More Absurd Social Media Analysis – The Value Of A Fan
I wrote the other week that the idea of time normalization in social media is a fallacy. But it goes further than just time being a fallacy. The marketing industry is obsessed with looking for normalizations everywhere. And other than providing a feel good number for presentations – it’s an exercise in futility. Well, other than the fact that it generates PR for those who come up with the numbers. It’s infotainment at best, misinformation at worst.
It’s no surprise then, that a company called Vitrue – which makes social media management solutions – has determined that, on average, a fan base of 1 million translates into at least $3.6 million in equivalent media over a year. Or as AdWeek tells the story through the misleading headline: the value of a ‘fan’ on social media: $3.60. The findings are “based on impressions generated in Facebook’s news feed.”
Vitrue analyzed Facebook data from its clients — with a combined 41 million fans — and found that most fans yielded an extra impression. That means a marketer posting twice a day can expect about 60 million impressions per month through the news feed.
I’ll let you take that in for a second. Another gem from the article:
Vitrue arrived at its $3.6 million figure by working off a $5 CPM, meaning a brand’s 1 million fans generate about $300,000 in media value each month. Using Vitrue’s calculation, Starbucks’ 6.5 million fan base — acquired in part with several big ad buys — is worth $23.4 million in media annually.
OK. Let’s ignore that…
- This company is lumping together their clients who are from multiple verticals – something that makes this number muddied even if you were going to take it seriously (you shouldn’t).
- They are in the business of selling social media management solutions and clearly working the sensationalist angle with AdWeek for press (and to try to tag feel good numbers to social media to sell more product).
- Impressions by themselves from the news feed – or from the web in general mean absolutely nothing to a company’s revenue (unless the company is ad supported).
- Tagging a fan to impression value makes no sense.
- They claim a $5 CPM without any rationale for that number.
- Many of us gloss over their news feed in Facebook anyway.
- The signal to noise ration in Facebook is pretty terrible.
- The article headline declaring the value of a ‘fan’ on social media $3.60 when this “data” (yeah, I’ll put that in quotes) only looks at Facebook.
Let’s ignore all of that and just consider – as usual – both media and companies are still attempting the normalization thing. And it’s absurd – the entire premise is flawed. The power of web analytics and data isn’t about coming up with normalized numbers to apply blandly across hordes of consumers, but about segmentation, detailed analysis and accountability. It’s about understanding and activating your true fans, and not even treating them all the same. They are not all created equal, after all.
These unscientific data points are why companies are blindly chasing bigger numbers for numbers sake – when in reality they are increasing KPI metrics and not necessarily objectives.
Blanket statements like “each new fan = X more dollars in revenue due to impressions” are a joke, and marketers with this mindset are already relics.






Catherine Lockey replied | Apr 14, 2010 (63 comments)
This is why I continue to admire you Adam Singer. Thanks for thoroughly explaining why the emperor is prancing about naked here! The average consumer can’t see this misinformation for what it is for two reasons: They want easy answers and their understanding of the digital world is limited. Thank you for this post as I’m sure it will help marketers and consumers everywhere.
Vincent Ammirato replied | Apr 14, 2010 (1 comment)
Dude, you are so off. I have a lightning bug fan page on Facebook with almost 7000 fans and it is definitely generating me $25,000/year in ad exposure.
/sarcasm
Thank you so much for providing a counterpoint to Adweek’s outlandish claims.
Sean Williams replied | Apr 14, 2010 (1 comment)
Adam, you and I must have been writing in high dudgeon at the same time.
“Why Vitrue’s FB Value is poppycock” http://bit.ly/9NHqWP
@CommAMMO
Jim Anderson replied | Apr 14, 2010 (2 comments)
Adam, it won’t surprise you to hear that we at Vitrue disagree with you on many of your points:
* You say that “Tagging a fan to impression value makes no sense”. Actually it makes a great deal of sense, and here’s why: by becoming a fan of your page, a Facebook user is giving permission for your page’s posts to show up in his/her news feed. Those posts can contain messages of all sorts, and do indeed turn into impressions. It’s an incomplete picture, of course. But the life of a marketer is riddled with incomplete pictures.
* You say that “Many of us gloss over their news feed in Facebook anyway”. That may be true, but the same argument can be made for virtually *any* form of commercial messaging. The fact that people may “gloss over” something does not invalidate either the message or the medium. Similarly, your comment “The signal to noise ration [sic] in Facebook is pretty terrible” may be true for your news feed, but Facebook’s impressive reach and engagement statistics suggest that you are in the minority.
* You conclude your post by saying “Blanket statements like ‘each new fan = X more dollars in revenue due to impressions’ are a joke.” This statement inaccurately characterizes both our position and the AdWeek article: we never said that each new fan would lead to X more dollars *in revenue*. We were providing a rule of thumb for the *media value* of exposure. So on this point you are criticizing something we never said.
We are big fans of the principles of “segmentation, detailed analysis, and accountability” that you describe. But we also believe that rules of thumb such as the “$3.60 in media value per fan” can be useful, especially when marketers understand how that number was calculated and modify it to suit their specific circumstances. And judging from the response we’ve gotten, many marketers appreciate the fact that we’ve put a stake in the ground and started this conversation. Undoubtedly there is much more to be analyzed and written.
We appreciate your interest in what we have to say, even if we disagree with your conclusions.
Regards,
Jim Anderson
Chief Operating Officer
Vitrue, Inc.
Adam Singer replied | Apr 15, 2010 (594 comments)
Not going to dissect all your points because I think my post already said my opinion – and your comment said yours. I still don’t agree – but appreciate you coming here to tell your side of the story.
Erik Posthuma replied | Apr 14, 2010 (3 comments)
Agreed, it’s silly.
The search for social media ROI is difficult so any attempt at them is appreciated. Also in cases that show a wrong direction, such as this time.
Rebecca Markarian replied | Apr 14, 2010 (1 comment)
THANK YOU for saying this! I’m getting pretty tired of “impressions” being a way of determining value period. Design your social media so it drives sales you can track and then measure the sales. That is the way to know what your fans are worth. How many much money do those fans spend with you? That’s the question to ask.
Truth is, for a lot of reasons, defining the value of fan isn’t a simple, pluck a number from think air process. For some correlations can work. Does Facebook drive additional traffic to your web page or store/location/etc? When you plot that spike next to sales is there a correlation – do sales increase when web traffic increases? Is Facebook (or Twitter, or LinkedIn) causing that increase? If yes, then you may be able to determine that Facebook generating an approximate percentage of your business – and thus has a dollar value.
If you want to get to a dollar value though – you’re going to have to do the work from start to finish. Set the program up so everything can be tracked and measured precisely and then follow it through.
Sorry about the rant. Back to my point – thank you for posting this! :)
AHA replied | Apr 15, 2010 (5 comments)
Re: unscientific consulting reports and voodoo numbers: http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/dubai.html
It would be neat to have a market where these assclown companies would choke on their TPS reports, inferior products, conceited insanity, and byzantine bureacracy. Here’s hoping the coming years will belong to the sharp, small-time players who actually live in reality and deliver the bacon.
Brock Poling replied | Apr 15, 2010 (2 comments)
Fair enough. Trying to use “industry generated’ values of FB fans is absurd. However, I think that trying to understand the value of these networks in monetary terms is a good exercise — but each organization has to accomplish this based on their particular business model, culture, and communication initiatives.
Knowing the Cost of Acquisition of fans by various tactics is a good way to evaluate the efficiency of each and efficiently allocate marketing resources. It is also interesting to think about the LTV of each member in your community and how improved relationship with them will increase value over time (i.e. compare the LTV of customers in the community vs. those not in the community)
I totally get you.. we can’t use an industry supplied metric as THE answer to the question of ‘what is a fan worth?’, but that isn’t to say we shouldn’t work to determine the value of our own networks for ourselves.
Siddhartha replied | Apr 17, 2010 (1 comment)
These kinds of numbers are no better than wild guesses. No, I take that back, they’re worse. Because a wild guess would have the same chance of being absurdly low, with these “experts” the numbers are only capable of being ridiculously high.
Does anyone really take them seriously?
Adam Singer replied | Apr 17, 2010 (594 comments)
Sadly, some people do. Which is why we need to call this for what it is.