Marketing Pilgrim Published: “Study Shows Simplicity Is Top Customer Preference” plus 4 more |  |
- Study Shows Simplicity Is Top Customer Preference
- Don’t Count Out LivingSocial As It Buys Majority Stake In European Deal Site
- TechCrunch, Engadget and AOL: Great Theater, Great Dysfunction or Both?
- Time Inc. Merges Print and Digital Sales Units
- Scribed Opens to Ads Aimed at an Intelligent, Affluent Audience
| Study Shows Simplicity Is Top Customer Preference Posted: 13 Jan 2011 06:07 AM PST It looks like the online space may have pushed the envelope just far enough with logins, memberships and requirements that the customer is pushing back. As a result companies and agencies alike are listening. Or at least they say they are in a survey conducted by Econsultancy, the 2011 Customer Engagement Report 2011 (Study for purchase here. Marketing Pilgrim receives no compensation for sales of report). According to both companies and agencies surveyed, simplicity is the most important customer attitude regarding marketing to them. Please note that the majority of the respondents are in the UK followed by the rest of Europe then North America. The chart below is from the companies point of view. Of note, agencies had 61% reporting it as most important consideration.
As we move forward in the Internet marketing and social media space simple does indeed seem to be a constant mantra. Facebook's possible Achilles' Heel is just how convoluted and poorly explained most of its features really are. Marketers fight through the less than clear pathways to get to the answers but most regular folks don't. If something simpler came along would there be enough momentum for people to jump ship? Interesting to think about isn’t it? One other rather interesting result from the survey, which is quite interesting all the way through, is the continued disparity between companies and agencies regarding certain subjects. Agencies tend to side with the "everything is rainbows and unicorns that fart butterflies" camp while companies themselves see things differently. Note the following numbers regarding the importance of online customer engagement to companies. From the companies’ point of view, it actually dropped!
The agencies however see it differently in their fee driven world.
Does this mean some of the shine is coming off the online interaction apple? Maybe but not likely. However, it is something to watch moving forward. As the hype from the online industry gets exposed as such, more and more companies will be taking a real look at how they engage online rather than just taking the agency and industry bait hook, line and sinker. It's at that point in the maturation of the industry that the real innovation will take place. Once you can't trick someone into believing that something is good for them you have to rely on that nasty thing called reality and make what is done fit neatly within it. Gee, what a bummer, huh?
|
| Don’t Count Out LivingSocial As It Buys Majority Stake In European Deal Site Posted: 13 Jan 2011 04:54 AM PST
Every space, however, has its initial competitors that put up a fight for a piece of the pie. In the case of location based services, Foursquare has (or better said had?) Gowalla to push them. In search, there is Ya-Bing trying to play the well-funded David to Google's Goliath. In social there is Facebook and….well, forget social. So anyway, in the online deal space LivingSocial is trying to stay in the game against Groupon. They have received a healthy $183 million investment themselves and it appears they are putting it to use. Over at TechCrunch we learn
Note: I left in Robin Wauter's ‘editorial comment’ because it made me laugh. This is not the only move that LivingSocial has made and if you are a subscriber to their service you may have noticed their attempt to differentiate themselves from Groupon by having different types of deals through different 'deal 'channels' including LivingSocial Escapes (from purchase of Urban Escapes), LivingSocial Family Edition and Campus Deals. On the infrastructure side, the new group that LivingSocial holds the majority stake in has 200 employees and offices in Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia, Rome, Milan, Lisbon, Buenos Aires and Mexico. They offer daily deals on gourmet dinners and other higher end activities. All of this makes for some interesting times in the online deals space. Many have given the vertical's crown to Groupon because they have the infrastructure and have garnered the most press of any other player in the increasingly fragmented space by far. Others are trying to poke holes in their model saying that it is easily replicated but the scale issue is a tough nut to crack for sure. All the while LivingSocial is putting up impressive numbers. Started in 2007 and projected to do $500 million in 2011. That's no small feat. It's worth everyone's while to give them serious consideration for use in addition to Groupon because most would say that if Groupon becomes the Google of the online deal space that would be bad. Of course, I didn't even mention Google as a competitor in this space which is an idea tossed around a bit as well. So how do you see this space moving forward? Does LivingSocial have a chance?
|
| TechCrunch, Engadget and AOL: Great Theater, Great Dysfunction or Both? Posted: 13 Jan 2011 03:59 AM PST
In other parts of the blogging world there is a lot of discord these days. On once such stage the main players are AOL, TechCrunch, Engadget and The Business Insider. The first three are part of a blended family whose parent (AOL) brought together two warring tech blog giants in TechCrunch and Engadget. They live under the same roof like the Brady Bunch did but rather than goofy family hijinks that end up in a group hug, these two ½ siblings co-exist with each other with an undercurrent of vitriol and loathing that is usually reserved for extremists in the political sphere. The leader of TechCrunch is Michael Arrington, who is well known for controversy in the tech world, and the Engadget crowd is led by Editor-in-chief, Joshua Topolsky. Enter The Business Insider. The Business Insider is hugely successful and covers all things business. The site’s founder, Henry Blodget, was barred from the securities industry following a conviction of securities fraud. As evidenced by a post yesterday on its Silicon Alley Insider blog it is not afraid of stirring a rather volatile pot over at the AOL offices.
The tweet heard round the tech blogging world read as follows according to the Business Insider.
