a digital product firm

The ‘Thinking’ 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.

GitR 3: The Big Idea

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Here’s another entry in the info-snacking firing line that we call “Get in the Ring”.  The topic that I had 3 minutes to cover (without any prep) was: The Big Idea.

For the uninitiated, the Big Idea is what advertising companies (and, increasingly, all marketing companies) sell: The OMG moment, captured in a 30 second commercial, magazine spread, web site, or banner ad.

We’re big fans of the Big Idea, as a rule.  The problem is that it is typically the end of the conversation about reaching an audience, where as we believe that it’s really just the beginning.

Anyway, here’s me taking a shot at this unexpectedly after I drew it from the 60-odd other topics that we had to blindly draw from.

The Naked Campaign is Born

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

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

With all of the considerations discussed in the previous articles in mind, we brainstormed.

We have always believed that having people experience our process is the best way to convince them to hire us, so we asked ourselves how we could incorporate this into our campaign. And then it hit us: The Naked Campaign.

We’d expose our process for what we thought about and what we did with respect to this free advertising, including the results. And we would talk about this in our advertising. We thought that by incorporating what we’re doing into the advertising itself, we could create content that more directly spoke to the people that we wanted to talk to than other ads on the page, and that the ads would do a better job of drawing people in to the project. They would click through to a landing page that described our challenge, and that linked to the parts of the story that had currently unfolded, with new parts being added as we went through the campaign to help create a story that people would want to come back and check in on. As they did that, we’d continue to update our blog with other content as well so that they could get other exposure to what Fight is all about.

At the same time, we would see if we could foster a conversation with folks who already regularly checked us out. We felt like this kind of program would be worth talking about. We’re going to expose as much as we can, so likely we’ll do something interesting, and probably we’ll screw something up, but we’ll definitely be exploring in a way that we hope invites collaboration.

The campaign officially kicks off on July 9th, but, as you can probably guess, this series of articles is already a part of the process. We hope that you’ll at least stay tuned to see how things go (the good, the bad, and the ugly) via RSS or Twitter, but, even better, we hope that you will chime in with best practices that you have used, questions about what we’re doing, what you think about the program and the like. You should leave us a comment below ;) . So go ahead!

The Target Audience and Audience Targeting

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

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

It’s worth taking another moment here to point out that a key factor in this opportunity is the very small number of people that are likely to be exposed to it.  $75 worth of AdWords and $250 worth of DirectAds is a good place to start, but it’s a very SMALL way to start.  We’re looking at getting a few 10s of thousands of impressions in the best possible case (and potentially much fewer than that).  Given likely click-through rates (we’re guessing well under 0.1%), we’re looking at driving about one hundred of potential prospects somewhere, so we need to make them count as much as possible. 

The first step for us is identifying our target audience.  This is important generally, because it allows you to start getting into the head-space of the people that you want to click through on your ads.  On Google’s AdWords, this is important because it can guide you towards which search phrases you want to place your ads next to.  On LinkedIn’s DirectAds, it will help you choose the kinds of jobs that your target is likely to be in.

So who are we targeting anyway?

Given the clients that we’ve worked with, our areas of expertise, and the cost of a full-blown engagement with Fight (though there are certainly a wide range of ways of engaging us) our target is a person in the marketing group who has control of a budget of $100,000 or more in a company with annual revenues of around $10 million or more.  Our target prospect should be considering a digital marketing project, but can be anywhere from looking to take the right first step into the space to looking for a progressive digital marketing company to help with a sophisticated online project.  They don’t have to believe in the power of a good strategy, but they do need to care about results.

If we were doing millions of impressions, then we could expect that some of the potential prospects were already in the window of opportunity for us and we would therefore have at least a few leads capable of immediate conversion (all other things being equal).  Since there will be very few people clicking through (because of the small number of impressions), we’ll have to make as much of them as possible.  Which suggests that a more appropriate approach than the “Big Ad” is a campaign that draws potential prospects into an ongoing interaction with Fight, giving us ongoing opportunities to keep our consideration high with them.

Targeting Options

With LinkedIn’s DirectAds, the targeting part is pretty straightforward: You choose the company size (in employees; we choose 201+ employees), the job function of the person that you want to show an ad to (for us, Marketing), and the seniority level of the person you want to target (Manager and Above for us). Done!

Since Google’s platform doesn’t have direct access to a lot of the information that LinkedIn has, you have few characteristics to choose from: Location (US for us), gender (not relevant to us), and age (we excluded 24 and below since those in the 0-17 bracket aren’t likely to be useful to us, and while there is some possibility in the 18-24 category, we have few enough dollars not to take the risk).  From there you can decide to advertise on Google’s search, on their network of sites using AdSense (the “Display Network”) or both.  If you don’t chose specific sites in their Network to advertise on (which we won’t, at least in the early stages), they keywords that you choose do the rest of the targeting legwork for you.

Opportunity Windows

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

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

Aside from Consideration, the other major factor for people who might be interested in working with Fight is their window of opportunity.    

Most people are not continually in the market for a new car.  They buy a car and they’re good for a while.  Similarly people aren’t always in the market for digital strategy.  They may not have a project coming up for a while.  On the other hand, you might always be in the market for a pack of gum.  When you are presented with an opportunity to buy some gum, you might take it every time.   

So the challenge for us (and any other company that has high consideration goods and relatively rare windows of opportunity) is to keep Fight’s level of consideration above potential clients’ minimum threshold long enough for a window of opportunity to come along.

So what does this mean for our advertising?  It means that it needs to be a gateway to creating enough of an interest for ad viewers in Fight for long enough for a window of opportunity to arrive for them.

About Consideration

Monday, July 5th, 2010

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

To get a better handle on what Fight might use advertising for, it’s worth taking a brief side trip on the nature of how people buy Fight’s “product” versus how people buy other kinds of products.

As I mentioned previously, Fight’s “product” is a high consideration good. That means that people put relatively more time and effort into evaluating whether or not to buy that good, and generally have more and stronger criteria that the product has to meet for it to be considered among the various options to buy. Cars, vacation properties, and colleges are all other examples of high consideration goods.

If you are in the market for these things, the odds are that you will spend some time comparing one against the other, and that some products that you COULD consider won’t actually be products that you DO consider because they don’t meet your minimum criteria. Worth noting is the fact that it’s not just cost that makes something high consideration. A product might actually be cheap but difficult to get (e.g. a free piano), or may involve continued effort on your part in some way (e.g. a dog).

Examples of low consideration goods abound, but some quick examples might be gum, a deck of cards, or an umbrella hat (some things just sell themselves). These things are generally so cheap you don’t think about them, easy to get (except maybe for the umbrella hat), and have very little in the way of long-term repercussions (except, again, maybe for the hat).

Free Advertising! Now what…?

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

One of the things that frequently gets lost when you talk to marketers looking to do work online is the fact that traffic doesn’t just appear. If you launch something new, you have to find a way to let people know about it. Big companies that I’ve worked with learned that lesson fairly early by launching microsites that no one visited. Very quickly, new campaigns started including budget for attracting visitors.

At Fight we’ve been growing our following organically through Twitter and our blog, but we have also been keeping an eye out for opportunities to get in front of new people who haven’t yet ran into our online presence and might be interested in what we do.

So it was with no small amount of interest that I discovered that my copy of the June, 2010 Wired magazine arrived with a coupon for $75 worth of Google AdWords credit. Probably coincidentally, LinkedIn sent out a coupon on May 12th for $250 worth of advertising credit using their DirectAds product (LinkedIn’s Andrew Chang said that these offers have been going out since April to a subset of LinkedIn subscribers, so you may or may not have one sitting in your own inbox).

We love a good challenge, and this matched up well with an existing need, so we gave ourselves the task of putting these offers to good use in our favor. This is the first entry in a series of articles that we’ll do as we explore how to best take advantage of this very limited, but free, advertising opportunity.

Fail Smarter: Amazon and Jared Spool

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Iteration is something that has been at the core of how Fight works from the beginning. While on one level it’s simply a process, its philosophical underpinnings say a lot about how we think about things and how we approach our work. It’s something I’ve spoken about, written about and been called out on. Listening to Jared Spool speak Wednesday night about his research on Amazon’s successes, failures, and their approach to risk, it all seemed to perfectly demonstrate how iteration can be a powerful way to not just succeed, but to succeed in ways that aren’t possible working in one shot campaigns.

A key point in his presentation was that taking risks is critical to success for business. In his words – “risk averse companies produce crap.”

This was a point made over and over: Amazon is successful in large part because they take risks. They try things. They experiment. Equally important – they’re not afraid to try something and have it fail. But they’re not reckless, and thats critical. In fact, they’re incredibly effective at targeting their risk taking, and mitigating their exposure to potential failure. To illustrate this, Jared told the story of Amazon’s 2007 change from their well known (if slightly notorious) tabbed navigation to their current side navigation. Over the course of 12 weeks Amazon rolled the new system in four phases. First, only 5000 non-cookied visitors would see it. These are considered the least important customers to Amazon, so failure here wouldn’t be devastating. Next they rolled the new navigation out to 1 in 5 non-cookied visitors. Then 5000 cookied visitors. Finally, 1 in 5 cookied visitors saw the navigation. At each step Amazon would gather data on the performance of the navigation, and make adjustments based on this. The full release cycle took 12 weeks. Making fundamental changes to the navigation system on a site that millions of visits a day presents a huge risk for Amazon. But keep this in mind: the average sale for Amazon is $35. If they raise that $5 to $40 it would bring in an extra $875,000,000. Thats a lot of motivation for them to try things, nearly anything, to see what works.

I think this story demonstrated perfectly the difference between risk taking and recklessness. Between having a goal, and running experiments to discover new insights, and just tossing things out there to see what works. Marketing on the web can be the perfect opportunity to work iteratively and to experiment; but I think too often projects are treated as “all-or-nothing” endeavors where you get just one try to get something right.

By setting clear goals at the start of the project, and approaching it iteratively, even when an experiment doesn’t go as planned, it doesn’t have to be a failure. This is what I find troubling about the notion of “failing harder” that seems to affect so much of the marketing culture now. It sets up a false dichotomy that says to succeed big, you need to fail big. I’d rather succeed big, and fail small, and I think Jared’s insights into Amazon show this is entirely possible to do.