Measure For Measure?

I have written previously about not subscribing to the school of ‘if-you-can’t-measure-it,-it-doesn’t-exist’, but after a difficult last week, I feel it needs revisiting…

I would like to be clear: in any business, strategies and new initiatives need frameworks and clear governance (budgets and timelines, for a start), but I do not think that they should be based on predetermined hurdle-rates and early outputs. All too often these are the very distractions that obscure the long-term perspective, and may even undermine the ability to achieve the ultimate outcome Рto actually run the race.

For example, networking is now accepted as a vital part of business culture and currency, but its value or contribution isn’t particular measurable. New media introduction – from radio through to television – was never originally very measurable, and largely still remains so.

The problem is that measurement numbers are often more of an equation than a true indicator, and even with a more transparent medium like social media, calculating the impressions of a twitter campaign by the numbers of tweets multiplied by the aggregate followers is pretty facile and largely irrelevant. In a similar vein, direct sales results only reflect your active customer base – but not necessarily your total brand audience – and so do little to show where a particular campaign is ‘going’, but rather more only where it has ‘been’.

If you believe that most breakthrough strategy is fundamentally about being ‘first to game’, do you really expect there to be both a roadmap and clear signposts? In fact, we could argue that if such measurements are clearly and obviously there, then the potential first mover advantage is already – de facto – lost.

The most successful new campaigns and initiatives are not determined by measurement, but rather by an agreed and consistent commitment of resource and planning. The required outcome will follow if the strategy is well-conceived, well-directed and well-delivered.

That is the point of strategy: to commit to a particular result, and to communicate consistently and frequently how that result is going to be achieved – not how that result is going to be measured, or indeed how it is performing at any given moment.

After all, you do not plant a garden only to dig it up every month to see how it is going…

So, three winehero tips on project and performance measurement:

1. Measurement is important, but it should capture both ‘hard’ (eg sales results) and ‘soft’(audience/brand engagement) touchpoints
2. Measurement should be part of a management framework, but projects must be allowed to incubate and breathe – measurement is not the ‘end’, it is just part of the ‘means’
3. The more ‘blue-ocean’ the strategy, the longer it may take for measurement to appear. Often a new activity can be about creating the opportunity and/or awareness, rather than yet delivering it.

One thought on “Measure For Measure?

  1. Ned Goodwin M.W. passed this along. A problem with measuring is that too many ignore those that are not in their worldview. It took a very long time for Americans to see Latinos and Blacks as viable consumers.

    In Japan, wine males rarely see women (who hold the household finances/bank book, and do the shopping) as important.

    Also, in Japan, Japanese wine importers rarely can see what non-Japanese in Japan, whether securities traders or embassy folks, have to do with sales in Japan. Added to this that Japanese are pretty private about buying things, and newspaper, magazine, radio, TV and now Internet shopping has gone viral.

    If you can’t see it, imagine it, recognize it, then how can you begin to measure it?

    Sandra Shoji

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>