Biznology Blog: August 2007
« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »
August 17, 2007
See You In September
I am taking two weeks off—I won't be back in the saddle until September 4, the day after the U.S. Labor Day holiday. On that day, I will post my September Biznology newsletter and get back into the blogging groove again. This seemed a good time for my to reflect on what blogging has meant to me.
I started with a monthly e-mail newsletter a few years back and later started blogging. At first, I would never have to announce that I was taking a break from blogging, because there were so many days between posts. It's just this year that I've begun to post daily and thus need to explain an extended absence.
I've always enjoyed writing the newsletter and there are time when that longer form still feels right to me when I am exploring an idea, but I have found more and more that I have moved to where most bloggers seem to eventually go—shorter, more frequent posts. My newsletter helps me write, but I find the blog helps me listen also—I frequently learn from the comments left.
And the regular writing has also helped in other ways. The new book I have coming out next month was worked out in large measure through my blog. Readers of my blog won't feel as though they've seen my book already, but they will notice some ideas that seem familiar, and several stories that they first heard on my blog. I really appreciate people's feedback on my ideas—it made my book better.
I know not every author works this way. In fact, I actually got the advice that I should "take a break" from my blog in the few months before my book appears, because some believe that books sell less when the author blogs—the theory is that readers already feel like they know what a blogger will have to say.
But I felt like it's worthwhile for me to keep talking. I have lots of stuff in the book that I have never blogged about, and I have many things I am writing about now that aren't in the book—perhaps they'll be in my next book (God willing).
So this seems like a great time for me to thank you, my most loyal readers. I appreciate the fact that you take the time to read what I have to say and to comment on it. I'm going to take a couple of weeks to hang out with my wife and my four kids and come back recharged. See you in September.
Posted by mikemoran at 4:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 16, 2007
Specializing and the Dip
The other day, I wrote about how small businesses must specialize to succeed on the Web. Today, I read Seth Godin say it a lot better than I did. I haven't read The Dip
Here is an excerpt from Seth's short post:
If you're doing your best, only your AYSO soccer coach cares. If you're the best in the world, the market cares. The secret, if you have limited resources (don't we all) is to make 'world' small enough that you can actually accomplish that.
That's what I was trying to say the other day.
When you compete on the Web, you find that you can reach everyone but all your competitors can, too. And switching costs are minuscule. So, if your small business has always made money because you are the only one in town, you are living off proximity, not uniqueness. On the Web, every store is equally close to your customer, so you need to find some other way to compete.
Doing what everyone else did used to work because your store was closer than the others. Now, what is your differentiator? No what are you the best at? It's not "closest." You need a new "est." Cheapest? Trendiest? Fastest? What's your "est"?
Posted by mikemoran at 5:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 15, 2007
How Do We Do Technology Quickly?
It's one thing to exhort people to do it wrong quickly. It's quite another to tell them how. And one of the toughest things for us to do quickly is technology—most folks I speak with lament over their inability to make changes to their technology infrastructure when they need them. (Even the word "infrastructure" sounds like this permanent and unchangeable edifice.) So how can you do technology wrong quickly?
The first problem is the technologists themselves. (I can say that because I am a resident propeller head myself.) Most technologists are the deliberative type. They want to understand all of your requirements and then write a book describing how they'll address them. Then they deliver exactly what they meant when they wrote the book, even if it takes nine months.
So what if everything has changed during that time? Who cares if what they wrote down isn't what you meant? You get what they wrote down. (And you usually get it later than they promised.)
There is another way. Instead of the old way (which the geeks call waterfall development), you can use agile development—a way of developing technology that puts the marketer in control. But you need to be willing to roll up your sleeves and get into the details.
Agile development depends on setting very short schedules—sometimes just a week or two—to do very small improvements. And instead of writing everything down and going away for months, very little is written down—agile development is based on constant communication between marketers and technologists.
Can you scale down your needs to just the most important thing you want next? One that can be completed in a week or two? Do you think you can stand the work of answering every little question the technologist has day after day? Can you do it immediately as the question arises (not a day later)? Are you willing to look at every small change the technologist makes—perhaps several times a day—so you can give feedback that helps the technologist deliver what you really want?
If you're willing to work that way, you can join the technology team and really get control over what that team delivers. And you can orient the work towards small incremental changes that have measurable impact. In short, you can do technology wrong quickly.
Posted by mikemoran at 7:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 14, 2007
"I Want Search Marketing, Not Metrics"
Most of you know that I do a lot of teaching and speaking on the subject of search marketing, and that my approach is not what people expect. Yes, I know all the dials to turn and levers to pull. I can talk about robots.txt and Max CPC and latent semantic indexing and blah blah blah. But, honestly, it's not what most people need to know. The problem I sometimes find is that when you tell people what they need to know, they think it's not what they need.
She came up to me after I spoke and was quite clear: "I really came here to learn about search marketing, not metrics—none of this marketing metrics stuff applies to me."
I tried to be gracious about her point of view ("the customer is always right, the customers is always right...") but she's just not right. Search marketing is more about marketing than search.
If you don't know what your conversions are or you don't know what they are worth, or you don't know your conversion rate, then how do you know what it is worth to get a new visitor to come to your site? And if you don't know what each new visitor is worth, then how do you know what to spend on search marketing?
And if you don't know how well you are doing in search, or you can't peg each change in your approach to a change in response, then how do you know when you've plateaued? How do you know when you've done enough search marketing and you ought to turn your attention to something with more potential?
To me that is the problem with dealing with search in a vacuum instead of search as an integrated part of your marketing metrics. When you know the business value of what you are achieving, then you know how much to do and when to stop and do something else. Without that, you are in an endless spin of tweaking ad copy and optimizing titles and on and on—when all the while you may have reached diminishing returns and need to spend your time and money elsewhere for a while.
If you say to yourself that you are working on search optimization because you believe it will make you money, that's not a business, that's a religion. Instead, put search on the same footing as every other business decision and optimize your business instead of your search campaign.
Posted by mikemoran at 2:59 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 13, 2007
How Does a Small Business Compete?
There's a secret about Internet marketing. Some small businesses are ecstatic about their success on the Internet, but others can't seem to get any traction. I believe that one factor often separates the winners from the losers—focus.
The good news about the Internet is that it is very cheap to reach your target market. The problem is that it's cheap for everyone else, too.
So optimistic small businesses that said to themselves that now they can go nationwide or international or intergalactic sometimes succeeded, but at other times found they couldn't get a word in edgewise with all the other companies that had the same idea. Companies that they never competed with in the past now can compete with them.
So the popular search keywords are awash in competition. How do you sell digital cameras if everyone sells them? How do you attract searchers for that broad a term? If you need to land on the first page of search results to get sales, how do you do that as a small business?
Focus.
The small businesses that are succeeding are marketing very targeted offerings—extremely specialized products and services. That way, they take advantage of The Long Tail
But it means that you must specialize, you must focus on a niche. You can't just say, "We are a local bedding shop and we sell mattresses." So what? You must ask yourself some very hard questions about your business.
What is unique about your products? Or your business? Or the way you sell them? What is it that makes you better than everyone else for a certain specific target segment?
When you answer that question, you'll know how to market yourself on the Web. You'll know what that segment is looking for and you'll know how to attract them with the right message. It's not possible for a small business to really be good at everything—you need to know what you are uniquely better at—even if it is just a small segment that cares.
If you sell beds, do you solve sleep problems? Fashion problems? Allergy problems? What exactly do you do better than everyone else? If you tell me that you offer the same products people can get anywhere for the same low price they can find elsewhere, that is not a good answer. If you make vague promises about great customer service, that won't cut it.
A small business must specialize to succeed on the Web. What's your specialty?
