In a recent Bloodhound post about Twitter (only Brian Brady could write the third post in just over a week on the same subject and generate so many comments!) there was a comment on marketing numbers that so intrigued me I felt compelled to respond in a post rather than a comment. It’s been my experience that many of us do not accurately calculate the numbers when it comes to our marketing. This should really come as no surprise – numbers and especially statistics can be beguiling and even misleading. But if we’re not tracking and calculating our marketing efforts correctly, we’re just shooting into a dark room hoping we’ll hit the target.
The numbers quoted (or maybe it was just the idea) are credited to Larry Kendall, but they provide an interesting opportunity to work a real world example of marketing in general and Twitter specifically. For this exercise I am pulling some examples from the actual comment, but just about every one of us has made this type of calculation before. I follow each with a slightly different view.
I want 50 local people that I can really connect with (on Twitter). If I have 50 people and they each know 50 people, I have a pool of 2,500 people. Not quite. It means you have the potential to reach 2500 people, but it’s unlikely. For the purpose of calculating marketing numbers… you’re reaching 50. This is akin to speaking at a seminar filled with 50 people from the neighborhood and assuming you’ve reached all 2500 people in the neighborhood – you haven’t. If, on the other hand, you send a direct mail piece to all 2500 people in the neighborhood, then we say you’re working from a pool of 2500 potential clients. Is it realistic to think all 2500 read that mailing? Of course not. But our expected conversion numbers take that into account. The expected conversion numbers are simply based on a pool of 2500. A pool of 50 will generate no usable statistical model from which to base a marketing campaign.
If the *normal* turnover rate in my local Read more