| |
June 19th, 2009
I attended a webinar this week on the topic of Sales 2.0. Essentially it was about using some of the online tools we have to be more efficient in the prospecting and sales process. I also came across my first instance of the term ‘conversion marketing’, and the same day was asked about the impact of Web 2.0 on conversion strategy.
Now I appreciate the value of creating labels for things, it serves as a sort of short-hand, and allows us to convey a depth of meaning with only a few words. When Web 2.0 became commonly used, I just shrugged my shoulders, when Sales 2.0 came into use, I rolled my eyes. But at the point we have to label ‘conversion marketing’ I really have to draw the line.
Isn’t all marketing conversion marketing? Or if not, isn’t the old phrase ‘direct response marketing’ just as descriptive and useful as ‘conversion marketing’? Maybe we should go all the way and just call this Web 3.0!
I agree that there is somewhat of a void in the conversion space (just listen to me try to explain what I do for a living, to a neighbor or acquaintance), but I think the void is in understanding, not labels. Too few marketers and executives still ’settle’ for poor website performance, hiding behind industry average numbers (like 4-6% conversion rate), not even aware that a well implemented strategy can drive conversion rates well into the double digits.
If we’re gonna start a new bandwagon, then I’m all for it. Let’s beat the drum of a higher expectation from online lead generation. If that bandwagon needs a new label, like conversion marketing, then I suppose I’ll just bite my tongue as I beat the drum…
Posted in conversion | 1 Comment »
June 10th, 2009
If you don’t think Google is evil, this might change your mind! You think they collect and archive this data by accident?!
25 Things Google Knows about You…
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
June 9th, 2009
There’s a problem that I see often. Companies are looking for fast results, and are unwilling to see a strategy through to its conclusion. I see this in AdWords, when companies want to test new ads weekly, and want to turn off low performing keywords before there’s enough data to really get a picture of what’s happening. I also see this in split testing, when the desire to ‘call’ a result outweighs the rigor required for statistical validity.
I noticed yesterday that Google’s free split testing tool, Website Optimizer, suggests that each page variation have at least 100 conversions before a split test can be considered valid. So for an A-B-C test, you would need 300 conversions before declaring a winner. Even with a 10% conversion rate, you are talking about 3,000 impressions, which might take some sites months to gather.
When looking at AdWords I understand the need for faster (and perhaps more intuitive) decision making, but there is still a simple rule I use here. When looking at a keyword (or ad, etc) that I think might be a low performer, I ask the question, if the next two clicks on this keyword (or ad, or whatever) were both conversions, would I still consider this to be a poor performer? If the answer is yes, then I feel okay making the change, but if the answer is no, then it’s a clear indication that there’s simply not enough data for a good decision.
Inside AdWords, I also try to look at at least a month of data, preferably two months. I never look at a single day of data, there are just too many swings of results for that data to be useful.
So, c’mon web marketers, let’s develop the discipline to see these strategies through!
PS If you’re Amazon.com, feel free to ignore this advice. You’re probably running split tests in a matter of hours…
Posted in conversion, google adwords | No Comments »
May 29th, 2009
Okay, I admit it, for the first two weeks of the test period, I conscientiously ignored the new Google AdWords interface. Then, I tried it for 30 minutes and wrote a stinging review using the Google’s feedback tool. Then I decided that I really ought to give it a fair shake, since it seems unlikely that Google will go back to the old interface, so I’d better become more familiar with it. After a few days of using it full time, here are my initial thoughts:
1. I like that you can change keyword bids right there on the keyword screen.
2. You can still select multiple keywords and edit them as a group, which is great (and something I feared had been removed).
3. I understand the new navigation system (on the top left of the screen), but where have the ‘Next’ and ‘Previous’ buttons gone for moving through adgroups in sequence?
4. Why doesn’t match type appear on the keywords tab anymore? You have to select a word and then hit Edit to be able to see the match type. Am I missing something?
5. Is is just me, or have they removed the ability to combine negative with other match types? (I’m used to using negative exact match together.)
So, my next step is to take some of the new interface training.
And yes, you Geoffrey Moore fans would be right in suspecting that I’m not an early adopter…
Posted in google adwords | No Comments »
May 15th, 2009
I’ve been thinking about the new benchmarking feature in Google Analytics, and while I’ve signed up to see this data, I must admit that I’m a little concerned.No, this isn’t another conspiracy theory about how Google is mis-using all the data they collect – it’s far simpler (and perhaps more serious than that). My concern is that by reviewing benchmark numbers, many marketers will settle for mediocrity. If you look at the ‘average’ numbers published by Marketing Sherpa and others, you’ll see that about 5% is considered a typical conversion rate for B2B lead generation. However, I’ve found that much higher numbers are possible (certainly into the teens and even as high as 40%) by the use of effective conversion best-practices, split testing, etc.
My feeling is that just because your site is doing as equally badly as everyone else’s, that doesn’t mean that you should just live with it…
Posted in conversion, google adwords | No Comments »
May 8th, 2009
For a moment, I’d like for you to reflect on your experience of driving along the freeway. Have you ever seen a new billboard, but before you could understand what it was, you were past it?
Your web site home page, and other landing pages, aren’t so different. The visitor’s mouse hovers over the ‘back button’, just waiting for a reason to click. So, your goal is to provide a reason for the visitor to stick around and delve deeper into your site.
One of the problems with many homepages is the sheer amount of everything. Ideally, viewing your entire homepage wouldn’t require any scrolling. In addition, in a split second it should be pretty clear what you offer, and to whom you offer it (remember the billboard drive-by). There should also be a few very specific places to click next. Any extraneous information is likely to be a distraction.
To-do list:
- Identify any information that really doesn’t need to be there (your goal is to reduce the overall page length to eliminate scrolling).
- Reduce the overall number of possible links, and make sure that the main items visitors are looking for are more visually prominent than other navigation options.
- Replace any detailed text with a ‘positioning statement’ that describes your main value in less than 25 words. Use effective graphic design to make this positioning statement stand out.
Posted in conversion, landing pages | 1 Comment »
April 9th, 2009
From my discussions with many Google AdWords advertisers, I think it’s true to say that the concept of Quality Score is largely not understood, and is therefore ignored. In fact Quality Score is just one of the many variables that Google allows you to adjust – if you know how.Quality Score is used as a part of the calculation to determine how much you will pay, and where you will rank for a particular keyword. The better your Quality Score, the cheaper your clicks.
You can manipulate Quality Score simply by ensuring that your keyword is 1) in your ad, and 2) on your landing page. Beyond that, you’ll have to work to increase your CTR to impact your QS.
Posted in google adwords | 1 Comment »
February 16th, 2009
It’s funny, but many of the companies I talk to have developed a website for no real purpose. Sure, at the time there was some sort of rationale – “you need one these days, don’t you?” or “our competition has one, so we must keep up”. Unfortunately these reasons provide no guideline for the creation of a site. Nor do they contain any criteria for measuring success.
To compound the problem, they give no real consideration to the needs, desires, and characteristics of their target audience. In my opinion, this has led to the plethora of un-navigable, poor content, zero conversion websites that seems to be the standard for corporate America. Harsh? Maybe. But if you fall into this category, you’d better do something about it ASAP because the web is here to stay.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
February 6th, 2009
In essence I would suggest that you build your site backwards. In other words, beginning with your site goal (i.e. a conversion) and creating a site structure that effective leads up to it.
For example, instead of creating a very open navigation structure, consider reducing the number of clickable links in order to drive visitors down a specific path. Let me tell you why I think that is important. Imagine you have the opportunity to sit down with a potential client to do a sales presentation, my guess is that you have a ‘story’ that you tell in a specific sequence. In other words, layer-by-layer you build the intellectual and emotional reasons for owning your product/service.
I believe that effective websites use this exact same strategy, pointing visitors down a specific path that builds an understanding of the value of your product/service.
Posted in conversion | 1 Comment »
January 22nd, 2009
If you target group is diverse, you might want to consider creating multiple websites – especially if you have different products that attract different groups. At first glance, this option might seem cost-prohibitive, but we have found that the difference between a 3% conversion rate, and a 10% conversion rate can often justify the extra expense of creating multiple sites, and provides a return-on-investment after just a few months.
Posted in conversion | No Comments »
|
|
|
