Video Email: necessary, or not yet?

As we studied in class and discussed on the class discussion board, email marketing is still extremely strong. In fact, just today when I was in H&M buying a coat, someone was there at the register taking email addresses for an extra 10% off. I also went into a Columbia retail store. Same thing! 10% off for providing your email. This reinforces, if not proves, how strong email marketing still is (and I think will continue to be!) 

I was also looking around at some marketing blogs looking for email marketing trends. I found a great infographic on Inspired Mag about the benefits of adding VIDEO to email. (I believe the original study was done by Email on Acid and the infographic was created by Email Monks). The lead-off stat: "Video Email marketing offers a return 280% higher than traditional emails." With that lead-in, how could I not keep reading? 

Videos in email isn't really something that I've seen implemented that much. I've seen lots of straight text links to videos on other sites, but I haven't seen much of the embedded videos in the emails. And according to the study, only 25% of marketers have tried this. 

(imagine getting this great video in your inbox each day)

It turns out there are two ways to embed videos: through HTML5 or through a static image that can link to a video. HTML5 is preferable because you can play the video right there in the email. According to the study, 58% of internet users can view HTML5 videos. Anyone using Gmail, Yahoo, or Outlook, however, won't be able to see the videos in the email (HTML5 is not supported by those platforms), so they'd have to go the static image route. 

At this point, since not many are doing this, you as a company or marketer could really set yourself apart by including video in your emails. I don't think this stops at email marketing, though - I think that doing video blogs (like Marie Forleo) or video podcasts can also really set you apart - it's a content leg-up on the competitors.

I've been thinking about why some have adopted video and others haven't. First, there's a big difference between me flipping on my webcam (like the video above) in my poorly lit room, and turning on a professional (enough) camera, setting up good lighting, and ensuring you are recording good audio. If the image you're trying to portray is extremely professional, you'll not want to just use your webcam and you sitting around in your pajamas; you'll want to add some professionalism... and professionalism costs money.

Still, as a marketer, I'd advise companies to start doing this, whether it is investing a little, or a lot right away. It's better to be in that early adopter timeframe than to be too late to the party and scrambling when your competitors already have established video content and SOPs. 

My reaction: social marketing trends of 2014

In the Forbes article The Top 7 Social Media Trends That Will Dominate 2014, the author Jayson DeMers sets up - you guessed it - 7 trends for the future. This is my reaction.

First, the author's trends:

1. Investment in social media will be a necessity, not a luxury
2. The rise of Google+
3. The rise of image-centric networks 
4. The rise of micro-video 
5. Foursquare will decline sharply
6. MySpace will grow
7. LinkedIn will be a huge B2B biz player

My initial reaction is that this is pretty spot-on. I think all are relevant, with the exception of Foursquare (I thought it already died?), and I think most of them are spot-on. 

I think that the most interesting part of all of this is that some bigger social networks – Google+, LinkedIn, and MySpace – are all carving out chunks of Facebook’s once-dominant market. I’ve written in this blog before about how I think Facebook is waning anyway, and from what I see here, I feel even stronger about that.

The re-branded MySpace

Take MySpace for example. One of the coolest things about MySpace back in the day is that there were a lot of bands on there, and you could listen to samples. Just looking at the re-branded MySpace’s front page, you get the feeling that they’re going back to that “artists first” type of thinking, which is a pretty smart play, I think. 

LinkedIn... Wow. I really agree with the growth projections there. The Influencers is a great addition, they do job postings, and now they also have University pages. While these Uni pages aren't perfect just yet, the feature will only get better and better. 

Rounding the "bigger" networks out is Google+. Everyone has Gmail, Google Drive is an amazing tool, so it just makes sense that everyone will be on Google+. Unlike LinkedIn, which takes the professional chunk of life, or MySpace, which looks like it's taking the artistic chunk, Google+ is pretty much an out-and-out direct Facebook competitor. While I really prefer Google+, I still don't use it, nor do I really know how to use it. I still think that Facebook is king, and while G+ is on the rise, I think that it might take a while before/if it eclipses Facebook. (or maybe I have it all wrong, and G+ gives us something totally different from Facebook. I'm not quite sure yet.)

Now for the 'smaller' trends, or trends-within-a-trend if you will... IMAGES and VIDEO. I completely agree with the author that these are growing and will continue to be huge. I think a lot of the rise has to do with the faster internet speeds. The trend has gone from long-form text blogs, to short "top-5" blogs, to microblogging and twitter, then to pictures and blogs, and now to pictures and video only. It totally goes with the shrinking attention span of the modern internet consumer, as well as faster internet speeds enabling videos to be shared that much more easily. 

I'd put money down on each of these trends to come to fruition in 2014.

