Metrics for the Sake of Metrics: A Misguided Approach

PE1015_Cover_215x290Marketers have been overly infatuated with the measurability of digital media. That’s changing.

“I suppose I’ve always been bullish on print because I’ve long felt that marketers are overly infatuated by the measurability of digital media,” writes Denis Wilson in Publishing Executive.

“Metrics for the sake of metrics are not the objective of marketing — engagement and action are. Unfortunately, marketers are often measured themselves by the metrics they can tout, and you know what runs down hill,” he continues.

Wilson nails it with this analysis of why he never believed the idea that print’s future was doomed. He says he “couldn’t believe print was or could be dying,” adding that a magazine brand worth its salt would always have a premium print product for its VIP audience.

Fortunately, saner heads are continuing to prevail in the discussion.

“So all along the echo chamber of media punditry rang loud and clicks were baited, serving as distraction from substantive discussions. Thank goodness that’s over now,” he notes.

Interestingly, Wilson is one who hasn’t embraced the idea of publishers calling themselves magazine media brands.

“I’ve been reluctant to embrace the euphemistic term “magazine media” because I think it is symptomatic of magazine publisher’s print complex and is designed to mask what gives magazine companies a distinct identity and value,” Wilson explains.

“Maybe one day the industry can go back to regarding print as a premium product — instead of a black eye — and calling ourselves magazine publishers. I think we will,” he continues.

Amen to that.