Archive for the ‘Content Marketing’ Category
The High Cost of Facebook PPC
12 Mar 2010
by Timothy Nolan
Recently there has been a large social media push within the world of marketing. Companies are flocking to Facebook and Twitter trying to interact with their customers where they reside, virtually speaking. They are doing this and doing it for great reasons. They can provide customer service, repair damaged company image, gain useful knowledge about products they intend to rollout, find out what products their clients want to see, etc, etc. However, there is a dark side to the benefit.
As an Analytics, SEO and PPC specialist, I am often confronted with measurement dilemmas. Facebook PPC is one of those dilemmas. In my trials and tribulations, I have discovered that the reporting on Facebook is not nearly robust enough to get accurate and in-depth information from people clicking on the ads. When a visitor encounters an ad, they have two options, clicking on the title of the ad or clicking the “Become a Fan” button (depending on the type of ad). When the user clicks the “Become a Fan” button, they are automatically registered as a fan of the respective fan page. However, if they click the ad title, they are taken to the fan page where they then have the option to fan the page or not. The company is charged for a click for either option the user chooses. Facebook does not distinguish between these two options.
Facebook "Fan" Ad
So let’s see, if someone were to click on the title of the ad, arrives on the fan page and then fans it, Facebook does register click. But if someone clicks on the title of the ad, arrives on the fan page and leaves, Facebook also registers this as a click. This is where the reporting becomes an issue. Organizations are charged for a click on the ad for both scenarios but Facebook does not differentiate the two. Thus a click on the ad does not equate to a new fan. This would normally be fine, but the only way to find out if a fan was added is by checking the wall on the fan page.
While conversions may be lost in any PPC campaign that is run, the reporting for most (if not all) sites gives a distinction between who converted and who didn’t. Facebook does not offer this distinction. In the digital world where everything can be measured, where is Facebook and why are they light years behind? When offering solutions for businesses to gain access to their consumers, wouldn’t you think Facebook would ensure that the metrics can be easily measured and relayed? This is the cutting edge of business-consumer interaction and yet we seem to be stuck in 2004. Facebook needs to get its act together especially when it is offering business solutions. And though the cost per click on Facebook is relatively low, the cost of a lack of knowledge is growing exponentially.
Marketing (Online) Matters
13 Jan 2010
by Michelle O'Hagan
In case there’s still anyone out there who believes social media/social networking is:
- a fad
- for kids
- for B2C, not B2B
instead of a pervasive shift in how all people communicate with each other, now comes yet another eMarketer report, Social Network Ad Spending: 2010 Outlook , that should put those beliefs out to pasture.
One of the most important findings concerns marketing, not advertising:
According to eMarketer:
“… paid advertising in social networks—banners, text ads and search advertising, as well as the more targeted advertising being deployed by Facebook and MySpace—is only a fraction of the spending … The researcher estimated marketers spent $800 million in 2009 on social network, word-of-mouth and conversational marketing, up more than 23% over the previous year. Further growth of 35% is expected for 2010 to more than $1 billion.”
Long story short: Marketers are spending truckloads of money to create demand online in social networks, because that’s where their prospects (consumers and business people of all ages and walks of life ) are.
Demand creation using social media and social networks is no fad, and it is not exclusive to any particular demographic.
Things are looking up. 
Google Adword Optimization
3 Nov 2009
by Timothy Nolan
Google Adwords: Quick Glance
“Ah ha! I found you!” Like children playing hide-and-go-seek, individuals searching on Google want to be able to find what they are looking for right away. This usually means in organic search and search engine optimization (SEO) to be in the top three results. And everyone is gunning for that number one spot.
But when individuals are looking to make purchases or get information they need quickly, they tend to draw their eyes to the right side of the page on Google (in case you were wondering that is the “Sponsored Links” location). Interestingly enough, many top Google Adwords professionals will tell you that being the top or even the second link will harm your chances of conversion. Whether or not you believe it, you are actually able to save money and generate greater conversions.
How and why does that happen you ask? Well simply put, when people see the top sponsored links on Google, they tend to be of lower quality traffic – more reactive than educated. When it comes to some keywords, being between the third and fifth spots can save large amounts of capital in ad positioning. And this doesn’t include the fact that when someone does click your ad you will have a higher opportunity of converting.