Social media: the right and wrong way

It's fascinating to me that when on the internet there are so many "10 things not to do on social media"-type articles. And I'm ALWAYS disappointed when they're all apparent no-brainers. Don't insult people who have recently died. Don't trick people into engaging with your brand. Come on, world, is this the best we can do? (It's also fascinating that I KEEP clicking on these articles, but that's another story altogether).

I've been thinking a lot about social marketing in general and how it doesn't really have rules. It's cowboy country. Everyone is just figuring these things out - surely, that's why there are so many snafus, right? I mean it makes sense if you think that it's a relatively new area.

I read a pretty decent "5 Social Media Lessons Brands Learned This Year" article. I mean of the five, there were two good lessons (the other three were "no-brainers": don't make fun of a natural disaster; don't try to dupe people into interacting with you; don't put a 20-year-old who will post inappropriate tweets).

Come on, don't try to trick people! (although those numbers do suggest that it worked - but to what effect?!?!? 

The two good ones: stick up for yourself; don't take days off.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the two general rules that almost EVERY social media "don't"s involves are around CONSISTENCY and PUBLIC AUDIENCE RULES

Consistency

Both of the 'good' nuggets from this article fell into the "consistency" category. You need to a) POST consistently, and b) have a consistent MESSAGE. In some companies, the customers are king; bordering on dictators. For these companies that will do anything (or for ones who handle things poorly), they'll try to succumb to their nasty (sometimes deserving) posts. For other companies who provide good service and a good product, but sometimes deal with @$$holes, if it's consistent with their message and service, they can go ahead and strike back - if it's warranted!

Public Audience Rules

Basically, everything else falls into the "you're in PUBLIC" rule! In public, you can't do inappropriate, crazy things. Social media is in the public sphere - a super-public arena. Companies can't make inappropriate comments, make rants, try to dupe people, or do anything they wouldn't do in a press conference or other public forum.

This just deals with conduct of course; maybe there are more "no no"s around AUDIENCE vs BUSINESS MODELS. But maybe that'll be for next week.

Having a calling card on the web

I was listening to my favorite podcast, the Tropical MBA, and this week they talked about how essential it is for now and the future to have a personal calling card out on the web. I really do think that it's important to see what someone is all about when they're providing services, and this idea is taking it further than just having a LinkedIn profile/resume.

Credibility is so important, and having a personal blog or portfolio online is a way to build that social proof. If I have nothing online, and someone is going to work with me, they don't have any way to check to see if I'm a good person or what I stand for, unless they have personal references. These personal references are indeed powerful, but unless you have a super-connected network willing to vouch for you (say if you're new to the industry or new to the job market), you won't have these references to work for you.

Enter the blog/portfolio. A quick search can show the style and quality of your work, the beliefs you have about whatever topic you choose to illustrate, and then hopefully some social proof will be built.

The great MarieForleo.com

This of course ties together with the concept of personal branding. You need to tie yourself to a brand (for example, if I connected my personal brand to my city guide websites), or to a personal website (for example, if I did something like My Name .com).

This week there was also an article launched on ThinkTraffic on personal domain names. It showed some great examples of personal domain names. I thought it was interesting that on all of the examples, a large photo of the individual featured prominently as part of the design. There is also a good deal of personality added to these (as a focus on the individual should).

The personal website is something that all entrepreneurs and self-employed workers should have, and it's becoming more and more important as time goes by. Definitely worth starting up now!

Direct marketing vs digital marketing

Wait, what IS that?

The other day I was trying to get an Illinois drivers license (I currently have an Ohio one). It's always a frustrating experience, and always takes about 2 hours longer than I think it's going to take.

The first frustrating thing was that the website wasn't updated with the current documents that I needed (wait - I need my passport and my original social security card?!).

The second frustrating thing was that I didn't actually have a MAILED bill that has come to my house to prove my residence. All of my bills are paid online, I tried to explain to the long-nailed government worker. After a long sigh, she said that my printed-out statements and bills would suffice, although she made it clear that the State of Illinois "would like" me to use bills that have gone through the United States Postal Service, and that in the future I should "try" to bring in something that has been mailed in.

Anyway, so this mailed vs online experience along with a couple of articles that I read this week have inspired me to ponder: 

Is direct mail still a viable way to reach your audience? 

Basically, it depends on the audience you're trying to reach.

If you're broadcasting your message to the masses, direct mail is probably NOT a good way to do things. It's expensive, and it's all over the place. You can target to a certain geographic location, sure, but then you can't really target down to be that selective in your audience. However, if you're going for SPECIFIC people (i.e. you know their names and addresses), this is a real way to stand out.

On Danny Iny's blog, Firepole Marketing, I read how Write Ahead got a 4,967% return rate on their direct mail campaign. Basically, they targeted a list of 180 of their customers and tailored specific offers towards them. In the age of internet, this really gets peoples' attention!

