Impact Of Relationship (IOR), or how to measure social media

Impact Of Relationship (IOR), or how to measure social media

Since Levine, Locke, Searls and Weinberger wrote The Cluetrain Manifesto in 2000 the way of seeing customer-company relationships have changed. It is not that with this book the authors modified a whole way of understanding the markets, but rather that they wrote black on white a trend that has become more acute over the years. Indeed, markets are conversations, and if this is so, what is it, we have to be able to analyze those conversations and the impact they are having on my company, product and brand. On the other hand, from an online strategy point of view, mobilizing all our capacities as a company in social media, El Mundo Groundswell, by Li and Bernoff, has been fundamental. He has been able to show us the usefulness of our brands participating in seemingly alien environments but which are basically natural and very productive. In both cases, the relevance of social media is manifest. And it is this relevance that seems to have made many nervous. Entrepreneurs and professionals who, accustomed to a clear vision of their economic actions and with almost immediate metrics for their offline actions, have seen how conversations and interactions were more difficult to measure. For this reason, an attempt has been made to transfer offline methodologies to online actions, using ROI as a measurement methodology. However, ROI is not entirely useful for social media, because it does not take into account a fundamental characteristic of the same, the subjectivity of its relationships. Given this, the Impact Of Relationship (IOR) allows segmenting the measurement of our presence and add that subjective element to the measurement. The IOR starts from a division of measurement parameters: Authority, or the content about the brand that has been shared on the Internet; Influence, or number of followers that our brand has in the different social media in which it is present; Participation, or number of times in which users interact with us on our platforms, and Traffic, or number of visits to our websites. All these variables make up a global vision of our presence in social media, endowing that presence with a certain value and allowing us to analyze it in a segmented way. But it is essential to know the very nature of the tool to get the most out of it. We understand that the IOR allows several levels of segmentation in its use. Thus, for example, in a sector such as tourism, we can apply the IOR to a company taking as a reference the entire sector, a subsector (hotels, for example) or apply it only internally to the company itself. We can even further segment and apply it to a hotel taking as a reference other hotels of the same model (sun and beach, urban) and even focused on different segments (family tourism, senior citizens, British). In all these cases, except in the internal use of the IOR, there must be a unique parameterization of the values, a quantification of the different elements (authority, influence, participation and traffic) that make up the IOR so that we can position our company within of a certain sector and give a certain, unique and comparable value to our presence in social media. We are working on that since we consider that there are common strategic elements in all companies in an industry that reflect their use of social media. But if we talk about the only internal use that a company makes of the IOR, that is, without the intention of comparing itself with others (benchmarking), but rather make the IOR a tool for internal strategic use, we must be aware that in this case the composition of the IOR is absolutely particular and individual, that is, each brand must know the importance it gives to each of the variables. The IOR measures executed strategies, and each strategy is unique, although we can find common elements by sectors, so that some strategies place more emphasis on the blog created by the company, others do not have a blog but base their strategy on Twitter, others on videos, others are focused to a market that uses mostly Facebook, another to one that does not use social media but does use its prescribers. In this way, each brand has to be aware of the value that the different variables have for it and give more or less importance to the elements that make them up, thus building its own IOR structure. Once we start measuring we will be able to see the evolution of our presence. The IOR is not a static tool, it requires the time factor to appreciate the results if we make the internal use that we are analyzing, because each brand can only be compared in this case with itself. With the results we will see in which aspects we are being weaker. In this way we can, for example, have a good level of traffic but few comments on our blog, or many fans on our Facebook page but we do not create quality content that is referenced in other environments. From there we will be able to properly correct our strategy and our presence. The IOR will allow our brands to have an evolutionary vision of their presence in social media, with the ability to adjust that presence to their needs and with segmented and personalized information on the value of our brand in social media. Of course, the IOR also allows us to develop benchmarking actions, as we have said. Once the fixed parameters of each of the indicators have been defined, depending on the level of segmentation we are looking for and the sector we are analyzing, our brand can be compared with others in the same sector and segment, thus allowing a clear image of the success or failure of our brand. strategy within a certain ecosystem. In one way or another, either with internal segmentation or with one that allows us to compare it with other brands, our analysis capacity improves with the IOR by introducing subjectivity and segmentation in our metric processes and enriching our strategic tools. – Article written by Juan Lopez Sobejano and Johana Cavalcanti