Conversion depends on “who you market to”!

Here’s a typical eCommerce scenario - 100 people visit your website but only 5 of them finally convert. Now you have two marketing options:

  1. You can spend a lot of money trying to get back people who did not convert, or
  2. You can dig deeper, find what’s common among the 5 who converted and then go after their ilk
Also for #2, if you are really smart, you can isolate the ones who show tendencies of becoming repeat buyers and put your might behind them.

Of course you can/should do both but if your marketing budget is limited (when is it not?), strategy#2 should take precedence. If there are people who are willing (or can be easily persuaded) to do business with you without demanding that you change your product/service/website, why not pursue them first?

(I’m assuming that your website/product/service is at least decent. If you have serious problems there then no amount of consumer targeting will work (in the long run)).

For a very long time, I found it hard to believe that there could be something very intrinsic (pre-disposition) to customers that’d make them do/not do business with you. I believed if you made the right product and marketed it the right way, most of your target prospects would do business with you. Apparently, that’s not true - it’s an established fact that regardless of how good you are, many prospects will choose not do business with you. Also, most of those who do become your customers will leave you over time and your going to have to (1) find new customers and (2) try prolonging the dis-engagement of your existing customers as much as you profitably can. The marketing ROI in both of these pursuits can be drastically improved if you carefully choose who you are going to spend your marketing money on. 

This is the Best Digital Marketing Strategy Framework!!

[Updated later: Don't forget to download the recently released eBook based on this framework from CustomerThink website here]


I didn’t want to just put a link to this super framework on my twitter stream and lose it, so, I’m copying it here for future reference. This framework was developed by Akin Arikan a few months back with inspiration/support from Jim Sterne, Eisenberg brothers, Yuchun Lee, MindofMarketing.net and Digitas. I think it’s absolutely cool. If you’ve never struggled defining a framework for digital marketing, you’ll probably miss the nuances in the diagram below and may pass it on as another fancy McKinsey type but let me tell you that there’s no other framework (google it) that packs so much info in one place and tells you all you need to know about your digital strategy at a high level. No rocket science really...and you probably already know all of it but what you perhaps didn't know was that that's all there is to know:-). 


End-of-social or end-of-the-beginning-of-social?


I think Roger McNamee seems to be confused between what is the “end-of-the-beginning-of-social” with the “end-of-social”. Yes, we may not need any new social networks today but who said social was only about social networks? When Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, was asked why he created it; he said – “The web is more a social creation than a technical one. I designed it for a social effect — to help people work together — and not as a technical toy.

So, you see, social is the super-glue of the internet and it’s not going away!

We are simply moving to a new phase of social maturity where we may not need new social networks but we'd be spending years…maybe decades redefining all our business processes (and society and governments...pretty much everything) to make them more social (more transparent...more accountable...more fun and more human) - that's social for you.

Ironically, Roger was the guy who asked Zuckergerb not to sell FB to Google when Google offerred around a billion dollars for FB in 2006. I don't want to conjure up a conspiracy theory here but is Roger afraid of his investments in FB now that G+ is getting traction? Maybe he doesn't want too many players in social business!!

Rethinking Segmentation!!

If averages are useless and site-wide KPIs thwart real issues from surfacing on executive dashboards; and if your analytics expert gets to keep his job only because once in a while he can drill down and segment your data across hundreds of dimensions to tell you what’s going on, then maybe there’s something wrong with the entire approach itself; perhaps all your KPIs should only be seen in some actionable contextual segments.



Why content curation is over-rated ?

I really don’t know what’s the big deal about paper.li or scoop.it or 10s of other content curation platforms! As a user, what'd you value more? paper.li (curation) or wikipedia (collaboration)?

I think content curation as in what you see in paper.li or scoop.it or even Alltop is grossly over-rated!! Where’s the value add? What I get is a list of links - sometimes relevant but mostly useless. If content curation tools were supposed to solve my information overload problems, I’d say paper.li is certainly not making the cut. Now compare this to Wikipedia (a collaborative effort), where some people actually take the responsibility of going through a number articles/literature and offer me something that’s coherent and easy to digest. That’s a real value add. Just crawling the web for keywords and getting a list of loosely connected articles in the name content curation doesn’t add any value to anyone.