Monday, March 17, 2008

How to deliver on B2B email campaigns



The goal of most business-to-business emails is to acquire leads, but most miss the mark and do more damage than good. Follow these best practices for better results.

Business-to-business email campaigns, as a generalization, look and feel the same to me. Many show up looking like long-winded, copy heavy, direct mail solicitations. Some have one giant image with marketing department-focused jargon. Most seem to miss the mark in understanding what may attract the right buyer and how to deliver real value and relevancy to the inbox.

Goals of B2B emails
Let's examine the right approach to ensuring your B2B email campaigns help close the gap on your sales cycle, rather than damaging your new business opportunities.

The goal of most B2B email campaigns is to acquire leads, often accomplished by a white paper, webinar or case study, which require registration to obtain or attend. Make the path to the registration page easy for customers to transition to from the email.

For some high level, business-focused email campaigns, the goal is not to get an immediate click/lead but to get the email read and forwarded to the right person. Think about selling high cost software or IT equipment. Very few people will buy a $200,000 piece of equipment based on one email message. But if done correctly, your campaigns can get noticed by the right decision makers and the real one-to-one dialogue can begin.

Getting the email noticed and read can be a matter of feeding the ego, particularly on C-level messaging efforts. Make sure you acknowledge the importance (real or perceived) of your audience members and their time. Throwing them a bone can help get you noticed.

How to achieve your goals
Here are some best practices in B2B email marketing:

  • Know your audience: If you are mailing to IT network administrators, an image-heavy newsletter probably will not be well received. Instead, send a text-only message. Follow the cues of what your audience is like and don't take a one-size-fits-all approach.

  • Mobile email triage is real: Escape the mobile email gauntlet. An increasing number of business executives use their mobile devices/PDAs to perform email triage. This means that if you have a weak message or lack something compelling or of immediate value to your email, you may have the busy exec delete your email while in a meeting. On the flip side, a unique email with a relevant purpose may get saved for the executive to read in the office.

  • Make it easy for the mobile audience: Click here to read on your mobile phone is becoming more commonplace on B2B emails and may help you escape mobile email rendering snafus.

  • From & Subject lines: Emails from a CEO to a fellow executive tend to resonate. Ensure your From line is from someone who matters. Combine this with a short Subject line that can break through the clutter while demonstrating a reason for the user to read this email.

  • Short and sweet: Whether read on an iPhone or laptop, make your message count. That means make sure it gets read. Long emails without clear calls to action will get skimmed and deleted. Make your value proposition above the fold and obvious to the people that will browse over your email looking for a reason to read (or delete).

  • Don't oversell: Too many promises, customer raves or pricing information may overwhelm your audience and diminish your opportunity to have people click on a link where they can find the details of the service or product being offered.

  • Respect the audience's time: Frequency is a significant issue for all mailings, but if a business subscriber doesn't respond to the first two messages, it doesn't mean you should send to him even more frequently.

  • Test: I received seven different emails from a lead generation company in the span of five minutes this morning. The emails actually contained decent messaging and links to at least one relevant case study. They had me until hello occurred seven times. Someone was asleep at the wheel when the campaigns were segmented and set. Do your due diligence before an email is sent as these campaigns did more damage than good.

  • Offer something unique: A white paper can often work, but they are everywhere, aren't they? Provide access and perks that are gold to the C-suite audience. For example, one client attempting to register business executives for an annual event tested pricing breaks versus admission to a VIP event. Remember, the B2B audience usually isn't spending its own money so you can guess which offer performed better.

  • Remarket: We had major success with one client recently by creating follow-up campaigns based on how each user responded (or didn't) to the initial campaign. Using your metrics can guide you to a better and more relevant strategy. (You can find the case study of how this client generated $120,000 from remarketing here.)

The final touches
A B2B email campaign is a different animal from a consumer campaign. Let's look at the three major differences:

  • Tone
  • Message
  • Measurement

Don't spend countless hours writing flowery prose. Instead, spend time testing the right mix of design, messaging and calls to action.

Your tone should be much like it would be in a face-to-face meeting with your prospects: direct, professional and in a manner that makes your audience want to do business with you. Don't waste your time building up to the pitch -- state why you are sending this message and what's in it for the recipient.

The message should clearly articulate the purpose and value to the subscribers while making it easy for them to identify and act on any call to action. Don't bog them down with too many cross promotional messages or secondary marketing messages. Allow them to scan the email and find out what's in it for them.

Your main measurement analysis should not be based on opens and clicks but on how many leads are generated. Careful attention should be paid to forwards and any additional email subscriptions generated from the campaign. A high open and clickthrough rate but lack of leads could mean you put up too many barriers to capture the lead. Ensure your landing page and relevant gateway pages (for example, the white paper sign-up page) are easy to find and utilize. This may take some coordination that goes outside the realm of a typical email manager.

Yahoo Buzz is a Game Changer for Social Media; And Spells Trouble for Digg!

Written by Richard MacManus / March 16, 2008 9:28 PM / 7 Comments


Yahoo Buzz is a social media experiment by Yahoo! that is currently in a closed beta. We found out today what kind of boost Buzz is giving the current selected blogs and news sources - Muhammad Saleem wrote that it is giving publishers huge bumps in both traffic and comments. Muhammad, you'll recall, wrote on ReadWriteWeb just about the only positive review of Yahoo Buzz when it first launched. In case you missed it, let's revisit the reasons why Buzz is a game changer. And why Digg is in big trouble...

more: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/yahoo_buzz_is_a_game_changer.php


Saturday, March 15, 2008

The world's 50 most powerful blogs

The world's 50 most powerful blogs

From Prince Harry in Afghanistan to Tom Cruise ranting about Scientology and footage from the Burmese uprising, blogging has never been bigger. It can help elect presidents and take down attorney generals while simultaneously celebrating the minutiae of our everyday obsessions. Here are the 50 best reasons to log on

Read Bobbie Johnson's blog on celebrity snooper Nick Denton here

* Jessica Aldred, Amanda Astell, Rafael Behr, Lauren Cochrane, John Hind, Anna Pickard, Laura Potter, Alice Wignall and Eva Wiseman
* The Observer,
* Sunday March 9 2008
* Article history

About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday March 09 2008 on p16 of the Comment & features section. It was last updated at 11:22 on March 14 2008.

Amazon pushes social shopping w/ FaceBook app

by Jonathan Birchall in New York

Published: March 13 2008 20:23 | Last updated: March 13 2008 20:23

Amazon is to become the first leading online retailer to tap into the potential merchandising opportunities presented by Facebook, the hugely popular social networking site.

The largest online retailer has launched applications aimed at pulling millions of Facebook users into its merchandising efforts, in a further extension of a move by retailers towards online “social shopping”.

The two new applications, Amazon Giver and Amazon Grapevine, tie Amazon’s own system of shopping “wish lists” and product reviews into Facebook’s social networking pages.

A Facebook user who adds the “Giver” application to his or her online profile can then view other users’ Amazon wish lists, and link through them to make a purchase at Amazon’s site.

The system also allows users to view product recommendations generated by Amazon that are based upon what the other person has listed as their likes and interests on their own Facebook profile – extending the kind of “artificial intelligence” techniques used by Amazon to generate customer recommendations on its own site.

The Grapevine application will automatically update a participating Facebook users’ online friends if he or she adds items to their own Amazon wish list, or writes a product review on the Amazon site.

Ebay, the online auction site, currently offers applications to both users of Facebook and its rival MySpace to keep abreast of bidding and to make purchases directly on its site.

Amazon has been in the vanguard of the “social shopping” trends, with the early development of user reviews and wish lists on its own site, as well as “tagging” of pages by users to create a personal portfolio of interests.

Donna Hoffman, a director of the Sloan Center for Internet Retailing at the University of California, told an industry gathering late last year that online retailers had to be ready to move from their current search engine optimisation as part of the development of “Web 3.0” techniques.

“Social shopping sites have the potential to make online shopping much more engaging,” she said. “Consumers are spending much more time on these sites.”

Other online retailers in the US, including Wal-Mart, Target and JC Penney, have subsequently added a selection fo similar features to their own sites.

Google Sucks Life Out of Old Media: Check Out The 2007 Share Shift

|

whirlpool.jpgFor the past few quarters, we've analyzed the amazing rate at which advertising spending is moving online. Now we're able to look at full-year 2007.

Specifically, we analyzed the change in US advertising revenue at 17 major media companies from 2006 and 2007. The companies included Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO), Time Warner (TWX), Disney (DIS), Viacom (VIAB), CBS (CBS), and Clear Channel (CCO). The companies span all the major advertising sectors: Online, TV, Print, Radio, and Outdoor.

Highlights:

  • Total US ad revenue across all 17 companies grew 9% from 2006 to 2007, from $53 billion to $58 billion
  • Online ad revenue grew 28%, from $14 billion to $18 billion.
  • Offline grew only 3%, from $39.5 billion to 40.6 billion. This was helped significantly by the inclusion of affiliate fees and (and global revenue) at CBS, Viacom, and News Corp.
  • Online ad revenue grew by $4 billion.
  • Offline ad revenue--in all other media--grew by $1 billion.

So advertising revenue is flowing online at a frantic rate. That's the whole story? No. Let's look at how that online revenue breaks down.

  • Online ad revenue grew 28%, or $4 billion.
  • Online ad revenue at Google grew 44%, or $2.7 billion.
  • Online ad revenue at Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL grew only 15%, or $1.3 billion.
  • Google captured 2X as much revenue as its closest three competitors combined.

It is true that perhaps a third of Google's growth came from AdSense revenue, which is placed on third-party sites--so other companies are benefiting from this growth. But the growth on Google's properties alone still vastly exceeded the growth on AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft.

Another fun stat:

  • The year-over-year growth of revenue on Google.com (US)--approximately $2 billion--was more than twice as much the growth of ad revenue in all of the offline media companies in this sample combined. This is such an amazing fact that it bears repeating: A single media property, Google.com (US), grew by $2 billion. All the offline media properties owned by the 13 offline media companies above, meanwhile--all of them--grew by about $1 billion.

For supporting details, please see our SAI Advertising Share Shift spreadsheet. TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld runs some cool graphics on the numbers.

See Also:
SAI Research Spreadsheet: The Great Ad Share Shift

Great Ad Share Shift: Q2 2007 vs Q2 2006

Google Sucks Even More Life Out of Old Media in Q3

Why the AOL-Bebo Deal Matters



MARCH 14, 2008


Debra Aho Williamson, Senior Analyst


Yesterday, AOL paid $850 million in cash to acquire Bebo, a social networking site that is a distant third to MySpace and Facebook in the US.

Eyebrows have been raised in response to news of the deal because Bebo's traffic levels are only a fraction of those seen at MySpace and Facebook. Bebo had 22.4 million unique visitors worldwide in January, according to comScore Media Metrix. Facebook and MySpace both had more than 100 million worldwide visitors that month.

In February, MySpace's share of US Internet visits was 67 times larger than Bebo’s, according to Hitwise. In fact, 22% of visits to Bebo last week came from people who had first visited MySpace, Hitwise reported.

Nor does Bebo seem set to add significant revenue for AOL, at least not immediately. According to financial data obtained by AllThingsD, Bebo earned just $20 million in 2007 worldwide. eMarketer estimates that advertisers spent $510 million on MySpace and $145 million on Facebook in the US alone last year.

However, Bebo has been quietly innovative in areas of online marketing that are just now starting to get attention. It is a pioneer of widget marketing, having partnered with prominent widget developers in December 2006, five months before Facebook opened up its platform.

Bebo also hosts KateModern, an online video hit. The site is developing other short-form online video content, along with unique ways of integrating marketers into the video storyline. It also has found novel ways to allow viewers to participate in the action both online (by interacting with the video’s characters on their profile pages) and offline (producers invited fans to watch the filming live last month).

Another thing going for Bebo: its users spend more time on the site than those at Facebook or MySpace – an average of 217 minutes apiece in January, according to comScore Media Metrix. That's 18 minutes more on average than was spent on Facebook, and over an hour more than on MySpace.

Information from AOL is sketchy on the details of how Bebo will be integrated into its other properties, other than statements that it will be paired up with the messaging services AOL IM and ICQ.

There can be no denying the unique ability of social networks to bring people together in ways that were previously impossible. For marketers, it is also clear that social networks provide powerful branding solutions, taking online advertising beyond banners and clickthroughs into endeavors such as community building and customer interaction.

Bebo and its social networking brethren have so far only scratched the surface of what is possible in this space. AOL obviously plans to capitalize on Bebo’s innovations and online advertisers should hope that they succeed.

Get the facts behind the social networking buzz. Read eMarketer's Social Network Marketing: Ad Spending and Usage report.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Have People Stopped Clicking on Google Ads?


Or did a Web-traffic firm get the numbers wrong?

By Chris Wilson
On the morning of Feb. 26, the investment firm Bear Stearns sent out an alert (PDF) about some unwelcome news for Google. According to comScore, a leading Web-analytics company, the company's domestic paid clicks—that is, the number of times people in the United States clicked on a Google ad—were down 0.3 percent compared to last year and down 12 percent since October. By 7:16 a.m., former tech-securities analyst (and Slate contributor) Henry Blodget reported the news on Silicon Alley Insider under the headline "Google Disaster." As news of the comScore report circulated, Google got killed on Wall Street: The stock opened the day down $25 a share and continued to fall, sinking to an 11-month low of $464.19 before staging a modest comeback.

Wall Street's anti-Google stampede came despite some good news. The company's advertising numbers from the previous quarter were strong, particularly outside the U.S., and Bear Sterns also reported that Google has "healthy growth prospects that should lead to market share gains [and] a strong balance sheet." Nevertheless, investors were spooked by the idea that Web surfers had stopped clicking on text ads—perhaps a sign that even mighty Google wasn't immune from an economic slowdown. Wall Street, however, shouldn't have made such a leap. ComScore's click numbers, like so many stats about user behavior on the Web, are unreliable and opaque. Instead of using comScore reports to predict a tech company's future performance, an investor would be better off ignoring them.

ComScore is one of several firms in the United States that peddles statistics on Web traffic. It seems like it should be easy to get an exact count of how many people visit a Web site, click on an ad, and so forth. But as Slate's Paul Boutin has pointed out, these stats are a moving target. Analytics firms like Nielsen and comScore don't count every time a Web page gets accessed; rather, they extrapolate the numbers based on data from panelists who install the companies' tracking software. ComScore claims its panel includes more than 2 million people who are recruited either directly or through third-party software packages that offer services like virus protection and performance optimization. (The company terms this "researchware." Less charitable types call it "spyware.") The company takes the data it gets from these users and weights it according to demographics to draw a statistical portrait of traffic to individual sites. ComScore is, essentially, making an educated guess. Nobody except Google is keeping a tally of each individual click on the company's text ads.

Even though comScore's numbers are an estimate, they've been repeated as gospel with little discussion of margins of error—this despite the large psychological difference between a 0.3 percent decline and a small gain (or a bigger loss). Why did Wall Street respond so emphatically to comScore's numbers, ignoring the big-picture reassurances in Bear Sterns' report? One can certainly blame a jittery market on the watch for bad news as economic indicators everywhere are looking ugly. It's also probably fair to guess that crafty investors—guessing that less savvy investors will panic—would sell early in an attempt to make money off this skittishness. But it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Wall Street types put way too much stock in the reliability of Web traffic stats, numbers that should not be used for day-to-day management of a portfolio.

After the public hubbub over its Google numbers, comScore released an analysis of the data on the site's blog. The post lists many caveats, including the possibility that the recent decline in clicks might have been the result of Google getting better at reducing "bad clicks"—accidental clicks by people who have no interest in the product being advertised. Many in the tech-blog community saw this response as comScore getting spooked by the fallout from its report or bending to pressure from Google. (A comScore spokesman told me there was no contact between Google and comScore executives between the time of the initial report and comScore's elaborations.) More likely, comScore was simply being realistic about the reliability—or maybe the unreliability—of its own data.

ComScore's numbers are particularly prone to error when making long-term comparisons, like the year-over-year comparison of Google's paid clicks. For one thing, the group of panelists that provided comScore's data in January 2007 isn't the same as the group from January 2008. We don't know how different the groups were because comScore doesn't release that data.

Like most companies that deal in Web statistics, comScore gives few specifics about its methodology. In order for investors and tech buffs to get a better sense of the accuracy of this data, firms like Nielsen and comScore have to become more transparent—something the Interactive Advertising Bureau, an umbrella organization for 300 companies involved in online advertising, has called on them to do. (For a great side-by-side comparison of how different Web analytics companies work—so far as we know—see this primer from the Web marketing firm Antezeta.)

Until Nielsen, comScore, and other analytics companies become committed to sharing their data and methodologies, personal fortunes and the fates of tech companies will depend on data that might not be anywhere close to accurate. Wall Street, at least, shouldn't be so willing to act on this kind of report.

Before public demand for better methodology is likely to mount, however, those whose personal fortunes rest on this data will have to understand that it is a methodology in the first place, not some universal registry of Web use data with a margin of error of zero. Next time you see a press release that says clicks are going up or down, take it for what it is: a guess—as far as we know.