Ryan Hupfer’s recent guest post on TechCrunch provides an interesting comparison between MySpace and Facebook in terms of delivering an advertising return on investment (ROI).

Ryan is the Marketing Manager for HubPages - a kind of group blog where members earn recognition and money by publishing content on their ‘Hubs’ (content-rich Internet pages). In November 2008 he tested advertising on Facebook compared with advertising on MySpace.

(more…)

HubSpot has released its ‘State of the Twittersphere - Q4 2008′ report and its research reveals some fascinating insights into Twitter and its users. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights…

Firstly, the vast majority of Twitter users - 70 percent - are new, having joined this year. In fact, 20 percent have joined in just the last 60 days!

(more…)

If you’ve been involved in email marketing for any length of time, you’ll probably know that building a responsive subscriber base is a matter of attracting subscribers who are genuinely interested in what you have to offer, and sending them content that compels them to take the kind of action you want them to take.

Do both and you’ll experience relatively low unsubscribe rates, high open rates, high click-through rates and high conversion rates.

Sounds simple… but when it comes to providing the right content… what exactly IS the right content? Is it necessarily articles or sales promotions? Is it both? In what proportion? Should both articles and promotions appear in the same email (as in this newsletter) or should they be sent separately? Or should you send both kinds of emails? And, if so, when should you send each kind?

The answer is, of course, to test what works best with YOUR audience. But before you jump into testing… you need something to test. In general, I recommend modelling yourself on a business that is doing well. We have done that with Kikabink News and Success Accelerator which are both somewhat based on the newsletter + solo promotion model used by direct response marketing companies such as Agora, Inc. Then it’s a matter of surveying readers and testing things to elicit ever improving results.

So what kind of insights are you likely to get when you survey and test? Well, consider a recent MarketingSherpa case study about a pet supply company. The company split-tested sending an email with (a) a promotion (including image and copy) at the top of the email and a link to an article below the promotion, and (b) a link to the article at the top of the email with the promotion below. In both cases the article link was actually a hot-linked title (and an appealing title at that) which led to a page where people would see the (short) article, along with various promotions.

Interestingly, version (b) achieved 7 percent higher click-throughs and 6 percent higher sales conversions than version (a). In other words, not only did the article attract more click-throughs, but people who clicked-through to the article tended to buy more than those who simply responded to the ad.

Now this does NOT mean that all your emails should now contain a link to an article at the top, with a promotion below. There are still many, many variables – the target audience for one and the landing page for another – that impacted on the pet company’s results. But the results do support the idea that email subscribers value non-promotional content… and that if they believe you are giving them something of value by way of a helpful article, they will be more willing to buy from you.

Source: Case Study, “Test Content To Create Best Layout To Boost Email Revenue, Conversions, CTRs”, MarketingSherpa, November 5, 2008

Many Internet marketing ‘gurus’ and would-be gurus advocate automating as much of your business as possible. The idea - with which I agree - is to reduce the time it takes to accomplish various tasks whilst freeing you up to spend your time on activities where you can deliver the most value.

You can, however, automate some things too much, and customer service is one of those things. Actually, I would argue that good customer service is NOT, by definition, automated.

You tell me - if someone has a problem and they’re required to visit a specific website, register at a support center, log a support ticket, and then wait a day or longer for a response… is that really ‘good’ customer service?

It may be efficient. It may be effective. It may be the only manageable type of customer service you can deliver based on your current time constraints and limited resources. It may also be acceptable to your customers. But let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking it’s ‘good’.

Contrary to much of what I see advocated in Internet marketing circles, good customer service:

• is NOT entirely automated
• does NOT make it difficult for customers to contact your business
• does NOT make customers wait for over 24 hours to get a response
• is NOT the same thing as upselling
• IS about them, not you
• IS proactive
• IS responsive
• DOES take the burden off the customer’s shoulders
• DOES give the customers the answers they seek
• DOES deliver powerful insights and feedback
• DOES turn customers into evangelists

So while a support ticket system may well be appropriate for your business right now, consider raising your standards for when your business grows. At the very least, aim to offer ‘good’ customer service by having someone dedicated to speaking with, or emailing, customers when they call or email you with a problem.

Then again, you may wish to upgrade your customer service for another good reason. I’ll explain why tomorrow…

Amazing isn’t it?

You’re the one building an Internet business… you’re the one who’s taken the risk and invested your time, effort and money into making your business successful… you’re the one who continues to overcome challenges and setbacks… you’re the one who’s steadily achieving better results, more sales, more profits…

And yet everyone else has an opinion about what you should and should not do in your business!

Now, there’s nothing wrong - and plenty right - with considering different ideas, insights, observations and suggestions… FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED to give you those ideas, insights, observations and suggestions.

But those people probably make up about 10 percent of all the people freely giving you advice on how to run your business. The vast majority of advice givers are probably the LEAST QUALIFIED.

You may love ‘em, but your friends, family, in-laws, old work mates and neighbors are probably not in the best position to judge whether selling widgets online is a good idea or not.

The fact is…

Most advice comes from most people… most people are not doing what you’re doing… and, consequently, most people’s advice doesn’t count!

Here’s my simple rule of thumb: before you listen, let alone follow, someone else’s advice about something - ask yourself: has this person achieved or are they achieving what they’re giving me advice about?

If not, you’re probably better off ignoring what they say (as harsh as that sounds) and finding someone who really is qualified to give you advice.

Of course, that’s just my opinion…

Google has introduced another new, nifty tool, “Google Insights For Search” to help marketers understand trends in search behavior.