Posted by mikemoran at 9:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 10, 2007
Skinflint Search Marketing
From the day I started my Web site years ago, one of the most popular features of the site has been my Skinflint's Guide to Search Marketing. As a person who himself is as cheap as they come, I've always valued free and low-cost tools and techniques. So if you're too cheap to even plunk down for our book, but you want to improve your search marketing efforts, have I got the place for you.
I've just updated the Skinflint's Guide to Search Marketing with a few more tools and added a whole new section on forecasting your search campaign, which features as free spreadsheet that projects the revenue you can expect from a new search marketing effort. I am hoping to add more skinflint guides over the next few weeks, but for now, let me know if you have any additions you think I should make to the one for search marketing.
Posted by mikemoran at 2:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 9, 2007
Web 2.0 and the CEO
George Colony of Forrester has a quick and interesting read for what he tells CEOs on Web 2.0 (free registration required). I agree with his points, but I think there are a few more to be made.
George does a good job confronting CEOs with the change in control—customers control you, not vice-versa. He also rightly points out that most Web sites are lousy.
In my new book, Do It Wrong Quickly, I also point out a few other things. First, it's not just about listening to what customers say (although that is important), it is also about watching what they do. One of the reasons that Web sites are lousy is that no one pays attention to where customers click, where they abandon, and whether they buy. By applying direct marketing principles for measuring and improving response, marketers find they immediately improve their Web site. By employing techniques such as multivariate testing, they often improve their response rates by 30% within a few months.
But it's not even about just listening and watching, it's about responding. How quickly can you change what you are doing when it's not working? Are you prepared to change your message, your offer, your products? The companies with this fast-response culture are the ones that are satisfying customers.
When I say "do it wrong quickly," I am not proposing that you try to do things the wrong way—I am getting you to admit that whatever we do is usually wrong. Our first try, no matter how well considered, is probably off the mark. We need to come to terms with this reality, listen to what customers say and do in reaction to what we do, and then do something else.
Marketing 2.0 is as much about paying attention as getting attention. That's the biggest change.
Posted by mikemoran at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 8, 2007
Interactive Marketing Growing Up?
For all those who keep waiting for Internet marketing to replace TV, there was an interesting story in eMarketer today that shows how insurance companies are using both TV and search as a one-two punch. eMarketer reported the results of several research firms and adds its own (correct) conclusions.
This fits entirely with what I hear from companies I speak with. Different industries will find their own marketing mixes—TV might not be part of every marketer's toolbox or it might be decreasing rather than expanding. But more and more, marketers are measuring response and tailoring their marketing mix to match.
Insurers, according to the eMarketer report, find that TV galvanizes people to take action by either directly entering a Web site address or performing a search. Because insurance is an information-intensive sale, it makes sense that people would want to explore Web information before dialing up an insurance salesman on the phone.
Interactive marketing doesn't mean the end of TV advertising. It means that marketers have a new choice for where to spend their money. Companies using multiple media channels must carefully allocate their responses to learn their optimal marketing mix.
Some companies are using matchback tools that employ formulas to correctly allocate credit, but even then, there are some that find that matchback tools must be carefully configured to ensure that they provide results across channels to really help your brand.
Others employ simple mechanisms that are effective. For example, E-LOAN credits sales made for searches for their brand name to TV, but sales made for more generic search terms to its search marketing campaign. Similarly, you must correctly credit sales to the most important marketing trigger to calibrate the right investment in each medium.
Video may have killed the radio star, but TV advertising didn't kill radio or print advertising. The Internet won't kill any of it either. Interactive marketing gives us one more choice for our marketing budget that we must use in concert with other marketing to achieve maximum effect.
Posted by mikemoran at 3:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 7, 2007
Do It Wrong Social Media
Today we reveal the winner of our latest contest to provide Do It Wrong Quickly case studies. Jerry Saveriano submitted a fact-filled story on behalf of a client that launched a social media marketing campaign in record time. Take a peek at our winning success story, Social Media Marketing the Quick Way.
While you are here, you can also check out our other case studies—I'd like to have a lot more. If you've got a story to tell, I want to hear it. Send in your Do It Wrong Quickly case study and you might win a free copy of my book.
