Alternate title:
McFib?
Thanks to Mike Zavarello (@brightmatrix) for the #McFib suggestion. I wish I had thought of that.
Okay. This is not going to be a kind, warm and fuzzy post. Before I start, let me say this: I would much rather have a brilliant Social Media case study to champion. A story about a company doing something right, with data to back up its results, clean metrics to boot, and flawless analysis from start to finish. Wieden + Kennedy’s Old Spice campaign will soon be the subject of such a post, when more sales numbers are made available. But as things stand, this post is not going to be about a company that got things right.
What we are going to talk about today is either a case study in either poor journalism (Mashable reported on the story without questioning and verifying the math), or the origin of questionable claims by a McDonald’s representative about a Foursquare promotion’s alleged outcome. I don’t want to speak ill of the company (I actually like McDonald’s), but I can’t not bring this up.
(UPDATE: 19 September 2010) Look for an update to this story at the end of the post.
Here is how the story begins (via Mashable):
At the Mobile Social Communications conference yesterday, [Rick] Wion shared that McDonald’s was able to increase foot traffic to stores by 33% in one day with a little Foursquare ingenuity. McDonald’s total cost for the successful campaign was a measly $1,000.
Econsultancy reports that McDonald’s, with Wion driving campaign direction and strategy, opted to try and take advantage of Foursquare Day (4/16) to bring in more business. The company used 100 randomly awarded $5 and $10 giftcards as checkin bait to lure in potential diners. The bait also worked to attract the media’s attention and resulted in more than 50 articles covering McDonald’s Foursquare special.
The campaign worked in both digital and real world capacities. Patrons flocked to McDonald’s restaurants for the chance to win giftcards in exchange for checkins, and 600,000 online denizens opted to follow and fan the brand on social media sites.
The Econsultancy piece is here. Sounds great, right? Here is what you just heard: McDonald’s spent $1,000 on a campaign, leveraged Foursquare to get people in the door, and increased foot traffic by 33%, resulting in some unknown but probably decent spike in business (sales.) Except no. That isn’t what happened. There’s also this:
Of course, the metric here was checkins (not sales), and there were likely several other factors contributing to the campaign’s success, but it’s still a story that many an agency should pay heed to.
Let me quote that again, in case you missed it:
“The metric here was checkins (not sales).” Or actual foot traffic, apparently.
Oh. Take the pig off the spit – the celebration might be a little premature. Right idea, wrong execution, and horrendous analysis. Let me explain.
1. In spite of its “conclusion,” did McDonald’s measure actual foot traffic?
This was a test. The premise was this: If we spend $1,000 on a Social Media promotion using Foursquare, can we get more people in stores? The most important metric to measure then, both as a baseline and an ultimate outcome would be what?
Foot traffic. Actual foot traffic. As in… someone with a clicker standing at the door, a laser in the door way recording how many times someone passes through it, or a sensor in the door recording how many times it opens and closes. Unfortunately, unless Mashable forgot to mention it, McDonald’s did not actually measure foot traffic.
Wait… what?
That’s right: Though Rick Wion claims to have increased foot traffic by 33%, nowhere does the piece mention that McDonald’s actually measured foot traffic. The only metric mentioned: Foursquare Check-ins.
The one thing McDonald’s should have measured, the very metric Rick Wion is reporting jumped by 33% in one day, is the one metric that may not in fact have been measured at all.
Here is how you measure deltas/changes in foot traffic:
1. Lock in your baseline (the average daily foot traffic before the campaign).
2. Measure average daily foot traffic during your campaign.
3. Compare the two.
What you measure are actual people actually walking into actual stores, not people checking-in from their phones three blocks away or clicking a “like” button on Facebook from their desk, or clicking “follow” on their twitterberry. You measure people in the stores.
If McDonald’s Wion wants to report on a win (as well he should), it should be this: “With only $1,000 investment, we increased Foursquare check-ins by x%.” That is what actually happened. This is the extent of a win. It isn’t as sexy as claiming a 33% increase in foot traffic, but it’s a start. A proof of concept. Something McDonald’s can now build on and expand.
I now leave Ronald McDonald’s Social Media team and Rick Wion to explain how exactly how check-ins conveniently transformed themselves into foot traffic.
2. Metrics are not randomly interchangeable:
Here’s a simple, basic, no BS fact of Social Media performance measurement: A Foursquare check-in is not foot traffic. Foot traffic is not a Foursquare check-in. Here is the difference between the two:
– Foot traffic is someone coming into your store.
– A Foursquare check-in is someone within five city blocks of your store pushing a button on their phone.
Case in point:
@lizy_dee: I just checked in to some McDonalds up the road while I’m sitting on my couch at home.. #fail
Likewise, mentions are not sales, and new followers aren’t new customers. Metrics are not randomly interchangeable. Metrics are specific. Don’t measure one thing and magically turn it into another to embellish your quarterly report and get some media attention.
3. Contests are not strategies. People will do anything for free stuff and then move on:
“Do this and you might win something. One day only!” Here, McDonald’s has at its disposal the combined power of the Social Web and mobile phones, with a potential reach of hundreds of millions of people. It has a chance to increase net new customers, increase customer loyalty, earn mind-share, impact preferences and customer habits in the long term… But no. McDonald’s big Social Media idea was to attach the typical one-day-only contest carrot – which requires neither Foursquare nor Social Media of any sort – to get people into its stores for one day (which it may not have actually accomplished since it measured the wrong thing).
I will, however, grant McDonald’s Wion this: His experiment proved that promotions in which people might win free stuff if they push on a button will make some of them push the button. Unfortunately, we already knew that. We can get lab rats to do it as well, even without a social media strategist.
The fact is that tying Foursquare check-ins to a promotion doesn’t prove that Foursquare will work for you, or that you know how to leverage it yet. The Foursquare check-in feature is a button people push to get their prize, not the reason why they came to your store. Let me illustrate:
Replace the term “Foursquare check-in” with “funny hat”.
If your promotion had asked people to wear a funny hat to your stores for a chance to win a gift card, would you be saying that funny hats helped you generate 33% in additional foot traffic? Here’s an example:
At the Mobile Social Communications conference yesterday, [Rick] Wion shared that McDonald’s was able to increase foot traffic to stores by 33% in one day with a little funny hat ingenuity. McDonald’s total cost for the successful campaign was a measly $1,000.
The company used 100 randomly awarded $5 and $10 giftcards as checkin bait to lure in potential diners. The bait also worked to attract the media’s attention and resulted in more than 50 articles covering McDonald’s funny hat special.
Patrons flocked to McDonald’s restaurants for the chance to win giftcards in exchange for wearing funny hats.
See what I mean? What’s your Foursquare strategy again? Is it the same as your funny hat strategy or your pink tie strategy or your flip-flop strategy?
Here’s a little dose of reality: This was a promotion just like every other promotion before it. Push the button we ask you to push, give us the magic password, and maybe win something. Foursquare was an accessory, not the catalyst. Even if McDonald’s had actually seen a 33% increase in visits to their restaurants on that day, the gift card promotion, not Foursquare, got people to participate.
4. “It’s still a story that many an agency should pay heed to.” Um, no. Absolutely not.
