Selling with Content

How blog content became a pool company's best salesperson

This is  great video produced by Michael Seltzer, owner of the Social Media Examiner. Seltzer interviews Marcus Sheridan, owner of River Pools and Spas who tells his story of how posting blog content, as part of an inbound marketing program, turnred his business around after it tanked in 2008 when the recession hit.  

There are several videos about Sheridan's story, but for me, this one stands out because Seltzer digs out the details. We find out how content became Sheridan’s best saleperson, and exactly what kind of content he posted. I especially like this story because it is about selling swimming pools, not the latest high tech gear that has a lot of intrinsic interest. No, nothing with that much sizzle, swimming pools. If this approach can work selling swimming pools, it can help sell anything.   

 

Read all of Seltzer's helpful commentary about his interview: How to Use Content to Increase Your Sales

User stories: great for sales support, poor for SEO or converting sales leads

Of all the content that companies create for marketing, “user stories” confuse the most. The confusion comes from its extremely uneven performance at different marketing functions.

For salespeople, a well written story about a successful user, who has a situation similar to a potential customer, is a big help in closing a sale. But buoyed by positive feedback from the sales department many marketers overuse this type of content and apply it for less appropriate functions. The problem is that while customers in “similar situations” find user stories interesting, customers with dissimilar situations do not.

If your user story is written about a Fortune 500 customer, potential small business readers will yawn. Don’t expect a big city retailer to be interested in reading a user story about a small town store. Other kinds of content more easily cross these divides, for example, trend stories in a small market can be as relevant in a big one. I spend many years with a trade magazine where we were always amazed at the extremely low readership scores that user stories received. Where routine articles in the publication would be read by anywhere from 40 to 60% of subscribers, user stories consistently received scores in the 10-15% level.

In a study I will be releasing through Alethea Research in January, I tracked the customers of 34 different suppliers in a market and asked them to check if they felt if supplier provided “user stories,” motivated them to be more likely to want to buy products from the sponsoring suppliers. About a third (36%) said user stories positively motivated them, but this was a significantly lower score than many other content forms received. In addition, the customer bases of the individual 34 companies had different scores. For the customers of the company with the lowest score, only 29.6% said user stories positively motivated them. At the other end of the spectrum, 49.3% of customers of a different company said they were motivated by user stories. That's about a 20% spread between them. Lower scores seemed to go to companies whose products and solutions were better established and understood, companies with products that were generally newer or more unusual received higher scores. There seems to be less interest in reading user stories about prodcuts that are well understood or more familiar.

Bottom line: marketers need user stories. If you can create a series of them covering the typical usage situations of your products you can help your sales staff close sales. Keep in mind that the popularity of user stories will vary company to company, and product to product, depending on how new, unusual, or newsworthy products are. But just because your sales staff loves user stories don’t think they will help with your web site's search engine optimization (SEO), build readership for your newsletter, or provide down-loadable content to fuel a lead generation program. For those functions, there are other kinds of content that will do a better job. To hear more about my content usage study, sign up for my "Marketing Broadcast" newsletter.

A history of content marketing in under 3 minutes

Digital media has made it easy for brands to embrace content marketing and tell their story. But companies have created user centric content for hundreds of years before. This short video timelines the history of company created content starting with "The Furrow," a customer magazine published by John Deere in 1895, right up to the present. Along with a rocking sound track from Robert Rose of the Content Marketing Institute this video offers great perspective.   

  

Advertising in an fragmented world is more work

A study from Bain & Company found that in 2005, US commercial websites offered just over 200 million ad impressions for sale to marketers. Three years later (2008), there were four times as many impressions offered (about 800 million).

During that same 3 year period the cost of buying a banner ad in terms of CPM (cost per thousand) dropped by half. While lower costs are good for marketers, the added complexity means more time spent int he evaluation process.

Targeting online audiences gets harder with every passing year because there are more online destinations competing for attention and in need of evaluation. This trend has not slowed down. From 2008 until 2011 the number of online destinations has increased by about 40%.

But there is also opportunity here. As media become more fragmented it becomes easier to make your media buys more tightly focused. Want to reach a highly influential sub-group in your target audience? There could be an influential newsletter or blog. The key is to constantly evaluate the medial landscape in your markets. Sound like a lot of extra work? Yes. But there is opportunity to gain advantage for those willing to spend the time. Download the Bain study

The failed content strategy of CNN

Hurricane Irene was bearing down on New York City, where I live, so I was clicking through the cable channels looking for news.

A CNN meteorologist said the path of the storm was heading for New York. Great, tell me something I didn’t know.

Click. An MSNBC meteorologist had the same information but was in a storm center surrounded by a lot of hi-tech monitors. He must know his stuff.

Click. A local TV station had a guy I had never seen introduced as, “the weather man you have trusted all these years.” I’m not sure I’ve ever trusted a weather man.

Click. The Fox station had a reporter broadcasting from a New York City subway station which had been just closed because of the approaching hurricane. She was interviewing a British family who were heartbroken to have their family vacation cut short. Their disbelief that the legendary subway system of New York, one of the greatest cities on earth, could be humbled by a storm was palpable. As a New York City resident I could totally relate. I sympathized with the tourists who had had their lives disrupted, just as mine was.

By realizing that television is fundamentally emotional medium Fox had created content that got to me on an emotional level. As the other news organizations fought out over which meteorologist had the best credentials, the most gear, or longevity, Fox was broadcasting the emotional side of the story. In case anyone has not noticed, Fox is winning the cable news ratings wars.

Here is a list of the number of people who watched the top 10 cable news shows in August 2011 as compiled by Nielsen. The top five shows are from Fox. In addition:
• MSNBC’s top performer, The Rachel Maddow Show, trails at #15, behind 12 Fox shows.
• CNN’s top performer, Anderson Cooper 360, trails at #25 behind 14 Fox news shows.

Here the top 10 watched cable news shows for July 2011:
1. The O'Reilly Factor Fox News -- 2.793 million total viewers
2. Hannity Fox News -- 2.059 million total viewers
3. Special Report with Bret Baier Fox News -- 1.815 million total viewers
4. On the Record with Greta van Susteren-- Fox News -- 1.658 million total viewers
5. Fox Report with Shepard Smith Fox News -- 1.576 million total viewers
6. Nancy Grace HLN -- 1.350 million total viewers
7. The Five/Glenn Beck Fox News -- 1.325 million total viewers
8. Your World with Neil Cavuto Fox News -- 1.231 million total viewers
9. The O'Reilly Factor (11PM Repeat) Fox News -- 1.179 million total viewers
10. Dr Drew HLN -- 1.140 million total viewers

In addition...
15. The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC -- 974,000 total viewers
25. Anderson Copper 360--CNN -- 760,000 total viewers

With Fox’s right leading commentators and Republican connections the political implications of this, cannot be underestimated.

At trade conferences I have heard heard CNN spokespeople defend their low ratings compared to Fox in the following ways:
“Right wing issues are more black and white and are more easily dramatized.”
Ridiculous! A content strategy first attracts an audience, persuasion comes second.

“Offering a balanced approached is naturally is going to be less dramatic.”
Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! One of the most interesting things a news organization can do is to contrast opposing points of view.

In case anyone from CNN sill cares about ratings, it is easy to understand Fox’s content strategy because Roger Ailes, the man who build Fox from the ground up, wrote a book where he explains it. The parts of the book about television have nothing to do with left vs. right wing politics and everything to do with attracting audiences, gaining attention, and persuading.

Ailes recognizes that TV is an emotional medium and human beings, are emotional creatures. Here are some quotes from Ailes’ book, You are the message.

“Emotion is the double-edged sword of communication. When emotion is positive and genuine, there is no more constructive and powerful force of persuasion. But when emotion is negative or insincere, it creates a wall between the person sending the message and those receiving it.”

“People want to see a communicator have a range of emotions.”

“… facts provide the information and emotion provides the interpretation. You’ve got to bring something personal to the communication process. Otherwise, you’re wasting people’s time. You’re wasting your own time. To be a really good communicator, you have to start by knowing how you feel personally about what’s going on. Then, once you’re aware of your own emotions, you can more easily communicate in the right tone to others.”

CNN takes pride in not being politically left or right leaning and tries to run stories right down the middle of the political spectrum. Yawn. There is a huge difference between analytically balancing the left and right perspective versus passionately seeking the greater truth that supersede them both. Where is the passion CNN? It's all around and you ignore it. Go to any journalism school and hire the young passionate journalists desperate to fight for the greater truth that supersedes the left and right political agenda. Hire investigative journalists willing to risk it all to find stories that people can believe in. Are there any Woodward and Bernsteins at CNN today? I don't think so. There is no passion in mitigating between left an right. Go back to your journalism roots and fight for the truth.

TV is an emotional media. A successful content strategy must take that into consideration. To win the ratings war CNN will need to rediscover its passion.

The news experts who say that Fox is winning the ratings war because they have a right wing bias are simply wrong. Fox has found its passion, and that attracts an audience. CNN has not.

Wake up CNN!

See the top 30 cable news shows of July 2011

 

As social media saves the broadcast market, can it help yours?

As younger TV viewers watch a program, many of them chat about it on social media. Is this a big deal? Watching this happen as the parent of a teenager, I'd say maybe not. But it is actually proving to be important for the economic health of the broadcast industry.   

      All media companies are fighting ad commoditization because new digital media are being created every day. For example, this is happening with banner ads on consumer websites. In 2005, Bain & Company reported that there were over 200 million ad impressions offered to media buyers in the US. Three years later, in 2008, there were four times as many, or about 800 million offered. Why? Because the number of websites offering consumer advertising increased proportionally. During this same time, the cost of these website banners (as measured in CPM) dropped by half. It is simple supply and demand.  

     The television organizations are in the same boat. As more ways to view television become available, more ad inventory is added and ad prices drop. With an oversupply of digital media, media buyers have stopped putting as much value on "eyeballs" and instead now focus on finding media that delivers more "engagement."

     Media buyers are interested in social media, not because it is cool, but because it is highly engaging. Television programs with a social media trail have a certain proof of media engagement. If a TV viewer likes a program enough to watch it, that's good. But if a viewer likes a show enough to watch it and chat about it to friends on social media, it proves a higher level of engagement.

     Last May at the "Upfront Market" an event where broadcasters showcase their new fall programs and can sell up to 70% of their ad inventory for the year, social media was center stage. As reported in The New York Times:  

"At almost every turn this week, television networks are talking about being liked - not only in the ratings, but also on Facebook and Twitter. Social media have been an integral part of the sales pitch at the "upfront" presentations held by Fox on Monday, ABC on Tuesday and CBS on Wednesday."

    A TV show that can prove engagement can often keep ad pricing at a higher level despite lower ratings. A recent study by TV Guide measured the top ten "social shows" of the 2010-2011 season, and many were not the top rated shows. They are: 
 
 1. NCIS
 2. American Idol
 3. Criminal Minds
 4. Glee
 5. House
 6. Fringe
 7. Bones
 8. Castle
 9. Smallville
10. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

     As the TV world becomes more fragmented and broadcasters struggle against the commoditization of their ad inventory, social TV may be a big help in proving engagement and keeping their prices from sliding. 

OK, now let's talk about social media as part of the marketing at your company. The real value of social media is not that is "cool" but because it generates customer engagement. If social media has the power to create enough engagement to save the broadcast market ...think it can with yours? 
 
     Read The New York Times account of social media at the Upfront event:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/media/19adco.html

     Read the TV Guide social media study:
http://www.tvguide.com/News/Most-Social-NCIS-Idol-1033024.aspx         

Google: Want better SEO? Improve your content.

Early this year Google initiated its “Panda” algorithm change which affected the rank of millions of websites. In a February post on “The Official Google Blog” they explained their motivation:

“This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites, or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on...

We can’t make a major improvement without affecting rankings for many sites. It has to be that some sites will go up and some will go down. Google depends on the high-quality content created by wonderful websites around the world, and we do have a responsibility to encourage a healthy web ecosystem. Therefore, it is important for high-quality sites to be rewarded, and that’s exactly what this change does.”

Read the whole post: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-quality-sites-in.html

The “Panda” changes created so much interest that Google offered more advice two months later, on their "Webmaster Central Blog":

“Some publishers have fixated on our prior Panda algorithm change, but Panda was just one of roughly 500 search improvements we expect to roll out to search this year. In fact, since we launched Panda, we've rolled out over a dozen additional tweaks to our ranking algorithms, and some sites have incorrectly assumed that changes in their rankings were related to Panda. Search is a complicated and evolving art and science, so rather than focusing on specific algorithmic tweaks, we encourage you to focus on delivering the best possible experience for users.”

Read the whole post:http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html

You can read the entire posts from Google on the links I've provided above. But it is not hard to see what Google is looking for. As they see it, their job is to find the best and most relevant content locations, rank them, and present them to their users. Through this process sites with higher quality content will rank higher.

In their their words, websites that create "original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on" are bound to come out ahead. This is why many companies are making original content creation part of their search engine optimization program.

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

What does online influence actually look like? Looks like content

The discussion about online influence needs to shift away from discussions about Facebook, Twitter, and LinkIn and move to a discussion about content and personal connections.

Brian Solis, one of Social medias most consistently great thinkers did a study asking social media practitioniers where online influence comes from. Some of what Brian uncovered was counter intuitive, but all makes good sense when you think about it. 

Is there a differce between popularity and influence? YES, big difference.

The more fans you have, the more influential you are? Maybe not. Respondents valued fewer more tightly connected followers to masses. 

Most important function that creates online influence? Top choice by far: Create, post, or share compelling content. Many other functions fell behind this including: being famous online, being authentic, and connecting with famous people. 

Bottom line: online influence is about creating content that connects with others. When you think about it, isn't that what all stripes of social media provide opportunity for?

 The way online influence is most often evaluated is in the ability to motivate followers to action. I have seen the influnce Brian has on his followers first hand. Last year I quoted him in a social media research study I did. When Solis read it, he liked and tweeted that he was reading it. Within hours the study had been retweeted over  a hundred times.  

Here are some of Brians charts from the study:   

 

 Read about the study

Download a PDF of the findings:  

http://www.vocus.com/social-media/influencer/what-makes-an-influencer.pdf

The new 3 R's of marketing are about content

My old friend Dave Scelba has a new take on the 3 R's. Dave always has a fresh take on things and this is no exception. When we first met many years ago he was running a highly sucessful ad agency that produced mostly B to B print ads. Times have changed, so has Dave and his organization.Give a watch:

You can see more of Dave's ideas at his video blog: http://www.davescelba.com/.

Here's the copy from Dave's talk:

The general public perceives the 3 R’s to stand for Reading, wRiting and aRithematic.

But if you’re a marketing and communications professional the 3 R’s really should stand for Re-purpose, Re-distribute and Re-allocate.

Re-purposing content is easy. Your press releases can be edited into short one to three minute video scripts. The original writer should be able to edit the content in probably less than an hour and a half. Re-purposing content helps satisfy the basic marketing principal of maintaining a consistent message.

Re-distribution fulfills the major marketing goal of increasing the size of your audience. If you simply re-distribute the edited video content to all the appropriate social media networks, third party websites, Blogs and v-mails, you will be exponentially increasing the size of your audience. Best of all, this expanded distribution can be accomplished for literally a few dollars each month.

Re-allocating budgets to maximize reach and frequency is an essential marketing investment objective. It’s fairly well-known that on a dollar-for-dollar basis, public relations is the most cost-effective of all the communication tactics. By simply re-allocating a couple of thousand dollars each month from your advertising and media budget to your social media strategy, you will substantially increase your reach and frequency and ultimately satisfy this major marketing objective.

If your budget is scrutinized by a CFO, you’ll be happy to know that social media tactics are 100% measurable, and the analytics are provided at no cost to the user.

Re-purpose, Re-distribute and Re-allocate ... 3R’s for today’s marketing professional.