Thoughts on Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Guidelines on Social Media Ad Metrics
Welcome back to Gauravonomics Blog! Subscribe to my feed now and you'll never miss a single post!
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has recently released guidelines on social media ad metrics “in an effort to stimulate growth by making the reporting of metrics for agencies and advertisers across multiple media partners more consistent.”
We must say that we were somewhat disappointed with the document, as it gives a laundry list of metrics, categorized under the random headings of social media sites, blogs, and widgets and social apps, without any context on the interconnections between these metrics.
Part of the problem lies in IAB’s approach in looking at social media as an advertising channel (it has also released guidelines on social advertising best practices), which is a really limited view of social media. In effect, IAB seeks to apply existing advertising models to social media, instead of outlining new ways of thinking about social media analytics.
Another problem with the guidelines is that IAB doesn’t offer marketers any guidelines on how to measure these metrics, and how to make sense of them, contextualize them.
IAB’s understanding of influence is also rather limited as it equates it with reach. IAB, therefore, doesn’t really highlight the role of network analysis in social media measurement.
Finally, the guidelines don’t delve into the qualitative aspects of social media measurement, and there is absolutely no discussion on content analysis or sentiment.
At the same time, it’s commendable that IAB is seriously thinking about social media metrics, as this document will serve as a starting point for important conversations that will increase our shared understanding of the space.
It seems that most observers who have reacted to the IAB document share our views.
Catharine Taylor at MediaPost thinks that the IAB metrics aren’t perfect, but are at least more complex compared to old-time metrics like reach, frequency and the click-through, as they not only measure whether people are engaged, but how they are engaging.
Rebecca Lieb at Econsultancy thinks that the metrics are sensible, even though they really apply to content marketing, not advertising.
Saurabh Pandey believes that agencies and marketers would do well to customize these metrics for individual campaigns.
Roger Warner at C&M also believes that the IAB metrics are overly influenced by its advertising industry background.
Augie Ray believes that the IAB guidelines are a lost opportunity for innovative thinking on social media metrics.
Steve Newman believes that IAB is mistaken in focusing exclusively on the quantitative aspects of social media analytics.
The 20:20 Approach to Social Media Analytics is based on a much more nuanced understanding of the multi-layered nature of social media. We recognize that social media programs can operate at any of the four levels of Content, Collaboration, Community and Collective Intelligence, and each layer has a corresponding set of metrics, which need to be measured using a mix of onsite/ offsite web analytics, network/ influence analysis and semantic/ content analysis.
In summary, IAB gets 20/20 for intent but not for insights.
Cross-posted on the 20:20 Social Media Analytics Blog.
Related posts:
- Social Media Analytics & the Five-Step Social Media Program
- WOMMA Guidebook on Measurement and Metrics for Word of Mouth Marketing
- Using Network and Influence Analysis to Map Social Media Consumer Behavior
- The 20:20 Approach to Social Media Analytics
- Thoughts on World Federation of Advertiser (WFA) Position Paper on Online Audience Measurement
WOMMA Guidebook on Measurement and Metrics for Word of Mouth Marketing | Gauravonomics Blog 5:47 am on May 29, 2009 Permalink |
[...] the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) guidelines on social media ad metrics, the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) has come out with a draft of its guidebook on [...]