Selling with Content

The most profitable content is relevant content

I just read an amazingly insightful post by Mark Ramsey (left) of Mark Ramsey Media in which he nails the process of making media more effective by making the content the media delivers more meaningful.

This is a big one folks. Solve this issue and your content can achieve greater things. Relevant content is better read, hits add deeper chords among readers, and is much more likely to become viral.    

Ramsey's post is about radio programing, But the issues and strategies he raises are universal to all media. If you want to know the secret sauce to making the content your media shares more relevant, read on:

"One of the media genres I work in regularly is Christian radio.

There is something different about a project with Christian format broadcasters from one with more conventional, let alone commercial, broadcasters. And what’s different isn’t simply the source of funding or the familiarity of the songs on the air.

What’s different – what’s palpable – is that everyone on staff knows the brand stands for something bigger.  And this feeling is generally lacking for most broadcasters in most formats.  But why?

Think about it, what does YOUR station stand for that’s bigger than the format itself?

Maybe you stand for maximizing revenue.  Maybe you stand for increasing ratings.  Okay those are outcomes, not objectives.  But outcomes of what?

Of playing the best music mix?  Sure, but that is increasingly easy to mimic nowadays on any number of platforms.  Of being ubiquitous and easy?  Sure, but that’s hardly defensible in a time of techno-revolution.

What about working to make your community a better place?  What about working to tangibly enrich the lives of the tens or hundred of thousands of ears and eyes who care enough about you to come back, again and again, day after day?  Show me the fan who affiliates with your brand for “higher ratings” or “more revenue” and I’ll show you the fan with a big title and the corner office at the station.

We talk a lot about social media in radio nowadays, yet how much of our social media efforts are directed towards anything with a social consequence?

Listeners – like you and me – are human beings.  And human beings always favor the call to something bigger.  If we in radio are guilty of anything, it’s not selling ourselves short, it’s selling short our audiences and their dreams and aspirations.  Once upon a time, Steve Jobs lured a Pepsi executive to run Apple with the admonition: “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want a chance to change the world?”  Guess what he did?  Who would do anything different?

Of course, our stations must be viable businesses – and growing ones, too. But are they successful because we relentlessly seek to increase ratings or are they successful because the audience places them near and dear to their hearts? I would argue that if it’s not the latter, then we risk losing the former.

Fans rave about the extraordinary, not the mundane.  The best way for any brand to be irreplaceable is for that brand to aspire to irreplaceability. And minimizing interruptions and tune-outs does not make you irreplaceable. The best way is to stand for something bigger and to prove it on an ongoing basis. That’s the way to motivate employees, audiences, consumers, investors, and management alike.

Standing for something bigger means solving bigger problems."

Great post Mark, Keep 'em coming! 

 Read Mark Ramsey's post: "Can Radio Save the World"

 

The customer feedback salepeople miss that social media hears

Your organizations salespeople can be a terrific source of customer feedback, so can a social media listening program. Do you need them both? Yes.

Research from a recent study I did for NCI, the largest real estate publishing company in the country, documents an area of customer feedback that salespeople typically miss. This same area is one where social media listening excels: understanding why customers leave.  

The NCI study of over 5,000 respondents asked home sellers why they leave, or fire, real estate agents they are working with to sell their home. At the same time, we asked real estate agents why they think their customers, the home sellers, leave them. Comparing the results tells a universal truth about the selling process and the limits of the customer feedback it gathers.  

A majority of real estate agents (58%), assumed that "lack of progress" in selling a home, was the main reason a home seller would leave them. Reasonable. But the miss comes in assumng this is the only significant reason. Agents assume that all other reasons a customer would leave them are of little consequence: 

• Agent did not spend enough time: 14%
• Other agent seemed more competent 8%
• Other agent seemed more eager  8%
• Agent did not give progress updates 4%

        All other responses were 3% or less

But when home sellers were asked why they left the real estate agents, it was clear that other factors were important as well. Lack of progress was still the top reason with 45% picking it (vs. 58% for agents), but other reasons were far more important than agents thought:     

• Agent did not spend enough time: 37%  (only 14% of agents thought so )
• Not impressed with agents selling skills: 27% (only 1% of agents thought so)
• Agent did not give progress updates:  25% (only 4% of agents thought so)
• Agent gave too many excuses 23% (only 1% of agents thought so)
• Agent focused on selling other homes 19% (only 1% of agents thought so)  

For all the comparisons, here is a chart from the NCI study:  
 
Clearly, the real estate agents are not getting the whole story but typically it is not their fault. When a buyer, of any kind, decides to buy from someone else, they often give the losing salesperson an expedient excuse that is light on details, "competition gave us a crazy price", "my boss over ruled me", or "we just thought we'd try something new." An honest answer to a salesperson or real estate agent can revitalize the salesperson's efforts resulting in phone calls, e-mail, and meetings over a decision that has already been made. 

Social media listening is the opposite. Monitoring "customer dissatisfaction" is a core function. Angry customers who are leaving or have left your company often vent frustrations through social media channels. If you are listening you can "hear" the complaints and respond appropriately. 

Read more about the NCI study

Steve Jobs shows that great content always finds a way

Whatever you are doing for the next 15 minutes, will probably not be as useful as watching this video of Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement speech at Stanford University. 

Jobs talks on how he set life  priorities from three difficult experiences: his early life as an adopted child, being fired from Apple in 1985, and his life and death encounter with pancreatic cancer. It is a serious, timeless piece of wisdom from an iconic American hero...great content!

But as I watched the video I saw something unsettling. The Stanford students were barely listening to Jobs. At the start many were talking in the background. Into the speech, audience laughter came at times as if the students were watching a TV sitcom rather than serious lessons of life and death. 

But with social media, great content can endure beyond initial audience indifference. This video is alive and well on YouTube, where it has been seen by millions (3.6 million on one of many posts), on iTunes, blogs, and websites. 

Since 2005 Jobs went on to become Amerca's most respected CEO. As he departs for yet another leave from Apple for unspecified health issues, the message of this address seems more urgent than ever. No one is laughing or talking in the background now.

 

Am I (still) the grandfather of Sales 2.0?

  Januray 2011 marks the ten year anniversary of the publication of my third book, Selling 2.0. As result of the publication I recieved an endearing accolade. Here is the scoop:

Am I the grandfather of Sales 2.0?    

 My daughters Jennifer (left) and Laura (right) (photo from 3/2009) were very confused at the announcement that I had become a grandfather. Said Laura, “Dad, if you are a grandpa don’t you think I’d be the first to know?”

But there it was, posted on the Sales 2.0 website  by CEO, Nigel Edelshain, crediting me as the “Grandfather of Sales 2.0.” Since Nigel speaks with a delightful British accent we know that everything he says is absolutely true.

Nigel bestowed my honorary title for my pioneering work writing the book “Selling 2.0” years before the current Sales 2.0 movement. If I was a pioneer, I have the scars to prove it. While the early bird may get the worm, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese, and there were many times during the writing and release of “Selling 2.0” that I felt like that first mouse.

The book took off fast and sold well in January 2001. The dot-com bubble was on the rise, all things high-tech were in vogue, and “Selling 2.0, Motivating Customers in the New Economy”, played well to the times. Over 6,000 copies zipped though stores in just the first few months. But by March the dot-com bubble burst and all things “new economy” became suspect.

Despite the setback I had high hopes. On August 29, 2001, all seemed possible as the guest of honor at a New York restaurant hosted by the German publisher of "Selling 2.0." I had high level level speaking engagements lined up at the end of the year that would propel the substance of the book forward, despite the sudden change in the market. 

But the fate of that very restaurant would mirror the fortunes ahead. Thirteen days later, on September 11, that restaurant, “Windows on the World” atop New York City’s World Trade Center would crash to rubble in the worst terrorist attack on US soil. In the air travel restrictions that followed the September 11th attacks my speaking engagements vanished.

But along the way I had the true privilege of capturing interviews with Lee Iacocca, Ted Turner, Brian Tracy, and Guy Kawasaki and interviewed the great thinkers of the sales world including Neal Rackham, Mack Hanan, and Gerhard Gschwandtner.

While writing I tried to interview the author of a book on customer loyally. When I told him about the project he got very excited, too excited. He didn’t just want to be interviewed he wanted to co-write and publish the book. Being under contract, I passed. In hindsight, “Selling 2.0" may have sold more copies had Jeffrey Gitomer been its co-author.

If you have heard Jill Konrath speak you may have heard her story of how she created her iconic book “Selling to Big Companies” after her company failed and she had to completely rethink her selling strategy. While she was in that state of reconsideration, “Selling 2.0” was one of the books that inspired her.

It was an amazing journey and it is exciting to see others writing the next chapters of Sales 2.0. 

Thank you Nigel. Even though I am not really that old, I accept the accolade.

 Josh Gordon

 "Grandfather of Sales 2.0" 

 

Most marketers: Social Media is cheap and cool but not very effective

Social Media's rapid adoption has been primarily because it is cheap and cool. Being effective? Not so much.

Blasphemy? Not really. We have all read the high profile Social Media success stories and know they deliver "the goods." But the majority of the Social Media use I see "on the street" is pretty basic stuff:

• Send out a press release, Tweet about it.
• Have a company event, put it up on a Facebook page.
• Come out with a new product, post it on your blog.
• Etc.

At this level of execution, Social Media is not the tip of the marketing spear, but just offering support to PR and other "exposure" functions. In cases like these, it is hard to isolate tangible results leadingna majority of marketers to doubt the effectiveness of their Social Media.

A recent study by Junta42 and MarketingProfs well documented this.

First, the good news: when close to 1,000 marketing directors were asked which content marketing tactics they now use, Social Media (less blogs) topped the list with 79% saying they are users:

But later the study came to a different finding: despite marketers using Social Media more than any other tactic, it is also the tactic they least believe to be effective (only 31% do). Also, more than any other tactic measured, 69% of respondents believe Social Media to be "less effective" or "ineffective." Ouch! Not good ratings for a medium that prides itself on being highly measurable. What is going on here?

Let's look at cost. While access to Facebook and Twitter (etc) are free, dedicating talent to get a Social Media program done right is not. As anyone reading this blog should know by now, good content is not cheap and a Social Media program is only as good as its content.

But marketers see this differently, Social Media might not be free, but deploying it can cost less than deploying any other tactic on the Junta42/Marketing Profs Study list.

And we cannot ignore the cool factor. I can't tell you how many companies have told me they deployed Social Media programs because their younger employees told them they had to do it.

The message for those of us advocating for a more engaged use of Social Media in business is simple: don't think because Social Media is everywhere that everyone thinks it is effective. Most marketers are still not convinced.

For now, Social Media is everywhere because it is cool and cheap. Someday, it might also become widely used, and used differently, because of its effectiveness. But if this study is to be believed, this time has not yet come.

Download the Junta42/Marketing Profs study