KLUMME: After an arduous amount of time contemplating how to begin this post on social media engagement (or lack thereof), in a way that would be both honest and critical, that is the best I could come up with.
As a social media strategist who works at a media agency that sells social media, I am the last person you would think should be voicing this type of opinion (at least publicly) – but it sums up how I feel after years of managing social media profiles. Maybe it’s frustration. Anger towards constant algorithm changes – the latest just a few days ago announced by Facebook that brands will be even less present on newsfeeds. Perhaps I’m tired of CEOs telling me all they want is to “boost engagement”. It could be that I am just sick of seeing social media cheerleaders, self proclaimed “gurus” and mediocre “experts” over-charging and confusing misinformed clients with sub-par strategies. I am lucky enough to work at an organization (citrusmedia) that encourages and supports my independent research and allows me to constantly challenge, well…. everything.
Today I would like to go deeper into what I consider to be the “Myth of Social Media Engagement”. I will be specifically focused on Facebook – but all the data and learning presented here applies across the majority of popular social media platforms. My intention is neither “fear mongering” nor to be controversial – it is simply to encourage the social media community (myself included) to cultivate new learning, and promote the open exchange of ideas and solutions to address the challenges we all face in an industry that simply changes so quickly that no individual could possibly keep up alone.
A few months ago I was asked by a very well known international popstar who was about to embark on a 50 city world tour to investigate her Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. I was to research her profiles and present concrete suggestions on what her team could do in regards to increasing her fanbase and engagement overall. Specifically what kind of content would encourage more engagement. She was frustrated that her social media wasn’t performing at the same level as many of her colleagues in the business such as Lady Gaga and Kim Kardashian – since her fanbase online was “only” 1 million people and their fanbases were 50-100 times larger.
One of my many observations I had while conducting this research was that even though her overall fanbase was significantly smaller, her fan engagement was far superior, and in some cases (such as compared to Kim Kardashian) 500 pct. more. While this gave her a boost of confidence, what sparked my curiosity was: why are the most powerful, famous, content rich celebrities (I would argue they are brands) – that are being marketed and promoted internationally on every form of online and offline media getting such lousy engagement online?
Example: Vin Diesel, who is presently the biggest movie star in the world, currently being marked and promoted in one of the most successful movies of all time (Fast & The Furious 7 – RIP Paul Walker), that commands an awe inspiring 90+ million fans on Facebook alone is only getting (on average) a puny 2.1 pct. engagement – what can a more “modest” brand such such as ummm… Walmart expect? I’ll tell you: 0.002 pct. (yes read that right 0.002 pct.). I had my team compile a list of over 100 brands and celebrities on April 1st 2015 based on their last 5 posts – this number can represent anything from the past 2 hours to the past 6 months. I included everything including shared content, pinned posts, cover photo changes etc.
My methodology for calculating average engagement percentage is simple – no software needed, no bells and whistles necessary. Number of Facebook page likes = “total likes”. Add up the post comments, likes and shares divide that by the number of posts you counted = “average engagement per post”. “Average engagement per post” is what percent of “total likes” = “average engagement percentage”. Simple. Due to client confidentiality I am unable to use the more in depth numbers I professionally have access to. My research is 100% independent and since I am not formally funded by any institution I lack the means to get further information such as numbers of clicks, video views and I cannot see which posts have been boosted. Is this method perfect – absolutely not, (especially on calculating comments which in theory include replies by the page, numerous posts/reposts by the same user and of course spam) but even if we take all that in favour of the brand to give them a higher engagement percent and add say another 100 pct. to account for any other error again in the artist or brand’s favour, then the numbers are dismal to say the least. The reason I feel confident to showcase this data is because the data is consistent, regardless of when my team sits down to crunch the numbers we are always underwhelmed.
The data itself is grim – the highest recorded engagement I was able to find internationally was American Football Quarterback Tom Brady with 4.09 pct. engagement. Nationally, right-wing politician Pia Kjaersgaard had an astonishing 4.7 pct.. The best brand by far was Rolex with 1.46 pct. (a number hiked up I assume because of Baselworld 2015 and the introduction of new models). Overall the average engagement for all 168 brands/celebrities/companies) was….drum roll please… 0.58 pct.. Eye opening, but the reality is that companies/brands are doing 300 pct. worse with the average being 0.18 pct.
In my pursuit to get even deeper into the topic, and gain more insight into my own research I contacted one of my own “professional heros”- award winning and world renown professor of marketing: Mark Ritson. Professor Ritson is both brilliant and experienced having worked with the biggest and most influential brands in the world – he served as in-house professor for LVMH for 13 years. He is without question, one of the most important professional and academic critics of social media today. Most recently a recorded alumni lecture entitled “Ritson vs. Social Media” has been getting attention with marketing insiders around the world as Professor Ritson tears apart the “Oreo Super Bowl” tweet and breaks the hype surrounding down social media. During the closing of his lecture he states:
“Is social media worthless – no, is social media as valuable and important as were being told – definitely not”
During our interview, Professor Ritson clearly states his position when asked about his experience with social media, and if it has become more or less useful over the past years.
