« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 30, 2006
First Things First (Applying the Basic Lessons from Traditional Direct Marketing to Home & Landing Pages)
First impressions matter. And it’s not any different for marketing consumer-facing services on the web.
Back at Sombasa Media, we published a series of consumer e-mail newsletters, each with their own website focused on convincing people to register for them. A lot of the lessons which we learned about marketing them were borrowed from traditional direct marketing, and I believe that these can now be applied to the emerging crop of web services today. All of the below seem like extremely basic rules to follow, but it surprises me how many new consumer services marketed on the web do a sub-par job at effectively communicating the right message to the right people to induce the appropriate desired actions.
The following are some ideas to keep in mind when designing consumer web home and landing pages:
Not all traffic is created equal. Just like the mailing recipient lists in traditional DM, web traffic quality differs dramatically depending on its source. Natural search, paid search, blog, banners, etc. traffic will all have significantly different attributes. The key is to understand where traffic is coming from and direct users to landing pages appropriate to their source. While a general home page is fine for basic traffic, companies should create a series of landing pages which address the frame of mind of the users matched to their traffic source. For example, if you’re running a few paid search ads, the messaging on the landing page should match that of the ad copy. Likewise, if you’re running a blogging PR campaign, your external message should match those talking points.
Communicate benefits, not features. This difference is a subtle, but important distinction. While techies will appreciate a laundry-list of acronym features of the service, when trying to leap from “digerati-facing” services to consumer facing ones, it’s important to communicate the why of the service you’re offering, not the what. Consumers want to know what’s in it for them when making the decision whether or not to explore further.
Clear call to action. Lead people where you want them to go. Is the primary goal for people to search for something? Register? Contribute a piece of content? Browse existing content? It may be all of the above, but deciding what is most important and emphasizing that on the page is key. While you obviously want the user to perform all of these actions, there should be one that serves as a good start to introduce him/her into the service.
Test, iterate, and retest. One of the great things about the web is the ability to dynamically change content and measure the effectiveness of this modification. All consumer-facing web services should be taking advantage of this capability. It continued to surprise me how small changes in layout, copy, and graphical treatment considerably changed the response/conversation rates for the same basic offer. I am not advocating constantly changing your home page, but rather continually experimenting with new landing pages and applying those lessons whenever major site overhauls are completed. Then, you’ll have metric-driven support for what changes need to be made and why, as opposed to relying hunches and guesses. And in the meantime, you’ll have a portion of your traffic converting to your desired action at increasing rates.
Keep it simple, stupid. The final thing to remember is to keep the message as clear-cut and uncomplicated as possible. Users will eventually discover the subtleties of your service, but the first impression isn’t the time to tout them. If you over-communicate the key benefits and the desired call-to-action in the beginning, you’ll entice the consumer to begin a relationship with your site, as opposed to intimidating or failing to excite them. If users are interested early, they’re more likely to return and remain active for a longer duration.
January 26, 2006
Reminder: Boston Web Innovators Group - 6:30pm Monday January 30th @ Blue Room
This post is just a quick reminder about the upcoming Boston Web Innovators Group meeting this upcoming Monday evening. The details:
Boston Web Innovators Group
Monday January 30th at 6:30pm
Blue Room in Kendall Square
http://www.webinnovatorsgroup.com
All who are interested in gathering to socialize about web and mobile innovation in the Boston area welcome.
We are going to start with three brief presentations from local self-funded startups:
• Joshua Schanker is going to present his business's site for high school students, Sconex.
• Gregor Rothfuss will unveil a project he’s been working on with the codename Blue.
• The team of Robert Glazer, Bob Allard & Richard Banfield will demo two services which they’ve been developing, Referral Monitor and You Should Meet.
Following the 7pm presentations, the room and cash-bar will remain open for a few hours of general schmoozing.
It looks like we already have a great group RSVP’ing on the wiki site: http://www.webinnovatorsgroup.com. Please include your name on the list if you plan to attend.
Looking forward to seeing everyone there on Monday. As always, feel free to e-mail me with comments, questions, or suggestions.
January 25, 2006
The Wild West of Video
One of the articles in my VentureWire e-mail newsletter this morning mentioned that the video space is “so hot” right now. Not to be out-done, another quote in a different article in the same newsletter referred to it as “white hot.”
There’s no question that the basic premises – the who, what, where, when, and how – of consumers’ interaction with video content is dramatically changing, and that’s getting people excited.
