Thinking differently about ROI

Measuring return used to be quite simple - spend x to increase revenue by y and/or reduce costs by z, therefore increasing profit by a multiple of x.

But I've noticed something different recently - it seems that it's now possible to fail and succeed at the same time.

One company I have worked with has spent many millions on "digital projects" that have never been successful on the basis of traditional measures, but each one has made a "splash" in the market that has increased their share price. Furthermore, as a result of these industry analysts have positioned the firm as an innovator and thus a good bet, again inflating the share price.

So, whilst the traditional business cases have been a disaster, shareholder value has been increased, and given the stated strategy of the business is to increase shareholder value, they have therefore been a big success.

Another way to look at things is the "defensive play".  It's hard to make a case that says "if we don't spend this our business will erode and we will fail" but there are many situations in which this is absolutely true. Entire industries have been disrupted, others like banking are now being disrupted, and many will be forced into defensive plays as their world changes. This will require some projects that will inevitably lose money (fail) in order for the firm to stay in business (succeed). 

In spite of this, pretty much all of the cases I've seen claim to deliver a profit, and I can't see that changing any time soon.

Whilst it would be really refeshing to see more honesty ("we're going to lose money but increase our share price by 5% and maintain market share", or "if we don't do this the best case is that we will lose money and be 25% smaller, the worst case is we will be out of business in 2 years"), instead of the fantasies I sometimes read, this would need boards that are receptive to this kind of message, and outside of startups and techs, I've not seen a lot of those.