Adwords to Organic
Getting back on the topic of organic SEO, keywords used in Google Adwords campaigns could definitely assist in the site side optimization (SSO). This is a great way to find out which words will bring the most relevance to your website.
Ranking Optimization
Here’s how to optimize Google Adwords rankings:
1. Keyword selection
2. Ad placement between 3 and 5
3. Landing Page optimization (SSO)
4. Test, test, test the ads and then test again
These are just a few simple tasks that can be used to optimize your Google Adwords Campaign. As far as that number one spot organically, well that is a discussion all its own – check back with me on that…
Google Adwords: The Conversion Comes First
20 Oct 2009
by Timothy Nolan
It may sound like a “Captain Obvious” statement, but when developing a Google Adwords campaign (or any online marketing strategy for that matter) it is essential to create goals and define conversions, for the following reasons:
1. Analytics: Meaning and Purpose
When looking at trends and analyzing data for an internal site or external client, the numbers mean nothing without context (a conversion rate). I have been looking through some of the campaigns for a major client. The numbers themselves seem to be moving in a positive direction, but without an identified end result I have no way of interpreting any of the trends.
2. Keyword Success
Perhaps you have been looking at your Adwords campaign thinking, “How can I ever increase these numbers?” It is much easier to analyze data that already exists. With goals, funnels, and conversion rates established, it is easy to tweak and test new ad groups against the current successful ones. By establishing goal conversions you can notice keyword success and decrease costs.
3. Visitors vs. Clients
Just as an established sales cycle helps companies close sales quicker, studying conversion rates is the key to quickly turning clicks into revenue streams. The conversion “ding” in your Analytics account will help to identify where that individual came from, what they looked at, and how they ended up converting. Now you can use that information to gain insights into what visitors are thinking.
Conversions Defined
Each one of these can be defined as a conversion:
- Download
- Purchase
- Sign-up/Subscribe
- View of a video(s)
- Click-thru
Don’t forget the landing page(s). A customized landing page and a prominent call to action makes it more likely visitors will follow your Reese’s Pieces (had to have an “E.T.” reference) to the end. But whatever the case may be, make sure that the goals are set on your end, and the path is illuminated on theirs.
The Magazine Business Really is Just Business
19 Oct 2009
by Michelle O'Hagan
This week, Advertising Age magazine’s cover story, The A-List, includes 10 magazines that “reach beyond the printed page to build a future as finely honed media brands.” The big winner: Women’s Health.
The article was an eye-opener for me because, although I’ve read all of the magazines on the list, I was wholly unaware of the fact that every one of them has become its own cross-selling empire. To be included on the list, a magazine must be operate as a brand, which may include the following:
smart licensing moves
becoming retailers in their own right
creating revenue-generating digital content
building smart cross-media content and ad platforms
finding a way to engage and monetize their communities
Whew! Even one of those things, (say, creating revenue-generating digital content) can be really, really difficult. And it goes to show that the magazine business is not really about magazines anymore: it’s about business.
It’s worth noting that every one of these publications has an intense editorial and creative focus on its readers. National Geographic isn’t trying to convert the FHM demo; National Geographic continues to excel at delighting a core constituency. It’s mission: exploration and conservation and bringing the wonders of the planet to people.
But, I’d guess that each of the magazines on the list has as many (or more) staffers dedicated to biz dev, technology, measurement and analysis as they do for editorial and design. It takes constant measurement and analysis to know if and when something is working, and to know when to adjust or pull the plug if something is not working.
National Geographic, according to the article, has more than 550,000 Facebook fans, 20,000 Twitter fans, and more than 190,000 YouTube subscribers. It also has ancillary publications, (”Adventure” and “Traveler”) and a cable television station. Think about what that means for measurement and analysis.
Consumers expect to be able to access to their favorite content in numerous delivery channels. They also expect content providers to reach out to them where they live (Facebook, Twitter, cable channels, iPhone apps).
And now, a question: Will it ever make sense again, in any circumstance, to start a new magazine on its own, without an integrated marketing plan that includes numerous content delivery channels? I can’t see it.
The Great Non-Debate: Print and Digital
24 Aug 2009
by Michelle O'Hagan
The non-debate rages on I suppose. That would be the one about which is better / more meaningful / more useful / prettier / more creative / more portable / easier to read with your morning cup of coffee … Print or Digital. <sigh>
Really, are we still having this conversation? Shouldn’t we be worried about creating excellent content and delivering it in the way in which our audience wants to consume it?
Earlier today, I was pointed toward a FOLIO: blog post titled The Reverse Transition From Digital to Print which envisioned a world that was newly enamored with “slowness,” “paper records” and “recyclable paper” in lieu of an overwhelming number of channels, data farms and silicon chips. The author proceeded to describe all of the lovely things about printed material, including the feeling of a “personal connection,” “beautiful packaging” and “tighter circles of friends” (imagining, I suppose that we’d all be tighter if everyone would just get over that Facebook thing, already).
As I read, I was thinking two things:
- There probably was something great about washboards, too (Meaningful conversations on the front porch while scrubbing those knickers? All that water we could save?) but there won’t be a movement away from our front-loading washers and dryers any time soon.
- Why was the author writing an entire blog post about this imagined “reverse transition” without making the most important point: the business case ($$$) for it?
Well, it turns out, he wasn’t. FOLIO: ran only the first half of his post. The rest of the article was accessible via a “click here” link at the bottom of the post. To summarize, the second half of the post points out what would be lost in such a transition and concludes:
However, I can’t help but feel that a reverse transition from web to print would seem a bit like Big Brother was taking over; that citizens are given beautiful print packages at the expense of freedom of information, connection and creativity. It would give more control to fewer people – allowing them to decide what is good enough for the masses. It would not by any means be overt censorship, but rather, the hoarding of power to the limited space available in an expensive world of print products and distribution channels.
Why are we still talking about this? Certainly digital content, and the business models that go along with it, will prosper. But print isn’t going anywhere either, though print opportunities are not as ubiquitous as they once were.
The most important thing is delivering content in a way in which your audience wants to consume it. Might be print, might be digital. But that’s up to them. Your readers, I mean.
The SEO Value of the Wikipedia
21 Aug 2009
by Jonathan Thomas
There is none.
But that doesn’t make links from Wikipedia worthless.
First, let me explain why Wikipedia links have no SEO value. Wikipedia has one of the highest pageranks you can get – it’s usually at the top of the search results for anything located in it’s massive database.
Because of this, Wikipedia is well aware that it would not take long for people to start gaming Wikipedia for free high quality backlinks since anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. So, to make sure no one abuses external links on Wikipedia, all external links are no-follow – meaning they are not counted as links by the search engine spiders.
You can add all the links you want to Wikipedia, but it will not help your pagerank in anyway.
However, just because they are not counted as backlinks, does not mean that they aren’t valuable.
Including links in the Wikipedia is a good, old fashioned marketing strategy. Look at it this way. Since most people are likely to read a Wikipedia article about a particular subject, they’re more likely to click relevant links related to that article. So, don’t you want to make sure your links are there for people to find?
To give you an example, on my personal blog Anglotopia – which is a blog dedicated to the Anglophile audience, I wanted to generate more traffic for the generic term Anglophile. If you search for ‘anglophile’ in Google, the Wikipedia definition is first. I went to the page, edited it and added a few relevant Anglophile websites, with mine at the top.
I now get a few high quality hits a day from that very Wikipedia article. I may not be getting any SEO link juice, but I’m at least getting some great traffic.
Now, generally it can be a little difficult to edit a Wikipedia article, especially if it’s moderated by a lot of people. Your edits/links may get rejected. I’ve found it just take a little persistence and it’s important to add value to a Wikipedia article, not just spam it with links.
So, go out there are find a relevant Wikipedia article and experiment with adding a link to your website. Watch your analytics reports and see what happens.
Marketing to “Profitable Loyals”
22 Jun 2009
by Michelle O'Hagan
Why a Loyal Customer isn’t Always a Profitable One, an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, posits:
To be considered loyal, it shouldn’t be enough for a customers to feel a bond to a company, or to simply stick with the relationship. It should also require certain actions, or shopping behaviors, on the part of the customer.
In other words, loyalty and profitability are not synonymous: The proper target audience for any marketer should be those customers who actually are profitable, not just customers who visit your site often or who may have warm feelings toward your product or service.
Assuming this is true, questions arise. How do marketers encourage clients or customers to become “Profitable Loyals” and against what benchmarks or metrics are those PLs measured?
I’d argue that once a marketer can accurately label their own PLs and set benchmarks and metrics around them, it is easier for business development to target clients who may, indeed, become PLs.
Thoughts?