David Katz, who oversees sports and entertainment for the Yahoo Media Group, at a NATPE 2006 panel said yesterday (via paidContent.org),
“...[W]hat's the definition of television. ... If we’re going to narrowly define television as the content created by broadcast networks and cable networks that comes in on the big screen in your living room, that's one thing ... If television is more broadly defined going forward as that video entertainment experience really consumed in the home or potentially on portable devices or your cell phones… you're talking about an unlimited universe, you're talking about a place where content can come from anywhere, everyone's a distributor if they want to be, user generated content allows the proliferation of content and breaks down barriers that existed before."
The vision which David lays out is one which I believe is becoming consensus for those in the space (at least those “new” media types). The issue at hand is rather how we get there. While all promising markets have their incumbent players and constituents, this one is especially fertile ground for (often rival sets of) established companies along the value chain – from cable companies, to broadcast networks, to the content producers, to device manufacturers, to mobile carriers, etc., etc.; the list goes on for quite a while. This environment makes it especially perilous, but also ripe, for start-ups as well. This month’s acquisition of Truveo by AOL is just one signal of more to come. A quick search reveals that more than a handful of people have called 2006 the “Year of Video” (see here, here, here, and here to name a few). I don’t disagree. My question is – how will this movie play out?
Posted by David Beisel at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)January 24, 2006
The Name Game
Ross Levinsohn, president of Fox Interactive Media, said yesterday at the NATPE Mobile Conference:
“This is the year MySpace is going to go mobile. You can see them interacting on their computer, now want to extend that to the phone... We want to empower MySpace screen names to supplant mobile numbers.”
This statement was made in the midst of the recent revelation that AOL “is building a platform off its massively popular AOL Instant Messenger service to better enable its users to share and create content... It's expected to blend all manner of AOL content offerings with the user-created content, conversation, and community that define social-networking sites.”
While the possibility for AOL to “be the one Big Media player to create, rather than buy, its own social network” is a notable insight, as this BusinessWeek article suggests, a more subtle ramification of these two stories is the importance of the name space.
User/Screen names are a key component in any social software network – at the core, they identify who is behind a particular profile, page, IM, or other communication unit. AOL is now waking up to the large asset which it has possessed for years. And MySpace sees how they can leverage their emerging name space onto a future mobile platform. Though typical individual users carry with them a number of screen names, the set of these used is limited. Consequently, there is power in owning and extending a network’s influence and ability to connect people through leveraging the name space. While fully supplanting mobile numbers is a lofty and challenging goal to say the least, FIM’s aim (no pun intended) is entirely reasonable: connecting people through your own platform in lieu of another reinforces the value of the original network itself. The name space is a valuable one, as it provides an elegant way to manage identity and connection which other methods do not.
January 23, 2006
Great Expectations
Yahoo and Google “are essentially competing with the venture capital community” with many of the recent company purchases really “talent acquisition.” Last week Om Malik wondered, given Yahoo’s recent modest financial quarter, if “falling stocks [will] bring [Web 2.0 company] shopping sprees to quick halt.” My own view is that I doubt that a misstep in managing the Street’s expectations will let up in the execution of this clearly thought-out acquisition strategy. The relatively small cost in acquiring innovative technologies and people into an organization like Yahoo through this method shouldn’t at all significantly be changed by a modest swing in market capitalization.
We’ll see how the story unfolds over the next month or two. According to the data on this page, Yahoo has acquired sixteen companies of this type for an undisclosed sum since July 2004. With a mere average of only 37 days between each one, a little quick calculation reveals that we should see the next one around Feb 14th. (Though the standard deviation is 24 days, so there is a little wiggle room for this rough method.) Don’t misinterpret this back-of-the-envelope math as a true prediction, but merely as an indicator that we’ll soon see if there’s any hesitation on Yahoo’s part.
Om also wonders about the future of the emerging Web 2.0 services if the pool of acquirers start shying away. In my opinion, the strategy of these businesses shouldn’t change dramatically. My suspicion is that most aren’t intentionally built to flip (or flop), and that a drying up of acquirers will merely hasten the push towards revenue as opposed to fundamentally changing the goals of these companies. Keep in mind that unlike during the bubble, there is now a better set of intfrastructure to support various monetization models for consumer web services. So while perhaps many large (venture-backed) companies won’t be built around a large number of these services, small and profitable models should emerge from this current wave of innovation.
A paraphrase of what one bootstrapping entrepreneur told me recently: “It costs us so little these days to develop and host these services. We’re just throwing a bunch against the wall to see what sticks. Some will work profitably, while others will not.”
