Comments on: Cost Per What?!

By: Hampus Landelius

Hampus Landelius — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:18:04 +0000

Perhaps its time to rethink “cost per engagement” the same way as some of us thinks about ROI and ROE

http://theonlyconstant.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/cpccpm-to-cost-per-engagement-same-as-roi-to-roe/

/ Hampus

By: Barry Silverstein

Barry Silverstein — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:22:50 +0000

Daniel: “CPA” is Cost Per Action, sometimes defined as Cost Per Acquisition. Basically, it means the cost associated with an action that is taken by a responder. In the online world, CPC (Cost Per Click) is clicking through an ad to an advertiser’s web page. The action taken by the responder is after the click occurs. The action could be filling out the information requested on a form, providing an email address to sign up for an e-newsletter, completing an online survey, ordering a product online, etc. Therefore, “CPA” is a measurement of the cost associated with that particular action. Hope this helps.

By: daniel kwaku ampofo

daniel kwaku ampofo — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:05:36 +0000

please sir i have read through your post and like to know much about cpa.thank you

By: This Week’s Top Affiliate Marketing News Stories (August 14, 2009)

This Week’s Top Affiliate Marketing News Stories (August 14, 2009) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:23:00 +0000

[...] Cost Per What?! Barry Silverstein is blogging about David Berkowitz’s post on Social Media Insider. Barry says, “In proposing the possibility of “CPSA” – Cost Per Social Action – Berkowitz recognizes the fact that “social networking, when done right, achieves something much different” from the current pricing models, Cost Per Impression (CPM), Cost Per Click (CPC), and Cost Per Action (CPA). Cost Per Engagement (CPE) gets closer, says Berkowitz, but still falls short.” [...]

By: This Week’s Top Affiliate Marketing News Stories (August 14, 2009) : affiliate.itech-design.my

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:27:44 +0000

By: Pat Grady

Pat Grady — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:32:26 +0000

Digging for meaning via exploration of better measurements is a delightful thing for me to see! The cycle of development of any marketing reach, from newborn to adoption to maturation and optimization, is a natural progression. I wasn’t consciously waiting for it, but the timing of your article here, and its unhype frankness and pragmatic nod seems to pluck at my resonance chords. I look forward to seeing if you report on any advanced, complex or algorithmic efforts anyone may be making to incorporate the angles you mentioned – i bet there are folks doing it, modeling hybrid measurement techniques for correlation to social activities impact, trying to cope with the many intrinsic differences you mentioned.

By: Michelle Cubas

Michelle Cubas — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:11:42 +0000

Barry and David, I think we have a case here of measuring the black “stuff” in space. Considering we can’t measure everything but can track responses, testimonials, referrals and such, I see the basics, of course, however, more emphasis in loyalty and long-term engagement—how long do they remain customers.

Thanks for the insights.

By: Barry Silverstein

Barry Silverstein — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:56:14 +0000

Thanks for reading my post about your post, David! I think it’s important for everyone to start taking a \long-term view\ rather than look to the short term. Internet marketers are just as capable of strategic thinking as traditional direct marketers — but sometimes they may forget that while the media is new, the principles are the same.

By: David Berkowitz

David Berkowitz — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:42:46 +0000

I’m really enjoying your take on this. Yes, a lot of this relationship building isn’t all that new, but much of it is all the more powerful, especially when marketers are taking a long-term view rather than just using these new tools to rack up body counts.