This chronicles the first three weeks of a successful experiment to evaluate the utility of Twitter as an adjunct to traditional B2B marketing and promotion. 

Since the nature of this B2B relationship is long term, the practical measurement ROI is difficult.  We use ROO(Return on Objective) where the Twitter can be compared to other media based on cost effectiveness for a  specific  objective.  Objectives are ‘exposures’  meaning brand name exposed to target audience; and ‘access’- meaning audience follow-up- in this case, click thru to a webpage.

The company in this case is a medium sized firm who provides products and services based on the technology of major partners, all of whom had well advanced social network strategies.  Its normal methods for promotion are web, newsletter, banner ad, trade show, purchased lists, press release and published case study or whitepaper. 

A Twitter account was opened in the company’s name.  The account followed one of the major partners and “re-tweeted” relevant messages.  Where appropriate,  a Bit.ly URL was added to the tweet, which included Google Analytics tracking code to the company’s website.  All other web and newsletter promotions were tracked with Google Analytics in this way, to allow comparisons of effectiveness over the period.

Exposures

This is the way magazines and banner ads are sold, and for a company seeking to build brand, exposures is a reasonable objective.  By this measure, Twitter may mature to be a silver bullet.  Here is a chart of the followers of the company and one of its major partner’s twitter accounts. 

By multiplying the Company’s ‘tweets’ times the average number of followers we calculate something like 10,000 exposures- to a fully “opt in” audience.  The cost for this is quite reasonable compared to exposures from banner ads or purchased email lists, neither of which is opt it. 

There were many secondary exposures as well.  By following and re-tweeting the partner’s Twitter account,  the partner followed and “re tweeted” the company many times.

In this case Access means the number of times a person lead by Twitter came to the company’s website.  The results are as follows.

38 web visitors is not a lot, but it is more than could be expected from a typical 10,000 name email distribution to a ‘blind’ list, say a list rented from a magazine.  

What is most relevant is the comparison to other channels.  During the test period people were brought to  the site by participation in a very popular sponsored bog site of a partner, and a mention in another partners newsletter.  Clearly, Twitter was much more effective. 

Summary

Based on this experiment, the social network program was continued and expanded. The list of Twitter followers grew.  Based on a larger dataset created later in the operation, the relative effectiveness of Twitter was compared to:

·         Banner Ads

·         Case Studies

·         Company Newsletter

·         Company Technical Blog

·         Partner Blogs

·         Partner Newsletters

·         Purchased Email Lists

·         Technical Whitepapers

·         Twitter

This effort was determined to be cost effective.  Twitter was found as effective as the company newsletter, and more effective than other media.  Cost of the above three week experiments was about 20 manhours, including ‘learning curve’.   Like these other media, social networks return based on what is put in.  Quality posts are required, and should be focused on interests of the target market. 

 Do you want to leverage this fast growing media for your company?  Why not Contact me:

ID@LawrenceRicci.com