Marketers are being inundated with social media metrics, but there is little consensus on what one should be measuring. This article attempts to bring clarity to the situation by adopting an integrated marketing communications perspective. Seven key social media metrics are identified and their application to social media marketing is discussed. Limitations of the metrics are considered to arrive at suggestions for future research.
Marketers are being inundated with social media metrics, but there is little consensus on what one should be measuring. This article attempts to bring clarity to the situation by adopting an integrated marketing communications perspective. Seven key social media metrics are identified and their application to social media marketing is discussed. Limitations of the metrics are considered to arrive at suggestions for future research.
Marketers are being inundated with social media metrics, but there is little consensus on what one should be measuring. This article attempts to bring clarity to the situation by adopting an integrated marketing communications perspective. Seven key social media metrics are identified and their application to social media marketing is discussed. Limitations of the metrics are considered to arrive at suggestions for future research.
Victor A. Barger University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Lauren I. Labrecque Loyola University Chicago ABSTRACT: Marketers are being inundated with social tnedia metrics, but there is little consensus on what one should be measuring, let alone how these measures inform marketing strategy. This article attempts to bring clar- ity to the situation by adopting an integrated marketing communications perspective. By screening extant metrics for alignment with social media communications objectives, seven key social media metrics are identified. These metrics are then described and their application to social media marketing from an integrated marketing communi- cations perspective is discussed. Finally, limitations of the metrics are considered to arrive at suggestions for future research. Social media metrics are all the rage. In 2009just three years after Twitter launched and Facebook opened registration to the general publicBerkowitz (2009) identified exactly 100 social media metrics. Now, hardly a day goes by without a new article or blog post proclaiming, "5 Social Media Metrics You Should Be Monitoring"; "14 Social Media Metrics You Can Use Right NOW!"; or "50 Key Social Media Metrics Every Marketer Must Know." Yet for all the new metrics, marketers maintain they are only slightly more informed than they were at the beginning of the social media revolution (Margiloff 2012). Calls for standardization of metrics have gone unheeded (Wurtzel 2009), and both practitioners and academics lament the preponderance of "nice to know" (Fogel 2010) and "vanity" (Madison 2012) metrics over met- rics that lead to meaningful action. Romaniuk (2012, 398) aptly sums up the state of social media metrics as follows: "an available metric is not necessarily a use- ful metric." Metrics are necessary for the development and evaluation of integrated marketing communications programs (Kitchen, Kim, and Schultz 2008). As social media continues to lure audiences away from mass media, marketers can no longer rely on traditional au- dience measurement (Kliatchko 2008; McDonald 2008). The measurement challenge is further compli- cated by the consumer-to-consumer interactions that social media enables (Wind and Sharp 2009). Upper management is also demanding more attention to mar- keting metrics. Seggie, Cavusgil, and Phelan (2007) suggest that this is due to three factors: (1) demand for accountability from all units of a firm; (2) dissatisfac- tion with subjective measures of performance; and (3) the availability of technology for collecting data for metrics. Rust, Ambler, Carpenter, Kumar, and Srivas- tava (2004, 76) warn that "lack of accountability has undermined marketers' credibility, threatened the standing of the marketing inction within the firm, and even threatened marketing's existence as a distinct capability within the firm." This crisis in measurement comes at a time when marketers are steadily increasing their social media spending. In 2012, a survey of marketers and advertis- ing agencies revealed that 59% planned to increase their spending on social media marketing (Del Rey 2012). Despite the increases, marketers may still be underspending on social media (Briggs 2012).Without informative metrics, however, efforts to optimally al- locate advertising funds will continue to be impeded (Schultz 2011). This article attempts to bring clarity to the situation by viewing social media metrics fi-om the lens of inte- grated marketing communications. We begin by de- scribing the primary communications objectives for social media. By screening extant metrics for align- ment with communications objectives, we narrow the list of social media metrics to seven key metrics. 64 These metrics are then described and their application to social media marketing from an integrated market- ing communications perspective is discussed. Finally, we conclude with suggestions for future research. SOCIAL MEDIA OBJECTIVES At the core of an integrated marketing communica- tions program are the communications objectives. These are specific, measurable tasks that can be achieved using adveriising and other forms of commu- nication (CoUey 1961). Metrics are employed to (1) establish baselines for communications objectives and (2) track progress towards achieving each objective. Since the selection of metrics depends on the objec- tives, we must first identify a set of potential social media objectives before discussing social media met- rics. In this section we consider two types of social media objectives: short-term and long-term. Short-Term Objectives The primary purpose of short-term social media ob- jectives is to generate revenue. The three short-term objectives that we consider are (1) gaining considera- tion, (2) stimulating trial, and (3) encouraging repur- chase. Gaining consideration. Consumers are increasingly turning to social media for product and service recom- mendations. By monitoring and responding to re- quests for advice, marketers can help ensure the consideration of their products and services. For ex- ample, a snowblower manufacturer might monitor Twitter for tweets containing the keyword "snow- blower"; when a match is found (e.g., "Can someone recommend a good snowblower?"), the marketer could reply with information. A more ambitious program