Based on Google search engine data from as far back as 2004, Insights For Search enables you to, for example, track the popularity (on a scale of 0 to 100) of keywords according to industry category, geographic region, and time period. There’s also a heat map which indicates the level of regional interest for the given search term.

Helpfully, you can also export data generated from the tool into a spreadsheet for further analysis. Give it a whirl:

==> Google Insights For Search

Running a promotion… or making discount coupons available… and wondering whether to state the offer as a percentage off… or dollars off?

You probably have an opinion about which works best (which may or may not be based on experience!) but, as we have and will continue to stress, this is a classic question that can and should be tested.

Evo, an etailer recently profiled by MarketingSherpa, conducted a simple split-test to see whether a “15% Off” or a “$50 Off” email offer would generate the most sales. Evo found that “$50 Off” had a 82 percent greater conversion rate and beating “15% Off” and achieving 170 percent greater revenue. Email open rates and click-through rates were practically the same, at 19-20 percent and 32-33 percent respectively.

Do read the article for more interesting insights (you’ll need to register for free access) but the lesson is clear: no, not that dollars off will always beat percentage off… but this is an area that should definitely be tested.

It’s all about perceived value… and arguably clarity as well. In Evo’s case, “$50 Off” was perceived as offering greater value than “15% off”… but what if the comparison was between “$1.43 Off” and “25% Off”? And what if you tried “1/3rd Off”? Again you probably instinctively have an opinion, but your prospects will give you the true answer. You need to test!

Source: MarketingSherpa, “Dollars-Off Coupon Gets 170% More Revenue: 2 Simple A/B Test Steps”, MarketingSherpa, July 23, 2008

Great case study in MarketingSherpa, detailing how a small, technology startup used Wikipedia to generate qualified traffic to its website which translated into 4 percent increases in both traffic and leads, and more leads that were 18 percent more likely to convert into customers than other leads.

So how can you use Wikipedia to generate more traffic to, and conversions on, your site? Well, be careful: any attempt to “sell” Wikipedia readers is likely to be met with quick elimination from the site. However, by creating new pages and adding to existing pages on Wikipedia and always following Wikipedia’s guidelines to the letter, you may be able to add: a page about yourself or your firm, entries to existing pages about your industry, and links to your site. All of which can bring qualified visitors to your site.

The keys seem to be providing content in line with Wikipedia’s aim to provide objective information to users, adhering to Wikipedia’s strict submission guidelines, and removing any hint of marketing-speak (e.g. “Company makes widgets for widget consumers” rather than “Company makes widgets to suit all widget enthusiasts).

Taking advantage of Wikipedia as a traffic generation tool won’t suit everyone, based on the time and effort required compared with the level of qualified traffic likely to be generated. It’s also NOT a means of getting backward links for search engine optimization (SEO) purposes, since all external links must contain the “no follow” tag. However, depending on your business, it just may be a way of generating a significant level of additional traffic and qualified leads.

Check out the MarketingSherpa article (free registration required) for more insights.

Source: MarketingSherpa, “Case Study: How to Use Wikipedia Entries for Lead Gen - 6 Steps to 18% Higher Conversion Rate”, MarketingSherpa, July 23, 2008

Ask 10 different people for their opinion on something and you’ll get 10 different opinions. This applies to your Internet marketing, as it applies to every other area of business, and indeed, life.

Some of the feedback will be invaluable. You’ll get new ideas and insights that will lead to increased web traffic, conversions, sales and profits. But not all the feedback you’ll receive will be helpful. Some of it will be downright harmful to your business!

Because, ultimately, it’s not what friends, colleagues and “experts” (or even consultants like me) SAY that matters. It’s what your prospects and customers DO - as reflected in the NUMBERS (your marketing metrics) - that matters.

So you need to use your judgment when it comes to incorporating people’s suggestions into modifying your traffic generation strategy, web page, sales letter, product, offer, or whatever you’re working on.

Then see what happens to the numbers (no. visitors, click-through rate, conversion rate, sales, profits, etc, etc).

Do they improve? Do they get worse? Do they stay the same?

If you’re not happy with the results (and you should never be fully happy - you should always be innovating, testing and tracking), incorporate another of the logical-sounding suggestions you’ve received and, again, see what happens to your numbers.

Because, at the end of the day, it’s the numbers that count (literally)!

Here’s the final insight from the research by Enquiro and MarketingSherpa that we’ve been discussing over the past few days.

Firstly, let’s recap the previously mentioned insights:

1. Search engine searchers quickly scan or skim the results page;
2. If a listing attracts their attention, they typically spend less than a second (0.7 seconds) reading it; and
3. Almost no-one looks at the right side of the page.

Because of all this, there’s every chance that searchers will miss you if you only have one listing in the results.

Therefore… you need your listing to show up in more than one place on a results page!

Plus, according to MarketingSherpa, people differ as to how they read and click on search results. There are actually five different patterns searchers tend to use depending on where they are in the sales/educational cycle:

• The Quick Click
• The Linear Scan
• The Golden Triangle Scan
• The Deliberate Scan
• The Pickup Search

It follows then, that your search engine marketing (SEM) efforts should be focused on achieving multiple listings per page! Ideally, this means having more than one listing in the natural
results. But it also means running a cost-effective pay-per-click campaign.

While it’s tempting to think that you won’t need to run a pay-per-click (PPC) ad campaign if you have high rankings in the organic search engine results, the aforementioned research indicates that you will LOSE potential leads if you don’t do both.

Or, looked at in reverse, by having a greater presence on any given search engine result page (SERP) you’ll have a better chance of capturing the attention of your typical 0.7 second search engine user!

Source: Anne Holland, “Search Engine Marketing: Top Five Eye-Tracking Laboratory Test Results”, MarketingSherpa, January 4, 2006