While I appreciate your input, I don't feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. it is a tautology. According to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

While I appreciate your input, I don’t feel that how I described a paradigm means it is a tautology. nAccording to Kuhn, less developed disciplines do not share one paradigm…. but instead may have different sets of measures, methodologies and so forth. And even if you share a paradigm that does not mean you agree totally when it comes to the details.

Of course, not agreeing 100% does also result in different approaches being tested that, as you suggest, will further advance the discipline(s).

Julian, thanks for taking the time to share and I hope you will be back soon.

That is a good example of tautology. If every one agrees on fundamentals (i.e. a paradigm operates), then they agree more. Duh.

The point of Kuhn's argument is that scientists tend to operate within paradigms, and thus overlook indicators that their paradigm is incorrect – explaining them away as 'aberrations' and so on. Eventually, enough evidence builds up, and the field experiences a paradigm shift. Therefore, once a paradigm is identified, it's important to test its limits and its reliability.

As I outlined above in my post and as you did in your comment, ROI is an equation that everybody follows in the financial world and YES, there is one way to do this and one way only. I like especially your statement made elsewhere:

“The problem is that using “ROI” for this becomes problematic once we leave the marketing environment. In all other aspects of the business (Board-level, financial, IT, procurement, etc), “ROI” is a financial measurement.”

Eric, thanks for sharing your insights.

Urs
@ComMetrics

The first thing I would say is that I don't have a problem with measuring ROI for social media marketing efforts as long as what you are measuring is actual ROI. It must be a financial measurement. Too often marketers and PR professionals use the term “ROI” for any benefit measurement (e.g. clicks, page visits, mentions, etc). This is problematic for two reasons, it seems to me.

Firstly, because ROI is a defined mathematical/financial equation (ROI = Return less Investment divided by Investment; where “Return” is either income or cost savings, but either way money) it must follow the rules of an equation. That is, all parts of the equation must be consistent. Using a non-financial variable on one side of the equation renders the whole thing meaningless (a “£” and a “click” are not the same unit of measurement). That's not to say we shouldn't measure clicks or even “cost per clicks” but that's not ROI – a click can't be considered a financial “return”.

Secondly, it's a matter of consistency across the business. Outside of the marketing department, in all other parts of the business (C-suite, finance, IT, procurement, etc), ROI is understood as a financial measurement. And consistency is a must when measuring and reporting across the company. Not to mention the fact that your CEO is less likely to fund an effort that she doesn't understand AND can't be shown to hold its own on the P&L.

Now the bigger question, and one I'm not attempting to answer here, is HOW to measure the ROI of social media marketing with any certainty (and by certainty I mean at the micro level if not the macro level). I'm still working on that one.

Eric