Unless what you want to do is teach agencies that not measuring relevant campaign outcomes, mistaking one metric for another, making up numbers entirely, not understanding basic Social Media marketing strategy and having no clue how to tie campaign metrics to business metrics is the right path.
There is already plenty of that going on on. We need less of it, not more.
5. Take your case studies seriously: McDonald’s should have measured conversions. Here’s how to do it:
What Rick Wion and his team should have done:
600,000 new fans and followers? That’s “Reach.” That’s your starting point. Here’s your conversion chart:
Reach → Response → Visits → Foursquare Check-ins → Transactions → Revenue (then repeat)
Don’t know how to put these things together? It’s simple:
Reach, we’ve already touched on.
Responses can be anything from RSVPs on Facebook, to registrations or sign-ups on a microsite, to mentions to RTs on Twitter.
Visits are your first real measurable conversion. You actually have to count visitors. Not estimate but count. If the suggestions I made earlier in the post are not feasible, look into software that will allow you to count visitors by analyzing your CCTV feeds. (Your surveillance cameras capture foot traffic in and out of the store, and to the cash register. Put them to good use.)
Foursquare Check-ins are simple. By the way, since these check-ins have location data, you do realize that you can map check-ins nationally and therefore assign check-in volume to specific stores, right? So, you can see what areas are responding well to your campaign, and what areas are not? In terms of targeting, this is gold. I hope McDonald’s Social Media team is paying attention. Rick, your team knows how to do this, right?
Transactions are pretty basic. Now that you have your foot traffic data, not only nation-wide but also per individual store, you can see store by store what the deltas/changes are. Now that you also have Foursquare check-in data store-by store, you can overlay that data with your foot traffic data. This gives you a nice composite of increased foot traffic per store + volume of check-ins per store. See where I am going with this? Okay, now, the last bit of data: Look at the volume of net transactions per store next to these two metrics. What you are looking for is this: Stores in which foot traffic, foursquare check-ins and net transactions rose together. This is where you begin to see the path from action to reaction to R.O.I.
Revenue is the final metric you need to calculate the R.O.I. of your $1,000 campaign. You’ve already looked at foot traffic, check-ins and net transactions. The “net new” numbers in the data set that show an increase in all 3 is where you can PROVE that your activity had an impact on business performance. There are several ways of assigning a dollar value to your campaign’s net gain, but the fastest is to calculate the corresponding percentage of net $revenue to the percentage of net new transactions in that data set. This is your hard number: The 100% unquestionable net gain (in revenue) from your investment. If your campaign cost $1,000, you can now prove that revenue generated that day by your campaign was $x. With this data, you can present the board (and the general public) with a real case study. One with an actual process, proper measurement, and measurable facts including R.O.I.
Behind closed doors, you can also look at collateral outcomes: Those you suspect but cannot prove 100%. This would be an increase in sales revenue that can be attributed to increased foot traffic, but not Foursquare check-ins, for example.
That is how it is done. I suspect that other people at McDonald’s already know this, which is why the company has been so successful.
Note: The campaign’s cost was not merely $1,000. Also factor in the salaries of McDonald’s Social Media team, the equipment they use, the software they use, the training they have received, the conferences they attend, and other costs associated with their “management” of this campaign to get a more accurate value.
6. Mashable, when someone hands you a cup of Koolaid, check it before drinking it.
Mashable, I love you. I really do. If you were a person, I would hang out with you a lot. In a way, we already do. And it is because I love you that I have to tell you to be careful: You’re the popular kid in the class who can help make reputations. If you like someone, suddenly everyone likes them too. You can make nerds popular with a mere wave of your magic wand. That makes you a target for clever PR people with a story to sell and the talent to sucker you in. Usually, you smell what’s cooking. This time, I think you jumped too soon on the opportunity for a scoop. And yeah, your traffic is pretty solid. You’re going to be generating a lot of advertising dollars from this McDonald’s story. But you didn’t have to buy into it hook, line and sinker:
“Foursquare ingenuity” – Except it wasn’t. There was nothing ingenious about the campaign or its use of Foursquare, not to mention that the measurement piece is a disaster.
“the successful campaign” – No.
“netted the company measurable success” – No again.
“Patrons flocked to McDonald’s restaurants” – Nicely written, but still no. Is there proof of “flocking?”
Or is it that you were so impressed with what you heard that you forgot to mention the other metrics used by McDonald’s? Metrics like… actual foot traffic? Or transactions? Anything that might back up Rick’s assertion that foot traffic increased by 33% on Foursquare Day? If McDonald’s has this data and you failed to report it, (even going as far as to say that “the metric” was Foursquare check-ins), you just made Rick look bad.
Whatever the case may be, Mashable, you can do better than this.
What can we learn from this? Several things:
1. With many companies desperate for a Social Media win, questionable “case studies” like this one are bound to start popping up at conferences and on sites like Mashable with increasing regularity.
2. Social Media Directors with little understanding of the space in terms of strategy, program development, Social Business planning, program integration, program management and performance measurement are still the norm. (This will be the topic of my next post.) This may or may not be the case with Rick Wion. I don’t know that yet.
3. What this kind of story illustrates is this: When few people understand how to leverage the Social Web to create specific business outcomes and measure them properly, Social Media “experts” can make a complete fiasco of a campaign sound like a Social Media knockout victory with a few carefully selected words.
4. Headlines and anecdotal “evidence” are so easily consumed that facts tend to get lost in the PR copy, and trusted sources don’t always understand their subject enough to spot red flags. Even eConsultancy and Mashable are vulnerable.
5. A tough job market for Marketing professionals, the promise of fame, influence and perhaps a book deal, and little understanding of proper Social Media measurement from the C-suite combine to create the perfect environment for less than qualified individuals to pose as qualified Social Media Directors.
Many companies have them in their midst and have no idea that their Social Media experiment has been put in the hands of someone with absolutely no idea what they are doing. Whether the McDonald’s/Foursquare experiment turns out to be the result of poor methodology or poor reporting by Mashable and eConsultancy is still unclear, but it does illustrate the danger of operating in a medium that so few executives, marketers and journalists understand. My inbox and DM column are full of questions from “Social Media Directors” and VPs who pass themselves off as experts yet show a disturbing lack of even basic Social Media knowledge. Just because someone’s job title is “Social Media Director” doesn’t mean they even know how people use Twitter. (I am not exaggerating.) The fact that I still have to explain R.O.I. to Social Media “experts” is also indicative of the gap between “perceived” knowledge in the industry and “actual” knowledge in the industry. Someone’s job title does not guarantee their expertise, especially in this field.
This is the kind of BS that drives me ba. na. nas.
UPDATE DETAILS: 19 September 2010
Mashable has changed the title of its story to “McDonald’s Foursquare Day Campaign Increased Checkins by 33%” and added the following caption:
“Update: McDonald’s head of social media Rick Wion tweeted that, “the 33% increase was in the number of checkins. We consider checkins the same as a person entering the restaurant.” (Original tweet)
This helps explain this statement from Rick Wion last week:
“I was able to go to some of our marketing people — some of whom had never heard of Foursquare — and say, ‘Guess what. With this one little effort, we were able to get a 33% increase in foot traffic to the stores.'”
Kudos to Mashable for catching the error of their original title and article, which supported Rick’s assertion that a 33% increase in foot traffic had in fact resulted from its Foursquare Day promotion.
No data to support that an actual 33% increase in foot traffic occurred on that day has yet been produced by Rick Wion or McDonald’s.
Yet, from Rick Wion’s own blog:
Note the headline: “33% More Foot Traffic.”
Tip to business owners and C-suite executives: When your “Social Media Director” doesn’t know the difference between an increase in Foursquare Check-ins and actual foot traffic in your stores, consider it a giant red flag.
If you don’t know why, here it is. In order for your business to be able to substitute Foursquare Check-ins and foot traffic, you need all three of these elements to be true:
1. 100% of your customers must be Foursquare users.
2. 100% of your customers must check-in to Foursquare 100% of the time when they visit one of your stores.
3. 100% of Foursquare users are always honest about their check-ins. No one EVER registers a false check-in to game the system.
These are the requirements. If you do not have all three of these elements in place, you cannot ensure a match between Foursquare check-ins and actual foot traffic in your stores.
As it is, McDonald’s (or any business anywhere) would be hard-pressed to establish that even 20% of their customers are Foursquare users, much less 100%.
You can see where Rick’s belief that Foursquare check-ins are “the same as a person entering the restaurant,” his statement “with this one little effort, we were able to get a 33% increase in foot traffic to the stores,” and the title of the September 17 post on his own blog are… problematic.
At the very least, this case illustrates the danger of assuming that a Social Media Director is qualified to develop and manage a Social Media program just because s/he holds a Director-level position with a reputable company or major brand. More often than not, they are not.
For an excellent analysis of the McDonald’s “campaign,” I recommend that you read Thomas Baekdal’s post on the subject, which offers numbers and real data. Click here.
Among the most insightful bits of data:
The underlying problem is that McDonald’s [serves] about 26 million customers per day, meaning a 33% increase equals 7.8 million foursquare users. But, Foursquare has only a total of three million accounts (and only one million active users). You don’t have to be a math wiz to see that something is wrong.
And then this:
In terms of tweets then McDonald’s claim that nearly 600,000 people potentially noticed it via Twitter, and still only 719 people reacted to it. That is a conversion rate of 0.12%, which is below most click-trough rates of website banner ads.
It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.
UPDATE DETAILS: 21 September 2010
In this follow-up piece from eConsultancy (click here), Meghan Keane brings up the same check-in vs. foot traffic questions raised here already, and goes back to Rick Wion for clarification:
McDonald’s, boasted that a special McDonald’s ran on Foursquare Day in April increased foot traffic at McDonald’s 33%.
That’s no small number, and since not all 26 million McDonald’s customers are on Foursquare, it was a bit unclear what, exactly, had increased 33%.
With commenters and bloggers questioning the results, I followed up with Wion. As it turns out that McDonald’s results were not measured in actual foot traffic. According to Wion:
“We measured check-ins, not foot traffic, transactions, or sales, on Foursquare Day.”
That’s an over 20 million customer difference. However, Wion still stands behind his results. And he’s using this case study to justify more social media offers at McDonald’s.
Wion used the term foot traffic because he found it easier to convey the impact of the campaign:
“This kind of program was uncharted waters for us, so we needed to develop a means of measurement that translated to other commonly understood metrics within the McDonald’s system.”
No.
Note the statement “Wion used the term foot traffic because he found it easier to convey the impact of the campaign.”
Except it didn’t. What it did was completely misrepresent the impact of the campaign. A cardinal rule of project management: You do not misrepresent results and outcomes. Ever. Not accidentally and certainly not deliberately. Everyone would find it “easier” to convey the impact of a campaign by embellishing it. Most of us, however, don’t.
The result of this alleged “decision” to substitute foot traffic for check-ins:
As a result of this breach of trust, the validity of future McDonald’s Social Media studies will unfortunately be received with suspicion, at least when they are initially released.
Rick’s trustworthiness when it comes to accurately reporting on campaign outcomes is now in doubt, especially given his choice to continue to “stand behind his results” rather than acknowledge his error, which he clearly understands.
This constitutes an unfortunate and unnecessary black eye for the fast food giant’s Social Media activities.
Poorly done all around.
Perhaps the medical profession’s “first, do no harm” ethos should be applied to the Social Media profession.
The saddest thing about this whole mess was that on its own, however small it may have been, the campaign was a success. A 33% increase in Foursquare Check-ins was something positive to report on. A basic a proof of concept. Had Rick stuck to the facts, however small, however insignificant outside his organization, he could have built upon this test with ease. In terms of moving things forward for McDonald’s in the Social and LBS space, gaining the trust of decision makers internally, building momentum for his strategies across the McDonald’s organization, the truth would have worked just fine. There was no need to misrepresent the study’s outcome.
On a more promising note, it is good to see eConsultancy and Mashable updating their reporting of this story. With a little luck, when pitched with future claims like this one, both outlets will remember what they learned this past week about verifying a company’s claims before reporting on them, especially in the still shady world of Social Media measurement.
Kudos to them for the quick turnaround.
McDonald’s, I like you a lot, but something isn’t right with your social media team in the US. You might want to take a closer look at what is going on in that department before someone does something embarrassing again. (Let’s hope this was just an accidental hiccup.)
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
Speaking of drinking the Koolaid, I think I’ve been drinking TBB Koolaid long enough that this stuff has finally sunk in.
I don’t read Mashable. I despise all the Foursquare check-in tweets/BS in my stream. And I don’t even know where I first heard about this McD’s puff piece, but as soon as I saw it, I heard the voice in my head ask, “33% increase in foot traffic? Success? But how were sales affected?”
Then the voice said, “Oh shit. Everything Olivier’s ever said just clicked. Where’s my sword and shield. Let’s do this.”
Thought I’d share, sir.
You just made my day. My job here is done. 🙂
Wow, the truth at last. I was advised how well a client social recruiting project was going oh so well by the vendor but when I asked for the measure of “oh so well” I got nothing but BS. Shame the client is not quite so smart!
Great post. 🙂
In spite of the amazing measurement tools available today, the practice of measurement is still a disaster.
Instense, straightforward and to the point. Food for thought, notes taken for when I’m actually in the business. Every tiny detail and piece of credibility needs to be taken into context. I’ve checked in plenty of times at a place without actually entering. Doesn’t help for actual numbers of those entering the business or even making a purchase.
I have done the same. Foursquare is an honor-system game that consistently gets abused in return for badges, status and prizes. Drive-by check-ins are common.
Great post. This is a symptom of a wider issue where many people are attributing superficial numbers to success as well as wrongly see them as strategy. I just wish more organisations really think through what the role of social media is and how they impact brands long term. The real benefit of social media for me lies in the long term relationship / engagement that you can create with the consumers. Unfortunately, many seem to view SM as a sales driving tool forgetting all the other important contributions.
Agreed. Though when used as a sales driving tool, the least a company or its agency can do is… actually measure sales. 😉
Great post! I am a fan. I read Mashable and find most of their content very useful – but I really appreciate your direction here to look at reality and not get caught up in the hype (that’s my take anyhow).
Thanks! Yes. 🙂
I have written this guide to help anyone who is thinking of running a marathon for the first time. Maybe you are a runner and are thinking about stepping up to a big challenge. Or maybe you have tried to get into a marathon such as London or Brighton but were unsuccessful and so decided to apply for a charity place. Either way I hope you find this guide helpful.
