Andrew Chen

New here? Check out my list of featured essays

Why metrics-driven startups overlook brand value

Comments

The perils of ignoring brand value
The nature of internet marketing makes it easy to have a highly accountable, metrics-driven view – but companies that are highly metrics driven easily overlook hard-to-measure issues like brand and user experience. The reason is that when all product decision-making is run through metrics-driven reports, soft things like “Brand” show up as costs, but never as benefits.

This leads to systematic erosion in many “soft” but important factors, like customer experience, brand value, and “love.” :-) And ultimately you need all of these things to create a massive, enduring consumer brand – it’s not enough to optimize funnels.

Let’s discuss why:

Two worlds: Direct marketing and brand marketing
In the advertising industry, there’s been a long, historic distinction between brands and direct response – and this distinction echoes its way into the online startup building world as well.

In the brand world, you have companies like Coca Cola, Apple, and others who pour millions of dollars into high-reach vehicles like TV which lack any real accountability. Thus the saying:

Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half
– John Wanamaker, US department store merchant (1838 – 1922)

To many people, the brand advertising world is irrational and fashion-driven, because of the complex interactions between agencies, their partners, and the publishers that rely on them. Just watch Mad Men.

On the other hand, you have direct marketers who thrive on accountability. They buy into marketing channels like direct mail, coupons, infomercials, and most recently online remnant ads, because they can purchase cheaply and use sophisticated statistical techniques to optimize their media buys.

Startup engineers tend towards metrics-driven
So what side do startups tend to side on? It obviously depends, but because of the highly accountable and measurable nature of online, it’s much easier to become metrics focused. Similarly, startups are mostly poor ;-) Thus, expensive brand efforts are mostly out of reach. (Probably for the better!)

Also, with the possible exception of GoDaddy, I don’t know a single startup that made it or not based on their brand advertising strategy. The typical path is focused on products and technology, and large organic growth which builds large consumer audiences.

And obviously, readers of this blog will tend to be much more metrics driven compared to the average entrepreneur!

You optimize what you measure
The first issue that causes metrics-driven startups to ignore brand value has to do with the fact that it’s very hard to measure brand, and you tend to optimize what you can measure. As soon as you throw some numbers on a big report, there’s an inherent human desire to make the numbers go up!

This is why one of the fundamental tenants of metrics-driven startups is to build lots of highly accessible reports that everyone in the organization can look at. Even if it’s easy enough to pull something out via a SQL query, it’s another thing for everyone to be able to hit a URL and load it instantly, no matter who they are on the team.

Measuring brand value is hard!
But measuring brand value, or user experience, or community “feel” or other soft things like that is very hard. I think they’re hard because while it’s clearly important, at the same time:

  • The quantitative effects accumulate over large periods of time
  • These might be “source” variables that drive lots of behavior, but it’s hard to measure past surveys and explicit information collection
  • Some of the most important datapoints may be qualitative, not quantitative
  • Changing these soft things may require big efforts above and beyond small A/B-testable changes

The companies out in the marketplace that try to measure brand value mostly just use surveys to detect changes. Or, many companies simply resort to a pretty ineffectual number like “reach,” which refers to the number of people who saw the campaign. This can sort of work, but self-reporting also sucks, and the quantitative data you get out may not be as useful as the qualitative data.

In my previous online ad career, I was shocked to hear that the standard way to measure a brand advertising campaign online was to fork $50k over to Dynamic Logic, whose job was to run a dinky little survey and tell you if your campaign worked. $50k to run a survey!

Reports show the cost of branding, but not the benefits
As a result of brand advertising being hard to measure, you get two systematic, interrelated issues:

  1. Product changes that result in brand value are overlooked, whereas the costs of delivering that value is not
  2. Features that negatively impact brand value but show short-term quantitative value are accepted

Here are two examples – let’s say that you think your site’s interface looks like crap, and you want to improve it to make it higher class and more trustworthy. But your metrics czar says, let’s make a really small improvement and see if it affects anything before we revamp the whole site. That sounds reasonable, but then you find out that in fact, making a visually compelling site just doesn’t drive better metrics, and in fact, it’s expensive and maybe lowers certain metrics. What do you do? (This is case #1)

Another example is that you make it really hard to unsubscribe from your mailing list. Maybe you don’t have a link, or you have to login first, or whatever. Making this change clearly affects your ability to retain users, but you get a small percentage of complaints, but the overall quantitative metrics look good. Should you keep this hard-to-unsubscribe mailing list issue? (This is case #2)

Ultimately, it should be clear that both cases are not clear cut issues at all. I could find reasons to go either way, but when you’re trading off a qualitative metric versus a quantitative thing, the numbers-driven approach tends to win. But this may not be the right thing. Similarly, sometimes the numbers may justify the decision, and the brand costs are actually quite low.

How do you make these decisions then? I’ll just wave my hands and say, “Entrepreneurial judgement” ;-)

Who’s the brand advocate?
One of the big, important roles that you need on every team as a result is someone who can advocate for the soft things. Who’s your brand advocate? Or customer experience advocate? Having someone on your team who can make logical arguments to balance out the quantitative stuff is hugely key, otherwise you’ll inevitably go down a path of brand-eroding quantitatively driven decisions.

Similarly, if you find that you’re never making decisions that go against the numbers, then frankly, you’re probably doing something wrong. If the data drives all the decision-making, then a lot of “soft” data is getting ignored.

Want more?
If you liked this post, please subscribe or follow me on Twitter. You can also find more essays here.

Written by Andrew Chen

June 18th, 2009 at 9:34 am

Posted in Uncategorized

  • Sam
    Andrew,

    As our startup begins to engage clients, we make sure that they feel comfortable with every aspect of their experience with us. Sure, we monitor the metrics & analytics. But at the end of the day we keep a holistic vision of brand-building in mind. At one point a client expressed a concern about whether he could include a particular feature in the hardware we were offering. We dropped everything we were doing and went to the drawing board. We researched the web and at the same time reached out for answers via forums & Twitter. We didn't have to put so much effort into such collaboration. But it was well worth the sacrifice.

    Sam
  • Excellent analysis. Companies probably should hire more ‘marketing technopologists’, a term coined by WSJ last year. It describe a marketers who will bring together the strengths of business, technology and social interaction.

    Consumers are expecting more from businesses these days. If your company just focus on the HARD stuffs and ignore the SOFT issues, they will eventually find out and say quit. I think Zappos has demonstrated that branding-driven companies can be successful, too.
  • Very pertinent entry. You can get 100k uniques from digg in a day, but if less than 0.01% remember your site/service name what have you gained?

    Thus we think it's very effective that our brands (Dogster, Catster, Snuzzy) come first, metrics and growth gets built on top of that. This is also a business strategy. It's at lot easier to monetize a brand and build upon that, than to monetize traffic and congeal it into a brand.

    There are plenty of exceptions such as if you are a bottom feeder - and there's nothing wrong with that - but for that business to work you need to be the biggest whale in the ocean, not just a crafty catfish.
  • Constance Semler
    Insightful post -- thank you. Sometimes the most important things are the most difficult, which is perhaps why I don't hear a lot of "gurus" talking about measuring brand value. One point on which I differ is the idea of hiring a person who in a sense "owns" this area. Particularly if that person is a manager that has to constantly make a case to an executive team -- not going to work much of the time unless that person is a superb persuader. It's important enough to have this approach to brand embedded throughout leadership. Again, not as easy or as popular as giving one person explicit accountability but worth it.
  • I'm not saying you should hire someone to be the brand advocate. It just has to be someone - either the CEO, or VP Marketing, or whoever is responsible for the product. It's a role that has to be filled.
  • partywedo
    As a customer of many brands, I always tend to gravitate toward the better expereince providers. But some goodwill or experience points are hard to measure. We should not let any opportunity to build the brand get past our team.

    I have always been a fan of Ford (I own a couple 60's Ford muscle cars ). But when they didn't take any government money when the could have, my love and devotion to the brand deepened.
    I turned into an active advocate and talk about it like I am here.

    We can assume that Ford measures their marketing programs by some metric, but how does one measure the results of this type of action?
    What can we do to create the atmosphere for breeding advocates?
  • Very thoughtful post Andrew. Thanks. Every organization has limited resources (not just start ups), and in this hypercompetitive marketplace is critical to make those resources "work" efficiently and effectively; and in this context "work" means attract and grow profitable customers. IMO, the filter through which to access all business activities is customer value, which today is a complex, nuanced equation.

    If the activity in question does not add value to the creation and/or delivery of a distinct and valuable brand expectation and experience for the customer, change it or don't do it at all. The best way to build brand equity is to repeatedly and consistently add value through all your interactions with customers.
  • It's really a matter of changing or altering your metrics. What you measure is just as important as how you measure it. Measuring brand value, while not strictly quantitative, helps brands understand why people are taking the actions they are taking (not just what actions they are taking). And, isn't that what we really want to know?
  • new blogpost about metrics-driven & brand value... am not 100% convinced but at least it is interesting [via JvdB] http://twurl.nl/nlxt6h
  • I think you are spot on. We @mobikwik in India have noticed how internet conversion metrics are the only thing people talk about, without going into brand perception at large.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Recent posts

Want more? Featured essays and book recommendations