First of all, research and statistics are practically useless when it comes to demonstrating the value of good communication practices – since that value is generally realized in ways which, while significant, is not easily quantifiable or traceable. Secondly, most of the research and statistics I see getting tossed around in this realm are of specious quality or relevance, once examined closely.
Agree with the second point - there are a lot of questionable stats that are floating around, and because they've been around a long time they become part of the accepted wisdom, whether true or not.
However, I can't agree with the general attitude of a lot of people - which can be summarised as "Yes it's important, but it's too hard and so there's no point". Amy talks about her disenchantment with quant research, but then says
That said, I do think that costs, evidence, and numbers matter – especially in business. However, I don't think with most types of communication you can draw a direct line from the cost to do something (such as monitor responses to blog posts) with the true results of that effort, positive or negative.
We're not the only community that needs to value the intangible - economists do it when valuing goodwill, marketeers do it when valuing brands. In most cases, these numbers just serve as a starting point for an argument, but at least there's a point of reference.
I guess I should also stop talking and start acting - at the very least listing out some hypothetical measures and starting a place to aggregate metrics and ROI info. I smell a wiki coming up...
Am I mad, misguided or just argumentative ?
You wrote: "We're not the only community that needs to value the intangible - economists do it when valuing goodwill, marketeers do it when valuing brands. In most cases, these numbers just serve as a starting point for an argument, but at least there's a point of reference."
...That's a great point. I understand and agree with the logic of it. I'm not completely denying or resisting the natural business urge to translate all relationships into numbers.
That said, why does this have to be so hard? It seems like an unnecessary level of complexity. It seems (to me, at least) to be common sense that when you need to communicate with a particular group/audience/market, the easier it is for them to understand and interact with you, the better that is for your business. Why must all permutations of that basic aspect of communication be "proven" numerically, especially when such "proof" is often far more specious than that principle of communication? In my experience and observation, that contradiction hinders a lot of communication efforts.
Again, communication is a human function. Human beings are not calculators. Trying to reduce the principles of good communication to numbers, rather than understanding and applying them, will only take you so far -- probably to the wrong destination.
Yes, I think creative communicators could find ways to jump through the numerical hoops to satisfy the basically irrational faith that so many in business cling to which says that numbers are the only truth. I can understand why that may be necessary.
I still think it's a shame, and generally wasted effort that could be put toward communicating better.
- Amy Gahran
Anu - not mad, not misguided I don't think. While Amy's move away from *complete* focus on measurement seems probably healthy for communication, I don't see how you can do it well without some sort of barometer, so yes - please keep arguing for metrics.
Will be v. interested if the wiki you smell does come up ...