Realization #1 – this is so spot on that I think we all need to check-in to Foursquare together as the PLANET and then delete from our smartphones.
Realization #2 – don’t ever EVER tick off OB.
Realization #3 – working through your storytelling and thought processes here helps to make the world a better place and, ultimately, helps me keep my job. Sharing with my boss – we’re a B2B so much of the retail side of “strategy” doesn’t apply, but the broader sweep of these analytics still hold amazingly true.
Thanks for rocking my Friday into the weekend.
Thanks, Rick.
And yes: #2. Never forget it. 😀
I am so with you on this…it drives me nuts too. But what drives me nuts is the “let’s play nice” attitude that seems to take place in the social communications universe. Nobody seems to stand up and call bullsxxxt when all this blathering is totally off the mark. Except for you Olivier. I guess that’s why I read your stuff.
I think it’s important to respond to social communications when you believe information is misinforming. It’s your duty as a member of the social universe. But do it in an appropriate manner. Olivier, I like your approach; I only hope I can be as nice as you in my retorts.
One other thing I will add. I worked on the McDonald’s account at a regional ad agency. It was one of the best learning experiences ever for me. It was in the 80’s and even then, we measured everything. We were hooked into McDonald’s POS system, so for every campaign we executed we knew how many transactions took place, average check, etc. And even before we did a campaign we needed to show the store owners a break-even analysis — how many extra burgers they had to sell to make the campaign successful. We actually set a specific percentage of transaction/sales increase that we expected to hit for the campaign. And these were integrated campaigns. When was the last time the Dir. of Social Media played nice with McD’s Broadcast Dept?
From the other viewpoint, more than anything I think someone didn’t not explain the situation very well or mispoke altogether. I could easily see that they meant to say they increasted transactions by 33% at the end of the campaign vs. the reference to the foot traffic. Any well-versed McD employee or vendor talks in transactions or sales numbers
So if I’m hearing McDonald’s Corp marketing folks beating their chest over the success of a campaign using a single medium, I tend to think it’s more about that person than the campaign (which is the down side of social media — self-propelling hype). Done.
Thanks, Maggie. I am also surprised to see such a poorly formulated cause-and-effect anecdote come from McDonald’s. My understanding is that the corp is extremely numbers-oriented.
So… Either this is a departure for the fast food giant (in other words, the Social Media team is not playing from the same playbook as the rest of the company), or Mashable completely screwed up this story.
I hope that McDonald’s will respond and offer some clarification.
Olivier: I read your post twice (well, three times, but who’s counting). Sincerely, I agree with the main thrust of your piece – that accurate and honest measurement is at the heart of what we do.
But unlike the previous commenters, I want to air a concern I have about the post.
Namely, I take exception to some of your claims, and generally the vitriolic attack on Rick Wion as a person (disclosure: we’ve met once, but I have no insight into him as a person or a marketer).
The purpose of my reply is to start an open dialogue. And while I realize that by replying I now become a potential target, I hope that’s not the case. I think we’re all bigger than that. Or again, I hope we are.
So here we go …
YOU: “Foot traffic. Actual foot traffic. As in… someone with a clicker standing at the door, a laser in the door way recording how many times someone passes through it, or a sensor in the door recording how many times it opens and closes. Unfortunately, unless Mashable forgot to mention it, McDonald’s did not actually measure foot traffic …”
ME: Have you (and if you do, are you assuming your readers to) any idea the operational and financial hurdles it takes to install a doorway laser or human to count store traffic all day? Particularly in a franchise model? I do. It’s far more enormous than one might think.
_____
YOU: “Measure actual people actually walking into actual stores. Not checking-in from their phones three blocks away, not clicking a “like” button on Facebook from their desk, not clicking “follow” on their twitterberry. People in the stores.”
ME: Is it that absurd to think that most normal people aren’t so hell-bent on gaming the system as to do a phantom check-in? And let’s say they are, don’t they need to eventually come to the store to collect and spend their giftcard?
_____
YOU: “I now leave Ronald McDonald’s Social Media team and Rick Wion to explain to the board of directors how exactly this helps the business, or how they plan to build on that to generate actual results… Or where that convenient 33% figure actually came from.”
ME: I suspect the BOD has their hands full with plenty of things that need explaining.
_____
YOU: “A Foursquare check-in is someone within five city blocks of your store pushing a button on their phone.”
ME: See “ME” in response to two “YOU” quotes ago.
_____
YOU: “ McDonald’s big Social Media idea is to attach the typical one-day-only contest carrot – which requires neither Foursquare nor Social Media of any sort – to get people into its stores for one day.”
ME: You realize this is one of a slew of things McDs is doing in social, right? I don’t think anyone at McDs would consider this THE social media play of all time. Or even of the year.
_____
YOU: A tough job market for Marketing professionals, the promise of fame, influence and perhaps a book deal, and little understanding of proper Social Media measurement from the C-suite combine to create the perfect environment for less than qualified individuals to pose as qualified Social Media Directors. Many companies have them in their midst and have no idea that their Social Media experiment has been put in the hands of someone with absolutely no idea what they are doing.
ME: What is Rick’s book about? Curious the last time you and he chatted.
Ian, first things first:
I understand the cost of outfitting 13,000 stores with foot traffic devices. I do. And yes, it is a legitimate hurdle. I don’t have a beef with this at all.
My argument is this: If you cannot calculate foot traffic (and therefore CHANGES in foot traffic) you cannot claim to have increased foot traffic by 33%.
Before McDonald’s can claim that they increased foot traffic by 33%, they must be able to measure foot traffic. If they can’t, it puts the credibility of their claim in question. And if that is in question, I have to question either the qualifications of the person making this claim, or their motives. (Or alternately, Mashable’s fact-checking, which might still be at the root of the problem.)
Second: About gaming the system. Hers’s a thought. What makes more sense if my objective is to try and win a gift card? A) Drive to McDonald’s and check in, or B) Check in to as many McDonald’s as I can without actually going? No purchase necessary.
Did some people actually go to McDonald’s to check in? I am sure. But how many? What % gamed the system vs. the % that didn’t? Without actually counting foot traffic, McDonald’s cannot know.
What we DO know: If there were 100 gift cards, and all 100 cards were picked up, you can bet that 100 people actually went to a McDonald’s as a result of this promotion, to go collect their cards. The rest is impossible to determine based on Foursquare check-ins alone.
Lastly, I have not chatted with Rick. I don’t know him.
Here are the facts: Rick made the statement and Mashable reported on his claim. If Rick of McDonald’s can provide evidence that their Foursquare promotion actually increased foot traffic by 33% (with foot traffic data, not estimates based on check-ins) I will be happy to write a follow-up article praising them for their results.
If in fact McDonald’s has real data to back up the 33% figure, I am surprised that Rick hasn’t yet contacted Mashable to get them to correct this statement:
“the metric here was checkins (not sales), and there were likely several other factors contributing to the campaign’s success.”
This statement is one of two things:
1. An error by Mashable. “The metric” was not, in fact just “check-ins.” In this case, Mashable screwed up by omitting other relevant metrics.
or…
2. “The metric” is indeed just “check-ins.” In that case, McDonald’s claim of a 33% increase in foot traffic is bogus.
