So the whole idea of contextual competitive advertising really irritates some people- especially traditional marketers. While coopetition can refer to lots of mainly interactive concepts, it's actually been around for a while it's just that many people don't want to believe it. My Mom- who is a brilliant management and marketing consultant in her own right use the example of Nail Salons as a great example of coopetition at work. By having a Nail Salon on every other corner, it became the thing to do for women young and old to indicate that they are professional and well groomed.
The reality is that if someone has the internet, there is a pretty good chance they know how to use it. that means they are likely to know how to use Google and they are likely to use it in similar way to most other Google users. It's highly important ot be relevant and quality links back and forth and all around on the internet benefits those who pay attention to it. My point is not to be completely exclusive, but to be relevant to enough people that they'll want to read what I have to write. Even if I'm full of it- if I can spark conversation and build relevance, maybe I'll have a fan or at least a reader who will come back. I want to even figure out how to encourage ongoing participation. Why wouldn't all marketers want similar things? Some SAY they want it, but they have no idea how to engage in conversations and often when they are having conversations, they're talking to people trying to convince them of something rather than trying to fill a felt need or solve a real problem. People don;t like being SOLD anything- they want to have their needs satifying and the problems solved. Too many times, marketers are tying to solve a problem they think poepl should have but they haven;t ever bothered to work out whether others agree. The perfect example of a clear violation of this principle is the Chia Pet which is pure marketing at it's worst.
However- if you could buy a Chia Pet at every corner store in America and you needed a gift that says, "I think you may enjoy a clay sheep that has a plant growing out of it." I think I actually bought one for someone at one point. I truly hope that person doesn"t remember that.
That's coopetition at it's best. Home shopping network is another good example of coopetition. Once someone buys something for HSM and the product actually arrives at your door, you're likely to get hooked and feel like it's OK to buy something from it. The same thing is still true about the internet. Some people are still concerned about buying anything online and that still needs to be OK. Other who do buy online are used to waiting for something to be shipped. It's a strange sense of immediate gratification. It kinda feels good, but if you're a shopaholic, it's more likely to feel like kissing your sister. So- how is this related to coopetition? Well if many retailers are in close proximity and the consumer already trusts the vendors that others are cosest to, they're more likely to buy something. I still believe that Dominos really won't spit in my Pizza- they fired those two employees. Branding still MEANS something and coopetition doesn't hurt sales- it helps tremendously. It's still expensive and interactive is still not the perfect vehicle to build a brand.
It's still important to convince people that they should buy something, but it's therefore not necessary to try to prevent others from seeing that they have competition. Coopetition applies in many more cases than most marketers want to admit.
The situation in the Marketing FIELD is facinating as lots of marketers find their niche and allow others to manage their own piece of their customer's technology, advertising -traditional interactive, analytics, BI, etc. If they don't do all of it, they need to encourage another marketing specialist to help their customer out. That's coopetition too.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Art of Analysis
I had an incredibly interesting conversation today about analytics. During the conversation, I began wondering how many other people shared similar views about Media and Marketing (and believe they should actually be capitalized). I've been in the Media business for lots of years and in that time, I've discovered lots of things that I believe others should be exposed to. If I'm full of it, I'm sure someone will say so. That's great considering the conversational nature of the Internet these days.
I have noticed the growing demand for better ROI. When I was selling billboards, the main request of customers was better proof that their advertising messages were being absorbed by the audience that was being exposed to their messages. The metric most useful is DEC or Daily Effective Circulation and here's the thing- it's a GREAT metric. The number of people who are able to see your message is a nice number especially when you compare the CPM to other forms of media. I recently discoverd the hard way that it's important for me to work for a company where the CEO and VP of Operations understands that CPM is actually cost per thousand- not cost per million. In fact, I think it's more important than ever for start ups from "tool" companies to ad networks- it's now possible to deal with people who understand marketing and advertising and still can figure out how to run a business.
So- from Out of Home to Interactive- each time, the need and the desire are the same. Customers what to know how much money their marketing and advertising is MAKING them. The kinds of numbers I get excited about is a 300% increase in SEO traffic from 3-6 months work. But even then, I have more questions to ask about the quality of that traffic. Hence the need for KPIs. Key performance indicators are still the key to proper 2.0 analytics.
If there's no ROI- I'm not interested. It's just that ROI is different for "every" customer. At least for now, that's true. There are lots of baselines (I DO like that word) and plenty of standards that most are interested in looking at. Uniques Users is a great number. But actually, it really isn't. A car dealer is far more interested in unique users than a dude selling widgets in Wichita.
Most metrics are variable as far as relevancy. For that reason, I believe in a properly defined KPI is the wonderful combination of good quality metrics implemented against other quality metrics which define the success of the company. From a quality perspective, you could liken this to an NPS score.
I just got a phone call from Payless Shoes from "Nikki" who was kind enough to tell me about a sale on some shoe line I've never heard of. I instantly know a few things about that marketing message before I do anything about it. I know that this was one of about 5 phone calls I've received on my home phone number this week. Since it's a Vonage account, I'm not paying a lot for it, but everyone that I really want to talk to already has my cell number. Only a few of my daughter's friends still call the home number- otherwise, it's Nikki from Payless Shoes. I also know that I actually LIKE it because it's not a TV ad. No offense to my friends in TV. Here's the rest of what I know. If I watched more TV, I probably would have known the brand name of shoes that Nikki wants me to buy.
Actually- I also know that it's likely that I'll fast forward the commercials on my DVR.
So if there is a "number," what does that have to do with art? Well it's just that it's not always apparent what a company's ROI is not to mention their KPI. There's certainly science, but there's also ART. I bought some light bulbs from a company that sells light bulbs and a bunch of other weird stuff called Modern Danish. I found some cheap light bulbs, but I have no intention of ever buying anything else from them. Their ROI was probably good for me, but my lifetime value is pretty low. However, and on the other hand, I went to Old Navy's web site from an E-mail I'd been receiving for three months and finally decided to click on. I surfed around all over the place. I seriously doubt GAP was able to watch me all the way around my experience, but I certainly was influenced over time. I bought three shirts because they promoted themselves across the site so well, I couldn't decide against it. It wasn't as much about how I got there, but what I was willing to do once I got there. There's an element of branding there. I trusted them from the beginning.
With a thorough understanding of the desired results, it's possible to understand the difference. After I bought three things online, I also visited the store because everything arrived as it was supposed to and I was exposed to additional advertising. Interactive marketing fits together with all real and pure marketing efforts but unfortunately, too few marketers really understand that. It's not all science...there's art there too.
I have noticed the growing demand for better ROI. When I was selling billboards, the main request of customers was better proof that their advertising messages were being absorbed by the audience that was being exposed to their messages. The metric most useful is DEC or Daily Effective Circulation and here's the thing- it's a GREAT metric. The number of people who are able to see your message is a nice number especially when you compare the CPM to other forms of media. I recently discoverd the hard way that it's important for me to work for a company where the CEO and VP of Operations understands that CPM is actually cost per thousand- not cost per million. In fact, I think it's more important than ever for start ups from "tool" companies to ad networks- it's now possible to deal with people who understand marketing and advertising and still can figure out how to run a business.
So- from Out of Home to Interactive- each time, the need and the desire are the same. Customers what to know how much money their marketing and advertising is MAKING them. The kinds of numbers I get excited about is a 300% increase in SEO traffic from 3-6 months work. But even then, I have more questions to ask about the quality of that traffic. Hence the need for KPIs. Key performance indicators are still the key to proper 2.0 analytics.
If there's no ROI- I'm not interested. It's just that ROI is different for "every" customer. At least for now, that's true. There are lots of baselines (I DO like that word) and plenty of standards that most are interested in looking at. Uniques Users is a great number. But actually, it really isn't. A car dealer is far more interested in unique users than a dude selling widgets in Wichita.
Most metrics are variable as far as relevancy. For that reason, I believe in a properly defined KPI is the wonderful combination of good quality metrics implemented against other quality metrics which define the success of the company. From a quality perspective, you could liken this to an NPS score.
I just got a phone call from Payless Shoes from "Nikki" who was kind enough to tell me about a sale on some shoe line I've never heard of. I instantly know a few things about that marketing message before I do anything about it. I know that this was one of about 5 phone calls I've received on my home phone number this week. Since it's a Vonage account, I'm not paying a lot for it, but everyone that I really want to talk to already has my cell number. Only a few of my daughter's friends still call the home number- otherwise, it's Nikki from Payless Shoes. I also know that I actually LIKE it because it's not a TV ad. No offense to my friends in TV. Here's the rest of what I know. If I watched more TV, I probably would have known the brand name of shoes that Nikki wants me to buy.
Actually- I also know that it's likely that I'll fast forward the commercials on my DVR.
So if there is a "number," what does that have to do with art? Well it's just that it's not always apparent what a company's ROI is not to mention their KPI. There's certainly science, but there's also ART. I bought some light bulbs from a company that sells light bulbs and a bunch of other weird stuff called Modern Danish. I found some cheap light bulbs, but I have no intention of ever buying anything else from them. Their ROI was probably good for me, but my lifetime value is pretty low. However, and on the other hand, I went to Old Navy's web site from an E-mail I'd been receiving for three months and finally decided to click on. I surfed around all over the place. I seriously doubt GAP was able to watch me all the way around my experience, but I certainly was influenced over time. I bought three shirts because they promoted themselves across the site so well, I couldn't decide against it. It wasn't as much about how I got there, but what I was willing to do once I got there. There's an element of branding there. I trusted them from the beginning.
With a thorough understanding of the desired results, it's possible to understand the difference. After I bought three things online, I also visited the store because everything arrived as it was supposed to and I was exposed to additional advertising. Interactive marketing fits together with all real and pure marketing efforts but unfortunately, too few marketers really understand that. It's not all science...there's art there too.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
When enough is enough
I've been in the analytics business for several years now and have silently become a product expert. I decided to begin to voice my opinions and share some tricks with the internet community. I have extensive knowledge to share regarding the best and worst of analytics methodology and pitfalls. Along the way, I've seen and heard a lot of brilliant ideas along with some real hog wash. I hope to expose both over time.
Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon I've seen has been the shift first toward comprehensive data proliferation and the search for the most "complete" tools possible (aka Omniture) and back to more specialized solutions focused on niche areas like PPC Bid Management, E-mail, Social, and SEO. What is a businessman to do? IT still needs "Stats" and Marketing guys and gals still need actionable ROI information. So when is enough information enough for a business to stop searching for more data and when can we start doing stuff.
The concept of a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) has been talked about for the past few years. Most businesses have one, but it's rare that the best one is easy enough to spot. The best ones are typically pretty intuitive. It seems that some analysts want to complcate the process of defining a KPI in an effort to find that Holy Grail metric that will save the world. Find one an move on already. Too much data will cause analysis paralysis.
With so many tools available, which ones should a marketer use? I've learned as much about this topic in my own workshop. I am always and forever searching for the best ways to complete my projects. I own lots of tools that I've collected over time. But every time I get a new tool, I can't figure out how I ever lived without it. I'm not always the most proficient practitioner with each tool, but typically spend enough time experimenting to be able to handle the most important features. In many cases, another tool may be able to get the job done, but depending on my desired outcome, I may want to save time, make a smoother cut, measure more precisely or handle repetitive tasks in simpler steps. Not too big a stretch to keep this analogy going.
My budget doesn't always allow me to just buy every tool out there and so it is in business. I had a rule that I'd follow pretty closely in my workshop. When I begin a new project, I'd first make a reasonable attempt to get the job done with the tools I have. If it seems unlikely that I can or if it seems I'd save a considerable amount of time, effort, etc. with a new tool in my belt, it would be time to evaluate. One of the most frustrating experiences is when there are tools available that I'd never seen before and therefore could not possibly have decided to buy.
The analogy does break down in a couple of important ways. In my workshop, I'm usually a committee of one- maybe two depending on the cost of the tool. In analytics, it's rare that a new tool or a new metric can be implemented by one person. Also- when I buy a new tool, I usually just unpack it and plug it in. The process of implementing analytics is rarely as straight forward. Javascript implementation is commonly WAY to complicated. Most WA 1.0 applications still require customizing code aka "evars" parameters, etc.
In some cases, the need for a new tool is not readily apparant. While there are certain tools that solve common problems, there are even some tools that solve problems business people either didn't know existed or that they were so used to not being able to solve, they stopped trying.
Look around- you're likely to be surprised.
Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon I've seen has been the shift first toward comprehensive data proliferation and the search for the most "complete" tools possible (aka Omniture) and back to more specialized solutions focused on niche areas like PPC Bid Management, E-mail, Social, and SEO. What is a businessman to do? IT still needs "Stats" and Marketing guys and gals still need actionable ROI information. So when is enough information enough for a business to stop searching for more data and when can we start doing stuff.
The concept of a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) has been talked about for the past few years. Most businesses have one, but it's rare that the best one is easy enough to spot. The best ones are typically pretty intuitive. It seems that some analysts want to complcate the process of defining a KPI in an effort to find that Holy Grail metric that will save the world. Find one an move on already. Too much data will cause analysis paralysis.
With so many tools available, which ones should a marketer use? I've learned as much about this topic in my own workshop. I am always and forever searching for the best ways to complete my projects. I own lots of tools that I've collected over time. But every time I get a new tool, I can't figure out how I ever lived without it. I'm not always the most proficient practitioner with each tool, but typically spend enough time experimenting to be able to handle the most important features. In many cases, another tool may be able to get the job done, but depending on my desired outcome, I may want to save time, make a smoother cut, measure more precisely or handle repetitive tasks in simpler steps. Not too big a stretch to keep this analogy going.
My budget doesn't always allow me to just buy every tool out there and so it is in business. I had a rule that I'd follow pretty closely in my workshop. When I begin a new project, I'd first make a reasonable attempt to get the job done with the tools I have. If it seems unlikely that I can or if it seems I'd save a considerable amount of time, effort, etc. with a new tool in my belt, it would be time to evaluate. One of the most frustrating experiences is when there are tools available that I'd never seen before and therefore could not possibly have decided to buy.
The analogy does break down in a couple of important ways. In my workshop, I'm usually a committee of one- maybe two depending on the cost of the tool. In analytics, it's rare that a new tool or a new metric can be implemented by one person. Also- when I buy a new tool, I usually just unpack it and plug it in. The process of implementing analytics is rarely as straight forward. Javascript implementation is commonly WAY to complicated. Most WA 1.0 applications still require customizing code aka "evars" parameters, etc.
In some cases, the need for a new tool is not readily apparant. While there are certain tools that solve common problems, there are even some tools that solve problems business people either didn't know existed or that they were so used to not being able to solve, they stopped trying.
Look around- you're likely to be surprised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)