I think that’s just exactly it – some of the current wave of innovative services will find profitable models. Others will be picked up by Google, Yahoo, or an equivalent. A few will receive venture backing and succeed on a larger scale. And many will eventually fail. It’s all part of the innovation process, and it’s up to entrepreneurs to create their own path in it.
Posted by David Beisel at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)January 19, 2006
The Founding Story
When meeting with entrepreneurs, VCs ask a lot of questions. And, of course, most of those are about the current startup business, the market, the vision of the future, the background and capabilities of the team, etc.
But one of my favorite questions to ask is, “What is the founding story?”
How did the founders meet and eventually come together? How did the idea for the current incarnation of the business emerge? How has the winding road of the initial days given rise to the current perspective?
In short - what are all of the intangible details that make this start-up a unique coming together of people, not just a valuable coming together of human and technological capital?
Like startup offices, the founding story reveals subtle cues about a company’s core. It speaks to the culture of the leading team and how it will spread through the others that will follow. And asking about the narrative usually ignites an entrepreneur’s passion which truly drives him/her beyond the facts and figures of the business. Whether it’s a relentless pursuit towards solving a problem or an “ah-hah” moment that a problem could be solved, the distinctive details that emerge from the founding narrative bring to light a set of information that few other questions could.
Founding stories can occasionally become the stuff of legend outside a company, but they are always an important component inside every startup.
January 13, 2006
Creative Mobile Creative: Here and Now
This week’s AdWeek featured a great article covering the general trend of large brands seeking new ways to reach consumers on the mobile phone: “Small Screen, Big Ideas: How the new square inch of space is changing creative.”
“The screen is small. The audience's attention span is even shorter…While some streaming video services… allow advertisers to buy 30-second spots, some agencies are discouraging clients from using mobile media in that way.
… savvy marketers are looking well past repurposing 30-second spots to creating more and more text applications, streaming video and downloadable short films.”
Both the challenge and opportunity for both mobile content providers and advertisers is to navigate this new venue which is partially reminiscent of the (desktop/laptop) web, television and other media types, but yet distinctly different. To me, it seems that the mobile experience is very much about the here and now. What information do I want to find because I am right here at this location (and social context)? There’s something about the situation around me which pushes me to seek specific information (including entertainment). Or what information do I want to find because I am in this moment? The ability to find or receive temporal information whose value will soon diminish is a key component to this device’s capability.
Many of the highlighted examples of the promotions in Adweek article integrate the concepts of here and/or now into them (e.g. a mobile code on Burger King packaging = here). And if not fully integrated, all of the illustrations are bound by them (e.g. films and tv-like ads are limited by the consumers’ taste for shorter snippets due to their own location context and limited time). It makes sense that the trends of effective mobile marketing creative engage the user along the dimensions of the here and now because it matches how people use the device in the first place.
January 12, 2006
Getting Creative with Revenue
Greg Yardley makes the prediction in his post “2006: watch your mouth and the bottom line” that in the upcoming year many currently zero-revenue startups will devote “an increased emphasis on revenue generation, and the placement of advertising everywhere advertisers are willing to test.” I completely agree that the current climate (in the consumer internet space) of sole devotion to product creation instead of business generation isn’t sustainable long-term. Of course, a natural progression of any startup begins with the product with the distribution and revenue following – so what Greg is saying isn’t revolutionary (nor overly critical), perhaps just merely sobering.
What I think is interesting, however, are the ramifications of this statement. In the next six to eighteen months, there are going to be a significant number of startups searching for revenue sources, which is going lead many of them down some very creative paths to find it. And that’s what’s exciting. Of course, “traditional” advertising networks (AdSense included) will provide the bulk of dollars. But advertisers are increasingly searching for alternative and imaginative ways to reach audiences, and emerging startups possess the flexibility and responsiveness to experiment with new notions of how to reach consumers. As I’ve written previously, social commerce is one substitute, but that’s just a mild deviation from the norm. I’ve seen a number of not-yet-launched ideas cross my desk in the past couple months that start to push the boundaries farther, and I’m looking forward to see ones which are even more innovative. We’re currently seeing an explosion of creativity in the web services themselves; I am eagerly anticipating/hoping for a similar originality on the revenue-generation front as well.
January 11, 2006
Boston Web Innovators Group - Monday January 30th @ 6:30pm
A few weeks ago I put together an informal gathering of web and mobile innovators in the Boston area. (You can read my and others’ blog write-ups of it here, here, and here.) We had quite a nice turnout for the event, and many expressed to me the interest in attending a follow-up one in the new year. In response to this sentiment, the following are the details of the next gathering:
Monday January 30th at 6:30pm
Blue Room in Kendall Square
Agenda is to start with a few quick demos by entrepreneurs from seed-stage start-ups (around 7pm) and then schmooze the rest of the evening.