“The problem of social media is its limited reach and its impact remains the same. What has changed is the number of people and the amount of hyperbole now attached to social media. These factors have increased dramatically in the last 5 years and made the gap between social media reality and delusion so much greater”
No professional that has worked with social media for the past 5 years would argue that the sheer number of people streaming into this industry is staggering. New specialized companies are popping up everyday. Established media and advertising bureaus are opening social media departments. There are dozens of software and development companies offering new solutions and platforms. Companies across all industry are hiring social and digital managers in-house. This once “blue ocean” is now turning dark purple. In my opinion in 2 to 3 years from now we’ll all be swimming in bright red waters. When asked if the amount of social media hype was actually being driven by companies and people trying to make the industry bigger than what it is Professor Ritson answered:
“Yes. It’s either delusion, exaggeration or just plain bull***t. But I don’t think you can blame social media agencies for overselling their wares. After all print media has been doing it for decades. My issue is with the dumb clients too cowardly or poorly trained to challenge social and call blushing when they see it.”, he goes on to say.
Then the question is which tools worked and slivered relative value versus their cost. This is the level I find social often wanting. If you compare the costs of social to other tools – the opportunity cost of not doing email marketing, seo or TV ads – does it stack up? I’d say in my experience about 1 in 15 times it does and he rest of the time it does not. But because hides agencies and dumb clients are not comparing social vs other tools apples to Apple this comparison is rarely possible. One exception is smaller companies where social tools are often more relatively worthwhile but the ratio of success goes from 1 in 15 to maybe 1 in 5. Still shitty odds. I have no problem with social media. I’ve worked with great brand teams at Sephora and Benefit Cosmetics who have used social amazingly well. But they are the exception not the rule.
Could this be why early adopters of social media such as Coca-Cola are actually pulling back investing more on social media? My desire to dive deeper into the “myth of social media engagement” was further sparked after watching Helle Tyllesen’s (Falcon Social) lecture during Social Media Week (Copenhagen) entitled “7 Myths of Social Media”. Myth number 6: “people want to engage with brands”. Helle also presented an interesting number provided by Forrester Research: brands get on average 0.7 pct. engagement on Facebook and went on to tell the audience that by default people do not want to engage with brands.
It was followed up with a tweet stating that you need to “work for your followers attention”. While I agree unequivocally with Helle’s insight that people do not engage with brands I disagree with the latter – you can do absolute stellar work on social media, and create the most captivating content but realistically you won’t be able to do it constantly and even if you do, can you do it consistently? Even if you do, you still won’t get any engagement. In the same lecture Helle touches on this very fact stating that content is rarely the issue but that distribution of content is. This was an incredibly powerful and important insight that is backed up by data. It also flew right over everyone’s head at the SMWCPH lecture. Did they just listen to the same lecture I did? Why isn’t anyone asking questions?!
As of right now, no brand, no matter how large or small, famous or infamous, with power, with fame, or any degree of notoriety is capable of achieving organic engagement that anyone in the marketing world would define as remotely interesting – let alone profitable. It’s not just companies and brands anymore it’s everyone. Providing a strong argument that we should use social media to actively “engage” people is proving time consuming, and costly. More importantly the engagement strategy is harder and harder to prove a respectable ROI. The social game has changed. Facebook has simply made it impossible for anyone to get high levels of organic engagement – this is a fact. The question remains, is creating content and chasing engagement worth it? Is paying for distribution worth it?
While artists and celebrities can usually handle their own social media profiles, at little or no costs, companies need to use resources. The company needs to hire a manager(s), managers then need expensive management tools like Falcon Social, Komfo or (my personal preference) Hootsuite. More money then needs to be allocated to buy ads, create content, boost posts and so on. All this costs the company money. Gone are the days where social media was considered an inexpensive media. Smart marketers have understood that social is just a tool nothing more, nothing less. Not every company needs to use this tool – so the decision to be on social needs to be taken seriously.
Strategy to define and track ROI from day 1 is an absolute requirement. Make no mistake, when social works, it really works. For a few companies it has been the biggest factor to their success. I’ve seen firsthand the power it has to create value, and its added value to support offline campaigns, but its place needs to be understood within the organization in order to achieve any level of success. Simply posting good content and crossing fingers isn’t enough anymore. Simply boosting content to get engagement isn’t good enough. It’s about distribution, it’s about sustainability. Bottom line: social media should either make your company money or save your company money.
The myth of social media engagement is hereby busted.
Se datagrundlaget herunder (PDF).