may involve monitoring social media for problems that the marketer's product or service can solve. For example, a retailer of ergonomie furniture could watch for complaints related to workstation ergonomics (e.g., "My wrists are killing me from typing all day!"), to which the retailer could respond with commisera- tion and a link to a page on ergonomics on the re- tailer's website. Stimulating trial. Marketers have long used consumer- oriented sales promotions to stimulate trial of products and services (Farris and Quelch 1987; Gupta 1988). It is perhaps not surprising, then, that one of marketers' primary uses of social media today is communicating sales promotions (Schultz and Peltier 2013). Common forms of online sales promotion include printable coupons, discount codes, contests, sweepstakes, and games. As an example, Starbucks frequently an- nounces discounts on new coffee dritiks on Facebook and Twitter to encourage followers to try the new bev- erages. Encouraging repurchase. In addition to stimulating trial, online sales promotions are effective at encour- aging repeat purchases. Amazon.com, for example, routinely provides limited-term discount codes to fol- lowers on Facebook and Twitter. Of course, a sales promotion is not always necessary; Panera Bread, for example, relies on the appeal of new menu items an- nounced on social media to draw customers back into their restaurants. Social media also serve as a conven- ient channel for encouraging followers to sign up for loyalty programs and for communicating loyalty pro- gram promotions. Long-Term Objectives Long-term social media objectives are concerned less with generating revenue and more with creating brand equity and building brand relationships. The four long-term objectives that we consider are (1) improv- ing customer satisfaction, (2) creating awareness, (3) building relationships, and (4) fostering community. Improving customer satisfaction. Social media offer brands a number of opportunities for improving cus- tomer satisfaction. First, customers may contact a company directly via social media to express dissatis- faction with a product or service. If the company deals with such complaints promptly and effectively, dissat- isfied customers will be less likely to communicate their dissatisfaction to others. Second, customers may post messages about unsatisfactory experiences to so- cial media. Although not ideal from a public relations perspective, this at least gives the company a chance to discover and address such posts before they are widely shared. Third, a company can enhance cus- tomer satisfaction by providing product support via social media. Software developers, for instance, often receive and reply to requests for technical support on Twitter. Finally, by monitoring social media for posts from recent customers, companies can reassure these customers that they made a good choice and thereby reduce cognitive dissonance. Creating awareness. One of the primary functions of social media is content sharing. As such, social media is highly effective at propagating messages, particu- larly when people find the messages entertaining, sur- prising, and/or humorous. When a message is shared Spring 2013 65 widely within a relatively short period of time, it is said to have "gone viral." This leads to a rapid increase in awareness of both the message and the message's creator. Psy's "Gangnam Style" music video is a great example of this. Within a matter of months, Psy's video had received over one billion views, propelling him from relative obscurity outside his home country of South Korea to worldwide renown (Hall 2012; Yang 2012). Dr. Robert Wagstaff, a retired dentist, ex- perienced similar success with his invention, the Orabrush. After eight years of unsuccessful market- ing. Dr. Wagstaff enlisted the help of a student at Bringham Young University to create a series of YouTube videos promoting the Orabrush (Orabrush 2010). Within two years, these videos had amassed over 39 million views, prompting Walmart to decide to carry the Orabrush at 3,500 of its stores (Wasser- man 2011). Although social media can help create awareness for any business, it is especially valuable for startups and small businesses like Orabrush that cannot afford the mass media buys traditionally used to increase awareness. Building relationships. Brands seek to build relation- ships with customers to promote brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, and Gremler 2002). Since brand relationships develop as a result of repeat positive interactions between cus- tomer and brand (Duncan and Moriarty 1998), brands must find ways to engage customers in such interac- tions. Prior to the advent of social media, interactions were primarily one-way (e.g., the viewing of a brand's advertisements on mass media), with only occasional two-way communication (e.g., contacting customer service to resolve a problem). However, with social media the options for personalized one-way and two- way communications are greatly expanded. Marketers now routinely stimulate interactions with consumers on social media by posting interesting and relevant content, such as news, articles, photos, videos, and even games. Betty Crocker, for example, posts photos of baked goods on Pinterest for customers to view, comment on, and share. Fostering commimity. Building on the idea of brand relationships, Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) proposed the concept of the brand community. Here a brand's customers interact not only with the brand but also with one another. Brand communities may be organ- ized by the company that owns the brand or they may form autonomously (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002); either way, these communities "carry out important functions on behalf of the brand, such as sharing information, perpetuating the history and cul- ture of the brand, and providing assistance . . . [and] exert[ing] pressure on members to remain loyal to the collective and to the brand" (Muniz and O'Guinn 2001, 427). Brand communities have also been shown to increase revenue generated from community mem- bers, both online and in stores (Manchanda, Packard, and Pattabhiramaiah 2011). Furthermore, brand com- munities can serve as a resource for idea generation (e.g., crowdsourcing) and marketing research. Al- though online brand communities have traditionally been hosted on discussion forums, many have moved to social media due to the lower overhead and the fact that consumers are already active on social media. SOCIAL MEDIA METRICS Given the large number of social media