Analyse This: The Engagement Metric Under Our Nose

As we get to the pointy end of the public debate about the validity of an engagement metric, either in lieu of time and visitor numbers, or at the very least complementing other audience metrics, there is an increasing danger that designing a solution will slip into complexity rather than simplicity.

When making an argument for the effectiveness of online advertising, blinding the intended audience with science is not a recommended strategy.

Yet while publishers, agencies and analysts debate the merits of various engagement models, like the recently released Peterson model (get ready for a whole slew of others), several steps can be taken now to evaluate engagement to compare similar publishers. (As a side note, be aware that a single engagement metric cannot be applied across all advertising sites, as the concept of ‘engagement’ carries a degree of subjectivity.)

One of those steps is for 3rd parties to evaluate the engagement of online audiences through the publication’s feedback channels, including areas such as staff blogs and “yoursay” set-ups. In this example, there are six subjects areas evaluated, including the 2020 Summit, Indigenous policy (NT intervention), electricity privatisation, housing affordability, Zimbabwe and Melbourne’s favourite son, Corey Delaney.

In analysing the commentary around each area, across three online publishers, four variables are assessed.

1. The number of comments: the actual number of posts;

2. Threads: the number of posts reverting back to a previous comment;

3. Links: posts which include a relevant link to associated material;

4. Influencers: individuals who post more than once on a single issue, usually as part of a thread.

The final assessment of this research concludes that while a subject might report the largest number of posts (in this case, almost twice as many as the next most popular subject), the subject area which generates more threads, links and influencers, will always score a higher engagement metric. In this example, audience engagement about indigenous policy far outweighed all other content areas reviewed, despite a smaller number of posts.

This audience feedback or engagement score is simply another element in any assessment one makes about a publication’s brand position and its depth of association with readers, or more importantly, its community of readers. In the broader debate about user engagement, this angle of inquiry focuses on feedback channels as opposed to the more subjective elements of what constitutes a page view, unique user or a session’s duration.

Critically, what this content analysis demonstrates is that ‘big’ is not necessarily the way to premium ad dollars. An audience which is evidently more engaged (using the metrics described above) is a valid reason to support the argument that audience association with the publisher’s brand is justification for a market premium.