a digital product firm

The ‘Fight’ Category

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.

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:

DirectAds Finally Works!…Sort of.

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

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

After 9 days of running ads on LinkedIn’s DirectAds, we’d seen a total of one click. This despite the fact that more than 16,000 impressions had been run, the fact that we took our top-performing ad from Google’s AdWords and put it into rotation on DirectAds, and the fact that we wrote the most pragmatic ad that we could think of.

Here we had free money, and we couldn’t spend any of it.

So we did what we do here at Fight. We looked to see what we could do differently.

After a brief brainstorm, we decided to open up the audience target. We had been targeting people in Marketing job functions at medium-to-large companies and were likely to have control of a budget. Since we had to spend the money or lose it, we decided to go wider; much wider.

We blew away all of the audience targeting options; anyone at on on LinkedIn could see our ads, moving us from about 500,000 potential audience members, to over 70,000,000. Our justification for this (aside from having to spend money by July 31st) was that it’s possible that marketing professionals just don’t use LinkedIn that much (seems unlikely, but our low number of overall impressions is suggestive), and that if we reach beyond the primary network of the people that we’re directly targeting, into the secondary network of people in a company who might refer us along, and the tertiary network of influencers outside of a company, then DirectAds could still be a benefit to the Naked Campaign.

Here’s what happened:

There was an immediate uptick in both impressions and clicks. The click through rate is modest, and the bounce rate for people arriving at the Naked landing page from DirectAds is about 67%, which means that there are likely SOME visitors who have a legitimate interest in what Fight does.

And what ads are getting all of these new clicks?

Maybe it’s no surprise to you, but it’s the top performing ad from the AdWords campaign and the pragmatic ad written specifically for the LinkedIn audience.

What the Click?!?

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

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

Last Friday I checked in on the performance of our AdWords ads and things seemed to be going well. There was even a gentle increase in the total number of clicks. When I checked back in on AdWords this Monday the number of daily clicks had more than doubled!

Hooray, right?

Not so fast.

Driving traffic to your site is not just an issue of quantity. Even people casting the widest nets still want to know (or SHOULD want to know) how the traffic is performing. So I went to Google Analytics to start with the Bounce Rate. The Bounce Rate tells you how many people made it past the first page of your site. It is a good first indicator that the traffic that you’re getting to your site is valuable.

And this is where the mystery began.

The traffic wasn’t there. AdWords showed 20 clicks on July 17th, and 25 on the 18th. Google Analytics? 7 and 12 visits respectively. Clearly something was wrong here.

It turns out that most of our clicks were coming from Google’s Display Network, and mostly through what shows up in the reporting as “AdSenseForMobileApps.com”, which is how Google reports ads that were displayed on mobile devices inside of apps. Sadly for us, the apps that were the biggest click generators (by far) have all been suspected of click fraud in one forum or another. Click fraud is when a site (or app in this case) generates clicks as Google AdWords would define them, but doesn’t actually send real traffic to the site that paid for the ad.

Fortunately, Google tries to keep on top of this, and there’s even a report (if you dig for it) that will show you how many clicks Google thinks were invalid and that it didn’t charge you for. They also seem pretty open to you reporting times when you think there is fraud, and crediting you back for disputed clicks.

For our campaign, however, the problem is more than a monetary one (since we’re working on free ads in the first place); they’ve destroyed our data. This issue calls into question much of the data that we’ve been gathering, since we can’t tell for certain how long we’ve been getting fake clicks. Since there’s no easy way to see what ads were served because of which keywords onto which placements, it makes it near impossible for us to determine if ads that we thought were high performing actually were, or were just lost into the honey pot.

So, what to do?

In AdWords, you can exclude sites from carrying your ads. You can even do this on an individual app or URL basis. For us, we excluded the entire AdSenseForMobileApps.com category, because not only do we have a data problem, but we also now have a trust issue. We can’t be sure what is a valid source of traffic from apps, so we’re shutting them all down. It means starting over with our data, but it may at least mean we have clean data.

It’s been a couple of days since we shut down the apps (we put a halt to it on Monday the 19th). What was the effect?

Clearly we have some work to do.

The SEO Effect

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

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

One of the benefits that we factored in when we considered doing a campaign of this sort is search engine optimization. Doing the Naked Campaign meant that we could write about a lot of the things that we talk about internally in a public-facing way. Naturally that means that words that we care about would show up related to us in search engines.

There is, of course, no guarantee that we will show up high enough in any particular search to make it worth the effort from that point of view alone (and certainly there’s more to ranking high than just having particular words in your content), but the potential side effect was definitely worth factoring in.

So, is it working?

In short, yes. Since the Naked Campaign started, keywords that show up exclusively in articles related to the campaign have accounted for 20% of our organic search traffic.

Here are the phrases that have sent us traffic so far:
Adwords
madebyfight.com/naked
invalid http response code adwords
free $250 dollar google adwords
keyword suggestion tool
linkedin directads coupon

Especially interesting is the fact that the most popular keyword (AdWords) also had the lowest bounce rate at 40%. This means that 6 out of every 10 visitors from this search term went on to read further into the site, which is extraordinary for our site generally speaking, much less for search terms. This isn’t particularly surprising as our program is built around AdWords (and the lesser-searched-for DirectAds), but it is encouraging to know that the targeting appears to be effective.

Perhaps you’ve come to this page via a search? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. What caught your interest enough to click, and did you find what you expected to find?