Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The search and social media paradox

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Lee Odden, a recognized expert in the areas of search and social media, recently ran the 2010 Digital Marketing Poll on the TopRank Online Marketing Blog.  The poll, presumably directed at marketers, asks: “What 3 online marketing channels & tactics will you emphasize in 2011?”

TopRank used Twitter to promote the poll–and did so on multiple occasions.  Presumably, a lot of people received notice of the poll:  @TopRank has 6061 followers, the update was retweeted 262 times, “liked” by 45, and likely got additional visibility through other social sharing media*.

How Odden attracted responses

Odden followed all the recommended steps to motivate engagement:

  1. He posted the poll in a blog that attracts a highly targeted audience–online marketers interested in obtaining high search engine ranks.
  2. The post’s topic is highly relevant to the target audience, a group whose success depends upon selecting cost-effective marketing tactics that will elevate their messages above the noise.
  3. The post is even more valuable because it promises timely data that is not readily available.
  4. Odden heightened readers’ awareness of the challenges they face by asking questions such as “Are social media and content marketing the glue that brings multi-channel marketing together?”, “Is 2011 finally the year for mobile?”, and “Will companies focus on more holistic online marketing?”
  5. He also encouraged engagement by soliciting readers’ advice on whether he focused on the right areas.
  6. He offered a “Top 10″ list–something all the pundits recommend to engage interest–and delivered by providing a running tally of the poll’s findings.
  7. Following best practice, Odden promoted the poll a number of times–which is an important factor in increasing response rates since not everyone responds the first time they get a post.

Calculating success: the response rate and conversion rate

Odden’s stated goal was to get 200 respondents.  At first glance, this seems conservative; however, it is well in line with industry statistics.  Consider the following loose assumptions for demonstration purposes:

  • 6000 people received the initial tweet from TopRank when the blog was posted
  • Retweeters and Facebook followers average 10 followers (feel free to use your own numbers)
    • 2000 (262 x 10) received the post via retweet
    • 450 (45 x 10) received the post via Facebook
    • 500 saw the post on social bookmarking sites (again, my swag)
    • None of the indirect respondents forwarded the link
    • Twitter follower response rates (assumptions, once again)
      • 5% the first time TopRank tweeted the post
      • 2.5% the second time TopRank tweeted the post
      • 1.25% the third time TopRank tweeted the post
      • 1% response rate from indirect recipients

The logic underlying the assumptions

Most direct response campaigns, of which this is one, anticipate getting response rates of less than 1%, more if the list is as highly targeted as the @TopRank list is.  Direct marketing typically yield low response rates since most people only attend to messages that they see as relevant when they receive them.

Resending messages increases the number of responses because recipients’ views of what is relevant depend on what they are doing at the time.  Nevertheless, each subsequent communication gets a significantly smaller response rate than the one preceding it.

Response rates, however, are not conversion rates.  Here the response rate would be the number of people who clicked through to the poll.  The conversion rate is the number that chose to participate in the poll.

The result of using best practices

Using these assumptions, TopRank would receive 1230 responses (plugged the above assumptions into Excel) and the 232 people that completed the poll would represent a 20% conversion rate of those responses.  That said, the assumptions are just guesses, so feel free to recalculate using your own inputs.

So what’s my point?

What struck me about the response rate is that it is a clear demonstration of how difficult it is to convert others.  Odden is well-known, well-respected, offers high value, and in short, did everything right.  Yet, even he didn’t draw enough responses to perform the cross-tabulations it would require to answer questions about the applicability of his information.

What does this mean for the rest of us who are trying to sell a product or a service?  Here are my thoughts.  We need to:

  • Do everything that Lee Odden did
  • Find a way to reach many more prospects, all of whom are ideally as qualified as Odden’s are
  • We also need to articulate the value of our offer in a number of ways in an attempt to increase the percentage of our highly qualified prospects that will find the messages relevant
  • We need to communicate our messages more often than Odden did, which translates into running our campaigns over much longer periods.
  • Then, once we achieve the first conversion, we need to do it over again; since unlike Odden, we are selling a product or a service and require more interim conversions than Odden did.

The paradox of search and social media

In short, search and social media can help marketers identify more qualified prospects and accelerate the process, still it’s as challenging as ever to achieve our goal: getting the most qualified prospects to “raise their hands” when they’re ready to buy.  Everyone says that social media is the answer, but what if–no matter how trusted the source is–others still don’t have time to attend to the message?

What are your thoughts about this analysis?  Is it on target?  Does it address the right questions?  Reach the right conclusion?  More important, what are your perspectives about where marketers should spend their resources to elevate their messages and accelerate conversions?

* Numbers on the day I wrote this post.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The price of creative collaboration

Monday, July 12th, 2010

Thanks to Olga Taylor for today’s guest post. Olga is a freelance copywriter from Jamaica Plain, MA who enjoys sharing insights about her work. To reach her send mail to olga.taylor@quartesian.com.

Her post:

I am a people pleaser. This means that not only do I want  clients to be happy with work process & outcome, I also want them to feel good about my price. I’ve learned that it is often a challenge even with old clients who like and trust what I do. But more so with the segment of new clients who need original & creative work on a shoe string.

The problem, if it’s there, is always the same. The client thinks it will take two revisions, when, in fact it takes seven. The reason for the problem is also pretty much the same from one client to the next. As the creative process gets under way, ideas flow and questions arise that could not have been anticipated. As questions come up, more people get drawn into the review cycle; and what had been agreed to at a previous stage has to come apart and be rebuilt.

I respect & admire creative collaborations. I will go as far as to say that nothing truly worthwhile can come out of a single source. A great new concept or product requires a “cross-breeding” of existing perspectives and ideas. Sometimes this occurs inside one person’s head. More often, it is a result of collaboration: client-supplier, technical-creative, user-designer… or all of the above & more.

For that reason, I believe that the smartest thing a project leader can do is to remove all blocks to effective collaboration. Watch out that pricing structure does not become one of these blocks.

Let’s say the vendor charges by the hour and the client is worried about running up a huge bill. The client might feel pressured to limit communication, creative options or review process. As a result, the project might suffer or end up costing even more, because changes aren’t made early enough in the process.

A variation on the theme is a fixed budget with a limited number of reviews. What’s one review? And what if the client thinks the vendor didn’t get all the specs quite right?

Most clients today don’t want to be billed by the hour. Being a pleaser, I give them what they want — a fixed budget, but also what I believe they need — unlimited revisions until the bitter end! Which means that the price that I quote “seems high”. When all is said and done, I know it will end up being fair. However, being a people pleaser, I hope every time that the client will prove correct, the project “quick” — and having finished way ahead of time, I will tell my client: “we came under the budget, so I am not going to charge you the full price.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

How search and social media will shorten the B2B sales cycle.

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Paul Gillin, author of The New Influencers and a leading authority on B2B marketing,  just published a draft of the first chapter of his upcoming book, Social Marketing to the Business Customer on his blog. He had me on the second page when he spelled out what I’ve always seen as the differences between B2B and B2C sales–but have never been able to articulate as clearly.   The points Paul makes –about buyers’ focus on value, group decision-making, and sales cycle length especially resonate with me as someone who focuses on marketing IT products and professional services to corporations.

B2B transactions are “bet the company” decisions

As I was reading, however, it occurred to me that the characteristics that both Paul and I ascribe to B2B businesses may be a function of scale and complexity, rather than just the target audience.  After all, most consumer acquisitions are not “bet the company decisions”.  Notable exceptions include real estate, new jobs, mates, and the most major of surgeries.  In each of these situations, individuals’ buying behavior is more like that of businesses than consumers.

