AMB330 Week 3 Tutorial – Assessment #1 Digital Audit (II) Study Notes

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

• QUT recognises the Turrbal and Yugara peoples as the First Nations owners of the lands where QUT now stands.
• Respect is paid to Elders, lores, customs and creation spirits.
• Statement affirms that these lands have always been sites of teaching, research and learning and acknowledges the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the QUT community.

Tutorial Focus & Learning Outcomes

• Week 3 tutorial centres on Assessment #1 – Digital Audit (Part II).
• Key areas drilled down in the class:
  • Analysis of organisational voice
  • Analysis of user engagement
  • Analysis of three individual pieces of content drawn from the chosen platforms
• Learning outcome emphasised (slide “LO”): ability to critically analyse and optimise digital assets for an organisation.

Assessment #1 – Digital Audit: Scope & Deliverables

• Students must complete a Digital Audit of three digital offerings belonging to the client/brand.
  • One of the three MUST be the organisation’s website.
  • Other two can be any owned social/digital channels (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter/X, YouTube, podcast, blog, etc.).
• Template provided – follow strictly; contains subsections for:
  1. Analysis of platforms
  2. Analysis of content
  3. Analysis of organisational voice
  4. Analysis of user engagement
  5. Analysis of three examples of content
• Rating system: 1 \text{ (terrible)} \rightarrow 10 \text{ (perfect)} for each audit criterion.
  • Ratings must be justified with evidence, theory and industry benchmarks.
  • Include links + reference list; insert screenshots/graphs in an Appendix (not included in word count & not directly marked, but must be referenced in-text).
• Emphasis on analysis, not description. High marks come from integrating theoretical frameworks and providing original, critical insights.

Marking Rubric Highlights (HO2.1 – Analysis, evaluation & synthesis)

• High Distinction (10–8.5 pts): Perceptive + critical analysis seamlessly integrating accurate academic & industry research; strong original insights; evidence provided (screenshots, etc.).
• Distinction (8.49–7.5 pts): Insightful discussion; purposeful integration of research; own analysis evident.
• Credit (7.49–6.5 pts): Thoughtful discussion; justified by relevant research; some analysis.
• Pass (6.49–5.0 pts): Adequate discussion; some reference to research, yet can be superficial.
• Marginal Fail / Fail tiers describe increasingly descriptive, vague or irrelevant submissions with little/no research integration.

1) Analysis of Organisational Voice – Key Questions

1. What characterises the brand’s voice on EACH platform? (e.g., conversational, humorous, authoritative, inclusive, witty, formal)
2. How is that voice conveyed? – Concrete evidence via:
   • Linguistic devices (slang, contractions, first-person plural, emojis)
   • Visual tone (imagery style, colour palette, meme culture)
   • Structural cues (story highlights, video format, reply style)
3. Does the voice suit BOTH the platform environment and the audience present there?
4. Does the brand demonstrate relational commitment (Sweetser & Kelleher, 2016) – i.e., ongoing dialogue, empathy, responsiveness, relationship maintenance?

Key Theoretical References on Voice

• Chen (2020) – Sprout Social article emphasising the strategic importance of a consistent brand voice and alignment with brand personality.
• Sweetser & Kelleher (2016) – Measurement of communicated commitment & conversational voice; provides validated scales for analysing organisation–public relationships.
• Aaker (1997) Brand Personality Framework – 5 macro-dimensions & sample traits to map voice congruence:
  • Sincerity (e.g., honest, friendly)
  • Excitement (e.g., daring, spirited)
  • Competence (e.g., reliable, intelligent)
  • Sophistication (e.g., upper-class, charming)
  • Ruggedness (e.g., outdoorsy, tough)

Critique Exercise – "Is this the right analysis of voice?"

• Example given: “Logo, slogan & brand sentiment remain constant across platforms; focus on tailor-made holidays …”
• Weaknesses flagged:
  • Merely mentions consistency without dissecting tone/linguistic traits.
  • No exploration of how voice relates to audience/platform context.
  • Lacks screenshots/evidence & theoretical grounding (e.g., Aaker traits, conversational voice scales).

2) Analysis of User Engagement – Framework

• Goal: Assess whether digital activities inspire consumption & interaction.
• Use Dialogic Communication Theory (Kent & Taylor, 1998):
  1. Dialogic loop – enabling & responding to feedback (comments, polls).
  2. Usefulness of information – value for publics.
  3. Generation of return visits – fresh, dynamic content.
  4. Intuitiveness/ease of interface – good UX reduces friction.
  5. Conservation of visitors – minimal dead-ends, clear navigation.
• Questions to ask for each platform:
  1. Which dialogic tactics deployed? (e.g., Q&As, CTAs, interactive stories).
  2. Has the brand fully used each platform’s native features? (Lives, hashtags, DMs, AR filters, etc.)
  3. Outcome success? Measure via engagement metrics (likes, shares, dwell time, click-through, sentiment).

Supporting Research & Industry Benchmarks

• Kent & Taylor (1998) – Foundational dialogic communication model.
• Madichie & Hinson (2014) – Critical analysis of police websites; illustrates applying dialogic principles in audit.
• Chen (2020, Sprout Social) – Anatomy of social media engagement:
  • Macro-engagement on Facebook aggregates interactions with posts, Page, messaging & mentions.
  • Importance of dissecting to micro-metrics (e.g., CTA clicks versus post comments) when diagnosing improvement areas.

Metrics & Definitions (Sprout Social Index™)

• Engagement umbrellas multiple activities. Example breakdown for Facebook:
  • Page-level: profile taps, CTA button clicks, tab visits.
  • Post-level: reactions, comments, shares.
  • Messaging: inbox queries, response rate.
  • Cross-page: mentions, external comment activity.
• Content formats audiences WANT (global averages):
  68\% images, 50\% video, 30\% text posts, 26\% stories/polls, 17\% GIFs, 11\% Q&As/AMAs, 9\% influencer-led.
• Reasons consumers DM brands: 59\% great experience, 37\% service issues, 23\% alignment with beliefs, 23\% contests, 21\% security/privacy, etc.

Critique Exercises – "Is this the right engagement analysis?"

• Example 1: “Website well targeted to mature audience; good dialogue on Facebook; poor complaint management.”
  • Feedback: Needs data (response time, % complaints resolved) + dialogic lens.
• Example 2: Escape Travel case: cites Nielsen rankings & video views.
  • Feedback: Better (backs with stats) but lacks connecting tactics to outcomes & dialogic principles.
• Example 3: Queensland Rail Travel posts – practice task to examine:
  • Usage of NAIDOC content (cultural relevance, community partnership).
  • CTA clarity (Tilt Train, Spirit of Queensland booking links).
  • Comment moderation (limiting who can comment) – implications for dialogic openness.

3) Analysis of Content – Three Concrete Examples

For EACH platform-specific content item:

1. Target audience & Customer Decision Journey (CDJ) stage
   • Awareness, Consideration, Conversion, Loyalty, Advocacy.
2. Aim of the content (inform, entertain, encourage UGC, invite purchase, provoke discussion, crisis update, etc.).
3. Success assessment – qualitative (tone fit, creative execution) & quantitative (impressions, CTR, engagement %, conversion rate).

Critique Prompt – "Are these good content analyses?"

• Slide 23 illustrates a weak example; likely faults include:
  • Not linking content to CDJ stage.
  • Lack of target persona detail.
  • Failure to define measurable objectives or evaluate outcomes.

In-Class Activity – Budgy Smuggler Digital Audit

• Platforms to analyse: Website, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube.
• Students asked to assign ratings (1–10) across all audit criteria and justify.
• Opportunity to apply theories: brand voice (larrikin Aussie humour?), user engagement (memes, UGC), CDJ mapping (awareness via viral TikToks, conversion via shop link, etc.).

Practical Tips for Producing Your Digital Audit

• Compile evidence screenshots in Appendix; cross-reference (e.g., “See Appendix A Figure 1 for example of conversational reply on Instagram Story”).
• Anchor every judgement with theory + data + benchmark:
  • If you award 9/10 for organisational voice on Twitter, justify via Aaker personality–voice alignment, follower sentiment, message consistency and comparative industry norms.
• Balance qualitative critique (tone, creativity) with quantitative indicators (engagement rate, bounce rate, session duration, follower growth).
• Maintain scholarly standards: Harvard/APA referencing, in-text citations for all academic/industry sources.

Q&A / Troubleshooting Themes Raised in Class

• "Do screenshots count toward the word limit?" → No, anything in Appendix is exempt.
• "What if platform algorithms hide engagement counts?" → Use third-party analytics tools, or cite estimated averages; acknowledge limitations.
• "How many references are enough?" → Quality over quantity, but at minimum support each major claim with a scholarly or reputable industry source.

Ethical & Practical Considerations Highlighted

• Ensuring respectful representation when analysing First Nations-related content (e.g., NAIDOC Week posts).
• Privacy & copyright: Use screenshots under fair dealing for education (Copyright Act 1968 §113P) and label accordingly.
• Transparency: Distinguish between organic and paid reach when evaluating performance.

Key Equations / Numeric Conventions You Might Employ

• Engagement Rate example: \text{ER} = \frac{\text{Total Interactions}}{\text{Total Followers}} \times 100\%
• Bounce Rate (website): \text{BR} = \frac{\text{Single-Page Sessions}}{\text{All Sessions}} \times 100\%
• Audience growth: \Delta \text{Followers} = \text{Followers}{t2} - \text{Followers}{t1}

Take-Home Checklist Before Submission

• [ ] Three distinct platforms chosen (website compulsory).
• [ ] Ratings (1–10) with rigorous justifications for FIVE criteria.
• [ ] Organisational voice analysis references Chen (2020) + Sweetser & Kelleher (2016) + Aaker (1997).
• [ ] User engagement assessed through dialogic framework & engagement metrics.
• [ ] Three content examples mapped to CDJ stages with outcome evaluation.
• [ ] Appendix correctly cited in-text; full reference list supplied.
• [ ] Word count within limit (excluding Appendix).
• [ ] Overall argument is analytical, not descriptive; integrates theory with practice seamlessly.