---
id: "question-measuring-connectedness"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ Connectedness: From Metrics to Mutuality"]
tags: ["analytics", "measurement"]
related: ["concept-connectedness", "concept-influencer-integrity", "prereq-social-media-metrics"]
resolution_path: "Developing new KPI frameworks that index sentiment analysis, DM response rates, live Q&A participation ratios, and audience retention over time."
sources: ["attention"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-attention"
originDay: 4
articleStem: "hbr-foci-65-influencer-marketing-trust"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/12/how-to-do-influencer-marketing-that-customers-actually-trust"
sourceTitle: "How to Do Influencer Marketing That Customers Actually Trust"
---
# How can brands quantitatively measure connectedness and integrity?

**Open question.** The authors heavily critique top-level metrics (likes, shares, follower counts) as proxies for value, advocating instead for [[concept-connectedness|Connectedness]] and [[concept-influencer-integrity|Integrity]]. But they provide **no concrete framework** for how a CMO should **quantitatively measure** these qualitative dimensions at scale — *before signing a contract.*

**Possible resolution path.** New KPI frameworks that index **sentiment analysis, DM response rates, live Q&A participation ratios, and audience retention over time** — rather than raw reach (contrast [[prereq-social-media-metrics|traditional metrics]]). This is the most practically urgent gap in the framework for operators.