Categories
Directed Advertising

Are you passing the test?

In Fareed Zakaria’s current bestseller, “The Post-American World,” one of the conclusions he reaches about the American education system compared to that of other nations is that “Other educational systems teach you to take tests; the American system teaches you to think.”

This got me thinking about testing, that critical component of successful direct marketing. Thinking and testing come together in direct marketing. We think, then we test. Then we leverage what we learned to maximize our results.

I started in mail order, and I currently work at a direct marketing agency called Tanen Directed Advertising, where we bring direct marketing disciplines to everything we do. Or at least we try to. Sometimes clients say the budgets aren’t there for testing. Sometimes the universes are so small there’s no point — there’s not enough there to be confident that the results mean what we think they mean, or to leverage whatever we might learn from the test, and the incremental cost of splitting up the universe and printing or creating multiple versions is prohibitive.

But it hurts me not to test. A couple of years ago, at AdTech NY, I heard Roy de Souza, CEO of ZEDO,  an internet e-commerce and ad-serving tech company, share this piece of advice about testing: “2 with one difference.” Roy said that if you buy 2 search ads and change one single item between them, they will
never perform the same.

I think that holds true for just about anything.

The Vice President of Marketing for Trump University is a friend of mine, Josef Katz.  He’s the Marketing Maestro who writes the TrumpUniversity Marketing Blog, and he was recently interviewed by eM+C magazine. Along with discussing behavioral advertising and social marketing, Josef talks about how he used multivariate testing of an event registration page to increase conversion by over 75%. 75%! The biggest factor in the increase:  moving the registration form below the fold. He said the move allows visitors to read more about the event’s content before signing up. Before the move, they were still clicking but converting at a lower rate.

A guaranteed winner. Huge increases in conversions. What’s not to like about testing?

And yet, some people don’t like testing. I remember a former client of mine who wouldn’t go with our proposed testing matrix, and said, “I don’t need to test. I go with my gut.” To which I replied, “I go with my gut, too. I just test it, along with whatever else makes sense.”

By now you’re probably starting to wonder, “where’s the question, Jeff?” Well, here it is. There are plenty of people out there on both the client side and the agency side that never test, that look down on direct marketing as somehow less important than “real advertising.” That are more than happy to throw money at events that can’t be tracked to sales, ads that can’t find their targets, and imprinted premiums like pens and flash drives that don’t work very well as ads and, in a short amount of time, stop working altogether.

So can someone who doesn’t believe in testing please explain to me why, in this day and age when testing is so easy, are you failing to test everything that can be tested?

Categories
Directed Advertising Integrated Marketing

Why are consumers like Western Lowland Gorillas?

CNN had a story today about the discovery of a colony of 125,000 Western Lowland Gorillas, well over twice the previously estimated worldwide population of 50,000. Naturalists had searched in vain for the vanishing primate, growing increasingly pessimistic, until researchers from the WIldlife Conservation Society stumbled upon a huge population in a swamp forest in the Republic of Congo.

I couldn’t help but compare this to marketers who have been lamenting recently that its harder to find consumers than ever before. First, there was the mystery of the missing 18-34 males, who traded in their TV for video games and the internet.

Now it’s white, educated, affluent women aged 25-44. They’re going online to watch episodes of broadcast TV, according to a recent study by IMMI reported on MSNBC.com.

Newspapers are losing readers, while blogs like the HuffingtonPost.com are getting more readers than The NY Times. (The Huffington Post claims 5.7 million readers, while the Times claims a total circ of 1,476,400 for their Sunday edition, their biggest day, including their electronic edition.)

But it’s not that consumers are going extinct. Or even that they’re getting harder to find. It’s just that they’re not in the places marketers are used to looking for them. Kind of like the gorillas.

In the same way I’m heartened by the article about the gorillas, I’m thrilled by the recent Communications Industry Forecast written about in USA Today. For the first time ever, by 2012 direct marketing spending via Internet Service Providers, video games and cable and TV providers is predicted to surpass traditional media. And direct marketing is much broader than it used to be, encompassing everything from behaviorally targeted interactive advertising to opt-in SMS campaigns to paid search to emails to digitally customized, personalized mailers to PURLs.

More and more marketers are waking up to the fact that “mainstream advertising” is failing to find the gorillas in the mist, and direct marketing is a more successful strategy for reaching them… even if it means slogging through a data-drenched swamp to get there.

So can someone please explain to me why so many marketers are still looking for consumers where they used to be, instead of finding them where they are?

Categories
PR and News

How to get news coverage — for a price!

Perhaps I am naive, in this age of flogs (fake blogs — see a list of some of the more infamous fakes at the Wikipedia article here), Pay-Per-Post, content syndication, paid placement masquerading as content and other forms of hidden influence, to believe that there is a wall between editorial and advertiser when it comes to news organizations, whether offline or online.

No, not perhaps. I am naive. I believe it when a media rep tells me that regardless of my media buy, he can’t guarantee that our press release will end up in the same issue. And if that’s the case with a PR, I’m floored by the idea that you can buy your way into actual editorial, if you’re big enough and have enough money.

MarketingVox had an article yesterday that quotes a PR Week survey saying that 19% of senior marketers admit that their companies have bought ads on a news site in exchange for a news story.

Even worse, this isn’t really new: last year that number was 17%.

My outrage is a year late. But better late than never.

I believe that the only reason to cover a story is that it is newsworthy. For me, the definition of newsworthy is so broad — virtually every story is of interest to somebody — that it is rarely a barrier to coverage.

I also understand that news organizations are businesses. But, like doctors, hospitals, lawyers and law firms, police officers, accountants and their firms and other businesses, journalists and editors and news organizations operate according to a set of agreed upon ethical principals, some backed up by laws.

Is news coverage in return for payment illegal? I don’t know. Is it unethical? In my opinion, it’s unethical, immoral and any other pejorative I can throw at it. It is certainly contrary to any claims of fair and balanced journalism, journalistic integrity, or trustworthiness that all news sources proclaim as loudly as possible. Where is the ombudsman? The ethics committee? What right do these organizations have to cast doubt on independent journalists and bloggers when their own practices are so… compromised?

I am reminded of that famous quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw. “We have established what you are, Madam. Now we are merely haggling over the price.”

So now, let’s turn to the “johns” in this equation.

Is it unethical for the marketers who bribe their way onto the news sits and into the papers? Well, they are willing participants in this unethical process. But some business people will take any advantage they can (in this case, 19%), just as some athletes take steroids and other performing enhancing drugs. When it’s illegal, that’s an issue for the courts. When it’s unethical, that’s an issue for the public.

In keeping with the naivety of this post, can someone please explain to me why this story isn’t getting more press coverage than it is?