 Baekdal.comThe Magazine about the great experience http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Google Consumer Surveys For Publishers... Really? - (by @baekdal)
When Google launched 'Google Consumer Surveys for Publishers' I was pretty sure it was some kind of April fools joke. And even it wasn't, publishers would surely not buy into it. So, I ignored it.
But it wasn't a joke. Many publishers are seriously considering Google Surveys, and some are even using it. On top of that, several of my readers have been sending me links to it, and asking me to write an article - so, I couldn't ignore it any longer.
Is Google Surveys a good idea? Are you kidding me? It's crap ...and here is why:
If you don't know what Google Consumer Surveys is, here is the short version. 'Google Consumer Surveys for publisher' earn money from content, by having people answer a question before they can read the article. The questions themselves are asked by brands, who wants to know all kinds of strange things. The brand pays 10 cents per question answered, and the publishers then get a cut, with Google taking an 'administration fee'.
On the surface, it looks interesting. People can read premium content without all the hassle of a paywall, or actually paying the publisher any money. Instead, they 'pay' by answering a question. Brands, eager to do focus groups in a cheaper way, can crowdsource their questions and get a ton of answers in return, for almost no money at all.
Everyone is happy ...except of course, the people, the brands and the publishers.
So what's wrong with it?
Let's start with the 'Culture of Free'. The number one thing that is decimating the publishing industry today is the continual motion to convince people that content is not worth paying for.
We have proven that this 'idea' of free content in exchange for non-monetary actions is not a workable solution. We learned it during the first dot.com bubble. We have learned it with advertising, where print dollars amounts to digital pennies, and we are learning it with every other form of 'free' that is out there.
Free is not a sustainable business model. Just look at the media industry. Free does not work, so stop trying to find new ways to do it. You are not helping, you are making it worse.
The problem with free content is that the only way to make it work, is to lower the value to a level low enough that the article no longer worth reading. How many times do publishers have to shoot themselves in the foot, before they realize this.
See: The Page View Conundrum and The Traffic Whores.
If you try to optimize free content monetized by 3rd party revenue, like advertising or surveys, you are in the business of optimizing page views. This is the only tool available to you, when you are paid based on volume and not quality. Which means that you are on a direct path to becoming another Demand Media type of business.
Why would you do that? Why would you give up everything you believe in for the short term gain of earning a little bit of extra money? Why would you put your business on a path where everyone is doing the same low-quality pageview-optimized link-bait content.
Why?!!
What about the brands using it? Isn't Google Consumer Surveys useful for them? Isn't this valuable?
No. Not even close.
First is the problem of the questions themselves. You can only ask one question but, as we all know, that is not useful in any way. To get a useful answer, you need to ask at least two questions. The first being, "What do you like the most? A or B?". The second being, "Why?"
Here is an example that Google highlights in their description. A brand asks if people would be more willing to buy a product if one of two stickers where applied to it. And the brands will then get a ton of answer back, telling that one of stickers was better than the other.
What they lack is 'why'. Why is one sticker better than the other? They have no idea, and as such the brands don't learn anything new. It's doing business blindfolded. If you don't know why something works, how could you possibly succeed in the future? How could you be the brand that people wants to follow?
It's just stupid! You would be far better off doing a real analysis, even though it would also be much more expensive. You need to learn why, otherwise you have a correlation but no causation.
Another thing. What is the absolute number one thing that people hate online? In 1999, it was splash pages. Pages that would get in the way of the actual content that people tried to see. In 2005, it was ads that took over the page, and had to be dismissed before people could read the article. What do you think it will be in 2013? Yes, you guess it. Annoying surveys that constantly get in your way every time you click on a link.
Haven't we learned anything? The worst thing you can do online is to get in people's way by interrupting them with irrelevant distractions.
And what do people do when they are being constantly annoyed online? They find a way around it, with ad-blockers, extensions, etc.
If they cannot find a way around it, people fill it with crap, just to counter the annoyance.
One example of this is what we experience on every single gaming site. When you go to a site about games, you are usually presented with a box asking you to confirm your age.
How many times have you answered this correctly? Sure, you might have entered your correct birth date the first time you ever encountered this question, but the second, third, fourth and fifth time you would just entered some bogus date to get in. Some even go a step further and deliberately enter a wrong date, just to mess up the data.
People hate this stuff.
It will be the same with Google Surveys. The first time you see a question, you might answer it correctly in relation to what you really feel. But then when you are being asked again, and again, and again, people will either answer wrongly on purpose, or just answer randomly without actually reading the question first.
The brands will get a ton of result that they cannot use. Worse, the answer might actually tell them the exact opposite of what they need to know. But as a brand, you have no idea if the answer are what people really feel, the exact opposite of what people feel, or just some random answer by people who don't care - or a mix. You don't know how inaccurate it is, and as such you cannot use it.
Google Surveys is just terrible. It annoys your most important asset (your readers), it misleads your partners (the brands), and it forces you as a publisher to focus on volume over quality, which reduces the overall value and lower how much people trust your content.
The only one who wins is Google, who will earn a ton of money watching clueless publishers and brands shoot themselves in the foot.
I love Google. I think it is one of the most respectable and brilliant companies on the planet. Google+ is my new favorite place to be. But Google Surveys is not a good example of what Google's core values are all about.
If you want to make money from content online, you need to do two things:
- You need to demonstrate that you are providing value, by consistently producing content that is worth paying for.
- You need to create a clear line between something that is worth paying for, and the actual payment of real money. People need to realize that the only reason why they can read something is because they have paid for it, or because someone else has paid for them.
The reader must never be in doubt that the content they are reading is worth something, and has to be paid for. If people get the idea that something is free, then you have failed.
People who answer a question don't think of it as payment. They think of it as an annoying obstacle put in front of them by selfish brands who don't care about their time. None of the people who answer these questions will later turn into paying subscribers, because you created the wrong relationship to begin with.
Valuable content is made for the convenience of the reader. It has to be worth paying for, and it has to make life better, simpler, and more convenient when you buy a subscription.
Google Consumer Surveys is not helping...
Переслать - Social Engagement is a Post Conversion Activity - (by @baekdal)
One of the main problems with how brands use social media is that they do it too late, and they target the wrong people. Social media is very different from other types of media. It starts as a post-conversion activity whereas all most forms of media starts as a pre-conversion activity.
You cannot start something with social. You continue it.
How it works
Traditional media is a pre-conversion activity. It what you do *before* a sale (a conversion). It's an activity designed to create awareness through exposure to people who don't know that you exist.
The aim, of course, is to get people to a point of sale. To get them to convert into customers.
But because traditional marketing is based on reaching 'strangers', the actual conversion rate is usually pretty low. And when we do it online, the conversion rate is pitifully low due to the quantity of marketing messages we are bombarded with each day.
As the volume of media channels increase, the effectiveness of traditional marketing plummets. The graphic below illustrates how many advertisements there are in a single issue of Vogue. That's 165 ads out of 324 pages (49%).
Note: from Dissecting a Print Magazine.
Worse is the shallowness of the relationship. Traditional marketing stops once you have convinced people to buy a product. We then hope that the experience will some day cause people to come back, but brands don't do anything to make that happen. Traditional marketing is one-way only, and it ends with a sale. The next day it stats up again, from scratch.
Traditional marketing is not very efficient.
The list
A better solution is to shift focus from pre-conversion to post-conversion. It started in the simplest way. Grocery stores would give people a card that would provide 'membership' discounts. Other brands followed by creating VIP clubs for their existing customers. The idea was to continue the relationship and get people to come back. In industry terms we call this 'list building'.
The result is amazing:
With traditional marketing, you have to spend 99% of your time creating awareness, but with list building, you are reaching people who are already aware that you exist. Meaning that you can focus most of your attention on building up long-term value. Give people something that would cause them to continue the relationship, instead of restarting it.
The result is a dramatically higher conversion rate per person. Coca Cola explained this in a very simple way with the following slide.
This is the difference between traditional marketing and list building.
The catch is that until you have build up a sizable list of people to reach, your list building efforts will not have enough volume to make a difference in sale.
Unlike traditional marketing, where you can just buy exposure for one million people, with list building you have to earn it first. You have to do something that is so good, that it persuades people to join your list. Which means that the most important element to list building is not selling a product, but how you treat people during the initial phase of your relationship.
List building is a long term strategy, and it takes a long time to get started. But once you get it going, the result is spectacular.
There is also another catch to traditional list building. It cannot grow by itself. Having people sign-up for a newsletter only works for the people who are on it. There is not growth or influx of new subscribers. It is a closed loop that doesn't expand your audience. To grow you still need to turn to expensive traditional marketing.
The social list
This is where social media comes into play. Social media is a public list that grows through sharing. Social is not marketing it's relationship building.
And the way it works is like this:
Compared to the old list building methods, social media is about a billion times more exciting, and it changes the game quite dramatically.
First of all, the actual conversion rate of social engagement is often much lower than with traditional list building. The reason is simply that social is much easier to do, and thus attract a far more diverse group of people. The traditional lists only include people who really, really like you. But on social channels, hitting a like button is easy.
This is why you see so many people argue that email is still the most important channel. If you only look at the conversion rate, email works far better than social.
The upside, of course, is that social media has the potential for a much higher volume. For instance, I have 30 times as many social followers than people on my weekly email newsletter. And while my newsletter's conversion rate is 4 times higher than social, the sheer volume of social traffic completely dwarfs the newsletter's conversion rate.
An exciting factor of social is that it isn't limited to your list either - aka the number of fans or followers you have. People can like a product without being customers, and they can like it without being a fan. And since sharing creates exposure through personal recommendations, the resulting pre-conversion rate is much higher than with traditional exposure.
What we have is potentially a perpetual engine. Once you get it started, the outcome is higher than what you put into it.
While social media works on many different levels, the social media that you can do, as a brand, starts as a post conversion.
You start it by building a 'list' of people who wants to follow, like, fan, or circle you as a brand. You then use this list to create value, instead of exposure. It's like email lists, you are wasting your time if you just give show people advertisements. People already know who you are, that's why they decided to follow you.
But now comes the magic of social. Unlike traditional lists, social results in sharing, and sharing result in additional exposure (a pre-conversion effect). This in turn leads to more sale, more people following you, more people sharing, a higher pre-conversion rate, resulting in a higher sale, more people following you ...and et cetera, et cetera...
Unlike traditional lists that cannot grow without the support of traditional marketing. Social media encourages growth by default.
You cannot start anything with social
There is, of course, a catch to all this social bonanza. While social media can happen on every level, the social media you do as a brand, starts with you building up a group of followers.
If you are starting from nothing, having a 7% return rate or a 5% sharing rate is still nothing. Social media works the same way traditional lists building. Without a list if followers for you to reach, you will have zero effect.
This is the main problem that I see when brands and startups do something new. They think they can just create a social campaign, and the viral effect will take over and shower them with gold. Same with advertising agencies who just encourage brands to do social gimmicks.
You first have to build up a social list!
Here is an example. Jamie Oliver recently announced something new on YouTube:
So did Felicia Day with her new podcast network Geek and Sundry:
Note: For some reason YouTube's embed code only works in some browser for Felicia's video. But here is a direct link.
So why can Jamie and Felicia start something using only social media, when I just said that you cannot start anything with social?
The answer, of course, is that they didn't. Both Jamie and Felicia has a social list of about 3 million followers on several social channels. So while they are launching something completely new, they are using their existing social lists to get the word out.
And, notice how both Jamie and Felicia started creating awareness about their new projects a long time before they launched. They know that even with 3 million fans, you need months of preparation to get enough people to start following their new projects. They are using their old lists, to build their new lists so that when you reach the day of the launch, both lists will have enough momentum in them to create a spectacular launch.
Social media is a post-conversion activity, and it won't work until you have a social list of followers to reach. You have to start your social adventure by building up a list. Only then can you use it to grow your business.
Переслать
 |  | Клуб Мамбини — это скидки для мам. Регистрируйтесь! |
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario