Reach
I have been doing a little analysis and I have come to the conclusion that a realistic reach figure for a tweet on Twitter would be around 10-12% (6% of followers using web, 4-6% using Apps) of the individual’s followers. This is making the assumption that the majority of the individual’s followers are in the same timezone and they are not just following anyone (aka using a script).
Click Through Rate
I have also used a little analysis from Bit.ly to work out that the click through rate of this content would be around 1%-4%. Once again making the assumption about the quality of networks.
I totally understand why iSpyLevis put out a reach number of 300,000 to make it comparable to other media but it is probably closer to 3,000 than 300,000.
Knowing this is great for planning but who is going to take back a reduced number when traditional media agencies are still talking inflated reach into the 100,000s?
15 comments:
Ooh, this is juicy! Nice stuff Jules. I think you nailed it in the last sentence though!
very interesting mate!
Nice one Jules, it's a good starting point for estimating eyeballs. Now all we have to do is find a way to turn views into tarps.
Hey Jules,
to give some more insight - i get about 20%+ CTR on my Hype DC tweets
but I haven't done anything to build an audience - so i've probably only got people following who are really interested...
(and i've only got ~150 followers - so it's a pretty small base to judge)
"Knowing this is great for planning but who is going to take back a reduced number when traditional media agencies are still talking inflated reach into the 100,000s? "
re this comment - if there is more diligence (like this example) around estimating more robust figures around social media reach and influence I think agencies and advertisers will be able to distinguish between large R&F for exposure and smaller numbers but more influence.
the ispylevi's figure to me always seemed like an agency trying to show they could do a reach job like a broadcast medium ... problem was the figure didn't really stack up.
Also - it's easy to point fingers at, ahem, "traditional media agencies" ;) at being the ones driving the reach agenda ... in 99% of cases it's the actual clients and their own internal stakeholders.
if socmed can get some more meaningful numbers and rationale behind investment/results/ROI the spend/attention will come. right now the metrics are shaky and even the most steadfast pro SM dude would agree
Great post.
Further to your stats and proof that even the Twitterarti can’t generate greater reach, Econsultancy has crunched the figures on a sponsored Tweet from @shoemoney.
The results for a Kmart sponsored tweet – 0.35% click through. Though roughly half of the clicks were made by people outside of Kmart’s target market (the US).
Of course this was a sponsored tweet for Kmart – a store unlikely to be highly desirable brand for many of his followers, but food for thought none the less.
Econsultancy post here
Hey Adam, that is a massive CTR!!! Did you check if anyone else is RT the tweet that will help to boost the CTR. I think that the CTR will decrease the more followers you get, the more followers you get the more broader the interest ranges of the people who are following you. For now you probably have shoe fanatics if you got to 1,000 I would imagine you would have shoe fanatics as well as Soccer and male fashion fans as well. I would hypothesise that the CTR and Reach % will decrease the larger you get, a clause to this maybe celebrities?!?!
Ben, I don’t like using the word influence – I think it is pretty hazy and I have not seen a great defintion so far. Great point about the traditional media agencies, I agree it will need a change from all levels– that could be a another 20 years away.
Hey Matt, the post pointed to a PSFK link, I don’t know if that was a mistake? Yeah that looks about right with the Kmart link. However when you put that up against the CTR of banner ads, it kinda looks quite attractive. ;)
Bugger too many pages open - try this link instead
We were discussing this internally last month. Three main points came up:
1. Similar to impressions on a web page, you can't be guaranteed that your content has been seen unless there is a response. That doesn't mean you can't continue to use those stats, just remain consistent in your comparisons and transparent about what it actually means.
2. We're yet to put too much faith in any of the reporting tools. Twitter Analyzer doesn't take into account whether people are awake/logged on/paying attention to your stream but it also doesn't count when your tweet comes up in a search or if someone is viewing your twitter page etc etc. I often get responses or RTs hours/days after the original tweet was sent. If anyone has an algorithm with all variables considered please share!
3. The sooner we concentrate on conversion rates instead of impressions the sooner the industry will be inclined to get realistic about reach. So while traditional media agencies continue talking inflated reach, we'll be wowing clients with amazing conversion rates.
Mandi, this comment is ill informed
"So while traditional media agencies continue talking inflated reach, we'll be wowing clients with amazing conversion rates."
Can someone give me an idea why some people think media agencies are these dumb reach monkeys who don't get other metrics??
Most, if not all agencies, are focusing on conversion rates as well as other metrics. Remember too - conversion rates aren't the be all and end all either ... no one medium contribute entirely to an action so be careful when attributing too much responsibility to one piece of the ad puzzle ...
Ben the comment regarding traditional media agencies still talking inflated reach comes from Julian's last sentence. If we're holding back on more realistic stats because we're worried about the reduced rates in comparison, surely the conversion rates will speak for themselves.
yes conversion rates will speak for themselves if the volume is adequate.
the question has to be 'is it'?
Hi,
I'm newbie here and come here from search engine. I really think this site was great.
I'm working on health related job and i have a site which giving out information about [url=http://healthlifesource.com/health-care-information/health-insurance]Natural Health Nutrition[/url]
I love for being health and i do anything to get my health target :)
Healthy life will make your life more longer and your body will become more strong also doing a healthy life will make your face looking fresh.
I really hope everyone here as healthy as i am but if not then you should change your life style immediatly for your own benefits :)
[url=http://buyingviagra.pillsfm.com/]buy viagra online[/url] Harmonize your village drugstore's fix up — it ascendancy insist on up the online price.
Really useful information, thanks so much for the article.
Post a Comment