Nevertheless, I still think the points that Paul outlines are what distinguishes most B2B from most B2C transactions.  Even those B2B purchases that are not “bet the company” decisions, occur in the spotlight, are ones for which the buyer is held accountable by others, and are therefore “bet the job” decisions.

Long sales cycles are expensive

Of the points Paul mentioned, my own focus as a B2B marketing consultant has always been on shortening the sales cycle.  As he notes, B2B sales cycles stretch out because success depends on addressing the needs of multiple people at multiples stages of the buying process, each of which have different priorities.

Long sales cycles are expensive.  Ironically, any time that salespeople spend on prospecting for new business, building relationships, pointing out the benefits of the company’s wares, or ensuring that each stakeholder gets satisfactory answers to the questions she or he has is relatively unproductive.  The company only makes money when its salespeople are closing deals or negotiating their terms.  Any time spent on the activities leading up to a sale has a huge opportunity cost, because that’s time that the salesperson isn’t closing other deals.

Advance preparation is the secret to accelerating the sale

Advance preparation is the secret to shortening the sales cycle.  Salespeople tend to only have messages for a few of the audiences that they need to reach.  Because they are under pressure to close the transaction, salespeople don’t have the time it takes to research and prepare the nuanced responses that others who influence the buying decision often require.  Consequently, their communications are not as powerful as they could be–and the sales cycle stretches out as prospects continue to shop.

This is where B2B marketers, and B2B marketing consultants like me, make their greatest contribution.  Our job is to anticipate who will be involved in the buying process, what they’ll need at each stage, and how they prefer that the company meet these needs–with the goal of developing targeted communications and tools well before Sales needs them.

B2B marketers are at a disadvantage

Unfortunately, we can’t take advantage of many of the tools that B2C marketers have at their disposal.  They get reams of data gathered through surveys and via scanners at the point-of purchase.  They also have many media in which they can cost-effectively place highly-targeted ads.

Our audiences are smaller and buy less frequently.  They are also less homogenous both due to the greater complexity of the B2B buying decision–and because our total available markets aren’t generally large enough to divide into sizable segments.

It’s, therefore, hard for us to get relevant survey data.  For one, it’s hard to capture the nuances of complex buying decisions in a survey that’s limited to forced choice answers.  For another, there aren’t enough of us, targeting any given market segment, to justify third-party investments in any but the most general survey data.

Historically, our best alternative, for getting at the heart of the buying process, has been to gather information from decision makers through one-to-one interviews, or in small groups.  Doing so requires special skills to avoid predetermining the answers by the way we pose our questions.  Moreover, because the available data collection methods were expensive, we could only speak with relatively small samples of the population.

From a communications perspective, we’ve never had a cost-effective media.  As Paul notes, our goal is to reach multiple audiences that buy relatively infrequently–and whose needs vary depending on where they are in the buying process.  If we purchase spots in broadcast media, we’re paying to reach too many people we don’t care about.  On the other hand, direct marketing, which allows for more targeted messaging is also expensive–since we still don’t know which prospects will be receptive to our messages at any point in time.

Search and social media promise to be a tremendous boon

Search and social media have the potential to make us both more efficient and more cost-effective.  They promise to improve both the quality and quantity of the information we can obtain.

By searching on germane keywords, we can find out what prospects have to say, unaided, on relevant topics.  This information will add value, since discussants are likely speaking about what matters to them– rather than just responding to questions about the dimensions that we think to ask about.  Search and social media also provide access to the crowd, decreasing our reliance on the insights of a few available individuals.

The news is even better from a communications perspective.  Organic search and pay per click dramatically reduce our costs.  One is free and the other only requires us to pay for audiences that are likely receptive to our messages.  We also can reach members of our target audience through social media via the online peer groups in which they participate or the lists members make of their peers using tools such as Listorious.

The availability of better tools is a double-edged sword

The good news is that search and social media have made getting the right message to the right person at the right time easier and less expensive than ever–and should enable us to significantly shrink the sales cycle.  The bad news is that customers will be less forgiving of companies whose marketing messages still  do not anticipate and address their needs.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Will social media increase users’ influence over product development?

Friday, February 12th, 2010

I was just reading Mashable’s post on Google Buzz.  What struck me most is the potential  social media has for empowering users to affect product development.

Google Buzz users “organize” to advocate for new features within days of product launch

Google announced Google Buzz earlier this week.  Today, Mashable reported that it had received “just shy of 500 responses” within several hours of  asking followers: “What features would you like to see in Google Buzz?”.

Just think about it.  This is an incredibly inexpensive way to capture market reaction and present supporting evidence to a vendor you’re trying to influence.  Let’s look at two alternatives.

Alternatives for capturing market response to a new product

Before social media, users desiring to influence product development may have chosen to conduct a survey by mail, email, or phone.  To  do so, they’d need to know who had experience with the product and how to reach them.  Of these alternatives, only email has the potential to promise rapid turnaround time.  Nevertheless,  it would be difficult to obtain a large enough list to get this high a response rate.  It also would have taken considerable time and effort to assemble the list and use it to get the message out.

Another alternative would have been to use some sort of broadcast media to get the message out.  This would have obviated the need to get names, but broadcast media–such as print, radio and TV advertising– is generally expensive for that very reason.  Even placements in highly targeted publications are rarely free.

Will blogs that can speak for many succeed in influencing product development?

Using a blog to find out what others want–and letting the world know seems an awfully effective way to influence product developers.  I know that developing a blog capable of attracting 500 responses isn’t free either.  It takes a lot of work to build a following large enough to draw that many responses.   Moreover, only a small percentage of readers of any post tend to actively contribute; and not every follower reads every post.

Still, using a blog to rally support for new features is a lot quicker and cheaper way to influence product developers than the alternatives–and pretty cool.

How do you think Google Buzz will respond?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Twitter tidbits

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Are you wondering about how to make the best use of Twitter? If the “sold out” attendance at Seltzer Design’s program on social media is any indication, I think many people are. Moreover, I think different things work for different people.

How I use Twitter:

I mainly use Twitter to stay abreast of what’s happening in my profession, my industry, and the world. I do this in three ways.

I use Twitter as a newspaper. Instead of scanning the headlines of a print publication, I “follow” reporters and publications that tweet headlines of breaking stories with links to the full article. When I want to learn more, I click the link to the full story.

I use Twitter as a peer-reviewed publication–and empower others to sift through the news, highlight articles of interest, and provide useful insights. Instead of subscribing to a print journal that arrives once a month or six times a year, I “follow” a group of thought leaders I’ve identified as providers of interesting content.

The third way I use Twitter is as an antenna. With the help of Tweetdeck (described below), I scan everyone’s tweets, including people I don’t know, to learn what others are saying about topics I find interesting.

I do this by setting up a permanent search in Tweetdeck and checking the results whenever I have time. When I find useful information, I often start “following” the person who posted the tweet–and “retweet” his/her post to those that follow me.

How others use Twitter:

I use Twitter mostly for listening but of course that means someone needs to be talking–I mean tweeting. Annie Schmidt, the Senior Designer and Strategist, identifies six ways people can tweet: curatorial, tips and advice, shout-out, self-promotional, responses and retweets.

Curatorial tweets identify topics of interest and provide useful insights. Shout-outs are requests for help and/or ideas. Retweets are posts that Twitter readers forward, with full attribution, to those that follow them.

Twitter tools:

There are a number of tools that extend the power of Twitter. Examples include Tweetdeck, Hootsuite, and Seesmic’s Twitter desktop client. Shortly, after the Seltzer seminar, I came across a great Tweetdeck demo that John McTigue posted on one of the Linked In groups to which I subscribe.

Are you atwitter about twitter?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post