This last week has
seen the starkest possible contrast in fortunes for two of Australia's sports
teams.
The cricketers were thrashed
by the English. Australia ‘lost’ the Ashes – although technically it never really had
them, since the actual urn, for reasons of colonial oppression, remain on
permanent display at Lord’s – leading to the retirement of Michael Clarke, the
captain. Yes, the ‘Pup’ has been put down.
Meanwhile, the
Wallabies ended a four-year drought with a sparkling 27-19 win over the All
Blacks, and are being tipped as World Cup winners.
So, enough of their
performances on the field, how are the two sports faring in the digital arena?
It
turns out that the Australian Rugby Union has a far higher percentage of their audience engaged at 44.0%, compared to Cricket
Australia which has 2.8% engaged.
The most effective
medium for Cricket Australia – by far – is Twitter. In fact it has the leading Twitter
engagement rate of any of the 44 Australian sporting bodies tracked by BrandData. (In addition to having the most successful website). Yet curiously, it is
the second LEAST effective of all 44 bodies on Facebook.
The Australian Rugby
Union, by contrast, is the MOST effective on Facebook. (And also first on
YouTube). But is nowhere on Twitter.
Since one is weak
exactly where the other is strong, and vice versa, the obvious conclusion is they
could create a real social media powerhouse by simply combining the two sports.
For sure, the merger
would throw up some challenges. Like… which ball to use? It certainly wouldn’t
be easy to hit a rugby ball very far with a cricket bat. Nor would it be a
cinch to locate a cricket ball in the ruck. As far as personnel, there are some
easier calls. Steve Smith surely has the physique to be a scrum half. Mitchell
Johnson could power down the wing, no problem. And if Matt Giteau can bowl as
well as he kicks, that would really help this ‘Crugby’ team succeed.
But other than a
merger, the Brand Data conclusion for what each body needs to do to enhance
their online presence is clear:
Lose.
For
despite its on-field success, the ARU has dropped three places in the last
week, in terms of the digital league table of sporting bodies. While Cricket Australia, despite its defeat –
or let’s face it, probably because of
the excitement that the team’s crisis has created – increased
seven places (to 12th).
4 comments:
'Engagement'
LOL
Next thing, this industry will be measuring unicorn farts.
Haha. Nice.
I know where you're coming from, mate. Obviously sales is the only metric that really matters. But... it's always been kinda hard to link that directly with advertising.
I reckon a lot of the metrics we have, while imperfect, are actually not bad. The much criticised 'recall' figure, for example, correlates quite well with Byron Sharp's theory of what makes people buy. (Mental availability).
And engagement? Well, I think it's a pretty fair bet that if people are watching your videos, and commenting on your posts, they're more likely to become interested in what you're selling.
It's notoriously difficult to measure advertising's effects, especially because the effects of great advertising build over time and last over time.
But, it is one of the problems in the business currently - this obsession with trying to find things to measure. And we should be more critical and skeptical about things that can and do make our industry look stupid to other business people.
Recall, as you say, is not entirely unhelpful, but needs to used in context and over time if it's to help measure progress of 'mental availability'. And the science of how we measure recall needs to be improved. It's no good just asking people to name a car brand, or a beer or whatever. The way the mind works is much more complex and subtle than that. Mental availability isn't simply 'remembering' or even necessarily remembering, it is more complicated things like mental associations. I would add to the mental availability aim too, in that I think the most powerful branding and communication doesn't just make a brand mentally available, but it makes it associated with some relevant quality.
'Engagement' however I have a huge problem with. It's the current snake oil of the business.
When, for example, one buys a TV audience of 5 million people, you don't just assume that because 5 million people (or the % of the audience who didn't nip to the loo during the ad break) saw your ad, they're interested in what you're selling.
Just because something is measurable does not make it worth measuring. But people do, because they fucking love measuring.
This addiction to proxy measurements which may or may not prove anything is just a distraction from the real value that agencies can give to business – to create advertising which help brands grow over the medium and long-term.
I enjoyed the post though. Sorry to go on.
Crugby - nice.
Rugket also works well, I feel.
Post a Comment