Thanks for the comment.
I don’t think our POVs are far apart at all. I think it was the way you delivered it that I took exception with. Thanks for your reply.
Monitoring 13,000 stores for foot traffic is one thing, sampling across enough of them to get a statistically significant sample is another. That being said, McDonalds is probably already able to measure sales performance fairly precisely. Why didn’t they choose to use sales, a stat that is much closer to measuring real impact, instead of Foursquare checkins? If it was really successful, surely you’d see it show up in increased sales, right?
Yes. They could have measured that. In fact, because Foursquare checkins are specific to each store, you could easily match check-in deltas to sales deltas for individual stores.
Why didn’t McDonald’s go there? Your guess is as good as mine. Here’s my hunch:
The campaign only yielded 719 net new check-ins (compared to a typical day). Across the entire US. That was it.
719 check-ins wouldn’t even be a blip on McDonald’s radar. Spread across 13,000+ restaurants, even assuming that each check-in resulted in a $20 purchase each time, the jump in sales by individual store would be so small as to be impossible to spot.
The impact on sales, assuming there was any, would have been too minuscule to track.
A better test would have been this: Selecting ten McDonald’s restaurants around the US and creating unique rewards programs for them that tracked behaviors over 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Impact on sales might be measurable over time, and with a smaller, more captive test group, more data could have been obtained by McDonald’s. They could have gotten feedback from participants, measured impacts on sales and visits, identified trends in behavior…
… But no. Instead, they launched a single-day promotion with little planning or follow-through, and then misreported the results to score a PR win.
It’s very disappointing. The last thing the SM space needed was another dose of snake oil. Especially from one of the bigger brands testing the waters in Social Media.
“@adotas to clarify, the 33% increase was in the number of check-ins. We consider check-ins the same as a person entering the restaurant.” by @rdublife
Here is the mistake.
That is like equating a twitter follower with a transacting customer. Silly, silly assumptions. 🙂
I still enjoy foursquare, but you were dead on with your very well thought out analysis. I will be sharing this article… lots.
I’m a Foursquare fan as well. And I occasionally eat at McDonald’s. Both companies are part of my experience. 🙂
Plain and simple, it was a stunt. Not scaleable, not sustainable. And clearly NOT measured in terms of profit margins, client loyality, or even #sheeptossing. Their story was not furthered, and the NEXT time they ty this stunt watch for yawns. And crickets.
Profit margins feed families, foursquare check ins feed egos.
I know this because Tyler knows this. Ykwim.
I am Jack’s liver’s mayor.
It worked! Although the statistics may of not been correct with the 33% foot traffic, it’s all I’ve heard about today, media has picked it up and now you are writing about it. I would call that success! – May not be the way we like it, but brand recognition is out. Hmmm. I may just go grab a big mac right now.
So you are saying that this was a PR success? I agree.
Whether McDonald’s actually increased foot traffic by 33% is irrelevant. Mashable published the story and people bought the headline without asking for proof.
Why? Because we still expect journalists to fact-check their stories and assume they do.
Kind of like assuming that a foursquare check-in is the same as someone actually standing inside your store.
It would be a lot more impressive if McDonald’s could actually back this up with real numbers.
As usual, Olivier, spot-on thinking on your part. But I can’t help thinking there is something lost in the translation here. I echo what Maggie said, I worked with the Golden Arches in two lives and no self-respecting vendor could not recite the metrics of transactions. Hard to imagine that it will end up to be the total puff pastry you have revealed by peeling back the onion. I hope you get a response from the responsibles.
Keep swingin’, Dude.
I hope I get a response from the responsibles as well. Something doesn’t click right with this story. At all.
Fan.tas.tic post!! And not just for your uncanny ability to poke holes in b.s. stories – I think this post is a must-read for anyone who needs a good example of how you really measure ROI. It’s more than just critical, it’s also EXTREMELY helpful in crystallizing what we might be doing wrong with our measurement stuff (on a much smaller scale). Huge lessons in here. Love.
Muah.
Wait… can I do that? 😀
We’re French. We’re the masters of air-kissing! Even over the interwebs. 🙂
How have I not found your blog before? Great, great post. Five-star analysis and a fantastically well-deserved kick in the ass to McDonald’s.
Facts are facts — you nailed the issue that if you claim foot traffic you better back it up. Marketing claims have to be supported by data. Or it’s just so much smarmy marketing BS. Social media isn’t a magical pixie land where you wave a Foursquare or Facebook or Twitter “wand” and things magically happen.
The melding of PR and social media and marketing is a tricky area, I’ll admit. But snake oil is snake oil — no matter who is selling it. It undermines legitimate practitioners in marketing (who use data accurately and carefully) when fuzzy fluff like MacDonald’s alleged boost in foot traffic is trumpeted far and wide without being challenged.
Yep. I hope that McDonald’s will respond, and that they will have foot traffic data to present.
I would much rather have something to champion as a brilliant case study (like W+K’s Old Spice campaigns) than another BS snake oil anecdote to poke holes into.
Cheers.
I saw Rick on a panel yesterday at the ExactTarget conference in Indianapolis. At that time, he referenced this program as delivering a lift in check-ins, not foot traffic.
The tweet from him cited above is indeed a concern, because clearly McDonald’s has more foot traffic than check-ins, and the two are not even in the same universe statistically.
As you and I have discussed before, I think you do the industry a service when you poke holes in flawed methodology, but do yourself and your brand a disservice by being so snarky about it. If – as you point out – it’s possible that Mashable misquoted Rick or Rick just misquoted himself, don’t you think you could have emailed one or both parties to see what the story is before you blew them up? You take Mashable to task for not being diligent (and I concur), but I see no diligence from you in divining the truth in this tale. You ask for comments from McDonald’s several times in the post, but couldn’t you have tweeted Rick and tried to get those comments yourself (same with Mashable) and included them in the post? I know you’re a blogger not a reporter, but telling all sides of this story would have made it – in my estimation – a more interesting and useful exercise.
You know that I have a ton of respect for your thinking. But I don’t want to see you diminish the spread of that thinking by the way you package it. Of course, you can and should write about what you want to write about in the way that you choose to do so. So, I’ll butt out now.
By the way, one thing Rick said in his remarks was that the entire McDonald’s social media team is two people. Himself and one other. It’s still shockingly bad measurement, but it’s not like he’s commanding an army over there.
Thank you.
I am not sure how to ask these questions without stepping on toes, Jay. Someone is bound to feel raw about what I have to say, snark or not.
Two points I need to make:
1. This is serious business. It isn’t trivial. Here is where I come from: I constantly get asked insanely stupid questions by very well paid Social Media Directors who pretend to know what they are talking about. Their measurement methodologies are complete BS. They know it and don’t care as long as it means a paycheck and a ticket to a better Social Media job at a bigger company. That is how the game is played by more of these “professionals” than I care to list.
As a result, I take offense to the amount of snake oil and BS that gets pushed out weekly by people like this: People who lie about their expertise and the performance of their Social Media programs.
I am not saying that Rick is one of these people. I don’t know. All I see is this: An unsubstantiated claim backed up by metrics that make absolutely no sense. So I have to ask, Jay: How did we get here? Did eConsultancy and Mashable drop the ball, or did Rick make the kind of mistake that someone in his role should not be making? My hunch is that we are dealing with the latter, in which case the situation is this: Rick doesn’t know what he is doing. Rick makes claims he cannot back up. So is he lying or is he simply out of his depth like so many others who turn our profession into a joke?
This story brings me back to Social media Directors from major brands asking me via DM how to get followers, and what Foursquare is. Of course I am snarky. How can I not be, when the Social Media space continues to celebrate complete nonsense?
I am snarky about 4 times per year and always over stuff like this: Snake oil, BS, and incompetence. You say it hurts my brand, but it is part of my brand. For better or for worse, when I see BS in this space, I call it out.
99% of the time, my packaging is this: Social Media 101. Here’s how to do X:…
1% of the time, my packaging is: This is complete BS and let me tell you why.
Strangely, some of you guys blow off the 99% of “my packaging” all other 358 days of the year and only pipe up when I drop the hammer on some shady scam.
My point here today wasn’t to teach. It was to drop the bus on another Social Media story that stinks of misdirection. If Rick worked for me, we would be having a serious discussion behind closed doors right now. Instead, because he doesn’t, I wrote this post. I could have made it a lot worse.
2. I am not a journalist. I don’t write for Mashable, ZDnet or Wired. I express opinions on a blog and share whatever expertise and insights I can.
I could have pretended to be a journalist and called Mashable and McDonald’s to verify their statements. I could have left messages and waited for someone to call me back. And waited. And waited some more. With a little luck, Rick might have called me and shared some of his data with me if he had time.
It could have happened that way.
What happened instead was this: I had an hour to write the piece. No more. I went with what Mashable and eConsultancy had published because they are both trusted sources of information and spoke with authority on the subject. McDonald’s didn’t seem to contest any of the data, facts and conclusions presented by either site. If McDonald’s didn’t contest any of it, why should I doubt these two sources? I went with the information that was being widely accepted by the industry.
If either party cares to add to the story and clarify anything, they are free to do so. If data was left out by Rick or Mashable and they make it available, I will add it to my post and write a follow-up. I have no problem with that.
The thing is, if that data does in fact exist, it might have been a good idea for both Mashable and Rick to make sure it surfaced a lot sooner than now. IF that data exists. If it doesn’t, given the situation, the snark in my post may be well justified.
Thirdly: One person, two people, fifty people… It doesn’t matter. If you claim that a promotion yielded a net increase of 33% in foot traffic, you should have data to back it up. REAL data. Actual foot traffic numbers, measured inside stores.
Your capabilities as a team are one thing. Claiming results you can’t back up is another. The first, I can completely respect and understand. The latter, not so much.
No offense taken, Jay. I respect your opinion.
And by the way, “McFib” may be my favorite blog post headline ever. Send @brightmatrix a T-shirt or something!
Jay: Hey, thanks! Just putting my pun skills to work! Maybe the shirt could say “McDonalds increased their foot traffic by 33% using FourSquare, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt” 😛
Olivier: As I mentioned to you on Twitter yesterday, fantastic article. I consider myself a “student of analytics” and am very sensitive to instances where folks try to falsely justify actions based on spotty or convenient statistics. I did see that Mashable pushed out an update from their SM director that clarified the metric to simply 4Sq “check-ins”, but the damage has been done. Thanks for keeping us all honest! 😉
I hear you. I think it’s a little unfair to suggest that I’m never here unless it’s snarky, but I take the point in the spirit it was offered.
I think you to a degree answer your own question when you say you only had an hour to write the post. You had an infinite amount of time to write the post. You chose to write it fast to capitalize on the zeitgeist. I don’t blame you. I do it too. It’s just a tad disingenuous to say they have to be rigorous, but you don’t. Especially if everyone’s goal in this case was the same – to generate publicity.
If the results (wacko though they may be) were less boffo, or if it wasn’t Foursquare, or if it wasn’t McDonald’s, how much of a story would this have been for them? Zero. One of the big problems with social media today is the “press” – Mashable included.
Companies can benefit more from the PR hit around their social media programs (Comcast, Ford, Southwest, Jet Blue, etc. etc. etc. etc.) than from the actual business value of those same programs.
This creates a huge asynchronicity between the need to measure correctly, and the value of measuring correctly. If McDonald’s gets WAY more press (and thus benefit – in theory) from announcing some crazily flawed metric, then they do from actually measuring correctly, what’s the incentive to do the latter? If McDonald’s puts out a story that they increased foot traffic 2%, or that they increased Foursquare check-ins by 15%, it’s met with a yawn.
I’m not at all saying that McDonald’s faked this intentionally. I don’t know Rick, but just from the interaction I had with him yesterday, I don’t get the impression that he’s a con man.
But what I’m saying is that a huge part of this problem is the media’s desire to paint rosy social media pictures, and companies desire to sell them the paint to do so. Sure, there are social media directors that don’t have the requisite experience. But I think the larger problem is the “isn’t social media awesome!” symbiosis that’s going on between companies and the press. It makes “innovation” more important than “results” – and that’s a problem for us all.
Jay, Olivier probably didn’t have an hour to write the post to “capitalize on the zeitgeist” – that is rarely how he operates. He probably had to get back to his book writing which has some firm deadlines. Just wanted to point out that was an assumption. Carry on. 🙂
Jay, I don’t think you can criticise (British spelling!) Olivier’s choleric style. It’s what brings people like me to this sort of debate and makes them bring other people in. What you suggest is too anodyne – “on the one hand this, and on the other hand that”. Yawn.
Also, blogging doesn’t work like journalism – a newspaper article pretty much starts and ends on the page, which is why the author needs to cram in all appropriate views. But Olivier’s blog is by no means the finished publication or even most of it. Therefore he’s perfectly justified in firing off an opinion with the caveats that he inserted that (a) he might not have all the facts and (b) that the views of Mashable and McDonald’s were welcome. Why should he wait?
That said, your humanity in urging respect for Rick is admirable.
Thank you. (International spelling.)
😉
I understand your point, Jay, and respect where you are coming from, including your zeitgeist assumption.
Fact: I don’t really care about zeitgeist. If I did, I would have written the piece to post on Monday, not on a Friday. (Friday is the slowest newsday of the week. You don’t push stories on Friday, you bury them there.)
My schedule right now is monopolized by appointments, event planning, content production, my book’s next deadline (next week), and three conferences in the next ten days. When I say that I had one hour to write the post, I mean that I had one hour to write the post. In fact, I chose to write the post instead of fitting in a workout. Why? Because I was THAT perturbed by the story.
I don’t sell advertising on my blog, Jay. The day I start writing articles to score a win on digg or as a ploy to attract readers, I will also start selling ads. At least that way, I might actually “capitalize” on all that zeitgeist and traffic.
As to you assertion that media outlets like Mashable are the problem, my opinion is no. They are not the problem. The media reports. It’s their job. Sometimes, they get it wrong. Sometimes, they don’t do their research. These things are true. But they are not the problem.
The problem is the reluctance by “Social Media professionals” to police their own space.
About 4 times per year, I publish a watchdog post like this one. In the last twelve months, I have written about bogus Social Media R.O.I. calculators, ridiculous R.O.E. “formulas,” a (now defunct) Social Media certification scam, and now this complete nonsense from McDonald’s. Every time, the reaction from a particular “clique” in the Social Media guru space has been this:
1. Stay out of it: “To each his own. Hacks and snake oil panderers aren’t our problem.”
2. Wrinkle their noses at me for writing about it, and for the “snark” in my post.
Here is how I see it:
1. It IS our problem. Collectively. It isn’t Mashable’s job to do this. It’s ours. “Thought leadership” in this space doesn’t stop with convenience or comfort. I am not here to “sell” my “brand” or try to score my next gig. I am here to help build a discipline. That means handing out both carrot and stick. It means playing watchdog when I see something threatening the integrity of the space.
2. It isn’t snark. It’s outrage. This stuff offends me. There is no excuse for it, and I cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye to it.
As for the definition of con-men, here’s something to think about: The damage that comes to a company from incompetence has nothing to do with intent. Not knowing how to do your job yields the same outcomes, regardless of whether the offending party (the Social Media Director) is purposely being deceptive, or so far out of his/her depth that fantasy and reality become one and the same.
Nobody accidentally lies about results, Jay. If you don’t know something, you simply say “I don’t know.” You don’t make up a number. Lying is a choice.
As long as you and others in this space – whom people respect – continue to not only turn a blind eye to this kind of BS, but even excuse it, snake oil salesmen will continue to operate. Not only as “Social Media consultants,” but as Directors and VPs within Fortune 500 companies. I don’t care how “nice” they are, and how friendly they seem. I’ve never met a good con man I didn’t like, Jay. That’s what makes them good.
No offense, Jay, and please don’t take this personally because this statement is not directed at you, but that reluctance by folks like you to get involved and police your own back yards is the real problem, not Mashable or “the media.”
Who among you rings the alarm bell? Why is it that none of you guys is willing to say “hey, wait a minute. This is wrong.” What’s the problem? Is it that the risk of alienating potential clients is too great? Is it that everyone already has their hand in the same Social Media cookie jar? What is it?
The only thing that keeps hacks from operating is this: Public exposure. That’s it. Ignore their activities, and you give them free reign to grow roots and gain influence. Confront them and shed a light on the BS they’re selling, and they will be forced to adjust course and either do things right or take their BS somewhere else.
The real question I have is this: Why is it that some of you guys seem more offended by my tone than by the snake oil I expose in these posts? That puzzles me.
The most likely explanation is that the parties involved deliberately gave misleading numbers to hype Foursquare. If the “journalists” didn’t check their numbers, well, they were lazy but not dishonest. I don’t buy for a second any argument that executives were “misquoted”. This was a deliberate falsification.
That is my hunch as well.
Wow, pretty damming.
This one’s been getting a lot of buzz and it really did sound too good to be true. Thanks for the level-headed analysis as always!
As soon as I finished my reply I read this right above me:
“But what I’m saying is that a huge part of this problem is the media’s desire to paint rosy social media pictures, and companies desire to sell them the paint to do so. Sure, there are social media directors that don’t have the requisite experience. But I think the larger problem is the “isn’t social media awesome!” symbiosis that’s going on between companies and the press. It makes “innovation” more important than “results” – and that’s a problem for us all.”
I couldn’t agree more. A little more neutrality from all parties would be beneficial.
The other problem with a “isn’t social media awesome” attitude is that that kind of EXTREME pushiness from one group almost always causes a second group to run in the opposite direction as fast and hard as they can.
So, here’s what I love about your long, educational tomes…. in the comments or later on Twitter, you often sum up the whole thing in one sentence:
“My argument is this: If you cannot calculate foot traffic (and therefore CHANGES in foot traffic) you cannot claim to have increased foot traffic by 33%.”
Well done. 😀
Seriously, I love it when you see beneath the superficial and detail the problem with it for the rest of us to understand. Just had to give you a spot of trouble lately as I have been otherwise occupied and am in arrears. 🙂
It struck me as being as grave a piece of BS as the other 3 or 4 bits of Social Media snake oil I rang the alarm about in the last 12 months.
At least, Domino’s bit claimed that Foursquare had “contributed” to numbers that were verifiable. They didn’t outright claim numbers they couldn’t back up. Mashable should have done their homework on this one, but they only contributed to the problem. They didn’t create it.
P.S. I especially liked the point about free giftcards as prizes not equating to a Foursquare strategy… whether Rick called it an increase in checkins or not at ExactTarget conference, that is still not a sustainable strategy for leveraging Foursquare unless you want to give free money out daily, till the end of time. Sam was at that conference and I’m curious to know if he heard that particular speaker… I’ll ask him.
McDonald’s could have done a lot with this type of program.
Limiting it to one day is silly. It was a ‘Foursquare Day’ stunt. Nothing more.
Creating a program to increase Foursquare participation over time would have been far more clever and might have yielded real, measurable results.
Sorry for the intrusion, I took a wrong turn and ended up on this blog.
The McFib thing compelled me to read it.
Here’s a couple of cooper coins to contribute:
When my kids were young, Mickey D’s was the eatery of choice. Never in those 10+ years was there ever anyone watching the door and tabulating folks that walked in. And they’re probably still not doing that. So what the snot is “foot traffic” that 4Square refered to?
My assumption would be that it’s a number internal to McDonald’s. Perhaps it’s something really simple like the total dollar sales divided by number of orders-perhaps it’s a more complicated algorithm that can calculate to within .03 people.
Point being that the number was obviously communicated by McD’s to the advertising company which reported it.
One grand plus the cost of the gift cards ain’t squat for McDonald’s to invest to test to see that if by getting people to THINK about McDonald’s “foot traffic” would increase. And it did-by 33%-and they appear to be happy with that number.
And I’m sure that FourSquare is happy that McDonald’s is happy.
I’m happy I don’t HAVE to go to McDonald’s now that my kids are adults. 😀
Those types of numbers would be great to see. If they can be verified, then yes, you’re right: Something quantifiable happened on that day.
I would love to see McDonald’s come out with data that includes net transaction deltas for that day.
McFib? You can also file under “water is wet” – 99% of the so-called social media success stories are pure fabrication. There are quite more than a handful of social media/marketing “consultants” here is Charlotte that, as best as I can tell, do nothing more than generate Facebook fans for their clients…and people pay money for this?
This is why the knock on social media is and will continue to be inability to measure. I’m a believer in social media and the shift to the customer, but don’t blame CEOs one iota for thinking it’s rubbish.
Agreed. I still run into Social Media consultants who equate 101 level knowledge with expertise and sell complete BS. They are the rule rather than the exception.
Well said all around. On the notion brought up in some of the comments that you’re going to hard on Rick, my perspective is that’s bollocks. The only issue I’d raise is that you’re probably not going hard enough on Mashable.
While this might be the most egregious case to date, this kind of reporting is hardly new from them. I’m inspired to do a statistical analysis myself – of the percent of their articles that laud SM success stories without providing any solid metrics to back them.
It’s always been infuriating to see them praising social media campaigns at their onset, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for them. Picture the agency-client conference call “Hey Client X great news, Mashable’s calling this a huge success, and they get a 3 million uniques a month! This campaign is going to be great!” Ugh.
Guess I now owe us all that analysis.
-JF
Fair enough. 🙂
On why I am easy on Mashable: Journalism vs. bloggers and contributors. Mashable isn’t the New York Times. 😉
But your point is noted, and perhaps i should not be so kind as to make that distinction.
Cheers.
mcdonalds is great business in the world
I was advised how well a client social recruiting project was going oh so well by the vendor but when I asked for the measure of “oh so well” I got nothing but BS. Shame the client is not quite so smart!
“Mashable, when someone hands you a cup of Koolaid, check it before drinking it.”
If they didn’t swim in the stuff on a daily basis, they might be able to do this…
“On why I am easy on Mashable: Journalism vs. bloggers and contributors. Mashable isn’t the New York Times.”
No, it probably actually makes a profit.
If blogs want to be taken seriously (and the good ones do) they need to be held to the same standard. I’m afraid that Mashable lost a lot of my respect when it started publishing articles I’d have been embarassed to submit to my college paper.
This is the one that did it for me: http://mashable.com/2010/01/06/28-days-later-say-goodbye-to-the-netflix-new-release-rental/
I can’t really argue with that.
Every time I try to make an excuse for internet news sources, a little voice inside my head whispers “really?”
In an ideal world where journalism is journalism, regardless of the medium, you are 100% right. Perhaps even I should start holding ALL news outlets – even the Gizmodos and TechCrunches of the world to a higher standard.
Great points.
Especially the TechCrunchs and Gizmodos. To be fair, I think that generally TechCrunch is pretty much on the money, but a lot of the others fail on a regular basis (so do newspapers, but that’s a different issue). As far as I’m concerned, if they have a staff and a budget, they’re mainstream, and need to act like it.
Great post by the way. I especially liked the 3 steps to why the stats are meaningless.
Since we have already discussed the McDonalds incident on Twitter, let’s talk untrained social media consultants and managers.
While i have consulted and manage some social media accounts for small business, there are a plethora of consultants out there who are still feeling there way around the bottom floor of social media while teaching it.
You can spend $97 to get into a social media manager package online that gets you started. This breeds many managers who have never even seen a twitter account who are now managing them for others. The cycle of untrained, uninformed, unable social business accounts is now perpetuated.
The only up side is that with a little training, these new managers prevent businesses from seeking bad advice online where there is definitely plenty.
I talk to small business owners all the time who want to get into social media but don’t know how. They hear it’s free and it’s a big deal so they get started but do it horrendously. they don’t understand measurement and analytics but they get 12 “Likes” on Facebook and they’re happy.
Again, more perpetuation of the cycle. They tell their business friends how to do it. Before you know it, they all abandon ship because there are no measurable results.
Shame really.
Yep. And you know, the dynamics for small businesses are different. I can’t expect a small local retailer to be able to do what a Fortune 500 can. Different budgets. Different resources. Different access to expertise.
Case in point: This weekend, a friend of mine who owns a small business here in Greenville texted me a request:
“Hey, can you tweet something about the sale we’re having until 4pm today?”
I would have, except… what good would it do?
1. I have been telling this guy for two years to get on Twitter and start a Facebook account. He refuses. That’s 2 years worth of wasted social equity he could have built up and used for this and other promotions.
2. His market is 100% local and extremely niche. My audience on Twitter is global and of a completely different stripe. Even if I tweeted about his promotion 50 times per day, he would see absolutely zero traffic to his store as a result of my tweets. I’ve explained this to him many times: I cannot be his business’ media outlet. Not without focus and targeting.
3. I got his text around 2pm. What does he think will happen between 2pm and 4pm if I tweet about his promotion?
The anecdote was an illustration of how many small businesses view SM: An add-on. Something they don’t want to bother with but “try” when nothing else will work:
Wait until the last minute instead of building an audience and a community.
Mistake one person’s reach for relevant reach (relevant to their business, that is).
Hire someone else to do what should be done internally.
It makes me sad.
These things, however should not be happening inside companies like McDonald’s, which can afford to work with professionals on a long term basis, have strong measurement practices, and can experiment with real programs all day long.
Rage. I can’t help but wonder if you had a tissue to wipe the froth from your mouth? I didn’t enjoy this poorly written article one bit.
Thanks for reading it anyway and taking the time to comment.
Since I started reading all of my feeds on my iPad, I comment less, but I had to weigh in on this one.
Thanks, man. This was great. I view it as a pivotal moment in marketing history. I’m not joking. As a passionate marketer and a history buff, I often look at the two in relation to each other.
My first reaction when I read this (no joke) was “Pardon my french, but holy F**kin sh*t! Olivier rocked this one,” but then I realized that you speak French and would probably lay me out to dry for that 😉
Well done!
See, there are some things you can say in English that find no adequate translation in French. Well done, sir.
Wow, tuerie par clavier. Il va perdre son poste le pauvre Rick! Tu viens de pointer une erreur que j’aurai surement comise moi meme down the line n’etant pas encore un expert dans le domaine. Merci.
I will share this with as many people as I can. I should actually print it and frame it so the folks around me think twice before shouting victory! Amazing read!
A good case study, though they didn’t use FourSquare, was the Chick-fil-a Spicy Chicken sandwich launch here in Atlanta. I received an email from a friend with a link that took me to a site to sign up for my free Spicy Chicken sandwich. (I also saw a lot of posts with the link on FaceBook.) I had to select the day and time I wanted to come in. Each time slot had the number of spots available.
Once I picked my time, I received an email from the store manager (with his picture!) thanking me for signing up and stating I’d need to bring my email “invitation”. Though they were collecting paper, they got a real number of people that came in for each time slot.
The day of, I got a reminder email not to forget my free sandwich.
They gave away a lot of free chicken, but it was an interesting way to get the news out about a new product offering.
Mendy
Old school and a little complicated, but I can applaud the effort and diligence. Much better than this instance, in which the entire “experiment” was built upon erroneous assumptions, best-case estimates, and a misleading analysis of otherwise simple metrics. Thanks. 🙂
We’ve all done it at one point in our careers, but now it’s got a name.
The next time you stretch the truth in a conversation you can congratulate yourself on McBlagging it. Once you get really good at it you get to wear a badge with 5 stars on it (or is that 4 stars? So hard to measure correctly).
“McBlagging?” 😀 Noted.
From Rick’s twitter posted on the 20th:
“Just to clarify, our foursquare program had a 33% increase in checkins, not system-wide foot traffic.”
Yes. He retracted, as well he should. A little late though.
yes i agree with you. over at my country, my friend checked himself into McDonald’s on foursquare.. but he isn’t there because he is there to spend. he parked his car there so that he can walk to school. tada, u have it. it doesn’t translate to revenue. i love the way you justify. could use it for my project! THANKS FOR THE EDUCATION!
What’s even more absurd than Rick first stating foot traffic not check-ins is his continued statement (aka lie). I can forgive if he just misspoke, then realized his error and corrected it. Instead he is using this as proof that McDonald’s host more campaigns like this because it was so helpful. His hypothesis has not been proved at all, and quite honestly it makes him a lot less reputable. I guess at least Mashable realized their error and corrected it.
You made various nice points there. I did a search on the subject and found most people will have the same opinion with your blog.
. TorrentFilm . http://torrent-f.ru
, . .