My previous two posts (I, II) have attempted to lend structure to the inherently elusive measurement model for cross-channel campaigns. As much as I underscore on the ‘qualify over quantify’ model, people love numbers. Particularly clients.
Hey, go figure.
Luckily, many of our applications love the numerical spotlight. Take Jumbli, for example. For our cross-channel campaign with AT&T, the average interaction time for the word game was 76.77 minutes for web players and 4.15 minutes for mobile players. We have players that have accumulated more than 5 million points- that requires literally months of play.
However, as I discussed in yesterday’s post, the Vans Be Here campaign follows an entirely different user reward model. For this campaign, we want the actual user interaction time to be fairly short (because the UI is clear and the submission process is efficient), and for the meat of the interaction (the ‘share’) to carry on long after the site has been closed (or after the user walks away from the billboard).
The metrics we can track numerically (total # of users, # of unique users, # of submissions) pale in importance to the number of minutes that users spend sharing their snapshot, replaying their Times Square webcam video, encouraging their friends to send in their photos.
And therein lies the rub.
Because we’ve outsourced the ‘reward’ to the user (in allowing them to use our platform in a very personal, natural way), we’ve made the richest metrics harder to quantify. Does this make the campaign less valuable than a Jumbli campaign that has a much more quantifiable user experience? Of course not.
But it does require an understanding within the industry that a shift is happening– one that humiliates your calculator under a pile of Facebook status updates.