Here are four metrics to benchmark how your brand stacks up against your competitors and to evaluate the success of your content marketing strategy.
Competitive benchmarking is the process of comparing your company’s performance against that of your competitors. You can use various metrics to benchmark what these businesses are doing better than you are and where you have the edge. Benchmarking marketing performance is an important step in the process of evaluating the success of your content marketing strategy.
Organizations of all kinds — large corporations, privately owned businesses, nonprofits, and even sports teams — need to measure their performance to see if their efforts are leading to success. It’s one thing to examine webpage visits, number of clicks on a social post, or how many times a piece of content has been shared to understand what is happening as a result of your activities. But it’s key to take this information and see how it compares to other industry leaders.
Measuring digital marketing performance begins with setting competitive benchmarks. And to do this, you need contextual data. Analytics are great, but not if you don’t have context for your data.
There are several ways to measure your activity against your competitors. At Fronetics, we use these four metrics to benchmark marketing performance against competition and industry leaders.
Video: 4 metrics to benchmark marketing performance against your competition
As with all good strategies, you must continually measure success of your content marketing and adjust based on real-world results. These four metrics to benchmark marketing performance against your competitors are a great way to get started. If you aren’t keeping pace with — or beating — the competition, it might be time to go back to the drawing board.
Some companies include failure as a performance metric, but establishing a culture of innovation is a better inflection point for success.
Media executive Jason Seiken is known for taking the Washington Post online and for turning PBS into a digital media powerhouse. Several years ago, he wrote an article, How I Got My Team To Fail More, which described his efforts at PBS to create an entrepreneurial culture by requiring members of the digital team to fail. Seiken wrote:
“Soon after arriving at PBS, I called the digital team into a conference room and announced we were ripping up everyone’s annual performance goals and adding a new metric. Failure. With a twist: ‘If you don’t fail enough times during the coming year,’ I told every staffer, ‘you’ll be downgraded.’ Because if you’re not failing enough, you’re playing it safe. The idea was to deliver a clear message: Move fast. Iterate fast. Be entrepreneurial. Don’t be afraid that if you stretch and sprint you might break things. Executive leadership has your back.”
Five years after introducing the failure metric to PBS, unique visitors to PBS.org doubled, and in each of the first seven months of 2013, PBS.org was the most-visited network TV site (beating out ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox). Additionally, video views on PBS.org and PBS.org’s mobile platforms rose 11,200%.
Was requiring failure the key to success? Not all those who read the post believed so. Rather, many readers suggested that the creation of a culture of innovation, one supported by executive leadership, was the inflection point for success.
The idea that innovation in business or an entrepreneurial culture is brought about by leadership is one put forth by many, including Robert J. Herbold. In his book What’s Holding You Back: 10 Bold Steps that Define Gutsy Leaders, Herbold submits that it is the responsibility of a leader to establish a culture of innovation. That is, a leader must communicate a goal of innovation to his/her employees; encourage employees to aspire to innovation; reward innovation; and instill a sense of urgency.
I see innovation and entrepreneurism as the goal and not failure. For this reason I believe the focus should not be on failure, but instead should be establishing a culture which supports innovation. Yes risk-taking and failure are likely components of innovation, but they are just that — components. “Requiring failure” may be sexy, but I believe supporting innovation is more likely to be the game changer.
What do you think? Is failure a requirement for success? Should leadership focus on encouraging failure?
Most teams are able to fairly easily decipher what needs to be done. However, when it comes to the how, new or weak teams fall flat. Here is how you can optimize your team for success.
Define roles
Clearly define roles and make sure every team member understands not only their role, but the roles of others on the team. When roles are defined and understood the team can avoid overlap and can avoid the trap of “I thought someone else was doing that.” In short, by defining roles your team can be more efficient and more effective.
Establish a communication protocol
Take the time to establish a communication protocol. This protocol should not be a rulebook, but rather it should outline a set of decisions about how the team will message each other and stakeholders on the progress and needs of the team. If you leave this to chance you are, well — taking a chance. If you establish a communication protocol up front you will achieve better communication and it will be less likely the ball will be dropped.
Develop performance metrics
Develop performance metrics up front. If you don’t take the time to do this, how will you know if you are making progress? How will you know what to do if you are not making progress? How will you know when goals are achieved? How will you be able to reward team members? Take the time to develop performance metrics up front — and get everyone on the same page.
Provide your team with necessary tools
Provide your team with the tools that they need to succeed, or you will set them up for failure. For example, give them the go-ahead to make certain decisions without needing to go through 11 bureaucratic steps. Similarly, give the team access to the people and information that they need to get the job done.
By focusing on the best path forward, rather than the end goal, good teams can get even better.
A version of this post previously appeared on EBN.
