Social Media Strategy and ROI:
What matters and how do you measure it?
Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Professor of Public Communication
University of Technology Sydney
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
The changing mediascape
2 billion internet users
1.5 billion+ social network users
845 million active Facebook users (Dec 2011)
3 billion videos a day on YouTube
300 million blogs
Growing microblogging (e.g. Twitter)
Let’s not forget e-mail, SMS text, etc
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
The changing mediascape
US newspapers
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
The changing mediascape
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
2010 Australian election
 Content analysis of social media use by
206 sitting federal candidates + two
major political parties
• Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, YouTube, blogs
Macnamara, J., & Kenning, G. 2011,
‘E-electioneering 2010: Trends in social media use
in Australian political communication’,
Media International Australia, no. 139, pp. 7–22.
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Politicians’ use of SM
Social media
2007
2010
% change
137
157
15%
Twitter
0
92
9200%
Facebook
8
146
1725%
YouTube
13
34
162%
MySpace
26
9
-65%
Blogs
15
29
93%
Flickr
0
9
900%
E-surveys
24
7
-71%
E-petitions
10
3
-70%
E-newsletter
42
78
86%
275
564
105%
Personal Web site
Total online sites/activities
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Facebook friends & ‘likers’
70000
60000
50000
Official Page Likes
Community Page Likes
Friends
40000
30000
20000
10000
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
BU
RK
VA
E
M
VA
KI
NO
U
HU
RI
NT
SH
W
OR
TH
O'
DW
YE
R
M
IL
NE
JE
NS
EN
M
OR
RI
SO
N
CO
ON
AN
LU
DL
AM
EL
LI
S
PY
NE
PL
IB
HA
ER
NS
SE
ON
K
-Y
OU
NG
BR
OW
N
AB
BO
TT
TU
RN
BU
LL
HO
CK
EY
RU
DD
GI
LL
AR
D
0
Politicians on Twitter
Fake Twitter accounts
4%
On Twitter
45%
Not on Twitter
51%
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Politicians on Twitter
500
450
439
400
350
300
250
200
158
150
142
134
104
100
91
90
90
75
72
63
62
59
50
55
45
34
34
32
31
31
31
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
BR
IG
G
S
M
IL
NE
G
AR
R
ET
T
FL
ET
CH
ER
BA
LD
W
IN
JO
HN
SO
N
HA
LL
BI
SH
O
P
BR
AD
BU
RY
TU
R
NO
UR
G
IL
HA
LA
N
R
SO
D
NYO
U
NG
BI
R
M
IN
G
HA
M
EL
LI
S
HA
W
KE
CO
RM
AN
N
LU
ND
Y
BU
R
KE
RO
BB
TU
R
NB
U
LL
M
O
R
RI
SO
N
0
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Talking v listening
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
Following
Followers
20000
15000
10000
5000
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
HA
LL
G
AR
RE
TT
FL
ET
CH
ER
BA
LD
W
IN
JO
HN
SO
N
M
IL
NE
BR
IG
G
S
BI
SH
O
BR
P
AD
BU
RY
TU
RN
O
UR
EL
LI
S
G
HA
I
L
NS
LA
RD
O
NYO
U
BI
RM NG
IN
G
HA
M
LU
ND
CO
Y
RM
AN
N
HA
W
KE
RO
BB
BU
RK
E
TU
RN
BU
M
LL
O
RR
IS
O
N
0
Talking v listening
Politician
Tweets
Followers
Following
1.
Malcolm Turnbull
439
26,943
20,498
2.
Scott Morrison
158
1,978
166
3.
Andrew Robb
142
1,684
1,254
4.
Tony Burke
134
3,107
550
5.
Kate Lundy
104
4,352
720
9.
Julia Gillard
75
43,538
27,467
92. Tony Abbott
2
19,083
20
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Dialogue v broadcasting
Politician
Direct
messages &
responses
Broadcasts
Where am I?
Attack on
opponents
248
191
81
9
Scott Morrison
33
125
48
19
Andrew Robb
1
141
17
79
Tony Burke
65
68
9
14
Kate Lundy
28
56
22
11
Mathias Corman
22
44
5
49
Julia Gillard
12
51
20
4
Malcolm Turnbull
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
2010 UK & US experiences
UK political leaders and organisations engaged primarily in
broadcasting their messages and not listening or engaging in
dialogue
(Gibson, Williamson & Ward 2010)
In 2010 US mid-terms, 76% of tweets were one-way
dissemination of information about candidates or their
campaign events – “a wasted opportunity” for engagement
(Unpublished 2012 research study)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
A survey of 200 + organisations (private and public sector)
in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong
+ depth interviews with social media specialists (n = 14)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
RQs
1. What social media are used most most in Australasian
organisations?
