Organizations struggle to quantify the impact engaged employees have on business results. Intuitively, it’s a no-brainer—engaged employees cost less and produce more. It’s that simple.
Many studies and reports support this hunch: Engaged companies have stronger levels of profitability and retain their employees.
So, why do most organizations have difficulty quantifying this? It’s primarily because of the process. Here is how we (unfortunately) see an employee engagement survey process play out in many organizations:
An organization conducts an employee engagement survey. The corporate communications or HR team presents the results to the executive team. The executive team asks, “How does this tie to our business results?” (Say this in your best CFO voice.) The communications/HR team scrambles to find data and metrics to make comparisons. The team realizes the process was not designed to make effective comparisons. The team can’t share any comparisons.
This is certainly not the best return on your survey investment.
There are many reasons why comparing employee engagement survey data to business metrics is difficult. Here are four ways to overcome these difficulties to show valid comparisons:
This past year, digital advertising online and via mobile crossed the $40 billion mark for the first time ever, according to the Internet Advertising Bureau. Since 2004, the average growth rate has been 18 percent. And this year, digital ad revenues surpassed broadcast television for the first time.
Not shockingly, mobile is leading the charge.
Search remains the largest overall category, at $18.4 billion, and display hit $7.9 billion, according to the IAB’s numbers, but those categories are growing much slower than mobile and digital video ads. Search is “only” growing at 8.6 percent, while mobile ad revenue jumped 110 percent to $7.1 billion last year, and digital video ad revenue has tripled over the past few years to $2.8 billion.
It’s important to note that, while web and mobile advertising revenues beat out broadcast TV for the first time, broadcast + cable advertising revenues still dwarf the digital take. And, of course, networks are aggressively expanding to new digital means of distribution.
While the digital ad market is expanding, it’s also extraordinarily concentrated — perhaps more so than any advertising market since there were just three TV networks.
It seems as if millennials have avoided traditional media ever since they learned how to read.
The results of new research by marketing startup Crowdtap and the global research company Ipsos shed new light on how the connected generation gets its news. When it comes to trust, it turns out, millennials almost always choose their peers over professionals.
User-generated content (UGC) is media created by your peers. It includes status updates, blog posts and restaurant reviews — any content from non-professionals without any real motivation besides adding an opinion to the sea of already existing opinions. In a more logical world, it isn’t the type of content we’d trust over a professional’s review.
Ipsos’ study, however, reveals that millennials trust UGC just as much as professional reviews. UGC is also 20% more influential when it comes to purchasing and 35% more memorable than other types of media. You can chalk that up to the fact that millennials spend five hours per day with UGC.
The infographic below gives the visual breakdown of how much time millennials are spending with UGC, where they’re getting it and how it’s affecting the media landscape.
Click to see infographic
In a new CMO report from Deloitte and Salesforce ExactTarget Marketing Cloud, the 5 new CMO expectations were discussed. The 5 expectations were:
- Take on Topline Growth
- Own the Customer Experience
- Dig Into Data-Based Insights
- Operate in Real Time
- Master the Metrics that Matter
Are CMOs ready to face these expectations? Not really, but they’re getting there. 53% of CMOs feel the pressure to enable revenue growth, but they struggle because they don’t completely own the conversion path. This has been one of the bigger problems that CMOs are facing; they have to work across functions in order to get things done. This comes into play with the customer experience, too. CMOs now own the largest share of the customer journey, but they need to work with product and service teams in order to create an optimal customer experience across all channels. There’s no doubt that CMOs are feeling the pressure of the digital era, but with that comes big opportunity for growth and the ability to reach all of these high expectations.
There’s no consensus among journalists about what the term multimediameans, or even whether to use it anymore.
The multimedia skills listed in a job advertisement might span a range of specialties from web developer to videographer. Some ads specify “proficiency in multimedia” with no further explanation. A 2013 ad seeking a multimedia producer was more precise: “Your core duties will involve a variety of multimedia — audio, video, photos, informational graphics, and motion graphics — to support our core news content.”
“One of the most pressing needs mentioned by journalists in various countries was the acquisition of new multimedia skills,” according to findings from a recent study that surveyed more than 29,000 journalists around the world.
Despite the continuing use of the term multimedia, not every journalist thinks it should be used nowadays. Eric Maierson, a producer at MediaStorm since 2006, hates the word multimedia. There is irony in that, because until recently, MediaStorm called itself a “multimedia production studio.” However, Maierson explained: “I believe ‘multimedia’ is the word we’ve come to use when describing photographers who make documentaries.” (Nowadays MediaStorm calls itself a “film production and interactive design studio” and produces mostly video documentaries. Past projects include Crisis Guide: Iran, a good example of pre–“Snow Fall” multimedia.)
There is a strong tendency to put the date of publication on digital content assets or mention a time period within them. Doing that changes an asset to have a limited shelf life as the assets time clock starts ticking. And tick it does, as B2B buying team members are less patient then in the past when it comes to assets they consider too old.
Four years ago IDG Connect conducted extensive buyer preference research among enterprise organizations. At that time, buyers stated that a asset was considered too old if it was 14 months or more past its offering or publication date. It’s important to note that once an asset went beyond 18 months, buyers stated that it negatively affected their perception of the vendor. The benchmark was clear, and content management required keeping content fresh enough for buyer needs.
Now that age baseline has shifted, compressing the acceptable limits of content before it is considered old. New global research conducted by IDG Connect among enterprise buyers in the US and United Kingdom reveal that in both markets content is considered old after 10 months and has negative impact on perception after 13 months. But there are some clear ways for vendors to avoid negative perception among buyers who prefer content currency.
1. Avoid Unnecessary Dating: Look at you asset portfolio and confirm your tendency to inadvertently highlight content that is dated with a limited shelf life. Those limitations can come from something as simple as the asset identification system you use. If the date of publication is part of your numbering and tracking method, consider making a change to something that is coded, so you understand from the system the date of the asset but that will not be clear to those that consume it.
2. Set Dated Asset Standards: Set standards for content that requires dating. This can include assets that present market research. Some content types do require dating. One area is assets that include research where buyers want assurance that they consume insight that reflects current sentiment or trends. For that type of content, insure that you have set refresh points to update the findings. Vendors should conduct research to periodically refresh their view of market conditions even if it is for internal purposes. But both in cases for external thought leadership or internal strategy and planning, make it an annual event at a minimum.