak:
Attend virtually! |
I recommend: for Twitter audience building. |
Disclaimers, cautionary tales, and warnings
Adele McAlear noted with surprise that I endorse the use of TweetAdder, mentioning on Twitter that most of their promotional stuff encourages practices that I don’t endorse and in some cases explicitly oppose. She’s right, which begs the question, why do I endorse it?
TweetAdder does what I want it to do, which is maintain a lot of data, scan it, cache it, and a few other nifty tricks. It’s a very powerful tool, and like all powerful tools with poor manuals, it’s really easy to lop off a limb or two as you use it. Consider this your disclaimer and warning that comes along with the endorsement.
TweetAdder tries to offer an automation solution for the two sides of social networking, the network strategy and the content strategy. It does the former very well while doing the latter very poorly. Why? Network strategy is a mechanical construct. It’s relatively straightforward to manage and automate with few consequences if you’re using good tools and you know what you’re doing. Remember the social media strategy in one slide? Social is the network, and it’s one of the areas where software like TweetAdder shines.
For example, I know a whole bunch of people I want to follow, such as Chief Marketing Officers. Now, I could be 100% human and manually click follow on all their profiles, or I could achieve the exact same result much more efficiently by finding them with the research tools and then following them. That’s the essence of network strategy: find who I want to have conversations with and create that network. It’s mechanical work, so it’s ideal for something like TweetAdder.
The media in social media is the content strategy, and TweetAdder is a mechanical solution that makes your content seem… well, mechanical. It’s nearly useless from that perspective, which is why it’s not something I use. Content strategy requires a human presence to respond, to react, to publish, and to be human. There’s no way to automate that side of social media and get satisfactory results.
Tools like TweetAdder may not be for you. That’s okay. I endorse it, I use it, and I have gotten good results out of it. That doesn’t make me right or you wrong. Do what works for you and I’ll do what works for me. If we have radically different strategies and worldviews about how to Twitter, that’s okay: I agree to disagree.
Does endorsing it mean that I endorse you using it foolishly? No more so than I’d endorse you buying a chainsaw and not doing your homework before swinging it wildly around the backyard. As I’ve said in the last couple of issues of my newsletter with regard to it, it’s really easy to use TweetAdder stupidly. Like a chainsaw, using it with skill and finesse will make it a valuable part of your social media toolkit, but you have to put in the time to think about the third part of social media strategy: the strategy. What do you want to accomplish, and can the tools available accomplish that goal?
The goal of my network strategy is an audience focused around marketing, and tools like TweetAdder can help with that better than any other tool out on the market and certainly better than doing the same processes repeatedly by hand. The goal of my content strategy is to provide as much value as possible to my network, and TweetAdder (and other tools like it) suck at that, so I don’t use them for that goal.
If your strategy is to “do Twitter” without having to work, you’re going to get mediocre results at best, because like everything else, doing the work yields the results. Consider this your warning.
If you enjoyed this, please click here and share it with your network!
Want to read more like this from Christopher Penn? If so, please subscribe right now!
Click here to read my blog on Google Currents on your mobile!
Marketing White Belt |
Watch me speak:
Attend virtually! |
I recommend: for Twitter audience building. |
Book Me to Speak
Got an event coming up? Learn why you should book me to speak!
• Download my 2012 speaking kit
•Book me to speak now!
Get Marketing White Belt
Grab my new book, Marketing White Belt: Basics for the Digital Marketer, and get better at marketing right now!
Blog Delivery
Things I recommend:
I recommend:
for Wordpress themes like this one.
I recommend:
for Twitter audience building.