Search Versus Social Media Results

Few companies are willing to post numbers or results from their search engine and social media engagements. This leaves a ton of forums full of people asking what works, what doesn’t, what kind of results they can expect, etc. and no one is sharing answers. Some numbers can’t be shared for competitive reasons: how much you spent on a campaign, your exact numbers, elements of your strategy, etc., but some can. In the charts below the actual volumes have been removed but there is still some very strong data that I’d like to share with you that will hopefully help inform brand and agency strategists.

Data

This data is very specific to my current employer, a financial software company, and some very specific tactics that have been undertaken. The company has a Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn presence. While we Tweet, Facebook, and Linked at least once a day, based on some of the earlier number we received we decided to run ads on LinkedIn. Leveraging these channels as well as spending a good amount of time creating content and optimizing our website for search engines has led to the following findings:

Our Unique Visits from LinkedIn far outweigh traffic from other referring sites. To be clear, these results are outside of direct visits or referring sites like outside blogs, portals, even traffic from our own newsletter. They are merely focused on the traffic from Google, Gmail, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Very often people swill stop investigating here. Focusing on the site sending them the most traffic. But, that traffic isn’t always qualified traffic. In the chart on the right, it’s clear that while our Page Views from LinkedIn users outweigh those from Facebook and Gmail, we get a much larger number of page views from Twitter and Google. To me, this means these sources contain visitors that are much more engaged, qualified and interested in our content.

As you can see above, LinkedIn represents our greatest percentage of new users. Gmail may sound a bit strange except that my company uses Gmail as our email tool so any clicked link in our email signatures or included in the body of an email  shows up as a visitor. This is very important since it remains one of our primary sources of communications and sales. Combined with data concerning Unique Visitors we can differentiate which sites give us more repeat traffic versus which sites give us more new traffic. An important distinction when deciding which marketing messages go to which sites. Bounce Rate isn’t a huge concern primarily because our site is information, not ecommerce. This means that our Call to Action (CTA) is for the user to call or email our business intelligence team rather than visit another page. However, when combined with Page Views and Time on Site, it is a good indicator of user interest or qualification.

Time on Site indicates how long a person spend on the site. It’s interesting to note how closely this mimics the number of page views. The first observation is pretty obvious since reading more pages would take more time, but then again, you could take more time reading a single page.

Findings

Initially Twitter looked like a bit of a loss for us. We got a minimal amount of traffic, and to be honest, our audience isn’t really that prolific on Twitter. However, if you look closely, even though visitors from Twitter were minimal, they had the largest amount of page views and a close second for number of pages visited. This means that we’ll continue to cultivate traffic through Twitter hoping for a growth in visits.

I mentioned that we ran a set of 3 ads on LinkedIn for the company. Despite the hype around Facebook ads, based on earlier numbers concerning bounce rate, time on site, pages visited, and contextuality we decided not to run ads on Facebook. LinkedIn ads allowed us to zero in on a highly defined group of users based on industry (we’re a very small niche of the financial industry), countries, states, even gender. LinkedIn best practices says “good ads have a CTR greater than 0.025%“. Our rates were .056%, .074%, and .087%. Our ads worked. We opted for a CPC (Cost Per Click) model rather than a CPM (Cost Per Impression). It’s a good thing, our impressions were 1300 times what our clicks were. Since clicks show interest, and impressions may not even be seen, this made sense to us. In addition our average click cost was actually half of what our click bid was!

Recommendations

Clearly this data is not going to define your strategy. It is unique to our company, not even our industry. I do hope that it will help inform you. You may decide we are nuts not to be advertising on Facebook, or convinced that we’re just not using Twitter effectively enough. All possible. Unfortunately digital strategy, for all of it’s data, still requires much experimentation. I encourage you to experiment, track your numbers (but don’t get wrapped up in daily results, look at trends), and define a respectable schedule to gather data over. Decisions shouldn’t be made over a few days’ worth of data, but over a few months, keeping in mind global events, holidays, etc.

Good luck.

Yes! I’m Selling This! Endorsement Transparancy.

I recently spoke at the Social Media Law conference in Boston. I was one of only 2 presenters that were not lawyers (or wore suits, or ties, or left our cars in paid parking, or had a beeper and a cell phone on my belt). Some great folks presented including the General Counsel for the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. Some fantastic topics were discussed around user privacy, data security, and transparency. One of the more interesting things that was discussed revolved around requiring users to Like your Facebook page in order to access special content or join a contest. This is as illegal as requiring me to buy M&Ms to enter in your M&M piggy bank giveaway. Remember: No Purchase Required.

While perusing Twitter this afternoon I saw an interesting Tweet from a celebrity. Let me be perfectly clear, despite my dislike of Dancing with the Stars, I’m a big Tom Bergeron fan and an even bigger Brooke Burke fan. I’ve been following her career since she was a drunken (OK, buzzed, but she did do alot of shots!) jet-setting travel TV host. But Brook’s tweet took me by surprise. Brooke is a model, TV show host, blogger, author of The Naked Mom, contributor to (or founder of?) ModernMom.com, and founder of BabooshBaby.com. She’s also an all around hot mom. What I didn’t know was that she also endorsed a drink called underWAY. I know about her other endeavors from reading her Twitter bio:

I didn’t know about Brook’e endorsement of underWay because it’s not in her Twitter bio. Why do I know about underWay at all? Because of this post:

The way this is positioned is as a helpful hint. Brooke eats less when she drinks underWAY. To be honest, I first thought she meant that she was drinking while moving, like water or juice. It was the way underWAY was written that attracted my attention. Now, I click on alot of Brooke’s links because, they are often pictures of her, and c’mon, who couldn’t use another picture of Brooke Burke to spice up their day. I clicked on this link for just that reason: oggling. Imagine my surprise when I opened a landing page for a health drink. I scrambled back to Twitter, scrolled down to find the Tweet again.

I wouldn’t think much of this because I see it all the time, especially from celebrities, even Twitterfamous celebs like Robert Scoble and Chris Brogan. I’m sure many celebs have very lucrative endorsements that are very savvy in leveraging the celebs social media presence to sell products. That’s not a problem. In fact I know that Chris Brogan is very careful to disclose links to books for which he is an affiliate, clients, and products that have been given to him to review.THis is an example of a non-celeb promoting a website. The difference is that she refers to the site as her site so we know it’s an endorsement:

Here is another that is blatently selling, but that is obvious from the tone:

But a quick trip to their Twitter bio shows that they’re selling cooking products:

Here is the problem with celebrity selling via their social networks; Very often these celebs are doing the Tweeting themselves. I applaud them for this, it’s very honest and has a great impact when it’s very personal. But celebs aren’t lawyers. They don’t understand the laws around endorsing products.They don’t understand that they need to disclose products they are endorsing.

Part of what I spoke about at the Social Media Law conference was the need for corporate social media policies, a basic what you can, cannot, and what we’d like you to do in social media. It’s obvious that celebrities need the same kind of social media policy. Knowing that this is happening, should Twitter allow for longer bios? Currently, and in true Twitter fashion, they allow 160 characters for a bio. Should celebs link to a landing page with a list of their endorsements?

So, I’m officially offering to fly to LA to give Brooke Burke a weekend-long social media bootcamp.

 

UPDATE: in an interesting twist Skechers was fined $40 million by the FTC for false claims that it’s rocking horse-like sneakers helped tone muscles and weight loss. Brooke Burke, along with pinnacle of honesty Kim Kardashian, were spokeswomen for the product which was also backed by a study quoted by chiropractic doctor. The FTC claims that not only was the study not factual but that the doctor is married to a Skechers executive and was paid for his endorsement. More here. It seems that celebrities have difficulties in finding agents and lawyers who understand the intricacies of endorsements.

Digital Strategy is not about Technology. It’s about PEOPLE.

I‘ve been involved in digital strategy for well over a decade. That ranged, in the early days, from advise on website content to , more recently, social media strategy. Digital strategy is as welcome by new companies wanting to start off on the right foot to companies who’ve spent fortunes in traditional media communications and want to “get into this whole Internet thing”.

What almost all of them think is that a digital strategist is going to translate tech-speak wizardry for them and solve their technology problem. While there is a certain amount of understanding of technology that is required, the main thrust of digital strategy isn’t about the technology itself, but of the people that use it.

Human-Digital Strategy

Social Media has been a big driver of so-called “digital strategy”. For the last 20 years people have been launching websites based on their sales or corporate communications needs. Basically store fronts and brochures. Over the last few years there has been an explosion of different types of sites for entertainment, communication, sharing, learning, teaching, networking, aggregating, creation, etc. all focused on users, many created out of the desire to build something cool rather than against a corporate business goal. There are plenty of  blogs about the upside and the downside of this model but the upshot is that 1.9 billion people are now using these sites. The thing is, the technology is nothing new. Sharing, media, content creation, etc. has been available for as long as the Internet has been open to the public. What has changed is the scale and simplicity of the technology and the consumption.

If no one was sharing photos, blogging, rating products, buying timeshare, distance learning, planning their wedding, etc. there would be no need for a digital strategy. Companies could rely on what they’ve always been good at: broadcasting their message. But, that is SO very 90s. Anyone doing business online has to understand How people are using technology, When they’re using it, Why they’re using it, What they’re using and they need to know Who these people are. This is the job of the Digital Strategist. This requires an understanding of psychology, sociology, basic human behavior, emotion, desires, and of course the latest cool gadgets. Think of Digital Strategists as Behavioral Technologists, Socio-Digital Engineers, Human Factors Planners.

I was recently asked what college classes most significantly  assisted my ability to do my job (I once told a class of sophomore graphic designers that the most important skill they could learn in college was writing). The questioner was surprised when I said “psychology and acting”. Understanding of the “human condition” and both basic and complex human behaviors is key in understanding how to market to real people. Acting classes helped me learn how to get into the head of a character.

Image by ISayx3.

Global v US Statistics: Mobile, Social Network, PC Ownership

I found some interesting statistics today:

Global
Population 6.9 billion (http://www.census.gov)
PCs 1.3 billion
Mobile phones 5 billion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10569081)
Social network users 901 million (Business Wire)
TVs 1.6 billion (Business Week Aug 1, 2005)

US
Population 311 million (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html)
PCs 164 million
Mobile phones 293 million
Social network users 142 million (Nielsen)

China
Population 1.3 billion
PCs 16 million
Mobile phones 853 million
Social network users 265 million (http://www.emarketer.com)

In some cases direct links are given, in other a certain amount of extrapolation was required from multiple sources as much of this data is out of date or in incongruous formats.

Facebook Wants You To Be Naked

A recent quote from Facebook founder and chief pilot Mark Zuckerberg reveals a disturbing insight into the companies plans and Zuckerberg’s understanding of basic human behavior. In his book The Facebook Effect, author David Kirkpatrick quotes Zuckerberg as saying:

“You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly … Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.“

This is shocking for the founder and CEO of a site boasting over 500 million users on 2 levels: Intent and Reality.

The first shock is actually no shock to me. A few years of reading between the lines and it was easy to see that Facebook’s intent was to make everything you say, share, care about and every relationship you have laid bare for all of the world to see. This is great for Facebook. The more data it has, the more it can sell. Also, more drama attracts more users, which means more money from advertisers. Most users aren’t thrilled with the prospect of opening their intimate conversations to the world. But, users be damned, that is exactly what Facebook has been moving toward since day 1.

Reality is the second shocking thing about Zuckerberg’s quote and perhaps the most disturbing. It’s possible he actually doesn’t see a reason for there to be a separation between a user’s professional life and their private life. This comes as no surprise. Zuckerberg, now 26, has no real professional experience outside of running his own company. Like most entrepreneurs, his job is his life, he wouldn’t separate it, why should we? Well, Zuckerberg has never been an employee has he? He’s never had to be concerned about his boss stalking his photos, or his HR manager finding out he’s job hunting. He’s never had to face a job interviewer that had studied and printed out his LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter feeds. He’s never been a whistle-blower or needed the protection of anonymity. I’ve run into several instances of customers sexually harassing colleagues because they were young pretty women. These women were very concerned that their personal information might be accessed by people they dealt with professionally.

The theory of having everyone’s life be an open book is interesting if completely unrealistic. The face we shows to those in our most intimate circle is not necessarily the one we share with colleagues. Even those of us who are highly career focused would like to keep a line drawn between our personal and professional lives. It’s enough that we spend more time at our offices with our coworkers than we do in our homes with our families and friends. Blurring that line even further is not healthy at all. It strips away that little bit that gets us through tough days and it tears down the walls of the place we go to get away from it all.

Unfortunately, someone who lives a life like Mark Zuckerberg, with his limited experience as an adult and as a professional, will never understand that. More unfortunate is the fact that 500 million people and counting will pay the price for his lack of basic understanding of human needs.

Photo by Ursula Bach.

If Facebook Ads Suck, Who’s Responsible? A Response.

In a recent post Pat  McGraw marketing says that Facebook Ads Suck – Most Marketers are Wrong.

He references an AdWeek article that Facebook click through rates have dropped from a poor .063 to a worse .051%. While impressions are up, the 11,000 ad campaigns studied garnered 4.5 billion impressions, their effectiveness in driving clicks is down.

Now, this should make it obvious to advertisers that paying based on a CPM as low as $.25, that they are doomed. What good are impressions without clicks? If you’re involved in a simple awareness campaign it’s a great deal, still one of the lowest CPMs around. But, if you’re trying to drive traffic it’s all about the click. I’d be happy to pay 10x the price for a CPC.

Traffic
When advertisers are bitching about the effectiveness of Facebook ads, I question who is at fault. As I’ve pointed out, Facebook is an awesome deal for awareness. But if you’re driving traffic, why pay for people just to look at your ad but not pay based on how many click on it? This gives me 2 reasons to question the intelligence of the marketer:
Why get into a deal to pay based on views when you’re measuring success in clicks?
Why are you measuring clicks? McGraw smartly calls out the fact that driving traffic only adds an additional burden to your sales team, since no they have even more unqualified leads to sort through.

Conversions
If your real goal is to sell something, why aren’t you measuring that? Qualify your traffic and you reduce the strain on sales, yet you increase your conversions. This is a huge reason why I don’t trust SEO companies, because they only care about people visiting your site. I’d trade 1 qualified lead for 10,000 unqualified visitors. But, that’s for another post.
Why is Facebook bad for smart marketers measuring success based on conversion? Well, if all the ads do is drive unqualified traffic, I guess Facebook does suck. But, if you create ads aimed at driving, not traffic, but conversions or at the very least qualified traffic, Facebook still offers you some percentage of their 600 million member audience. Of course the percentage is based on the saturation of your audience on Facebook. If you don’t know how many of your potential audience is on Facebook, why would you consider it in the first place?

Conclusion
I‘d posit that Facebook is no worse than another ad network. Sure it is a silo and it has news feeds filled with Mob Wars and Which Romantic Character Are You games, but it’s contextually is likely to be higher since they scan your digital life daily from our profile to our cute baby pictures to arguments with old high school acquaintances. Banner ads have been questionable since the first eye-path studies were released showing that people have changed hundreds of years of reading patterns to avoid them.

Of course marketers will continue to buy Facebook ads just like they’ll continue to buy Google ads: because Google and Facebook will continue to tell you that they will be effective. Marketers who don’t realize that their studies are less factual and more self-promotional deserve the results they get.

In the end, the reason Facebook ads really suck is because of the marketers behind them.

A Visualization is Worth a Thousand Words

The phrase ‘a picture is worth a thousand words” is one that I’ve heard and used thousands of times, mostly to convince clients that  the right image, or diagram can convey pages worth of text content. We can learn a lot from an image: messaging, intent, emotion, value, connection, etc. It’s easy to tell what we can learn from a diagram, they are merely illustrations to convey a specific idea or process. Recently LinkedIn launched a beta feature called InMaps. InMaps are essentially a visualization of your LinkedIn network.  I posted a screenshot on the SoMe Friends group I started on Facebook and got a mixed reaction. Mostly folks thought it was interesting but ultimately useless. Oh, but how I disagree!

Everyone’s InMap is unique as it represents their network. Each node represents a person, each line a connection. As you click on each user you can see how they are connected to other people in your network. The larger their circle, the more these folks are connected to others you know, and others you don’t. Their color defines which group they belong to. You also get a side pop-up showing more details about that user including a mini-profile and a few shared connections. I’d love to be able to click on these shared connections to locate them on the map but unfortunately clicking on them only launches their full profile.

Details
Clicking on a node in you InMap while highlight that connection. It draws lines from that connection to other shared connections. You also get a pop-up in the right of the map that gives you a brief bio that includes their current position and employer, a brief list of previous employers, a snip-it of their education and a link to their full profile. You also see a list of a sampling of shared connections with their associated group colors.

Colors
Different groups of users are assigned unique colors. You can label these to better understand where each portion of your network lies. In this image I’ve clicked on friend and former colleague Amy Greenlaw. She and I met as the first hires at a small Boston ad agency. You can actually see most of the team we built if you follow the pink lines including my friend Steve. More on him later.  As you can see, Amy also has orange lines because she is one of my close social media friends (we spend a lot of time drinking together at social media networking events and SXSW), and orange lines because she is part of my list of connections that I consider Social Media Heavy Hitters including Chris Brogan, Scott Monty, and C.C. Chapman.

Size
As you zoom in on specific contacts you can see some size differences in your connections. This indicates a couple things:

• How connected they are to the rest of your network
• How many connections they have in general

How does this help you? It’s a great way to visualize who your most valuable connections are. In this case you can see that Chris Brogan’s circle is almost as large as Amy’s. Now, I am connected to many of the same people as Amy, but Chris is connected to a lot of folks I’m not connected to. He becomes a valuable gateway to people I may want to connect with.

Relationships
Knowing how your connections are related is very helpful. In my case, I have a large group of contact that aren’t very well connected within my network. In this case my boss, Dave Dupre, has many connections to my colleagues at Boston Technologies but only 4 connections outside this group to my network, one of whom is his wife. This may be a great opportunity to introduce Dave to other members of my network or request that introduce me to members of his network. Looking at my InMap I can also see I have some holes that should be filled. Luckily I can see a few people in these holes that may have other connections I can leverage beef up my connections in these areas. One thing that the visualizer doesn’t offer is the ability to edit contacts and their group relationship. My friend Steve worked with me at 2 agencies and is now at Monster.  He’s also a good friend of mine a a pretty close neighbor. I know all of this because he is a friend. For contacts I don’t know as well it would be supremely helpful to be able to reorganize them by geographic location, or where they work now, or where I know them from.

My Wishlist
The only negatives I feel about this visualization are that you can’t change colors of certain contacts or groups of contacts to further organize them. You can see that there are a lot of dark blue connections marked Miscellaneous.  This is a massive group I’d like to break into my connections in PR, in startups, those I know through LinkedIn Groups (how great would it be to organize those connections according to Group?), or through specific companies. I can see this visualizer adding a lot more value as I can get really microscopic in managing it.

• More Colors
• Ability to change a contact’s color
• Overlays to show better relationship status such as Companies, Groups, Location
• Ability to click on color code to isolate groups

I doubt we’ll see too many improvements as this is merely just an experiment the good people at LinkedIn have allowed their staff to create as part of their LinkedIn Labs initiative. Hopefully they’ll keep it around for awhile though, I hate it when companies add a beta feature then yank it. It’s like seeing cool concept cars that will never make it to production. LinkedIn has a few other interesting experiments and beta functions I’ve been playing with like Company Products & Services, LinkedIN Swarm, and Resume builder that I’ll try to review in the coming week or so.

I’m sure the smart folks at LinkedIn can explain InMaps better than I can:

Joe Versus the Volcano

One of my favorite Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan movies (that is a category right?) is Joe Versus the Volcano. Hanks plays Joe, an ordinary guy with an ordinary life until he’s told by his doctor that he is terminally ill with a “brain cloud”. A wealth benefactor offers to make his dreams come true in the final stages of his life in exchange for sacrificing himself to the god of tropical islanders. The god is of course the island volcano and the wealth benefactor would get oil or mineral rights from the islanders in exchange for appeasing it’s god. Meg Ryan is in the film merely for comic relief and eye-candy.

The premise of that film has nothing to do with this post but it’s still a fun movie I recommend.

I’m using the title as an illustration of 2 very different geographic locations: Hawaii and Wyoming (and to a degree North Dakota).To me, Wyoming and North Dakota are home to the Average Joe, while Hawaii is of course home to big men with little ukulele’s and tan beautiful women in grass skirts, living at the base of a volcano. Let me qualify the previous generalization by saying I’ve never been to any of those states.

A recent Webtrends overview of Facebook advertising performance offered a few interesting numbers, specifically around the difference in users from Hawaii and those from Wyoming and ND. It found that the Click Through Rate (CTR) of Hawaii was .05% while that of North Dakota was 2.25% and Wyoming 2.9%. That is a pretty wide statistical gap. How else to the 3 states stack up?

State	Hawaii	North Dakota	Wyoming
CTR	.05%	2.25%	2.9%
FB  Population	519,000	287,740	217,940
Population*	532,796	267,621	220,683
HHI	$61,055	$49,450	$52, 010
College Educated	29.7%	25.6%	22.7%
Average Temp	83.9°	53.1°	57.5°

*represents the population 15-44 as the average population on Facebook is 36.

So, there are more people on Facebook in Hawaii than in Wyoming and North Dakota combined. This pretty much matches their population density. Hawaiian household income (HHI) is about $10,000 higher and their percentage of college educated is higher by 4.1% (North Dakota, and 7% (Wyoming). None of these are much of a gap. The largest gap is in the temperature which averages about 30° higher in Hawaii than with of the other states. Could it be that the folks in North Dakota and Wyoming click on more ads because the weather outside sucks and they have nothing better to do (like surfing, swimming, ogling the opposite sex in swimwear and other natural delights)?

Other fun stats include:

• Fans that didn’t attend college click more.
• Fans that attended college are twice as likely to click if a friend does.
• Women are women likely to click on an ad than men, especially as they get older.
• BTW, you know that golden target of 18-24 year-olds that everyone targets? They have the lowest CTR. The highest is 45-64. But that’s another post.

I’m often asked where I get my statistics. Usually for one of two reasons: so someone else can let me do the work of tracking all of this stuff down then posting it on their site without a link back to me or because they think I’m making it up. I’m not sure which is more insulting. Either way, other than the links included in the content, here are the rest of the sites I used for statistical reference:

Facebook usage stats by state
Average weather by state
Household Income by state
College education by state
Population by state

The 5 Senses of Social Media

We interact with the world through our 5 senses: hearing, visions, smell, taste, and touch. We should consider the 5 senses with our marketing efforts, specifically with efforts with Social Media.

Sense of Hearing – If you listen to your audience it will help you understand their language, culture, needs, desires, interests, etc. It will help you be relevant in offering value as part of your SoMe engagement. It will help you be a better brand and make better products.

Sense of Vision – There’s nothing worse than rehashing what someone else has already done. The Big Idea isn’t dead. Be Imaginative, be Innovative, be Passionate. Begin with a Vision.

Sense of Taste – Humor, sexiness, focus, intellect are all valuable assets in SoMe. However, there is a fine line between humor and potty humor, sexiness and porn, focus and myopism, intellect and being a smart ass. Stay classy people, keep your sense of taste in check.

Sense of Timing – Social Media is about timing and timeliness. Trends can change by the minute, don’t let an opportunity to be relevant pass you by. Don’t wait until tomorrow for a conversation you could have today.

Sense of Humor – Social Media needs to be social, or shared, or viral, or pass-aroundable. Nothing does that better than buzz-worthy content and no content is more buzz-worthy than humorous content. The most widely ingested media is humorous. Check out this video which clocks in with 214 million views. It is the third most popular video of all time on YouTube, behind Justin Bieber/Ludacris’ Baby and Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance (both of which are arguably funny):

Image courtesy Nayski

You’re not Selling Products, You’re Selling Engagement

Cigarette companies had it right. WAY back in the day, when cigarette companies still advertised, the would show their cigarette package mixed in with a scene of hip, cool, good looking young people having a great time playing pool or surfing (must have been tough smoking a wet one). They weren’t selling the product, they were selling the lifestyle.

Fast forward to a time when I have gray hair.

When you’re selling your service or product, consider that people are less interested in what you sell than what they can do with what you’re selling. Apple nails this with their new iPhone 4 ads. Let’s leave out their antenna issues for a second and watch the spot. It’s not about how shiny and sparkly the phone is, it’s the emotional impact of what being able to talk to a friend or love one face-to-face means.

Many agencies and brands have gotten so caught up in what they’re selling that they’ve forgotten why they’re selling it. Next time you’re looking to differentiate your marketing message, think about your customer using your product for the first time, the anticipation finally being paid off with “wow”. This is the sound of your client engaging with your product (unless your product sucks, then it’s a different sound, perhaps “ugh”, maybe “aargh”). Film your spot, design your site, and write your copy around that. Distribute it. Watch sales rise.

« Previous Page — Next Page »