2. Who is primarily responsible for social media in
organisations?
3. What strategy, policies and governance are in place in
organisations in relation to social media?
• Policies
• Guidelines
• Training
• Monitoring
• Qualitative analysis
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Participants
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Social media types used
Social media type
% of Organisations Using
Social networks
72.9%
Microblogging
55.2%
Video sharing
51.1%
Corporate/organisation blog
47.5%
Photo sharing
23.5%
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Social media types used
Social media used
Australasia
Europe
Social networks (e.g. Facebook)
73%
81%
Microblogging (e.g. Twitter)
55%
43%
Video sharing (e.g. YouTube)
51%
76%
Blogs
48%
51%
Photo sharing (e.g. Flickr)
24%
Not reported
Microblogging more popular in A/Asia
Video sharing more popular in Europe
Overall consistent with the US (Wright & Hinson, 2009)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Social media used
Social media/network
% of Organisations Using
Facebook
73.7%
Twitter
54.1%
YouTube
52.7%
Corporate/organisation blog
46.8%
Podcasting (e.g. of speeches)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
19%
Who drives SM strategy?
57.9%
14.8%
14.0%
6.3%
5.9%
1.5%
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
•
•
•
•
CEO
Management
Agencies
Creative team
Who drives SM strategy?
Kelleher (2009) reported that blogging is “distributed” and
performed “by a wide range of people representing an
organisation” who “do not think of themselves as public
relations people” (p. 185)
Owyang (2010) reported that 41% of social media programs are
managed by marketing and 30% by corporate communication
(pp. 14, 16)
Possible explanations
• Regional differences (e.g. Owyang study in US)
• Over-statement by PR/corporate communication practitioners
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Social media policy
51.5% of organisations allow only a few approved individuals
to comment about the organisation and work-related issues in
social media
• 10.9% authorise only specialist social/digital media consultants to
comment
• 6.9% of organisations allow only senior management to comment
Somewhat restrictive, but it means almost half (49.5%) allow
either everyone or most employees to comment about the
organisation and work issues in social media
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Social media governance
Organisation Approach
%
Specific social media policy or guidelines
34.8%
No social media policy or guidelines at all
22.6%
Social media guidelines in general staff policies
20.4%
Verbal instructions only
14.0%
Occasional management memos/e-mails
5.0%
Don’t know
3.2%
TOTAL
100.0%
Almost two-thirds (65.2%) of organisations have no specific
policies or guidelines for employees’ use of social media
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Monitoring social media
Monitoring of social media
%
Monitors in an ad hoc or occasional way
38.4%
Monitors all mentions in a selection of social media
25.0%
Monitors all mentions in all social media
20.4%
Does not monitor social media at all
8.3%
Monitors only specific issues in social media
7.9%
TOTAL
100.0%
Almost half (46.7%) of all organisations either do not monitor
social media mentions related to them, or monitor only in an
ad hoc or occasional way
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Analysis of social media
36% of organisations do not analyse social media content at all
22.4% collect quantitative metrics only (no. of mentions, visits,
views, etc)
Thus, 60% + of organisations do not know whether negative
comments are being made about them or their activities
online
Or what their own employees are saying!
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Training and support
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Risks from social media
57.9%
43.4%
34.4%
30.4%
30.3%
8.4%
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Issues
Key concern is loss of control of messages and channels
58% of Australasian practitioners cite as no. 1 concern
66.2% of German practitioners cite as the major challenge
Lack of measurement against KPIs or objectives
Lack of clear objectives
“It’s just another marketing channel”
“[It’s] difficult to measure the value of social media – [we] do it because
you can’t not do it rather than because of benefit”
Fragmented use in units across organisations – no cohesive
strategy
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
‘Expert’/specialist views
There is a lack of governance and management of social
media in organisations
“Clamping down” on employees does not work
Cannot control (employees, social media, communication)
Open approach recommended – but with governance
Develop ‘ambassadors’ and ‘evangelists’
• Cited case studies (Dell, Sun, Telstra, cultural institutions, etc)
Pull all together in a cohesive social media strategy
Policies, guidelines, objectives, training, monitoring, evaluation
Requires balance between organisation strategy and social
interests (Macnamara & Zerfass 2012)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Overall research findings
There are unique features and benefits of social media
It’s about the PRACTICES more than technologies
• Openness – to prosumers / produsers
Not dominated by elites
• Two-way interaction and dialogue
Not monologue
• Bottom-up and side-to-side
Not top-down
• No gatekeepers
Not controlled
• Authentic
Not packaged
• Listening
Not just talking
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Overall research findings
 Is your organisation listening, or just talking
• Listening = free real-time 24/7 market, opinion and reputation research
• Listening is essential for engagement
 Listening requires work (the work of listening)
• Attitude, application, time
 Listening also requires an architecture of listening
• Policies
• Systems (two-way)
• Technology (e.g. software)
• Tools or services to monitor and analyse
• Human resources incl. moderators, editors, etc
• Articulation to management and policy
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
The ‘social organisation’
 “... a shift from a broadcast mentality to listening and
engagement”
Marcel LeBrun, CEO, Radian6
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
http://www.slideshare.net/bilaljaffery/the-social-organization-ibm-the-business-value-of-social-software-cio-forum
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
ROI
 Return on Investment
• Financial term meaning ratio of income earned on capital investment
• Not on operating expenses
 Expressed in dollars – but does it have to be?