metricsand the costs involved in monitoring each metric^the first step is to identify metrics that will be most informative to the marketer (Fogel 2010). Fortunately, adopting an integrated marketing communications perspective nar- rows the list considerably, since a metric must provide an indication of progress towards one or more cotnmu- nications objectives to be considered. It is further help- ful to make a distinction between metrics developed specifically for social media analytics and metrics de- veloped for web analytics. Although web metrics can be helpftil in calculating social media metrics (e.g., social media return on investment), they are by definition more suited to analyzing website activity, and as such provide an incomplete view of social media marketing campaigns. This review thus focuses on social media analytics. The marketer must also decide whether to uti- lize both proprietary and nonproprietary metrics or only nonproprietary metrics. Since the means of calculating proprietary metrics is typically unavailable for public scrutiny, we consider only nonproprietary metrics. With the above criteria in mind, seven social media metrics were identified: volume, share of voice, en- gagement, advocates, return on investment, leads gen- erated, and response time. Each metric is applicable to one or more social media channels (see Figure 1): blogs (e.g., WordPress); social networks (e.g., Face- book); photo/video sharing (e.g., YouTube); microblogs (e.g.. Twitter); product review sites (e.g., Amazon); lo- cation check-ins/reviews (e.g.. Foursquare); and social bookmarking (e.g., Delicious). In the following para- graphs, each metric is discussed in turn. (See Table 1 for an overview of the metrics and their corresponding definitions.) 66 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications FIGURE 1. Social Channels by Relative Amount of Information per Post LOW Social bookmarking (e.g., Delicious, Stumble Upon) HIGH Location check-ins/reviews (e.g.. Foursquare, Yelp) Product reviews (e.g., Amazon, goodreads) Microblogs (e.g., tumblr. Twitter, Weibo) I Photo/video sharing (C.., Flickr, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube) I Social networks (e.y., Facebook, (Jooglc*, Linkedin, ronrcn) ,,g., WordPress, Blogger Volume Volume (or "volume of mentions") is a count of the number of mentions of a brand in social channels over a period of time. Volume is one ofthe simplest metrics, but it can be quite informative when tracked over time and correlated with social media market- ing campaigns. In particular, volume can provide an indication of a marketer's progress towards creating awareness. Volume also serves as the basis for other metrics, including share of voice. Volume is often analyzed in aggregate and by individual social chan- nel. In addition, sentiment analysis can be employed to classify the tone of each mention as positive (i.e., favorable to the brand and/or brand message), neu- tral (i.e., objective), and negative (i.e., critical ofthe brand and/or brand message). Volume of mentions can then be segmented into positive volume, which commonly includes both positive and neutral men- tions, and negative volume. Since digital media can be tracked in real time (Truong, McColl, and Kitchen 2010), changes in the volume of negative mentions can warn marketers of impending crises that require corrective action. Sentiment analysis is not without its problems, however, and these are dis- cussed under Future Research. Share of Voice (SoV) Share of voice is the volume of mentions of a brand ex- pressed as a percentage ofthe volume of mentions of all brands in a product category (Lovett and Owyang 2010). Since negative mentions are typically not viewed as a competitive advantage, share of voice is most often calculated using positive mentions only. For example, McDonald's might calculate its share of voice as the number of positive or neutral mentions of McDonald's as a percent of the total number of positive or neutral mentions of McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, and Hardee's. Like volume, share of voice can be tracked over time and broken down by social channel. Share of voice is often benchmarked with the competition to provide an indication of how effectively a marketer is creating buzz. When a brand's share of voice dips below the competition's share of voice, the marketer should examine the quality and fi^eshness ofthe brand's content relative to that ofthe competition. Note that since share of voice relies on sentiment analysis, it is subject to the same limitations as volume of mentions, as discussed under Future Research. Engagement Although the appropriate definition of engagement is subject to debate (Schultz and Peltier 2013), in the so- cial media space it most often refers to a consumer Spring 2013 67 TABLE 1. Definitions of Common Social Media Marketing Metrics Metric Volume Share of Voice (%) Engagement (per post) Engagement (overall %) Advocates Return on Investment (ROI) Leads Generated Response Time Formula The number of mentions of a brand name over a specified period of time. Often segmented into positive and negative volume using sentiment analysis. Positive volume of brand xlOO Positive volume of all brands in category The number of comments on, replies to, likes of, and shares of a given post. Engagement at time t with all posts to date Number of views at time t of all posts to date xlOO or Engagement at time t with all posts to date Number of followers at time / XlOO The number of social media participants who write positive posts about a brand during a specitled period of time. Revenue from campaign - Cost of campaign Cost of campaign XlOO The number of leads generated from social channels (sometimes expressed as a percent of all leads generated). The amount of time elapsed between the receipt of an inquiry or support request via social media and a response from the company. "taking some action beyond viewing or reading" (De- lahaye Paine 2011, 60). This may include "liking" a brand's post, commenting on or replying to a brand's post, or sharing a brand's post witb others. Since eacb platform employs its own terminology, we classify the possible behaviors as "expressing agreement," "rat- ing," "voicing opinion," and "sharing." The correspon- ding terminology for each of the dominant social media platforms is shown in Table 2. Tracking engagement on a per-post basis enables the marketer to gauge the audience's level of interest in the content of each post, thereby informing the cre- ation of future posts. As an aggregate measure, en- gagement can also