Yesterday I wrote an email to Jim Meskaukas, the President of the online division of Omnicom. The email was in response to an article he wrote in Media magazine, which is one of the trade publications put out by Media Post. (On a side note, you think a site that caters to media would be better organized and easier to navigate. But nooooooo!).
Jim's article focused on Engagement as a potential replacement for frequency. He was on the right track but his article missed a critical point: Engagement must take into account the actual actions of the target audience as well as how often, and in what context, the target audience engages with your brand/product.
Here's what I actually wrote to Jim:
Greetings Jim,
Just read your article on Engagement. Great points made.
One quick question to push the concept of engagement even further:
Does engagement tacitly demand that some action must result from the engagement?
I would argue yes it does, and it can be measured, within certain mediums.
Since you head up the online media group at Omnicom, I don’t need to pontificate about the web and measurability.
My theory on engagement can be broken down into 5 macro perspectives:
- Did you reach your target audience (t.a.)?
- Did your message resonate with that t.a.?
- Is your t.a. repeating, and in a sense “forwarding”, the message?
- How many times is the message being repeated and by whom?
- What actions come about because of number 4?
I design products for understanding and tracking the blogosphere. We’ve developed a measurement of engagement by looking at two components:
- Are new or existing bloggers talking about you (brand/product/message)
- If so, how many times, and with what sentiment?
Of course the next logical step (predictability) would be, what action did those engaged (in this case) bloggers take? That’s a product we’re developing and will have ready in the near future.
Again, great article.
Regards,
Michael
I haven't heard back from Jim, but will follow up when I do.