Don't Only Measure Your Brand Success With Direct ROI Indicators

LaurentFrancois
Laurent Francois Co-founder & exec. creative strategist, RE-UP

Posted on March 8th 2013

Don't Only Measure Your Brand Success With Direct ROI Indicators

ImageWe've all read that social-media ROI is weaker than other traditional marketing channels. Recently, social media came under fire again in an articles in which Unilever aired their concerns in Marketing Magazine.

Unilever marketing teams are questioning the logic of shifting big budgets to social media, when the equivalent spent on in-store promotions can deliver an ROI up to 50% higher.

This statement suggests a lot about the mindset of some marketers who work for big companies. Social media has been developing for about a decade, but these marketers still miss the point. Consumers are no longer passive targets that you can simply  feed with coupons and vouchers. People want their purchases to be inspired by stories that matter. And they're even ready to trust brands to tell their stories, if brands are sincere. They want to know how a brand is trying to change the world. Naive? Maybe. But, maybe not.

Brands are talking about their social consciousness and aspirations a lot lately. Case in point: David Jones (Havas) and Unilever CEO Paul Polman statements yesterday at #SWSWI:

Brand success requires marketers and business people in general to imagine new indicators for performance. My bet is that if you throw $50 notes in the street, or offer free gifts in stores, people could rush to get them. These would be direct but empty signals, that generate simple and often one-time reactions. Will they generate true ROI? Not really. You're just making a commodity less expensive.

Live culture is the new normal

As explained on SMT in the article about Huffington Post's new strategy by Candida McCollan, brands become living organism. That means that you no longer need to set up a linear funnel, but that you need to set up rules, rights  and responsibilities, and a shared future created by both the brand and its customers. Think about politics: do you measure the health of a system just through the participation in an election? No. Dictatorships often have the highest rates. In politics, in-store promotions would be called corruption or menace, not democratic process in the long-term.

You need Brands

As obvious as it may sound, brands sometimes forget that they need to create living brands. And yes, even now, you still have companies establishing binarian paths:

Products -> Promotion of the product -> Media-buy to make sure targets buy them -> ROI measurement

Major brands websites are split between "product websites" and "experience websites." In the case of brands who have product websites, social media is a moot point. These brands create products that are not interactive per se.

Keep in mind that people love brands, they want to feel attached to them. A good brand can provide reinsurance. It can even help with education, health management and building a future.

Social Media is about brand building, not advertising

It's an issue that Martin Sorell solves:

"[Social media] is a branding medium. So if I can get you to say something nice about WPP or me or one of our companies on Facebook to your wife, your friends, or whoever, that’s good. But it’s a long-term mechanism. Compare that with Google. Say you’re searching for a car: We know that up to 90% of car purchases in the U.S. are search-influenced. Depending on where you are in the purchase cycle, that number one ranking on Google seems more important than a Facebook “like.” This doesn’t deny the potency of Facebook. But it has to be seen in the context of a long continuum of brand building."

The big problem is that marketing departments within big companies are sometimes still a set of practices: direct marketing, promotions, events, PR. And then a marketing director.

Thirty years ago, in automotive or trucks industry, you did not have marketing directors as we know them today. You had an engineer who was most of the time a CEO or a managing director. So the engineer was not only in charge of what was going on in factories, but he was also engineering brands.

Today, there's a dearth of ideas in marketing and  too many practices. How many brands are not boring? Not that many. Because we've focused too much on the interfaces we have with customers without asking simple questions such as,"Who are we?" or "What's our future?" You cannot shape a gateway to your brand is you don't pervasively design and understand both your own culture and the cultures you're trying to reach.

It's all about the people.

image: S.Borisov / Shutterstock.com

LaurentFrancois

Laurent Francois

Co-founder & exec. creative strategist, RE-UP

Laurent runs a creative & digital agency in London, RE-UP.

RE-UP develops strong social media strategies for clients like L'Oréal, Clarins, or Nestlé but also for start-ups in the tech industry. 

Laurent also teaches Digital Marketing & Strategy in diverse business schools (ESCP Europe, ECS etc.).

Laurent was the first head of 360° Digital Influence in Europe (now Social @ Ogilvy), operating for clients like Lenovo, Vodafone, Tom of Finland or French government. He then created a business unit dedicated to social media revenue in one of the main media groups in France.

Laurent blogs on fashion on Hit Bag and Le Boulevardier

See Full Profile >

Comments

Markr
Posted on March 7th 2013 at 12:46PM

There are many good points in this article. I do have to say, though, that there are some (although they are very few) brands that derive little benefit from social media. Take, for instance, a company that does wifi solutions for corporate buildings. It's very difficult to engage an audience in a subject as boring as this, you have to appeal directly to managers of corporate buildings. Even then, the ROI is minimal because an executive won't make a purchase of thousands of dollars based on an engaging Facebook page.

LaurentFrancois
Posted on March 8th 2013 at 11:29AM

Hi Fay,

 

Thanks for this point. All industries are not equal when it comes to social media. Nonetheless, it really depends on where you put the "social layer". Think about DuPont: on the paper, not the top glamourous way to reach their targets through Social Media. But providing social experiences and social services (think about this iphone app which allows painters to directly know which pantone is present in a specific picture) can also be considered as "social media", even if it's through "hidden spheres" and not on accessible blogs for instance;

Legalmorning
Posted on March 7th 2013 at 2:01PM

"Consumers are no longer passive targets that you can simply  feed with coupons and vouchers." Right on, Laurent. Brands need to realize that spending money to get "followers" and "likes" is one thing, but once you have them what do you do with them? They are not lapdogs and expect FULL transparency from brands. I believe that maintaining a focus on social media (including a heafty budget) is something that companies need to continue; however, they need to shift their focus from attracting social media visitors to something along the lines of converting their social media following into website visitors that they have an opportunity to convert. Great content!!

LaurentFrancois
Posted on March 8th 2013 at 11:26AM

Dear Mike

thanks for your comment. I do agree to your "conversion" issue. Thus, I don't think that it should automatically drive to a "website" but more to a digital property. But I do agree with all your remarks!

Dave_Thompson
Posted on March 8th 2013 at 2:59PM

A good plan is necessary for social media sucess and the plan should be according to what the company deals with. The right and a very apt point in this article is that social media is more about branding than a profit medium. That doesn't mean it never gets the return. ROI always comes second as far as social media is concerned.