 The term ROI appeared 31 times in the brochure of a Social
Media Monitoring conference held in Sydney 29–30 March
2012
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
ROI – what research says
 Gaunt and Wright (2004) found that 88% of a sample of
international PR practitioners was interested in an ROI tool
 Wright, Gaunt, Leggetter, Daniels & Zerfass (2009), found most
PR practitioners believe “it is possible to calculate the financial
return on investment (ROI) of communication activities”
 A review by Watson and Zerfass (2011) found “the term has
been in public relations discourse for more than 40 years” (p. 1)
 Two-thirds (66.7%) of UK practitioners use the term (p. 5)
 Mixed views in EU – 47.6% yes; 46.5 no; 5.9% don’t know (p. 7)
 Brian Solis calls for measuring ROI of social media (e.g. ‘How to
measure return on investment in social media’, Mashable, 2010)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
ROI derivatives





Return on engagement
Return on participation
Return on involvement
Return on attention
Return on trust
(Solis, Mashable 2010)




Return on impressions
Return on media impact
Return on target influence
Return on earned media (AVEs by another name)
(Likely, Rockland & Weiner 2006)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
ROI – what research says
 “I dislike any attempt to hijack the term ROI. Accountants know
what ROI means and they can only view any softening or
redirection or substitution of its meaning by marketers trying to
validate their investment plans as smoke and mirrors.”
British business writer, Philip Sheldrake 2011 in
The Business of Influence: Transforming Marketing and PR in the Digital Age.
 Review of the debate over ROI of PR “concluded that there is
little demand for this term or recognition of it by employers and
customers” (Tom Watson 2005)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
ROI – what research says
 “This route will struggle to produce data that has validity within
the business world” (Watson & Zerfass 2011, p. 11)
 “It is not possible to [validly and reliably] calculate Return on
Investment in financial terms. Consequently, public relations
practitioners should refrain from using the term in order to
keep their vocabulary compatible with the overall management
world” (as above).
 “PR’s use (or abuse) of ROI does it no good with decisionmaking managers who have an accounting or financial
management background” (Watson, Zerfass & Grunig, 2011)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
What to measure
 Traditional PR
measurement:
• Clippings
• Subjective review
• AVEs
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Social media evaluation!
 Objectives
• “To develop 50 per cent more online reviews of your product”
• “To have at least 100,000 views of a client video on YouTube”
 Evaluation/results/ROI
• “Surpassed media impressions goal by nearly 12-fold, generating over
2.9 billion audience impressions” (two global PR firms for Pepsico)
• “Publicity efforts marketed by Doritos tortilla chips so extensively that
the total earned media impressions were valued at nearly 13 times the
cost of an average Super Bowl ad”
• “Total media relations efforts returned $2m in equivalent ad value to
VW”
(Hayes, Hendrix & Kumar 2013, 2010,
Public Relations Cases, Wadsworth, Boston, MA)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
What to measure?






Impressions
Clicks
Followers
Circles
Likes
Or all of the above
Social Media Monitoring conference brochure
Sydney 29–30 March, 2012
International Business Review
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
What to measure?
Metrics ...
and more metrics
Impressions / reach
Sentiment or tone
Clicks / clickthroughs
Engagement
Followers
Impact
Circles
Influence
Likes
Reputation
Friends
Relationships
Views
Brand (awareness, values, equity)
Downloads
Responses / inquiries / leads
Comments (volume)
Sales $$$$$
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
What to measure?
 Most things measured in PR are outputs and outtakes
• Reach/impressions, message volume, message tone/sentiment, basic
levels of engagement (clicks, comments, links, liking, following)
 “The Holy Grail for global business executives today is
employee engagement” (Gary Gates IPR, 2011)
 “We must aim to make public engagement the standard for our
industry” (Richard Edelman 2011)
 Jim Grunig says relationships are the ultimate outcome of PR
 Others say reputation, marketers say brand
 Influence and impact are big in the era of iPods and iPads
Verbs = process
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Nouns = outtake
Nouns = result
or outcome
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
What matters?
Inputs
Outputs
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Outtakes
Outcomes
Outcomes
Behaviours
Attitudes
Awareness
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
To influence behaviour
•
•
•
•
Social media
•
•
•
Behaviour
Activism
Advocating
Voting
Getting fit, dieting, stop
smoking, drive safely, etc
Buying a product or service
Trialling a product or service
Inquiry
1. Empowerment (e.g. Participation,
giving a say and listening)
2. Affective/emotional response
(e.g. joy, pleasure, fun, liking, etc)
3. Psychological bond (e.g. pride)
Engagement
Satisfaction
Trust
A “cornerstone” of all relationships
(product &
relationship)
(key part of
reputation)
Product or relationship satisfaction
is essential, price of entry
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Engagement
 Clicks, links, following, liking, friending, circles, tagging,
bookmarking, voting, views, downloads, posting comments,
submitting inquiry forms, subscribing are not engagement
 They are “fragments of behavioural outcomes”
• Basic level engagement, involvement and behaviours
 Engagement is a deep psychological concept that comprises
• Passion
• Commitment
• Investment of oneself in discretionary effort (Erickson 2008)
 Engagement requires (1) psychological bond; (2) emotional
(affective) involvement and (3) empowerment through
participation
(Erickson 2008; Macey & Schneider 2008)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
What to measure?
 Satisfaction
• Customer satisfaction
• Stakeholder satisfaction
 Trust
• Reputation research
 Engagement
• Participation levels
• Emotional involvement
Social media offers an ideal and low
cost site for measuring engagement
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Micro/macro measuring
MACRO
measurement
Events
SMART
objectives
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Publications
MICRO
measurement
Publicity
Micro measurement
 Impressions/reach
• Unique visitors, preferably of minimum duration)
 Clickthroughs
 Following
 Liking
 Friending
 Tagging and bookmarking
 Linking
 Views
 Downloads
 User ratings (stars, favourites, etc)
 E-mailing and subscribing (e.g. RSS)
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
•
Social media
monitoring
•
Web analytics
Micro measurement
 Comments
• Facebook Wall, online forums, communities, etc
 Tweets
 Blog posts
 YouTube videos
 Events (offline and online)
 Corporate publications
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
•
Content analysis
•
•
Feedback
(qualitative for
messages,
tone/sentiment)
Mini surveys
Content analysis
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Content analysis
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Content analysis
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Macro measurement






Satisfaction
Trust
Engagement
Awareness
Attitudes
Behaviour
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Customer Sat surveys & stakeholder surveys
Reputation surveys
Trust and reputation research products
(e.g. Edelman Trust Barometer)
Attitude and opinion surveys
Interviews
Focus groups
Inquiry rates, sales, voting, offer uptake, etc
Pyramid model of evaluation
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Pyramid model simplified
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Steps of Evaluation
Sales / Profits
* Behavioural Change
Relationships
Reputation
Attitudes / perceptions
Retention
Awareness / Understanding
Competitor Benchmarking
Share of Voice
Positioning (eg. prominence, profile)
Message Placement
Audience Reach
Outputs such as publicity; publications; events; Web sites; sponsorships, DM, etc
* Make an inquiry; buy a product or service; etc
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
© Jim R. Macnamara, 2004
10 key conclusions










Everything is measureable – even intangibles such as goodwill
PR needs to show its value to organisations
Measure outtakes and particularly outcomes, not just outputs
Avoid invalid approaches – AVEs, ‘black box’ systems
ROI is a financial term and PR does not always generate $$$$
Understand the ‘building blocks’ of attitudinal and behaviour
change – satisfaction, trust, engagement (what matters)
Social media a key site to evaluate response and participation
No single metric or tool – a range of metrics and tools for
different stages of the communication process
Use established social research methods and tools
Measure qualitatively, not just quantitatively
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
References







Edelman, R.2011, ‘Reimagining our profession: Public relations for a complex world, address to the Institute for
Public Relations 50th Annual Distinguished Lecture and Awards Dinner, 10 November, Yale Club, New York. Available
from http://www.instituteforpr.org/events/distinguished/
Erickson, T. 2008, Plugged in: The Generation Y guide to thriving at work, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Gates, G. 2011, ‘Why engagement surveys neither “engage” nor “inform” in any meangingful way’, Institute for Public
Relations ‘Research Conversation’, 30 November. Available at http://www.instituteforpr.org/2011/11/whyengagement-surveys-neither-engage-nor-inform-in-any-meangingful-way/
Gaunt, R. & Wright, D. 2004, ‘Examining international differences in communications measurement: Benchpoint
global measurement study 2004’, paper presented at the PR Measurement Summit, Durham, NJ, September.
