Every company presents unique measurement requirements, so it is good that there are many options available for companies looking to begin a measurement program. Measurement firms and agencies organized around a billing model tend to suggest that manual analysis of media is the best way to go (and many have strong practices built on that model), while firms with text analytics software, quantitative algorithms and data warehouse capabilities tend to argue that with the volume of coverage now generated through social media, automated analysis is required for a complete picture of the communications landscape. Of course, technology firms, evolve24 included, admittedly apply manual review to their client’s data, using the automatic translation as a guide to that analysis, while staff-based firms concede the need for automated analysis to help organize large volumes of content prior to review.

And of course, all good solutions also recognize that measurement, whether done manually or through automated systems, is simply a step on the way to actual business insight. The insight is not in the measurement itself (though measurement design and methodology is critical to creating good inputs), and does not ‘fall-out” of manual or automated measurement, but is generated from analysis of the data resulting from measurement, and in the application of that analysis to business-focused problems. Regardless of how you measure, the results of your measurement will always require human analysis to be converted to actionable insight.

There are unique benefits to each measurement approach that a company could chose; what is unique to a technical solution like evolve24 is the capability to collect vast amounts of coverage related not just to the company’s own communications programs, but also around competitors’ communications programs, the conversations taking place in all forms of media about all of the firms in the market and the market in general, and even around larger conversations related to the regulatory environment, special interest or social issues in general that may somehow present a risk or opportunity to the company.

For companies who adopt PR measurement, initial measurement programs tend to be focused on self-examination, seeking to establish the effectiveness and value of work done. The value that firms can create by understanding communications effectiveness and applying those insights has been well established, and are a good first step; measurement allows firms to more effectively establish the desired perception amongst their targets, and allows communications teams to show their value to the organization. However, in the context of providing strategic input for business decision making, measurement of just the company’s own communications presents only a small picture of the overall communications environment, and the impact of that environment on our business. Companies looking to build their communications measurement into a strategic driver for the business need to focus on solutions that will ultimate scale to align and merge with the company’s other business intelligence solutions.

Thinking back on the discussion of social media “listening”, measurement, analysis and engagement I encountered through 2009 – whether encountered online, at conferences and meetings, or in casual conversation – what strikes me in retrospect is the overall focus I perceived toward the “media” side of the social media landscape.

Despite the insistence that the focus was really on shifts in the meaning of “social”, the primary focus of most discussions I encountered last year seemed to eventually return to a focus on the communication media and technology itself, as opposed to the people and motivations at each end of the channel; the very reasons that businesses, consumers and citizens have to be social in the first place.

Having a presence and listening effectively can indeed be very important for many reasons, and there were plenty of great case studies showing the legitimate value of doing these things; whether to demonstrate the potential for success through well-planned social engagement, or to illustrate what could go wrong if one failed to listen and engage around concerns and complaints.

These case studies, even when considered as whole, do not seem to have yet managed to establish a clear business case or approach to a results-oriented “social” strategy framework for business comparable or complementary to something like Porter’s strategic framework. This seems to me to be because many of these cases confuse attention with business impact, and focus on reactions and responses as opposed to actual proactive strategy integrated to business operations.

Take the most obvious case examples: Motrin, United Airlines, or Dominos; perhaps someone out there can point me to the missing conclusions where true business related outcomes of each case are defined.

We know that Motrin did trash a campaign based on blogger outrage, and that surely cost them dearly, but we don’t really know if that was the right decision, nor has it been well established how to even answer that. Was there a sound underlying business reason to completely kill the campaign, or did it just seem like the right decision during a period of panic? There is a clear lesson – don’t be surprised – but this is the problem with most of the best-known cases; they tell you what NOT to do, they provide examples of good and bad reactions to surprises, but don’t really help anyone understand how to be proactive.

There are increasing examples of good proactive approaches to using social media for marketing to targeted demographics, which is the most straightforward and natural (though by no mean simple) approach to the medium, but this is just a narrow slice of the potential value of social media engagement by firms. Throughout this year, I trust we will see greater maturity develop around social media, with a shift away from the hype that businesses need to move into “social media”, and instead toward the recognition that social media needs to become more integrated with business.