indicate the overall level of con- sumer interest in a brand's message. To adjust for differences in the viewership of each post, Lovett and Owyang (2010) recommend tracking overall engage- ment relative to the total number of views. Since the number of views per post can be difficult to ascertain, others have advocated tracking engagement in pro- portion to the number of followers at the time of the posting. Even this must be viewed as a rough approx- imation, however, as not all followers read every post, and some followers may not even be human (Sterne 68 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications TABLE 2. User Behaviors on Various Social Media Platforms Platform Posts Primar} content with which users interact Social Bookmarking Delicious Stumbe Upon Links Links Location Check-ins/Reviews Foursquare Yelp Product Reviews Amazon Goodreads Microblogs App.net Pheed Tumblr Twitter Locations Businesses Products Books Posts Pheeds Posts Tweets Photo/Video Sharing Flickr_ lnstagram Pinterest YouTube Social Networks Facebook Google+ Linkedin Blogs B logger WordPress Photos _ _ Photos Pins Videos Status updates Posts Updates Posts Posts Expressing Agreement Simple expression ofagreemetil vith a post "l i ke " ' Like ' - _ Slar__ _ __ Love Like Favorite Favorite Like Like Like Like ""+1 '^ " "Tike"" +1 Like Rating Simple evaluation of 1 post - pidn' tjike 1 to 5 stars 1 to 5 stars 1 to 5 stars Heartache - - - - " Dislike Dislike ' - - - - - Voicmg Opinion Statement of one's opinion \\ith respect to a post Comment Til).. Review Review Review Reply Pheedback Rebjojg _ Reply Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Sharing ! Sharing oa post wit!} others on the same platjorm ..^^ Share link Share Share Add to list Add to bookshelf Repost Remix Reblog Retweet Add to gallery Repin - Share Share - Reblog 2010). Additional issues with engagement as a metric are considered under Future Research. Advocates Consumers can be viewed as progressing through a se- ries of four stages in their relationships with brands on social media (see Figure 2). Initially each consumer starts as a "bystander" with respect to a specific brand; the consumer may see mentions of the brand on social media, but s/he does not actively seek out posts by the brand. In the second stage, the consumer adopts the role of "follower"; here s/he seeks out the brand's mes- sage by opting in to receive brand communications on social media. In the third stage, the consumer becomes a participant, interacting with the brand and the brand's message on social media. The participation continuum ranges fTom "passive" to "active" forms of participation, depending on the type and purpose of the action. Expressions of agreement (e.g., clicking a "Like" button on a brand's Facebook post) are forms of passive participation, whereas voicing an opinion (e.g., commenting on a brand's Facebook post) and sharing (e.g., sharing a brand's Facebook post with one's Facebook friends) are more active forms of par- ticipation. In the final stage, the consumer adopts the role of brand advocate, creating and uploading content that actively promotes the brand (e.g., posting a Face- book status update that recommends or speaks favor- ably of the brand). Tracking the number of "followers" or "fans" may be ego-boosting, but it is unlikely to be helpful in en- hancing the effectiveness of a brand's social media marketing, due to the existence of fake and inactive followers (Sterne 2010). More useful is tracking the number of advocates of a brand. Not surprisingly, the goal is to grow the number of advocates over time. Spring 2013 69 FIGURE 2. Levels of Consumer Engagement on Social Media Bystander Follower Participant Advocate Bystanders may see mentions of a brand in social media, but they do not actively seek out posts by the brand nor do they interact with the brand. Followers seek out a brand's message by opting-in to receive brand communications (e.g., by following, friending, or subscribing), but they do not interact with the brand or the brand's message. Participants interact with a brand on social media. Participation ranges from "passive" (e.g., liking) to "active" (e.g., commenting), depending on the type and purpose of the action. Advocates not only interact with the brand on social media, they actively promote the brand by creating and uploading content favorable to the brand (e.g., posting, reviewing). This is particularly important when a marketer's ob- jective is to gain consideration, since friends of advo- cates are more likely to consider a brand when an advocate speaks highly of it. If the number of advo- cates decreases over time, the firm may need to estab- lish an advocacy program or post more engaging content (Lovett and Owyang 2010). Also of relevance is the influence of a brand's advocates (Fogel 2010). An advocate with a large number of followers that en- gage with the advocate's postings is more influential (and thus more valuable to the marketer) than an advo- cate with fewer followers that tend not to engage with the advocate's posts. Return on Investment (ROI) Return on investment is defined as the revenue gained from a social media marketing campaign minus the cost of the campaign divided by the cost of the cam- paign (see Table 1). Return on investment is most ef- fective at evaluating short-term social media objectives, such as stimulating trial and encouraging repurchase. For example, a marketer might offer a printable coupon or communicate a discount code as part of a campaign to stimulate trial. To receive the discount, the customer must present the coupon or enter the code at the time of purchase. Since sales that result from the campaign are directly attributable to the campaign via the coupon or discount code, the marketer can determine the revenue gained from the campaign and calculate the return on investment. Caution is advised when using return on investment as a measure of performance. The belief that every- thing digital is measurable is a misconception that can easily lead marketers astray. Attributing sales to social media is problematic, particularly for campaigns that do not offer an incentive. Even with campaigns that do offer an incentive, the calculation of return on invest- ment ignores potential synergies between incentive- based and non-incentive-based campaigns. Return on investment has also been criticized for its overempha- sis of shori-term returns over long-term brand build- ing (Calkins and Rucker 2008). Hoffman and Fodor (2010) warn that social media is still in its early stages and that focusing too much on return on investment could stifle experimentation, potentially creating op- portunities for competitors. They suggest that mar- keters instead view return on investment from the consumer's perspective; namely, what the consumer gets for investing his or her time and energy in engag- ing with a brand through social media. Leads Generated When a company seeks to gain consideration of its products and services, it will often track the number of leads generated through social media. This is particu- larly helpfiil when the firm is investing considerable resources in monitoring and responding to requests for advice on social media, as described earlier under So- cial Media Objectives. Leads generated through social media can also be expressed as a percentage of total leads generated by the firm, in which case it provides a measure of the relative effectiveness of social media at 70 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications generating leads. Although leads generated can be a useful metric, it is important to note that it suffers from many of the attribution problems that affect re- turn on investment. This is discussed further in Future Research. Response Time On the Internet, people expect quick responses, and social media is no exception. In fact, a recent survey showed that 32% of consumers who contact a brand through social media expect a response within thirty minutes (Baer 2012). To ensure customer satisfaction, it is thus essential that brands respond promptly to in- quiries and support requests submitted via social media. Tracking and managing average response time, which is the average amount of time it takes the brand to reply to social media queries, can accomplish this. In addition, it is recommended that brands routinely follow up with a sample of recent contacts to ensure that requests are being resolved satisfactorily. Relationship to Traditional IMC Metrics Traditional metrics for evaluating integrated market- ing communications can be classified into three types (Ewing 2009): attitudinal measures, behavioral meas- ures, and financial measures. Attitudinal measures are commonly employed to ascertain the effects of adver- tising (Schultz 2011). For example, in the Lavidge and Steiner (1961) hierarchy of effects, exposure to adver- tising is presumed to move consumers through a series of stages: (1) awareness, (2) knowledge, (3) liking, (4) preference, (5) conviction, and (6) purchase. A brand's performance at each stage (with the exception of the purchase stage) is determined by using survey re- search and attitudinal measures. Behavioral measures, in contrast, are based on actions taken by consumers in response to marketing campaigns. For example, the effectiveness of a sales promotion could be established by tracking the number of consumers who redeem a coupon. Lastly, financial measures emphasize the rev- enue generated by marketing communications. The two most common financial measures of integrated marketing communications are return on investment and change in customer lifetime value (Schultz 2011). Social media metrics span the three types of tradi- tional metrics. With respect to attitudinal measures, the social media metrics of volume, engagement, and number of advocates correspond to the awareness, lik- ing, and conviction stages of the hierarchy of effects. Engagement can also be viewed as a behavioral meas- ure, since it reflects specific actions that consumers take in response to brand messages. Similarly, number of leads generated serves as a behavioral measure, since it quantifies the number of consumers that take action in response to a message fi-om a brand on social media. In the financial category, the return on invest- ment of social media mirrors traditional ROI. Finally, although response time does not appear to correspond to one of the traditional types, its outcomecustomer satisfactionis clearly an attitudinal measure. FUTURE RESEARCH The metrics identified in this paper are conceptually sound; however, associated with each are difficulties in estimation. One source of error is sentiment analysis. Although humans can determine the tone of a post with relative ease, it is difficult to do so algorithmi- cally. Unfortunately, given the huge number of posts that are created daily, not to mention hourly, it is im- possible to conduct sentiment analysis at scale without automation. Sentiment analysis vendors have estimated their systems to be 70-80% accurate (Wright 2009), but a recent study by Schweidel, Moe, and Boudreaux (2012) found almost no correlation (r = -.002) between an automated sentiment analysis and a survey con- ducted using traditional marketing research tech- niques. Recognizing the growing importance of social media monitoring and metrics, companies offering so- phisticated natural language processing to improve ac- curacy and reliability have emerged (NetBase Solutions 2012). Clearly, more research in the areas of sentiment analysis, natural language processing, and computational linguistics is needed. Adding to the estimation issues associated with sentiment analysis is the presence of robots (or "bots"), fake accounts, and inactive accounts on social media. All three inflate counts of followers and activ- ity. A recent study by Marco Camisani Calzolari esti- mated that up to 46% of brand followers are bots (Policschi 2012). The problem is compounded by the ease with which companies and individuals can ac- quire fake followers. For example, fake Twitter follow- ers can be purchased for less than a cent per follower (Considine 2012). Inactive accounts may be less of a problem in that they do not generate posts, but they still inflate follower and viewership estimates. Al- though progress is being made at identifying fake ac- counts, more research is needed in this area to ensure accurate accounting of social media participants and their online activity. Current social media metrics also suffer from a Spring 2013 71 FIGURE 3. Illustration of a Consumer's Multichannel Journey Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Consumer sees a friend's post on Facebook about a Fiskars lawn mower. Consunner visits Fiskars' Google+ page. Here she reads about the nnower She then watches an embedded YouTube video demonstrating the product. The next day, the consumer searches for "Fiskars mower" via Google. She clicks on the first organic search result, which takes her to a third party review site where she [ reads other consumers' thoughts on the mower. After two days of thinking, the consumer decides to purchase the mower. She conducts a second Google search and clicks on a paid ad which takes her to the site to complete her purchase. form of selection bias: only sharing activity that is conducted on publicly visible social media is included. Thus estimates of online activity do not include shar- ing via e-mail, chat, or even privacy-enabled social media accounts. Madrigal (2012) coined the term dark social to refer to these technology-enabled but essen- tially untraceable methods of social sharing. In investi- gating the sources of traffic to The Atlantic'?, web site. Madrigal found that over half could be attributed to dark social. Across a broader set of websites, he found that dark social averaged 69% of social referrals, com- pared to only 20% from Facebook and 6% from Twit- ter. Although links with embedded tracking codes may alleviate this problem, users do not always include these codes when copying and pasting links. Research is needed on methods of estimating and correcting for selection bias due to dark social activity. Engagement is another metric with room for im- provement (Schultz and Peltier 2013). As discussed earlier, social media engagement metrics are com- monly defined in terms of the number of comments on, replies to, likes of, and shares of a brand's posts. However, if we adopt a more traditional IMC defini- tion of engagement, such as "the focused mental and emotional connection between a consumer, a media vehicle, and a brand's message" (Belch and Belch 2012, 389), our social media metric seems simplistic. Do comments, replies, likes, and shares truly represent a "focused mental and emotional connection"? If not, how might we measure this given the technological limitations of social media? Additional research on the measurement of engagement in social media is clearly warranted. Finally, there is a need for integration of social media metrics with other measures of marketing com- munications (Schultz 2011). This is essential for opti- mal allocation of resources and justification of expenditures (Ewing 2009). The situation is compli- cated, however, by the fact that traditional measures assume unidirectional communication, whereas social media is a hybrid medium that possesses characteris- tics of both unidirectional and bidirectional media (Mangold and Faulds 2009). Moreover, synergies among traditional and nontraditional media can have a multiplicative effect that is not explicitly addressed by medium-specific metrics (Schultz, Block, and Raman 2012). The Problem of Attribution A fully integrated marketing communications program includes efforts across an array of digital and non-dig- ital channels. As marketers attempt to quantify the value of each channel, major issues become evident, since multiple touchpoints are encountered throughout the consumer journey. Marketers are faced with a question of attribution; that is, deciding which channel 72 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications should get credit for the conversion. Most web analyt- ics programs employ a "last touch" or "last click" method of tracking, which assumes tbe marketing channel most responsible for a consumer's behavior is the channel that the consumer last touched before vis- iting or making a purchase. In reality, consumers are likely to have encountered multiple touchpoints across an array of channels prior to conversion. Take for ex- ample the consumer journey outlined in Figure 3. Here, the consumer has encountered the brand in a va- riety of channels, including multiple social media sites; however, only the last touch, paid search, is cred- ited for the conversion. Since the initial brand aware- ness was driven (and subsequently reinforced) through social media, social media should be credited for at least a portion ofthe conversion. There are a number of possible attribution models (see Figure 4). The example just described corre- sponds to last-click attribution, which is based on the notion that the last marketing communication en- countered by a customer is responsible for the con- version. In this model, the value of prior interactions is ignored and these channels do not receive any credit. This model focuses solely on short-term ob- jectives such as gaining consideration, stimulating trial, and encouraging repurchase, and does not con- sider long-term objectives. This is the most common model and has been used since the early days of on- line direct response. First-click attribution takes the opposite view of last-click attribution; namely, it gives full credit to the initial interaction. This model places greater emphasis on creating awareness, a long-term objective, and views the first marketing communication as the most valuable, disregarding the impact of other touchpoints. Equal attribution views all interactions as valuable and assigns identical weight to each touchpoint. In our example, all four touchpoints would receive 25% credit for the conversion. This model is advantageous in that it incorporates both short-term and long-term objectives; however, the assumption that each touch- point is of equal value may not reflect reality. More- over, as the number of touchpoints grows, the value of each touchpoint decreases equally. Fractional attribution recognizes that different touchpoints play different roles and allows for each in- teraction to be weighted accordingly. In theory this method is ideal; not only does it incorporate both short-term and long-term objectives, it accounts for the respective value of each touchpoint in generating a conversion. The assumption that marketers can deter- FIGURE 4. Example Attribution Models Last-click Attribution Go> sie 0% 0% 0% 100% First-click Attribution 100% 0% YoufM 0% Co yle 0% Fractional Attribution 45% 15% 15% 25% Equal Attribution 25% 25% 25% mine the appropriate weights for each touchpoint may not be realistic, however, and technology may not be in place to capture each touchpoint. The point of this discussion is that marketers need to consider the impact of multiple touchpoints when measuring marketing success, especially in regards to social media. Although tracking codes can be embed- ded in links, thereby enabling the attribution of online sales to social media sources, users of social media do not always include these codes in their posts. Simi- larly, many analytics programs rely on web browsers to submit referrer information; since not all applica- tions supply referrer data (e.g., mobile apps and e-mail clients), these referrals may be misconstrued as direct traffic. Even more problematic is the attribution of of- fline sales to social media. Unless a customer men- tions a social media campaign when making an offline purchase, the link between the sale and social media not to mention a particular social media campaign will not be made. The end result is an incomplete picture of the marketing effort. Further advances in methods of attribution are necessary to improve the re- liability of social media metrics. Spring 2013 73 Social Media and Effective Integrated Marketing Communications As of this writing, Wikipedia hsts 198 active social networking websites, with a disclaimer that "this list is not exhaustive" (Wikipedia 2013). Indeed, newer social media sites, such as AppNet and Pheed, are conspicu- ously absent from the list. As social media continue to proliferate, effective integration of social media into marketing communications will be increasingly diffi- cult. We highlight some of the potential challenges here as suggestions for areas of future research. One issue concerns the number of social media sites a brand should be active on. On the one hand, there is clearly an opportunity cost associated with each additional site; the time and resources required to maintain a presence on a new social channel could be spent enhancing the brand's presence on existing channels or even dedicated to other aspects of market- ing communications. On the other hand, a brand lack- ing presence on a social channel may cause discord among its customers who are engaged there. Even worse, the brand might fall victim to a third party masquerading as the brand on the new social channel, potentially damaging the brand's reputation and its re- lationship with its customers. Aside from having a presence, how active does a brand need to be on each social channel? Is it sufficient to maintain a minimal presence on the less popular social sites? Or must a brand be equally active on each site? Research is needed to help brands answer these questions and guide their social media strategy. Marketers must also consider the demographics of the social channels. Pinterest, for example, is currently more popular among a female audience, while Twitter is slightly more popular among males, and Pheed is dominated by teenagers (Duggan and Brenner 2013; Pozin 2013). These differences in demographics are due in part to the design goals of the respective plat- forms. Pinterest, for example, is designed to facilitate sharing of photos found on the web. Twitter requires users to communicate in short, primarily textual mes- sages, and Pheed emphasizes the sharing of multime- dia. There is also a growing number of niche social networks that are dedicated to special topics, such as knitting (Manjoo 2011). Just as a marketer would re- search audience profiles of various magazines, mar- keters will increasingly need to consider the user base of each social channel when developing their social media strategy. Differences in design and user base are also re- flected in the style of communication employed on each social channel. Communications on Linkedin, for example, are expected to be professional and well- written, whereas posts on Pheed tend to be raw and graphic. Moreover, when deciding whether or not to participate in a social channel, brands must also con- sider whether the style of communication is consistent with the brand's image. A hip, modern brand targeted at youth may find the style of communication on Pheed appropriate for the brand, whereas a conserva- tive, high-end brand may not. In cases of overlap, where multiple social channels match the brand's image, the marketer may need to customize communi- cations for each social channel. Twitter users, for ex- ample, may be annoyed by brands that post truncated versions of Facebook updates to Twitter. Lastly, how should a brand deal with users who fol- low the brand on multiple social channels? A current practice of many brands is to post roughly the same content on each social channel. Does this duplication annoy consumers who see the same message across multiple channels? Or does it simply reinforce the message? Presumably, people who follow a brand on multiple channels are fans, possibly even advocates. Does posting similar messages on multiple social channels help these users share the brand's message with different sets of followers? Is there any advantage to encouraging people to follow the brand on multiple channels? Namely, can the brand post to multiple so- cial charmels in such a way as to create cross-channel synergies? If so, how can the brand measure the effec- tiveness of its efforts, given the attribution problem discussed earlier? REFERENCES Baer, Jay. 2013. 42% of consumers complaining in social media expect 60 minute response time, September 27 2012 [cited March 1 2013]. Available from http:// www.convinceandconvert.com/the-social-habit/42-per- cent-of-consumers-complaining-in-social-media-expect- 60-minute-response-time/. Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch. 2012. Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communica- tions perspective. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Berkowitz, David. 2013. 100 ways to measure social media 2009 [cited February 15, 2013 2013]. Available from http://www.marketersstudio.eom/2009/l 1/100-ways-to- measure-social-media-.html. Briggs, Rex. 2012. SIRFs-Up: Catching the next wave in marketing. North Charleston, South Carolina: Create- Space. Calkins, Tim, and Derek D. Rucker. 2008. Don't overem- 74 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications phasize ROI as single measure of success. Advertising Age, February 4, 2008. Colley, Russell H. 1961. Defining advertising goals for measured advertising results. New York: Association of National Advertisers. Considine, Austin. 2012. "Buying their way to Twitter fame." The New York Times, August 22, 2012. Del Rey, Jason. 2012. Advertisers say what we're all think- ing: Social-media spending is going to explode. Adver- tising Age, March 6, 2012. Delahaye Paine, Katie. 2011. Measure what matters: Online tools for understanding customers, social media, en- gagement, and key relationships. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Duggan, Maeve, and Joanna Brenner. 2013. The demo- graphics of social media users2012. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Dunean, Tom, and Sandra E. Moriarty. 1998. "A communi- cation-based marketing model for managing relation- ships." Tbi/rwa/o/MarAre/wg no. 62 (2):1-13. Ewing, Michael T. 2009. "Integrated marketing communi- cations measurement and evaluation." Journal of Mar- keting Communications no. 15 (2-3): 103-117. Farris, Paul W., and John A. Quelch. 1987. In defense of price promotion. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 63-72. Fogel, Suzanne. 2010. "Issues in measurement of word of mouth in social media marketing." International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications no. 2 (2):54- 60. Gupta, Sunil. 1988. "Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy." Journal of Marketing Re- search no. 25 (4):342-355. Hall, Emma. 2012. 'Gangnam' close to billion views: Most- watched YouTube video has life of its own as parodies continue. Advertising Age, November 28. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne D. Gremien 2002. "Understanding relationship market- ing outcomes." Journal of Service Research no. 4 (3):230-247. Hoffman, Donna L., and Marek Fodor. 2010. Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 41-49. Kitehen, Philip I , Ilchul Kim, and Don E. Schultz. 2008. "Integrated marketing communications: Practice leads theory." Journal of Advertising Research no. 48 (4):531- 546. Kliatchko, Jerry. 2008. "Revisiting the IMC construct: A re- vised definition and four pillars." International Journal of Advertising no. 27 (1): 133-160. Lavidge, Robert J., and Gary A. Steiner. 1961. "A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness." Journal of Marketing no. 25 (6):59-62. Lovett, John, and Jeremiah Owyang. 2010. Social market- ing analytics: A new framework for measuring results in social media, http://john.webanalyticsdemystified.com /2010/04/22/new-research-on-social-marketing-analyt- ics/. Madison, Ivory. 2013. Why your social media metrics are a waste of time. Harvard Business Review, December 18 2012 [cited February 15 2013]. Available from http://blogs.hbr org/cs/2012/12/why_your_social_media _metrics.html. Madrigal, Alexis C. 2012. Dark social: We have the whole history of the web wrong. The Atlantic, http://www.theat- lantic.com/teehnology/archive/2012/10/dark-social-we- have-the-whole-history-of-the-web-wrong/263523/. Manchanda, Puneet, Grant Packard, and Adithya Pattabhira- maiah. 2011. Social dollars: The conomie impact of customer participation in a firm-sponsored online com- munity. In Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute. Mangold, W. Glynn, and David J. Faulds. 2009. "Soeial media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix." Business Horizons no. 52 (4):357-365. Manjoo, Farhad. 2013. A tight-knit community: Why Face- book can't match Ravelry, the social network for knitters. Slate, July 6 2011 [cited March 6 2013]. Available from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technol- ogy/201 l/07/a_tightknit_community.html. Margiloff, Will. 2012. Seven years in, it's time for social to grow up. Advertising Age, July 16, 2012. McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig. 2002. "Building brand community." Journal of Marketing no. 66 (l):38-54. McDonald, Scott. 2008. "The long tail and its implications for media audience measurement." Journal of Advertis- ing Research no. 48 (3):313-319. Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O'Guinn. 2001. "Brand community." Journal of Consumer Research no. 27 (4):412-432. NetBase Solutions, Inc. 2013. Sentiment analysis with NLP leads to more accurate understanding 2012 [cited Febru- ary 28 2013]. Available from http://www.netbase.com/ social-intelligence/the-nlp-advantage/. Orabrush. 2013. Story ofOrabrush 2010 [cited February 25 2013]. Available from http://www.orabrush.com/story. Polleschi, Ilaria. 2013. Robots crowd Twitter brand profiles. Reuters, June 8 2012 [cited February 15 2013]. Pozin, Ilya. 2013. Teens drive Pheed to #1 social app. Forbes, March 6 2013 [cited March 6 2013]. Available from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2013/02/20/ teens-drive-pheed-to-1 -social-app/. Romaniuk, Jenni. 2012. "Are you ready for the next big thing? New media is dead! Long live new media!" Jour- nal of Advertising Research no. 52 (4):397-399. Rust, Roland T., Tim Ambler, Gregory S. Carpenter, V. Kumar, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. 2004. "Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and nature directions." Journal of Marketing no. 68 (4):76-89. Spring 2013 75 Schultz, Don E. 2011. "IMC measurement: The challenges of an interactive marketplace." International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications no. 3 (l):7-24. Schultz, Don E., Martin P. Block, and Kaylan Raman. 2012. "Understanding consumer-created media synergy." Jour- nal of Marketing Communications no. 18 (3): 173-187. Schultz, Don E., and Jimmy W. Peltier. 2013. "Social media's slippery slope: Challenges, opportunities and fu- ture research directions." Journal of Interactive Market- ing (Forthcoming). Schweidel, David A., Wendy W. Moe, and Chris Boudreaux. 2012. Social media intelligence: Measuring brand senti- ment from online conversations. In Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series. Cambridge, Massachu- setts: Marketing Science Institute. Seggie, Steven H., Erin Cavusgil, and Steven E. Phelan. 2007. "Measurement of return on marketing investment: A conceptual framework and the future of marketing metrics." Industrial Marketing Management no. 36 (6):834-841. Sterne, Jim. 2010. Social media metrics: How to measure and optimize your marketing investment. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Truong, Yann, Rod McCoU, and Philip J. Kitchen. 2010. "Practitioners' perceptions of advertising strategies for digital media." International Journal of Advertising no. 29 (5):709-725. Wasserman, Todd. 2013. Orabrush parlays YouTube success into Walmart deal. Mashable, September 20 2011 [cited February 25 2013]. Available from http://mashable. com/2011/09/20/orabrush-walmar/. Wikipedia. 2013. List of social networking websites, Febru- ary 27 2013 [cited March 6 2013]. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_network- ing_websites. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Byron Sharp. 2009. "Advertising empirical generalizations: Implications for research and action." Journal of Advertising Research no. 49 (2): 246-252. Wright, Alex. 2009. "Mining the web for feelings, not facts." The New York Times, August 23, 2009. Wurtzel, Alan. 2009. "Now. Or never: An urgent call to ac- tion for consensus on new media metrics." Journal of Advertising Research no. 49 (3):263-265. Yang, Jeff. 2012. "Gangnam Style's U.S. popularity has Ko- reans puzzled, gratified." The Wall Street Journal, August 28. VICTOR A. BARGER is Associate Professor at Univer- sity of WisconsinWhitewater. LAUREN I. LABRECQUE is Associate Professor at Loy- ola University Chicago. 76 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications