A selection of European and World macro indicators relevant to our campaigns is now published on-line.
To assist the development of campaign impact assessment, the indicators have been posted here:
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/planning/?p=801
This is only a selection and other indicators exist. However, these are the key indicators most in use today.
I would be delighted to gather more for the team, on request.
Tags: impact indicators macro
Another approach for impact is to measure tonnage per person reached. Historically, we’ve not done this as it produced very high dollar/tonne campaigns, and hence needs very high replication factors for such programme to work.
However, with the recent advances in web-based communication, the subsequent factor X cost reduction in delivering messages, our mastering of these technologies and the traceability it offers, it may be time to rethink.
Hereby a message from Jonathan which I’d like to log here. It summarises our current knowledge on the subject.
This excellent book [1] on e-learning summarises the state of knowledge in the field from a scientific perspective. A few highlights (including a few surprises):
Communication can serve 4 purposes:
Obviously, the ultimate goal is behaviour change, this is largely an outcome beyond our control. Most communication are inputs designed for #1-3, with the ultimate purpose of achieving number 4.
This list may be of interest to think about our marketing communications. In essence, it reiterates the point of an earlier post on measuring impact from a different perspective.
The key question is the level of resources we choose to deploy towards a given objective. This needs to be combined with a benchmarking approach on cost effectiveness and quality of the action. As an impact assessment methodology, I sense there is something fundamentally different, but cannot yet put my finger on it. To be continued.
In physics the Heisenberg uncertainty principle rules. It states that it is impossible to measure the impulse of a particle if you know its exact place, and vice versa.
In marketing communication, there is also an uncertainty principle: the maximum return of your communication action is impossible to measure. Because once you make the return measurable, it loses value.
Perhaps this is not quite so much the case if your market enables a streamlined communication. If you’re selling diapers, you can measure your market share before and after your communication action, and this will allow you to make a fairly good estimate of your return.
But if a chaotic communication model is to be preferred (see my previous post), things aren’t that easy. The paradox is that the more you want to make the return measurable, the more you will have to streamline your communication and the less effective your communication will be.
[Read more →]
In this debate, a track we’ve ignored so far is the branding and positioning of our organisation to influence the markets we operate in. We’re upstream, remote from our markets and the use of our product is quite dispersed. Therefore, consideration on this aspect is important.
A relevant article worth a read is this paper from HBS Working Knowledge on The Benefits of Soft Power.
At Leonardo ENERGY, we have certainly noticed a difference from being one of the top 100,000 websites in the world. It makes some things easier, and avoids lots of explanations.
Blogged with Flock
We need to decide whether we want to survey few users in-depth, on many user groups on a variety of issues in a shallow way.The latter appears more appropriate considering the rich content of LE. In this case, a simple attitudinal measurement instrument is needed. Ref [1] divides groups in 5 categories of receptivity: hostile, neutral, uninterested, uninformed and supportive. Each group requires a different approach:
The criteria of a dream case is a positive answer to 5 questions. However, in the real world, such cases do not even need selling – they fly by themselves. So it’s a matter of approaching the ideal as much as possible:
[1] Harvard Business Essentials, Power, Influence and Persuasion, HBS Publishing 2005
Blogged with Flock
In my last post we said:- to understand the effectiveness we’re having we need to be clear about what we expect to achieve from communicat9ing with multiple target groups about multiple LE programmes- to get some idea of how effective the outputs are we need to find mechanism to track the conversion of “mega-metrics” into behavioural / attitudinal change.- to do that practically we need to set up a panel- form that a workable hypothesis on how all this functions can be drawn – a model for as many different “niche” markets as we deem necessary that explain|: group x visited y times and, as a consequence, did the following. The second of these posts builds on that and presents the process we might follow [and this chimes with what Bill Howe was proposing]. So the process could look like this:
[Read more →]
Bill’s 4-step method to evaluate technology may also be suitable for programmes:
A programme statement along above lines does not need to be long. In fact, shorter statements reveal crystallised thinking. For example:
Blogged with Flock
“Trying to parse web data was like taking a drink out of a fire hose” – Bob Ivens
The purpose of this note is to arrive at a workable method for Leonardo ENERGY to understand:- how our digital communication is working – how interacts with off line communications- what the consequences for increasing demand for copper are as a result of what we do. LE’s content is extensive and covers a wide range of subjects and is directed at many, quite varied target receivers. Ideally what we need to know is how these various contacts use the information they take from Leonardo ENERGY at various levels and what they do with that information once they get it. This graphic illustrates the flow we need to understand:
[Read more →]
© 2012 Leonardo ENERGY’s Impact — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson
Hosted by Leonardo-web.org