I was thinking about if I would feel the same way if I got something in the mail from someone that I had a relationship with online. I think I would have a positive reaction to getting REAL mail - and I think it would strengthen my connection with the previously all-internet connection with the company.

The article also mentioned things like inviting people from your list to a seminar using nice stationery and nice envelopes, or using a thick recipe-card-style mailing to inform list members about a new cookbook you've made.

Joe Polish, a now-famous internet marketer who got his start marketing for carpet cleaning businesses, in this video describes how he gives his 'VIP' clients special attention by sending them direct mail. And... it works!

Basically, it all comes down to a TARGETED LIST of actual people that you know have a pretty good chance of getting to your stuff. Whereas an email might not get to them, a piece of REAL mail just might!

Determining ROI for online advertising

In thinking this week about paid advertising, I've been thinking about my own experiences with paid advertising... not from AdWords or anything like that, but rather direct advertising on my site, and how that's worked with the companies I've been trying to work with.

When I got Busan Awesome started up and rolling, there was a point in time (actually a little later than I should have done) where I decided to contact some local businesses in Busan to advertise on my site. I started with restaurants, bars, doctors, and dentists who cater towards the expat population in Busan, based on who already had adverts on other expat websites.

The biggest problems that I had (that I did not foresee) were:

1. bars/restaurants, etc wanted to pay under the table by transfer to a Korean bank account (which I didn't have anymore), and
2. bars/restaurants, etc were stuck with the idea of "pay per click" on the advertisement, rather than impressions or other methods of determining ROI. 

While the first point posed a problem without a good answer, I'm going to discuss the second problem: determining ROI.

An ad for my website on a partner site.
How effective can it be?! If it weren't offered to
me for free, I definitely wouldn't have paid for it! 

My website is a review-based city guide website that caters to the expat that's only there for a year, or a traveler that's there for a week or so, that wants to find some cool places to go, and cool things to do. We probably already have reviews for every bar/restaurant/doctor/dentist who we would want to target, so the way I see it, for them, having an ad on our site is more of a "stamp of approval" that it's a cool, good place to hang out in. Therefore, I thought a per-impression method was a good way to determine success.

On the other hand, the bars/restaurants/etc all tended to want to track clickthroughs. They thought that if someone saw their ad and were interested, they'd click on their site. I thought that didn't make that much sense - I mean if I see an ad up for a bar on a city website, I'll maybe click on it to get the hours, but I'll tend to note that it exists, and kind of add it mentally to my "bars to check out" list, rather than click through to their website.  

So who was right? 

I think we both were right and wrong at the same time. That was a few years ago, though, and while now I'd say I know about a lot more factors of success, I still don't have a solid formula for determining ROI in a situation like this. 

There are lots of good articles out there discussing factors that you can take into account when determining ROI. On the other hand, there is no definitive recipe that exists for knowing what you're actually getting.

Take my situation that I described above for example: 

The bars/restaurants are right in that a clickthrough can definitely say "this person was interested in seeing my site." However, they're missing out on the people who get the mental affiliation between the bar/restaurant and the city guide site. Customers might say (albeit maybe not in this language): "oh yeah, they advertise on Busan Awesome. I like that site and trust their recommendations. I'll check out that bar, even though I've never clicked on the bar's website." 

So many ads! How could you not
have voluntary banner blindness?

Plenty of customers, however, could come to the site and totally ignore the ads. I know I often do. It's Banner Blindness, and there's not really a way to combat it, other than cleverly placing advertisements within an article or in some other way (such as a text link that fits into the article). 

So how DO you determine ROI from advertising?

I read a Fast Company article that talked about a study that Adobe conducted that showed that 88% of marketers said that they weren't confident that they could effectively measure ROI on an advertising campaign. That's huge! 

That same Fast Company article sites that sales conversions, value of increased traffic, and depth of
engagement are three ways that you can actually measure and determine ROI. I agree with them - those are very measurable, and that captures a big chunk of the ROI picture, but not all of the picture. 

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking about people who don't buy now but buy later, and the 'silent majority.' But still, Fast Company's list works... for companies that can measure that kind of thing.

What about the bars/restaurants that I'm trying to target? How do they measure sales conversions, other than surveying customers and asking, "how did you hear about us?" (but even then, maybe it was seeing an ad on a trusted site that brought them to the restaurant, even though it wasn't how they first heard about the website)? How do they measure increased traffic, when I already argued above that just because someone didn't click through, doesn't mean they didn't see the ad? And who actually engages with a bar/restaurant website? 

So my takeaway: 

I think the way that I need to approach advertising in the future is from a "how can I help you?" standpoint. Don't just offer an ad; offer a partnership, with posting specials, advertising some of the bar/restaurant's events, and helping out on Facebook or Twitter with some of their customer engagement. ROI still won't be able to be measured per se, but at least it will touch more people in a deeper manner. 

The Death of Facebook (or Why Google is Way Better at Everything)

(I promise this will be my last "Death of..." article!)

The article in The Economic Times (India) "Why you should look at Google and not Facebook as a model to stay ahead," by Vivek Wadhwa, really struck a note with me. 

Google is nice.

The article asserts that Google has built a healthy company by setting aside shares, and has built Google Fiber and Google's wifi balloons. They're making the world better.
tremendous goodwill by doing things to build real communities. They have community-betterment projects like

This goodwill has enabled them to stay in a positive light in the eye of many groups of people. When Microsoft got big, the author argued, there was a lot of general dislike and distrust that comes along with Big Business. Google has grown and is (relatively) loved.

The author was saying that Facebook is dealing with a lot of pressure from shareholders, and is really trying to squeeze some money out of this product that they built. The thing is, though, Facebook wasn't built with money in mind, at least at first.

Throughout my MBA program, I've thought a lot about businesses, and especially internet businesses. This is a crude simplification, but there are either businesses that sell products or services (any e-commerce site or SEO consultants, etc), there are innovative companies who create new ways of generating income while delivering huge value (Google), and there are companies who have built great things... but then are a bit confused as to how they'll monetize them (Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, etc.)

The first two that I've listed are basically what you find in regular businesses too. The third, though, is so interesting because it's NEW, and everyone is trying to figure out what to do with it.

I have been (and still am, albeit less proactively) faced with a similar issue to Facebook with Busan Awesome, my city guide website. I built a community of users and now it's a trusted site in the city of Busan. But I built it for fun (kind of like how Facebook was built), and now it's like well... what do I do with it? It'd be a shame to let all those users go on without monetizing it in some way, right? I mean I'd at least want to cover my hosting fees!

To try to monetize, I've tried to contact local restaurants, bars, and tour companies, but there are all sorts of issues. I'm no longer in Korea, and a lot of them just want to give me cash under the table for advertisements. Many of the companies have been SUCH A PAIN to work with that I've had to fire them as clients. Yes, I've had some problems.

So I guess I can either try to continue dealing with this the Facebook way, and try to squeeze out some cash from advertisers. Or I guess I could try to do things the Google way. Assuming I was still in Korea, of course, I could launch community outreach events, partner up with local businesses to hold events and other fun things in the city.

Mobile is going to kill off blogs (and everything else that you read, for that matter)

Hem would've been a damn good blogger.

I have a long history with blogging, but with not much to show for it. I'm like one of those guys who's passively followed a band forever, can name all the songs, but then I've never seen them in concert, so the "true fans" will never take me seriously.

I have an excuse, though... I suffer from blogging A.D.D. But that's for another conversation. To make a long story short, I read a ton about blogging and making money online, and I got a ton of ideas, and I bought a ton of domain names - but gave up on each one after about a week. But I still read about blogging - a lot. (note: I DID end up starting a blog, but all my efforts before it and after it have been utter failures - just because of my own damn blogging A.D.D).

So what I'm trying to say is that while I don't really blog that much, I really BELIEVE in the medium. Which is why when I read Why Blogging is Dead -- and What's Next on Fast Company, I was pretty doubtful of its claims. I mean, after all, I read tons of accounts of how blogging is STILL working for many entrepreneurs!

The author reasons that there was something called "print" way back when, and "articles" as well. But then everything got all DIGITAL. So then it was all in "blogs." But now there's Pintrest and Instagram and Tumblr, who have championed the short-form (or no-form) media. Everything now is going from digital to MOBILE.

She makes the point that you can still BE a journalist - but the FORM has transformed from the well-thought-out article to the snippet on the Huffington Post.

Look - a blog article on a mobile device!

I'm assuming she's making the connection that blogging is merely a FORM of writing - and that many blogging businesses, niche sites, and lifestyle business that rely on blogs will eventually be forced to ditch the blog, and instead rely on other forms of content to allure readers.

While I agree that you have to adapt, I don't think blogging will be dead. I think we'll see blogging being used in tandem with other forms of media.

I mean, after all, look at what you used to be able to do just 6 years ago. You could throw up a landing page, add a "join my email list to learn more!" and then market the hell out of it. These days, the audience demands MORE. They demand TRUST. How do you get that trust? By building a rapport with the audience by... yup, BLOGGING!* And get this - you can read a blog on a mobile device. I do it all the time (see the pic!).

Still, I'm thinking that the author's blog-free "content revolution" is something like that flying car we've all been waiting for.

*I do understand that one can build rapport and trust through something like Twitter... but I'm still not sold. Look how many tweets link to articles! Hmm... I'd better stop thinking before I start agreeing with the article and deleting this post...