Chief Alchemist - Business Consulting For The 21st Century Via A Holistic & Intelligent Approach
Share RSS 2.0 feed for Sign up for the mailing list. Follow Chief Alchemist on Twitter. 'Like' the Chief Alchemist's page on Facebook. See what Chief Alchemist has been Q&A'ing on Quora. Chief Alchemist bookmarks & highlights on Follow the Chief Alchemist on Chief Alchemist channel on Chief Alchemist on Flickr. Mark 'Chief Alchemist' Simchock on LinkedIn. Free Initial Consultation. Email Chief Alchemist. Phone Chief Alchemist.
  • Mark ‘Chief Alchemist’ Simchock
  • 'Email me.Email => ca .at. ChiefAlchemist .dot. com
  • 'Phone me.Alchemy United => 732 997-0028
  • Free initial consultation.Free => Initial Consultation
  • Please be sure to subscribe to your communication channels of choice.
  • Click To Close => The small green (consultation), red (email) or blue (phone) icons in the top upper right.
Business Consulting For The 21st Century Via A Holistic & Intelligent Approach

Measuring isn’t measuring if you’re just guessing – Pt 2

Consumed (and a follow up comment to) => “How to Measure the Return on Social Media Contests” by Ben Pickering on Social Media Examiner.

Yesterday I posted and commented on the above. In turn, Ben commented on my comment—both on SME and here on CA. Below is my reply to his reply.

=> Value add (i.e., left a comment)…

Good morning Ben –

Thanks for taking the time to reply, as well as comment on my blog. I do appreciate the effort, as I hope you appreciate mine.

Allow me to clarify a couple things:

1) I wasn’t trying to be “adversarial”. On the other I believe the world has had its fill of Mashable-ities. Clients are tired of social media gurus selling snake oil (and giving everyone a bad name). At some point “conventional wisdom” (?) needs to be challenged. And yes, from the perspective of the challengee it might look a lot like tough love. But I assure you it’s still love.

2) I think the difference here is I see it differently. I don’t perceive yours as being “some alternative means…” Maybe it’s just me but it looks like the standard fuzzy marketing-is-an-art-not-a-science fare. I agree it’s tricky. But that’s not an excuse for not addressing it. In fact, with so many fearful of analytics, it’s all the more reason to do so. Additionally, that’s all the more reason the bar needs to be raised at this point. Pushing the same soft (?) metrics is not going to make the marketing mind & body stronger, is it? Who needs another Mashy – opps, I mean mushy – marketer.

3) Simply defining objectives is not the same as defining how to measure, what measurements define success and to what level. My point is, by definition, unless you define success at the start and can measure it, you can’t succeed. To your credit (again), you got it half right. Unfortunately, the key half wasn’t emphasized enough. For example you said, “I realize 80 entries may not sound like a large number to some of you..” I agree, 80 could be great. In fact, I believe 8 could be great. It’s not the quantity that matters but the quality. So the question remains, did any of those 80 convert in any reasonable time frame? What is/was the definition(s) for conversion? Was a sample taken (small as it might be be) to see what percentage of the 80 fit the targeted profile, as defined in the success portion of the planning? Or is 80 a total flop? These are questions real marketers should be asking, agreed?

I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you Ben. That was not my intention. If I was attacking anything it was what was not there and not so much what was. In fact, if you’d like to collaborate on an article or two that addresses some of the holes in the prevailing wisdom, I welcome the collaboration. You can get me on FB, Twitter or via my blog.

Thanks again. I hope I’ve inspired the right people in the right way.

Will not be published. Required.
Please include http://