Gibson, R. Williamson, A, & Ward, S. 2010, The Internet and the 2010 Election: Putting the Small ‘p’ Back in Politics,
Hansard Society, London.
Hayes,, D. Hendrix, J. & Kumar, P. 2013, Public Relations Cases, 9th edn, Wadsworth Cengage, Boston, MA.
Likely, F. Rockland, D. & Weiner, M. 2006, ‘Perspectives on the ROI of media relations publicity efforts’, Institute for
Public Relations, Gainesville, FL. Available at http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/perspectives_on_the_roi/
Macey, W. & Schneider, B. 2008, ‘The meaning of employee engagement’, Industrial and Organisational Psychology,
vol. 1, pp. 3–30.
Macnamara, J. 2011, ‘Social media strategy and governance: Gaps, risks and opportunities’, Australian Centre for
Public Communication, University of Technology Sydney. Available at
http://www.communication.uts.edu.au/centres/acpc/publications.html
Macnamara, J. & Kenning, G. 2011, ‘E-electioneering 2010: Trends in social media use in Australian political
communication’, Media International Australia, no. 139, p. 7–22.
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
References







Macnamara, J. & Zerfass, A. 2012, ‘Social media communication in organisations: The challenges of balancing
openness, strategy and management’, paper presented to the 62nd Annual International Communication Association
conference, Phoenix, AZ, May.
Sheldrake, P. 2011, The Business of Influence: Transforming Marketing and PR in the Digital Age, Wiley, Chichester,
West Sussex, UK.
Solis, B. 2010, ‘ROI: How to measure return on investment in social media, reprint from Mashable on Brian Solis blog,
22 February. Available at http://www.briansolis.com/2010/02/roi-how-to-measure-return-on-investment-in-socialmedia/
Watson, T. 2005, ‘ROI or evidence-based PR: The language of public relations evaluation’, PRism, vol. 3, no. 1.
Available at http://www.prismjournal.org/vol_3_iss_1.html
Watson, T. & Zerfass, A. 2011, ‘Return on investment in public relations: A critique of concepts used by practitioners
from communication and management sciences perspectives’, PRism, vol. 8, no.1. Available at
http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/8_1/Watson_Zerfass.pdf
Watson, T. Zerfass, A. & Grunig, J. 2011, ‘A dialogue on PR’, Institute for Public Relations ‘Conversation’. Available at
http://www.instituteforpr.org/2011/10/a-dialog-on-roi/#comment-9142
Wright, D. Gaunt, R. Leggetter, B. Daniels, M. & Zerfass, A. 2009, ‘Global survey of communications measurement
2009’, Final Report, Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) and Benchpoint, UK.
Available at http://www.benchpoint.com/summit.pdf
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney
Further reading

Bradley, A. & McDonald, P. 2011, How to Use Social Media to Tap the Collective Genius of Your Customers and
Employees , Harvard Business Review Press.
Macnamara, J. 2010, The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices, Peter Lang, New York
Macnamara, J. 2010, ‘Public communication practices in the Web 2.0–3.0 mediascape: The case for PRevolution’,
PRism Online PR Journal, vol. 7, issue, 3. Available at http://www.prismjournal.org/social.html
Macnamara, J. 2010, ‘Emergent media and public communication: Understanding the changing mediascape’, Public
Communication Review, vol. 1, issue 2, November, pp. 3–18, University of Technology Sydney. Available at
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/pcr/index
Macnamara, J. 2011, ‘Social media governance: Gaps, risks and opportunities in PR and reputation management, Asia
Pacific Public Relations Journal, vol. 12, part 2, [forthcoming]. Available at http://www.pria.com.au/journal
Macnamara, J. 2012, ‘Beyond voice: Audience-making and the work and architecture of listening’, Continuum: Journal
of Media and Cultural Studies, [in print].
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FAMI, CPM, FPRIA, FAMEC
University of Technology Sydney