If you plan to attend, I would appreciate it if you would RSVP on the following wiki so we can give an accurate assessment to the venue: http://www.webinnovatorsgroup.com.
In addition, we are seeking 1-3 self-funded/early-stage stage start-ups to give a brief demonstration of their product/service. If you are interested, please e-mail me with a quick overview. Finally, if you know of other entrepreneurs, techies, VCs, or other innovators who would be interested in attending, please do not hesitate to pass along this link.
As always, I open to hear your comments, questions, or suggestions. I tried to incorporate the constructive feedback from the previous event (private room, microphone / PA system, etc.) towards this one.
Looking forward to seeing everyone in a few weeks.
January 9, 2006
The Economics & Semantics of Traffic Arbitrage
Consumer-facing internet service business models can be boiled down into three simple steps – acquire users, add value, then monetize these users. In other words, buy traffic cheaply and then sell it for a richer price.
This traffic cycle continues from one ad-supported site to the next until it reaches a cash-point node in the chain, where the user either pays for a service outright or purchases an offline good. While paid advertising can constitute either or both “acquire”/”monetize” steps (i.e. you can buy ads to attract users or sell ads to monetize them), buying and selling can take other forms as well. For example, engaging in blogging and other PR activities which attract users takes time, and therefore money, to “buy” them.
I become frustrated when people use the term “arbitrage” to describe the types of business which buy traffic at a low price and sell it at a higher one. Isn’t that what all business do? Buy raw inputs, assemble them to create value, and then sell the end result? Wikipedia defines arbitrage as “the practice of taking advantage of a state of imbalance between two or more markets: a combination of matching deals are struck that exploit the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices.” Sure, there are many examples of online arbitrage opportunities (for example, exploiting the differential in pricing among CPM, CPC, and CPA ad markets through affiliate programs). However, the majority of online services are creating real value for users, and, as such, aren’t arbitrage per se. Semantics, perhaps, but a clear and reasonable distinction in the conversation about the economics of traffic and online services.
January 5, 2006
Communicating and Connecting with Readers in 2006
Probably the most rewarding (and unexpected) benefit of blogging has been the interaction and communication with some of the people who read my blog. One of my favorite daily activities is to read the comments to a post and hear what others are thinking about a particular topic or opinion. And it’s always a treat when I find an incoming e-mail with a more detailed comment about a post, a pitch for a startup in a space in which I’ve been writing, or link/suggestion for further reading and thinking.
The most meaningful communications with readers (and other fellow bloggers), however, have been connecting in person – whether it’s during a conference (like Web2.0 back in October), at a meetup event (like the Boston Web Innovators Group event in November), or when entrepreneurs/readers have presented to us here at Masthead. Over the past year or so of blogging, I’ve been introduced and started many mutually rewarding relationships through this medium.
As such, my new year’s (blogging) resolution is to be more engaging to comments by further commenting in the conversation in my posts and to be as responsive as I can to your e-mails. So, a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has been a reader in 2005 – I am looking forward to getting to know you better in this new year (both online and off).
January 4, 2006
Startup Offices Are Like Faces (Part II)
Startup offices are like faces. They communicate what is going on in the inside, revealing subtle cues about a company’s core. An office is both a reflection of and a signal to prospective & current employees, customers, and investors what a company is all about.
At Sombasa Media, our first office barely fit us four founders who were bootstrapping to get the company off the ground. It was a tiny brick room with no windows; so small that for one of us to leave for the restroom, all of the others had to scoot further towards the desk squeezing to let the person by. Our second office was a larger one-room area (this time with windows, fortunately). And on the first day we moved in, we built our own desks. Realizing that this assembly was not just a necessary frugal requirement, but also a metaphorical symbolic act of us building a company together, all future new employees of the company built their own desks in this and future offices (even after we emerged from full bootstrapping mode post-investment). Everyone from interns’, to experienced MBAs’, to quota’d salespeople’s first task at the company was to construct their desk, like the entire team who had started before them. Our third office was a large funky space which seemed like too much room when we moved in, but quickly filled up as we grew, necessitating that we move yet again.
In every one of our office locations, the physical space was a manifestation and communication of something deeper about the company’s stage, vision, and culture. And other little things, like the employee picture bulletin board and an open seating arrangement, further solidified communication about our strong culture.
How is your startup office a reflection of who you are as a company?