a digital product firm

Author Archive

Groupon, the Super Bowl, and Buzz

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

This is a companion article to “Groupon Really a Super Bowl Traffic Loser?”.

In a previous article, I took a look at the assertion that Groupon’s traffic lift from its Super Bowl ad was inconsequential.

Here I want to take a look at a different part of the Fast Company article on Groupon’s Super Bowl performance: Buzz.

The article shows a graph put out by Nielsen showing that Groupon had a very large amount of buzz relative to other digital brands that advertised during the Super Bowl. While I’m not a huge fan of sentiment (it’s still very much an inexact science), it seems clear that some concept of sentiment is missing from the FastCo article. If the majority of buzz is bad, then it wouldn’t be surprising to find that actual direct response to the ads was low.

More importantly, however, this reinforces how important it is to not live by buzz metrics alone. It’s easy for people to say something about your brand one way or another. What is more telling is what they actually choose to DO. Lots of talk (even very positive talk) doesn’t guarantee any impact on your brand. People may have had an interaction, fired of a tweet about it, and then totally forgot about it. Sure, there would appear to be more opportunity for people to do something, and certainly more opportunity for brand impressions on a person’s followers, but the relationship between buzz and actual response is not straightforward, and likely differs not just between brands, but between kinds of efforts inside a brand.

It’s best to measure not just what people say, but what you are trying to get from a campaign so that you can get a sense of what kinds of buzz actually move the needle on your business, and what kinds are just hot air. And, of course, if you can’t do that, we can do it for you ;)

Groupon Really a Super Bowl Traffic Loser?

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

I was just reading this article on Fast Company comparing the response to Groupon’s now infamous Super Bowl ads to that of other advertisers (notably GoDaddy), and thought it was worth pointing out a couple of things.

First, the article uses % increase in traffic week-over-week as the primary metric. That certainly makes for a dramatic looking metric, but it probably doesn’t give you the insight into “success” that you might think it would. First of all, for this kind of performance, you need to be looking at raw numbers. Percentages are great for comparing things that are directly comparable, but if we’re looking at direct-response-type metrics (which site visits would be), then what you care about is how much you had to spend to get a volume of response. So knowing that Groupon’s 3% increase – which seems paltry next to HomeAway.com’s 27% – accounts for 420,000 visits (as pointed out by commenter Rob Day) compared to HomeAways’s 230,000 provides a more meaningful comparison.

And if you’re looking at direct response, then what you need to know is what the cost of the effort was versus its value.

Assuming that the cost of a Super Bowl commercial is $10 million (and I have NO idea what the actual cost was), then we’re looking at about $29 per visit. Is that worth it? Well now we’re into the realm of things we probably can’t know. To know for sure, we’d need to know what percent of visitors Groupon is able to convert on their site, and what the lifetime value of each conversion is.

By way of a hyperbolic example, let’s look at Groupon’s numbers versus GoDaddy’s. GoDaddy (again, according to commenter Rob Day) gained 4,100,000 new visits compared to Groupon’s 420,000. If they were both able to convert 10% of visitors, then GoDaddy will have gained 410,000 customers, where Groupon gained only 42,000. But if the lifetime value of a customer is $10 for GoDaddy, and $100 for Groupon (again, numbers pulled out of thin air to make a point here), then GoDaddy has added $4,100,000 in revenue, and Groupon has added $4,200,000, making their overall performance about equal, despite very different seeming traffic percentages.

A final note on this: If they each paid $10 million for their spots, then their ROI is going to be the Return divided by the Investment, or $4,100,000/$10,000,000 for GoDaddy, and $4,200,000/$10,000,000 for Groupon. That’s 41% ROI for GoDaddy, and 42% for Groupon. If neither got any additional value out of the ads, then they are both underwater on this effort – that is, they spent more than they earned – making this not a good candidate to repeat for either one of them next year.

I also want to talk about the “buzz volume” metric in the FastCo article, but I’ll do that in a separate article.

Deeper In The Fight

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Here on the Fight blog we aim to post either tidbits of interesting things found on the web or deeper dives into concepts that we care deeply about. We didn’t want to clutter our blog up with fragments.

But sometimes fragments are really all you need, so I’ve been maintaining a Posterous blog to use for tossing in links or content fragments as reference material to come back to again and again. It tends to shadow whatever I’m currently thinking about (currently it’s filled with theory of gaming, and persuasion) and content shows up in bursts rather than a steady trickle often with no more than a title and a link.

If you’re interested in this more behind-the-scenes aspect of Fight, check it out: deepmarketing.posterous.com.

Fight Book Club: Free: The Future of a Radical Price

Monday, October 18th, 2010

Last month we decided that we’d start a book club of sorts at Fight, and we started reading Clayton M. Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma. It’s a book that is at the heart of many different aspects of what Fight does, so it was good to get into it and discuss.

This time it was Justin’s turn to choose and he picked Chris Anderson’s Free: The Future of a Radical Price. The book has done the business book of the moment circuit so I’m guessing that a lot of you have already read it. I’d love to see what you thought.

Next month it will be Mickey’s turn to choose, so if you’ve got something you think we should read, send him your suggestions.

Living With Variable Pricing – Day 1

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

Yesterday we launched our variable rate pricing. The purpose of the program is to create a public indicator of how busy we are in such a way that allows clients with potential projects can take that into account. If we’re not busy, our rate will reflect that and hopefully encourage people to start new work with us, or get into a deeper engagement without increasing their costs. On the other hand, if we’re very busy, we can signal that by an increase in our rate.

We wanted to have a way of varying this rate that was as objective as possible, so we’re basing changes in our rate on how “utilized” we are. Based on our histories working for various agencies, we set our sights somewhat arbitrarily on an ideal utilization of 80%, and decided that anything plus or minus ten percentage points was probably what we could consider “optimal”.

So, if we’re working within this target, our rate stays the same. If we fall below, our rate falls, and if we shoot over the top, our rate rises ($1 a day in either case). We’re also upping our rate $1 for every serious inquiry we get for new work. Simple as that.

So what has this meant for us so far?

First, deciding what is, and is not, “utilized”. Now that we have established a range of utilization that we want to be within, we need to decide what actually counts as being utilized. So far, this has been fairly straightforward: work on billable projects is clearly utilized; work on getting a billable project defined, signed, and running also seems utilized; business development work for our business development guy (@verymickey, contact him if you’re interested in doing business with us ;) is utilized; internal administration is not utilized; and writing for the blog, looking at our analytics, and most biz dev work for everyone but Mickey seems like non-utilized. There are some grey areas, like do we count it as utilized if Justin goes to a meeting with Mickey to talk to a potential client. We’re going with our gut on these (it does count), and so far they seem easy enough to resolve.

Second, a strong incentive to fill out timesheets. We’re pulling our utilization numbers daily based on our timesheets (we use Harvest, in case you’re interested). Since the rate that we charge is directly affected by this, it becomes a pretty good motivator (especially for those of us who struggle to get our time in). Also, since someone is looking at this data every day and taking action based on it, it adds meaning to the task as well. The upshot of all of this is even more detailed reporting on projects in the future.

Third, an evaluation of whether or not 80% utilized is actually optimal. A question that’s starting to surface is whether, given our definitions of what is and is not considered “utilized”, is 80% the right number. We may find out that we do a lot of non-utilized work and that if we also did 80% utilized work, we’d struggle to keep up. We may also find that 70% is not enough or 90% is too much. This may mean that we have to look at changing the target range to more accurately reflect reality. It’s too soon to tell yet, but we’re certainly paying a lot more attention to this.

Fourth, some questions, and some directional answers. We received a few questions about the program pretty much right away (in fact, we got more than a few questions even before we launched). This is great, of course. It’s an experiment for us, and we welcome questions, opinions, and advice. We launched this experiment to see what we could learn from it, so we’re doing a lot of “yeah, that’s a good question” right now. Sorry for that. Hopefully as we get farther into this, we’ll have more definitive answers to share.

Free Thought Fridays

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Sometimes you just need someone from outside of your organization to help move a project along. Maybe you are having trouble thinking your way around some problem, or maybe you want some extra brains to help in a brainstorming session, or need a small amount of help to keep a project moving.

At Fight, nothing ends the week better for us than a good brain stretch.

So, from 3-5 pm on Fridays we’ll lend your organization our brains for free (and, if you’re in the Portland metro area, we’ll even come to you – otherwise we’ll need to meet remotely).

You’ll need to provide us context in advance (no more than an hour’s worth of effort) so that we can have some idea of what we’re in for, but other than that, there’s no cost, no obligation, no anything.

Of course, since we’re doing it for free, there’s no continuation work for free, but if you have a project that could gain from an hour or two of outside pushing, or if you’re interested in seeing Fight in action in a risk free way, then let’s talk!

We’ll be doing this on a mostly first-come-first-served basis, but we may have to move things around from time to time, so reach out today and reserve your time.

Goals, Metrics, Tactics, and Strategy

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

Because the difference between marketing strategy and marketing tactics can be difficult to grasp, I thought I’d take a quick shot at defining how Fight thinks of them. I’ve tossed in goals and metrics as they are important parts of the mix and are easily confused with both each other and (typically) goals are sometimes mistaken for strategy.

Here we go:

Goal

Goals should be the first thing created for a marketing project. A goal is what you are trying to achieve. Goals often break down into two groups: business goals and marketing goals.

Business Goal

A business goal is typically (but by no means always) associated with money. So a business goal might look like this:

  • Increase revenue by 5% this fiscal year

Marketing Goal

A marketing goal typically exists to support some business goal. So a marketing goal that supports a business goal about revenue, might look like this:

  • Increase product awareness by 25%

Notice that neither goal gives you something specific to do. Goals are focused on the outcomes that you want, not how you want to get to them.

Metric

A metric tells how you’ll know when you’ve reached a goal as well as how the goal will be measured. So a metric for the marketing goal above might be:

  • The number of potential clients responding that they are “somewhat aware” or higher on our annual prospect survey will increase from the previous year by 25% or more.

In both of the goals above, the target was given (“5% revenue increase”, “25% awareness increase”). Goals won’t always have these targets right in them, but metrics should ALWAYS include the target.

Strategy

A strategy describes the approach that will be taken to accomplish the goals and should include as much relevant information as possible about why you are taking this approach. The strategy provides the guidance for the individual actions taken on a project. When evaluating what tactics to use, you should be able to look at the strategy to determine what is “on strategy” and what is not. A supporting strategy for the marketing goal might be:

  • Since our prospects spend a large amount of time online, conduct high-volume advertising on the online properties where they spend most of their time

Tactic

A tactic is each thing that you do in support of a strategy. There may be only one tactic, or there may be hundreds depending on such things as budget and timing. Some possible tactics for the sample strategy above:

  • Buy run-of-site ads on ESPN
  • Advertise on Facebook
  • Test response to Twitter advertising

So there you go, a quick and dirty overview. Toss your questions in the comments if you have any, and let me know if there are other marketing issues that are causing you (or others) confusion.

The Cost of an Action

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

This is part of a series of articles about how Fight is approaching using some free advertising. It all kicks off here.

When we work on campaigns for clients, our aim is to understand one thing in particular: how much did it cost to get a desired outcome from the campaign? That is, how much did it cost to get a sign-up, a purchase, or the like. This is true even if the primary goal is to create awareness about something, or to create a shift in some key brand perception metric.

Knowing how much it cost you to achieve a goal allows you to compare various ways of getting to that goal to see what the most efficient way to achieve it is.

With that in mind, let’s explore how the Naked Campaign worked for us.

One of the things that we were interested in knowing for this campaign, was how much it cost to get a targeted person to our site. Here’s how that broke down:
“Spend”
Google (after filtering click fraud): $53.22
LinkedIn: $199.24

Site Visits
Google: 30
LinkedIn: 14

Bounce Rate (% of visits that saw just one page; we don’t count these people as interested for our purposes)
Google: 96.67%
LinkedIn: 92.86%

“Engaged” Visits
Google: 1
LinkedIn: 1

Cost per Engaged Visit (Cost/Engaged Visits)
Google: $53.22
LinkedIn: $199.24

As you can see, ultimately there was not enough “engaged” traffic for us to get a solid sense of how much it would cost for each engaged visitor that came through each of these sites.

If there had been enough traffic to have solid numbers, then clearly Google would be the better candidate for further investment. We could also have used these numbers to establish a success threshold for other acquisition campaigns. We know it cost us $53 to get an engaged visit to the site. All other things equal, activities that had a higher cost per engaged visitor would not warrant further investment.

The Naked Numbers

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

This is part of a series of articles about how Fight is approaching using some free advertising. It all kicks off here.

The advertising portion of the Naked Campaign has now drawn to a close.

We divide the execution of a project (versus the strategizing portion) into 5 stages: Execution Planning, Running the Project, Analysis, and Adjustment.

Since we’ve finished running the project, it’s time for some analysis. Here’s a quick it on the base metrics that we were tracking, with more to follow.

Unfortunately, we ultimately had to throw out all of the Google AdWords data from before 20th as it looks like the click fraud that we were experiencing went all the way back to the beginning of the campaign :( So here’s the adjusted data starting at the 9th of July for LinkedIn’s DirectAds, and the 20th for Google’s AdWords:

DirectAds Spend: $199.24
DirectAds Impressions: 104,229
DirectAds Clicks: 38 (0.036% Click Rate)

AdWords Impressions: 116,092
AdWords Clicks: 78 (0.067% Click Rate)

Twitter Followers (current, all types): 295 (+14% since start)
RSS Followers (7 day avg): 15 (-17%)
Unique Visitors (30 days): 547 (+2.4%)
Comments (campaign, total): 0

I’ll do a deeper dive into the numbers over the next few days, and then we’ll go into the Adjustment stage and see what this all means for Fight moving forward.

Welcome Razorfish!

Saturday, July 31st, 2010

Fight welcomes the new kids on the block:

(Yes, we fixed the “Z” after this photo ;)

Here’s a movie of this going up: