Great debate going on here, and I’ve some ideas on the measurement side of the questions above. Measurement for social initiatives ought to be based on conversions, whatever your definition of a “conversion” is, right? These include making a sale, getting someone to sign up for a newsletter, a re-tweet, or just recruiting someone to your point of view.

We’ve thought a lot about measurement in social arenas for recent work we’ve done. I’m not saying that these are hard and fast methods of measurement, but when people demand to see numbers for something as intangible as “influence” or “brand building,” creating something around these parameters has helped in the past.

1) For web sites: show a shift in sources of traffic from Google to user groups, your blog, etc — sources other than Google. This is a good way to demonstrate a more engaged user who’s coming to your site for some reason other than happenstance/search.

2) More engagement on the site; i.e., people are uploading content, conversing with one another, using tools provided, etc.

3) An increase in this type of user showing up. These folks rack up more page views, spend more time on the site per visit and return more often (demonstrating loyalty)–just a better user/visitor.

4) Creating brand evangelists of these visitors. If you can show progress in having other people–through THEIR blogs, Twitter, user-groups, Facebook pages, etc.,–evangelize your site or service then you’ve recruited them to strengthen your brand’s awareness.

Just a few thoughts.

David: Your anti-PowerPoint use of manila folders was particularly inspired (as were the insights on pitfalls, of course).

Ben: It’s a tricky balance isn’t it? One doesn’t want to throw up one’s hands and say social media ROI is immeasurable, or to fall into “everything that can be measured does matter” (which is how CPM became so inflated).

I think we’re all learning as we’re going, developing measurement techniques that let companies quantify the results and get to a level of ROI that satisfies a CFO without turning into a “intellectually bankrupt exercise”.

To a limited extent, I agree that “not everything that matters can be measured,” however I do think that we say it too quickly sometimes. In my experience, most of what matters CAN be measured, but there are two main barriers that lead people to write that fact off:
1) Measurement is demanded too quickly
2) Absolute/complete measurement can be expensive

There are a number of reasons these two main barriers are so disruptive to measurement in this space, but the pre-eminent ones are as follows:
1) In social media, generally conversations are what drive influence and results. However, these conversations do not take place on a company’s quarterly or yearly financial schedule–they are inherently organic and occur on that basis. When companies demand measurement before their initiative’s results have played out, we end up with a skewed, inaccurate, or (worse) non-existent result.
2) One of the best things about social media is how scalable it is. But when budgets are limited (especially in this kind of economy), I sometimes agree with HBS’s Andy McAfee who accurately posits, “There is not enough ROI for figuring out ROI. It is an intellectually bankrupt exercise.” The fact is, the kind of complex and creative measurement it takes to form an accurate picture of results will likely be more expensive than the initiative itself rendering the whole foray into the initiative a net negative.

Instead of acknowledging the above realities, those still searching for simple, fast measurement fall into the trap of thinking “everything that can be measured does matter,” which isn’t true either. I believe it’s the responsibility of those who understand this dilemma and apply holistic, rational thinking to it to help guide organizations find a viable solution so that new media and social media marketing aren’t thrown by the wayside and deemed “unmeasurable.” That would be a shame.