Posted by mikemoran at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 6, 2007
A "Do It Wrong" Survey
Today we reveal our second-place finisher for the latest Do It Wrong Quickly contest, contributed by an entrant who would prefer to remain anonymous. It shows how even the most straightforward idea can sometimes run into organizational resistance. Check out a "Do It Wrong" Survey.
Posted by mikemoran at 7:16 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 3, 2007
Search Marketing, the "Wrong" Way
I'm pleased to announce Anna Green as our third-place winner in the latest Do It Wrong Quickly case study contest. Take a look yourself at her story of getting Web pages indexed for search. She did it wrong quickly.
Posted by mikemoran at 5:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 2, 2007
How Many Social Networks?
I've just joined Social Media Committee from the Web Analytics Association. and Marianina Chaplin threw out a great question to the group today on whether Facebook has become the most influential social media network. I have such conflicting feelings about my personal use of social networks that I thought I would post them as my blog today.
The answer to Marianina's question is, "Yes, I think Facebook is the most influential." But I don't know that because I use them all and have a strong opinion. I just read everyone else's opinions and see who I agree with.
I know I am supposed to be an expert on social media marketing—I speak about it a lot—but I have not personally spent a lot of time with social networks in particular.
I haven't yet joined Facebook (it's on my list) but I think it's the hottest place out there for businesses at the moment. I am in Linked In, but spend little time enhancing my standing—mostly just accepting the invitations of others. I, like many of us, am struggling with the idea of what kind of time is required to be in multiple social networks. I know it won't take long to set up a Facebook presence, but I am wary of how many different networks I "should" be in and how much time it sucks from my already busy days. Are there others like me that are concerned about the drip-drip-drip time drain of all this different stuff? Facebook is probably exactly the wrong example because it may be abundantly clear to most of you that I should be hanging out there if I do anything in social networking. But it occurs to me that I don't have a clear thought process around which ones deserve my time and which ones don't.
And I think I should. I'm really busy in the next few weeks upgrading my Web site to get ready for my new book coming out, but I feel like I should somehow go further than Linked In in terms of social networking. I wonder if there are others like me that maybe know that social networks are important but haven't yet taken the time to really exploit enough of them to be getting value from them.
So maybe I am not much of an expert here. I think it is easier to talk and write about stuff sometimes than to actually live it. My technology roots probably make me less comfortable with that than most people, so I am sure I will be dabbling in Facebook soon. But what about the next hot one that comes along? Each opportunity seems valuable in and of itself, but the crush of all of them adding up over time makes me wonder.
Posted by mikemoran at 11:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 1, 2007
Where Does Experimentation Work Best?
Most of you know that I have been hammering away at the idea that interactive marketing's best approach is to "do it wrong quickly" but Seth Godin has a post that talks about an aspect of experimental marketing that I had never considered before.
Seth tells the story of the marine iguana, who adapted to living in shallow water. Seth argues that the adaptation was successful because the iguana had an environment that afforded the time for the change to take place. He then explains to marketers that you need a quiet market, not a hot one, to experiment.
I think that's a brilliant point. I've been exhorting folks to experiment, to do it wrong quickly, and it is working, but maybe it is working because we are still in the early days of interactive marketing. As best practices emerge, it makes sense that experimentation gets harder because more competitors have more experience and more learning—it's not a green field any more.
Luckily, I think we are at least several years away from that in Internet marketing, but Seth's point still stands. Perhaps the best places within your portfolio to experiment are ones where you are sure your competitors are still asleep instead of in hotly contested markets where your competitors respond to your every move.
Posted by mikemoran at 3:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Feed Your Search Marketing
If you're using a blog reader to view this post, you received a Web feed to do it. Find out how to use Web feeds to turbocharge your search marketing in this month's Biznology newsletter, Feed Your Search Marketing.
Posted by mikemoran at 3:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Subscribe to daily feed
Subscribe to daily e-mail
