Follow me on Twitter
@kritikalace2011
Amy Jo Martin, principal at
Digital Royalty wrote an article in
Sports Business Daily about how she thinks brands can "turn the art of social media into a science." With a great title, and a nice list of media recognition to accompany it, Ms. Martin gets our attention. But here's the issue: I'm not so sure the 925 words she wrote actually said
anything useful. In fact, some it downright doesn't make sense.
Let's take a look. Ms. Martin touts a metric she calls "Return on Influence," which supposedly captures the different ways in which brands influence. For Ms. Martin, different sports franchises have different influence levels, particularly when it comes to generating transactions. But, like a good scientist, Ms. Martin recognized that "she had to prove it."
Her solution? "Warm Metrics", which Ms. Martin claims she could use to prove that fans like a particular brand. What's more, Ms. Martin says that these can be tracked to demonstrate accountability for actual transactions resulting from brand influence.
In fact, according to Ms. Martin
"My findings, with brands varying from sports teams to individual athletes, show there’s a direct correlation between return on influence and revenue available per fan and follower. It’s a cause-and-effect relationship: influence increases, and subsequently revenue follows"
Unfortunately, after looking through all the "case studies" and media coverage listed on Digital Royalty's website, I didn't find a single piece of information that indicated how Ms. Martin and Digital Royalty were able to turn brand influence into a science. Even the article in Sports Business Daily that this post addresses, doesn't provide a single piece of evidence that suggests Ms. Martin was able to accurately measure return on influence.