I would like to get some feedback on how important ROI is in evaluating the success of social media initiatives.

It has always puzzled me that the difficulties in measuring ROI, in financial terms, is so often cited as a reason for not embracing SM. I worked for a long time in promotions and advertising, and as far as I'm aware no firm numbers could ever be put next to a particular activity - everything worked synergistically, and uplift in profit was attributed to the whole holistic effort. An ad campaign rarely worked in isolation of PR,sales promotion, sponsorship etc. so why would 'social media' not simply become another tool in that communications arsenal, and measured as such?

The main measure of such a campaign was inevitably attitudinal studies, pre- and post campaign. If the correct shift had been achieved, it was deemed to be a success, and the brand then built on that for further long term growth. Moreover, Web 2.0 technology makes that kind of study easy and quick to implement.

These thoughts are echoed in this post from Mack Collier, who has found advocates of social media to 'see the value' rather than insist on numbers. 

Let me know what you think!