Couple that opening salvo with a picture of Arrington flipping the bird as the centerpiece of the post and you can pretty much figure out where this is headed. Well, it looks like it's 'go time' for these tech blogging monsters and it's shaping up to be quite a fight. The post itself is looking at Arrington's motives (could he be maneuvering for an earlier release and payout than the 3 year earnout he signed with with AOL las year?). The resulting comments section of the blog plays out like a late celebration of Festivus and its 'airing of grievances'. Arrington, Blodget and Topolsky all have something to say to and about each other. Arrington claims that his use of the term pathetic was directed at salescrunch (which TechCrunch is unhappy with obvious naming issues) and not AOL. The beauty and tragedy of the English language, especially in the online age, is that things are read and interpreted differently by different people. In this case, one man's descriptor pointed in one direction could also look like it was pointed in the other. We'll let you decide which is which in this case. What happens in the comment section though is REALLY interesting as the main players go public with their fight. It's kinda like a bar brawl that spills out into the street. Since it went so public more people have joined in and are willing to take a few swings. If you want the gory details you should check it out for yourself because there is more than we can cover here. So back to my original question. Is this genuine dysfunction or just theater that is designed to get attention and traffic? Is it even anything at all other than political maneuvering to get a desired result? In the online space we have to determine how we are to go about attracting people and getting them interested in our brand whether it's personal or corporate. We always talk about how content is the most important thing but a harsh lesson learned in 'solid' content marketing strategy and delivery is that there is considerable time and effort needed over a very long period of time to see that content have a real impact. Controversy and general 'bad boy' behaviors get attention in the online space and lots of it (The online industry would be a great venue for a very weird reality show that would have everyone scratching their heads about what goes on). Most brand marketers, however, don't have the luxury of controversy creating interest because brands don't like controversy or surprises. Oh and it can get you arrested! So should we care at all about the behaviors of the Internet industry glitterati? Should there be any more attention like the Business Insider's post and posts like this to examine it or is this just a spectacular waste of regular people's time? Can we at least see how this space can be worked then apply it to our businesses? It's likely I have given this too much attention as it is but it's a question that Internet marketers are faced with every day. Where should I be putting my attention and what is it that will grab the attention of my target audience? Am I willing to be controversial even if I can't map out all of the possible ways such controversy can work for the good and the bad? And what about the online behavior of very prominent industry heavyweights like Arrington, Blodget and Topolsky? Is this how we are to conduct ourselves in the Internet age by taking the fight to the general public? Is this a positive outgrowth of our 'know everything about everyone' age or is this just the latest indicator that there are plenty of things that don't need to be done or said in public? What's your take?
|
| Time Inc. Merges Print and Digital Sales Units Posted: 12 Jan 2011 05:48 PM PST
Time Inc. has seen the writing on the wall and that’s why they decided to merge their print and digital sales unit into a new unit they call “Time Inc. Branded Solutions.” It’s a fancy name for a pretty simple idea – positioning your brand next to their brands without worrying about boundaries. Time Inc.’s brands cover entertainment, lifestyle, news and business. They currently own some of the most successful magazines such as Fortune, People, InStyle and Time. They also operate several powerhouse websites including EW.com, SI.com and MyRecipes.com. But what exactly does this merger mean for advertisers? If it simply means that now you call one phone number instead of two in order to buy ads, that’s a shame. Hopefully what it means is that they’re actually working on making connections between online and offline, using print ad QR codes to drive readers to the web, using websites to alert readers of a print coupon in a magazine. The reality is, we’ve only barely begun to explore the options. Print ads that turn into iPhone videos, book excerpts that turn into a downloaded ebook. How about TV show reviews that program your DVR for you. Just think of the millions of ways magazine pages can interact with web pages and mobile apps. To get there, we have to stop thinking about print versus digital and it sounds like Time Inc. is headed in the right direction. How would you combine print and digital to create the ultimate advertising experience?
|
| Scribed Opens to Ads Aimed at an Intelligent, Affluent Audience Posted: 12 Jan 2011 03:43 PM PST
Scribd is an interesting animal that went from online document repository to social networking site with an emphasis on reading. Where it differs from a site like Good Reads, is that Scribd relies on its community members to upload everything from memos to magazines, ebooks and even school work. According to AdWeek, Scribd has 60 million unique users and several high profile members including The New York Times, Ford and Simon and Schuster. In the article, the Scribd audience is referred to as “professional, affluent and influential,” though it’s hard to tell if those words are the author’s or Hamm’s. It can be assumed that a site dedicated to reading attracts an intelligent user but affluent and influential, I’m not so sure. The trouble with Scribd, as with any site that relies on user-generated content, is that the content is uneven and often illegal. Sure there are rules that say you shouldn’t upload anything that violates copyright, but because of my interest in TV, my recommendations include two TV scripts and a selection of sides (script portions used for auditions) that were uploaded by fans. One of the most popular documents right now? Elizabeth Edwards’ will. Is that something you want to see next to an ad for your gourmet cookie shop? There are plenty of good things about Scribd and maybe having a robust ad network will help them separate the wheat from the illegal and unnecessary chaff. With more people reading books on some kind of portable device, Scribd is at the right place with its large collection of ebooks many of which are free. It’s also a good place to upload an ebook that promotes your business. So instead of investing in a sidebar box, maybe you’d be better off uploading your own materials. It’s free and those Google bots just love it.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar