Content Creation and Content Management

Amazon turns the page on yet another publishing maxim.

Phillip Nones Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Economics, Media, Media Consumption, Publishing , , , , , , , , , , ,

The publishing industry’s “primary disruptor” will start paying authors based on pages read, not e-books purchased. 

AmazonBeginning next month, Amazon is ushering in its next big change in the world of publishing … and it’s a pretty fundamental shift.

Instead of paying royalties to authors based on how many e-books have been sold, Amazon will start paying authors based on how many pages of their books consumers have read.

For now, the program applies just to self-published authors who are on Amazon’s KDP Select Program — but you can bet that if the experiment plays out well, it’ll likely expand.

Currently, Amazon remunerates its native authors on a monthly bases based on the number of times their e-books are accessed through two Kindle service programs:

The new change will shift away from paying authors based on each book accessed, and instead pay based on each page that readers access (and that remains on the screen long enough to be parsed).

Who will be the winners and losers in this new approach to compensation?  Certainly, some people have criticized the current payment scheme for benefiting authors of smaller books more than those who write longer tomes.  The change may improve matters for the latter because of the additional pages that make up their e-books.

But is that really the case?  Many large volumes are reference-oriented book or fall into other non-fiction categories, such that a reader may be interested in accessing only a few pages within the books in any case.

But on the fiction side, authors may find themselves attracted to writing the kind of “cliffhanger” story lines that keep readers turning the pages.

However it shakes out, one thing seems destined to change.  The old saw that “it doesn’t matter how many people read a book — only how many purchase it” may well be on the way out.

What are your thoughts about Amazon’s new remuneration policy?  On balance, is it good for authors — or for the world of books in general?  Feel free to share your comments with other readers.

(Still) Too Much Irritating Online Advertising

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Marketing Communications, Media, Media Consumption , , , , , ,

online advertisingTime was, the online experience was blissfully free of annoying advertising.  (Of course, that was back in the very early days of the Internet.)

Then things got pretty bad pretty quickly, as publishers became forced to find ways to make up for lost advertising revenues from their print vehicles.

One of the most egregious examples of the explosion in online advertising were pop-up and pop-under ads.

So infamous, in fact, that an entire industry of ad blocking software sprang up, eventually providing the ability to eradicate most of them.

Not all of them, of course, but enough so that for those who use the programs, those ads are no longer quite as pernicious as before.

And yet … the arsenal of publisher’s revenue-generating ad tricks is still quite large — and pretty irritatingly effective, too.  Here are the most pervasive ones:

Slideshows – Some publishers use a picture slideshow format at every opportunity as a way of increasing page views and ad impressions.  Each click to view the next slide means more opportunities to collect revenue from serving up more display ads.  Using this scheme, publishers can end up with ten times the ad volume compared to if they had presented the information and images on a single page.

Pagination – Related to the slideshow scheme is the idea of publishing an online news story on two or three pages, whereas it could easily have been presented on just one.  If you ask people, most would be quite happy simply scrolling down the page to read the entire story.  On the other hand, publishers love this tactic because it enables them to double or triple their ad impressions.

Autoplay video – Even though most viewers hate autoplay videos, publishers think this tactic is great because they can gain revenue from video serves without having to wait until a user clicks on it to play.

Autopage refreshing – The obnoxious practice of refreshing and reloading a web page every 30 or 60 seconds has little to do with fresh new content being added to the page – unless that “fresh new content” is new advertising impressions.  And that’s precisely why it happens – so that publishers can get credit and revenues from significantly more ad impressions than they would otherwise.

Add to these techniques the age-old practice of attracting attention via “cheesecake” or other questionable images – no matter that they have nothing to do with the product or service being promoted – and you have a veritable rogues gallery of obnoxious “tips and tricks” – all designed to serve up as many ads as possible and generate Potemkin Village-like “engagement” along with the heightened ad revenues.

And who’s surprised?  After all, it’s only “mere money” we’re talking about …

If you find certain advertising practices particularly detrimental to your online experiences, I’m sure other readers would love to hear about them.  Please share your thoughts in the comment section below — and what you’ve done about it in response.

Conundrum Corner: Europe, Google and “The Right to be Forgotten”

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Social Commentary , , , , , ,

file and forgetThis past week, The Wall Street Journal published an article which reported on the fallout from the European Court of Justice’s 2014 ruling that Google is required to remove links in European search results for individuals whose reputations are harmed by them.

In practice, it’s turned out to be quite a conundrum.  Since the ruling went into effect, Google has had to field requests to remove nearly 950,000 links from European search results.

Each request is deliberated on a case-by-case basis by a panel of specialists.  Reportedly, Google has dozens of attorneys, paralegals and engineers assigned to the task, which is based at its European headquarters facilities in Dublin, Ireland.

So far, approximately one-third of the links in question have been removed while about half were deemed acceptable to continue displaying in search results.  The remaining cases – the gnarliest ones – are still under review.

Unfortunately, the European Court of Justice hasn’t been very specific on the standards to apply when evaluating each request – other than to assert that search results should be removed that include links to information that is:

  • Irrelevant
  • Inadequate
  • Excessive
  • Harmful
  • Outdated

Which, of course, could encompass practically anything.  But the broader standard the Court has sought to uphold is “the right to be forgotten.”

Google hasn’t exactly been a willing participant in these mini-dramas.  Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, contends that Google has been compelled “to play a role we never asked to play – and don’t want to play.”

Lisa Fleisher and Sam Schechner, the authors of the Wall Street Journal article, noted several examples of criteria that Google appears to be using when evaluating individual requests for removal.

More likely to be removed are search entries pertaining to crimes committed long ago and expunged from criminal records … nude or other revealing photos published without the permission of the subjects … and arrest records for petty infractions.

Less likely to be removed:  stories about public figures.

As for the “group dynamics” involved in the decision-making, Fleischer reports that the committee’s votes are normally “a large majority in favor of one decision or the other.”

Looking ahead, as the experiment in parsing web search results to remove certain links while retaining others continues, it’s sure to have implications worldwide.

One reason is that, for now at least, Google has been removing search results only from European domains such as google.it or google.es, but not from the far-more-ubiquitous U.S.-based google.com – even when accessed from Europe.

This means that the “offending” search results can continue to be viewed, retrieved and opened easily.

That fact isn’t sitting well with EU privacy regulators.  In fact, they’ve already issued an opinion contending that Google’s actions are insufficient, and they are seeking wider compliance.  The potential price for not doing so is – you guessed it – legal action.

As time goes on, it will be interesting to see what ends up leeching into the American sphere when it comes to the ability of people to have erroneous or unflattering information about them that is currently so readily visible removed from view.

Clearly there are competing principals at work:  freedom of information versus reputation protection.

paper documents on fileCourt documents and similar documentation have always been public-access information, of course.  But up until a few years ago, anyone interested in trolling for “dirt” on an individual or a company had to do costly, proactive searching through reams of paper-based documents.

Not only was it a labor-intensive process that might or might not result in anything of substance, the source information itself was scattered among thousands of county seats all across America.

That alone was enough to guarantee that most documents were effectively far away from public view.

But in today’s everything-digitized world, court documents – many dating back decades – have been optically scanned and can now be keyword-searched within an ounce of your life.

digitized docsWhat used to take months and cost plenty can now be researched in a matter of minutes.

And beyond court or government documentation is the press, which can get things very wrong (or simply premature) when reporting on controversial or titillating news items.

It affects companies as well as individuals.  I recall one such example in Baltimore from a number of years ago.  The local business press reported on a lawsuit brought by a disgruntled creditor against another company.  (I’m not naming the companies in question in deference to their reputations.)

The press reporting focused on the plaintiff’s petition to force the company into bankruptcy by virtue of the alleged “unpaid debt.”  The fact that the substance of the suit was found wanting and the defendant firm cleared of wrongdoing made little difference when it came to the reputation of the company and its principals;  the original news reports continue to have a life online, years later.

As the CEO the defendant company wrote to the publication involved,

“We now live in an age where digital documents take on a life of their own, and where it is no longer sufficient to consider whether someone might read a newspaper article on a given page on a given day.  Now, with the press of a button articles are stored in massive servers and retrieved by anyone around the world, leaving innocent people branded forever by erroneous words and faulty assumptions. 

It is your ethical responsibility to avoid causing undue harm to innocent parties by prematurely publishing information that others will negative construe and act upon.  Waiting a little longer to clarify the facts and determine the truth is sensible public policy and only makes your paper’s articles more trustworthy and fair, thereby avoiding the journalistic equivalent of shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

It seems to me that we’re just starting down a road with this issue, and we don’t really know where it’s going to end up.

Considering everything – the European Court of Justice, Google and the global nature of “search and destroy,” I’d be interested in hearing what readers think about the situation, the competing issues, and the ultimate destination.

What people dislike most about B-to-B websites …

Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Creative and Production, Marketing Communications , , , , , , , , , , ,

Too many business-to-business websites remain the “poor stepchildren” of the online world even after all these years.

btob websitesSo much attention is devoted to all the great ways retailers and other companies in consumer markets are delighting their customers online.

And it stands to reason:  Those sites are often intrinsically more interesting to focus on and talk about.

Plus, the companies that run those sites go the extra mile to attract and engage their viewers.  After all, consumers can easily click away to another online resource that offers a more compelling and satisfying experience.

Or, as veteran marketing specialist Denison ‘Denny’ Hatch likes to say, “You’re just one mouse-click away from oblivion.”

By comparison, buyers in the B-to-B sphere often have to slog through some pretty awful website navigation and content to find what they’re seeking.  But because their mission is bigger than merely viewing a website for the fun of it, they’ll put up with the substandard online experience anyway.

But this isn’t to say that people are particularly happy about it.

Through my company’s longstanding involvement with the B-to-B marketing world, I’ve encountered plenty of the “deficiencies” that keep business sites from connecting with their audiences in a more fulfilling way.

Sometimes the problems we see are unique to a particular site … but more often, it’s the “SOS” we see across many of them (if you’ll pardon the scatological acronym).

Broadly speaking, issues of website deficiency fall into five categories:

  • They run too slowly.
  • They look like something from the web world’s Neanderthal era.
  • They make it too difficult for people to locate what they’re seeking on the site.
  • Worse yet, they actually lack the information visitors need.
  • They look horrible when viewed on a mobile device — and navigation is no better.

Fortunately, each of these problems can be addressed – often without having to do a total teardown and rebuild.

But corporate inertia can (and often does) get in the way.

Sometimes big changes like Google’s recent “Mobilegeddon” mobile-friendly directives come along that nudge companies into action.  In times like that, it’s often when other needed adjustments and improvements get dealt with as well.

But then things can easily revert back to near-stasis mode until the next big external pressure point comes down the pike and stares people in the face.

Some of this pattern of behavior is a consequence of the commonly held (if erroneous) view that B-to-B websites aren’t ones that need continual attention and updating.

I’d love for more people to reject that notion — if for SEO relevance issues alone.  But after nearly three decades of working with B-to-B clients, I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that there’ll always be some of that dynamic at work.  It just comes with the territory.

Promo emails: What’s the right length … What’s too long?

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Direct Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Social Commentary , , , , , , ,

email lengthI’m sure all of us receive some promotional e-mails with content that just seems to go on forever.

There’s no way that’s accomplishing the company’s marketing and sales goals.

But just what exactly is the right length of content in a promotional e-mail communiqué?

Assuming that “the wisdom of crowds” can get us pretty close to whatever that sweet spot is, looking at findings helpfully collected and aggregated by research firm and direct mail archive Who’s Mailing What! provide some pretty good clues.

WMW! tracks nearly 225 business categories, looking at the word count of e-mail messages deployed by companies active within each of them.

The average e-mail length for nearly all of the categories that WMW! tracks is substantially below 300 words.

[To compare, that’s shorter than the length of this blog post, which is around 300 words.]

And there are very few exceptions – fewer than ten, according to WMW.  In those seven categories, customers and prospects are used to encountering more verbiage in order to remain interested in the message.

The few business categories with the highest average content length (350 or more words on average) turn out to be the following:

  • Business/financial magazines
  • Newsletters
  • Political fundraising
  • Religious magazines
  • Seminars and conferences
  • Social action fundraising
  • Special interest magazines

Incidentally, the two categories with the absolutely highest number of words are social action fundraising (nearly 650 words) and seminars/conferences (around 620 words).

… Which for those two categories makes complete sense.  Donor prospects are going to need to read a good deal about a cause before opening their pocketbooks.  And people are going to need details about a seminar’s content and quality before agreeing to pay the typically high fees charged to attend.

But for everyone else, short e-mail promos are clearly the name of the game.  If word counts go much above 200, it’s probably getting a tad too long.

Tripping the E-Mail Spam Alarm

Phillip Nones Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Creative and Production, Direct Marketing, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, it’s more than just the “usual suspect” keywords that are landing e-mails in the junk folder.

se-mMost of us are aware of the kinds of words that trip spam alarms and cause e-mails to be sent straight to the junk folder – or not to be delivered at all.

How about these for starters:

  • Cash
  • Congratulations
  • Discount
  • Free
  • Income
  • Make Money
  • Urgent
  • Viagra
  • $$ / $$$

But research done by MailJet, an international e-mail service provider, looked at more than 14 billion e-mail communiqués and found that a bunch of other keywords are setting off alarm bells nearly as often as terms like “Urgent” or “Viagra.”

… Especially when considering the business categories that are so active in e-mail communications — retail goods, pharmaceuticals, providers of personal services, and the like.

Some of the other terms MailJet has found to be nearly as “toxic” are these:

  • bdcstDear Friend
  • FedEx
  • Increase Sales
  • Increase Traffic
  • Internet Marketing
  • Invoice
  • Lead Generation
  • Lose Weight
  • Marketing Solutions
  • Online Degree
  • Online Pharmacy
  • Order
  • PayPal
  • Search Engine Optimization
  • Sign Up
  • Trial Offer
  • Visa/Mastercard
  • Winning

… And there are more, of course – including various permutations of the words and phrases above.

The inevitable conclusion:  It’s becoming more difficult all the time to use the most common phrases in “subject” lines and “from” lines that’ll land your e-mail in someone’s inbox successfully.

And getting into the inbox just the first step, of course.  The next is motivating the recipient to actually open your e-mail and engage with it, which are additional hurdles in themselves.

What words or phrases have you found to be surprisingly problematic in getting your e-mails delivered to your customers’ inboxes?  How have you dealt with it?  Please share your experiences with other readers here.

Social media and marketing: Is the honeymoon over?

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Marketing Communications, Media, Media Consumption, Social Commentary, Social Media , , , , , , , , , ,

social mediaIt’s no secret that companies large and small have been putting significant energy into social media marketing and networking in recent years.

It’s happened for a variety of reasons – not least as a defensive strategy to keep from losing out over competitors who might be quicker to adopt social media strategies and leverage them for their business.

And yet …

Now that the businesses have a good half-decade of social media marketing under their belt, it’s pretty safe to say that social tactics aren’t very meaningful sales drivers.

That’s not just me talking.  It’s also Forrester Research, which as far back as 2011 and 2012 concluded this after analyzing the primary sales drivers for e-commerce.  Forrester found that less than 1% was driven by social media.

And in subsequent years, it’s gotten no better.

A case in point:  IBM Smarter Commerce, which tracks sales generated by 500 leading retail sites, has reported that Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter combined represent less than 0.5% of the sales generated on Black Friday in the United States.

Those dismal results aren’t to say that social media doesn’t have its benefits.  Generating “buzz” and building social influence certainly have their place and value.

But considering what some businesses have put into social media in terms of their MarComm resources, a channel that contributes less than 1% of sales revenues seems like a pretty paltry result – and very likely a negative ROI, too.

Going forward, it would seem that more companies should pursue social media marketing less out of a fear of losing out to competitors, and more based on whether it proves itself as an effective marketing tactic for them.

Consider the points listed below.  They’ve been true all along, but they’re becoming even more apparent with the passage of time:

1.  Buying “likes” isn’t worth much beyond the most basic tactical “bragging rights” aspects, because “likes” have little intrinsic value and can’t be tied directly to an increased revenue stream.

2.  A great social media presence doesn’t trump having good products and service; even dynamite social media can’t camouflage shortcomings of this kind for long.

3.  Audiences tend to “discount” the value of content that comes directly from a company.  This means publishing compelling content that clears that hurdle requires more skill and expertise than many companies have been willing to allocate to social media content creation.

Calibrating the way they look at social media is the first step companies can take to establish the correct balance between social media marketing activities and expected results.  Instead of treating social media as the connection with customers, view it as a tool to connect with customers.

It’s really just a new link in the same chain of engagement that successful companies have forged with their customers for decades.  In working with my clients, I’ve seen this scenario play out the same basic way time and again; it matters very little what type of business or markets they serve.

What about you?  Have your social media experiences been similar to this — or different?  I welcome hearing your perspectives.

So Many Magazines … So Little Time?

Phillip Nones Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Media, Media Consumption , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who wants easy, unlimited access to thousands of publications?

magazinesYou might not, but millions of other people do, apparently.

And the crowd is getting ready to increase more, most likely.

As if there wasn’t enough material to read already, some online publication bundlers are making sure that people have unlimited access to the world’s most important periodicals for one low price.

This week, The Wall Street Journal blog reported that Magzter, a company that provides a single access point for more than 5,000 magazines published around the world, has now introduced a service plan it calls Magzter Gold.

logoIt’s an “all-you-can-read” option that gives subscribers online access to approximately 2,000 publications – many of them top-circulation magazines like ESPN, Maxim, New York Magazine and Forbes – for a flat rate of just $9.99 a month or $99.99 per year.

And access to this huge repository of publications is quick and easy via desktops, laptops and tablets, plus iOS and Android phone apps.

There’s also a plan called Magzter Gold Lite, allowing access to the subscriber’s choice of any five magazine titles (which can be changed from month to month).

The cost of that subscription?  $5 per month.

These two new programs are aimed at increasing Magzter’s subscriber base, which already numbers more than 4 million active monthly users.

Magzter isn’t the only company offering online access to a family of publications.  Other providers like Readly and Next Issue also offer programs encompassing the stable of magazine titles belonging to various different publishing arms (Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, Time).

But none of them have anything like the sheer number of titles Magzter is offering.

Readers of my generation (over the age of 50) grew up with print magazines and are preternaturally drawn to the tactile sensation of reading a physical magazine.  But I suspect that publication bundlers like Magzter represent the tip of the spear rather than simply a passing fancy.

The question is whether the changing mode of delivery ends up destroying the actual product that Magzter and others are able to peddle.  After all, were it not for the print magazines to begin with, what would these aggregators have to sell?

If what it boils down to is offering fee-based premium content that is no longer tied to a print magazine because the publication is no longer available in hard-copy form, will the quality of that content continue to be as high?

In many — perhaps most — cases, I think it’s doubtful.

If the print magazines that underlie the digital product offerings disappear, it wouldn’t surprise me if millions of readers fall away from subscription services in favor of trolling the Internet for similar content that’s easily available for the bargain price of … goose egg.

For those who are using access services like Magzter or Readly today, would you recommend them to others?  Is it the wave of the future?  Please share your perspectives with other readers here.

Online user reviews: People trust their own motives for posting … but not others’.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Sales, Social Media , , , , , , , , , , ,

user reviewsOne of the most important uses of the web today is for people to seek out user reviews of products and services before they buy.

Research shows that people place a high value on these user reviews, and they are more likely to influence purchase decisions than brand advertising and other forms of promotion.

The famous 90-9-1 rule — of every 100 people, 1 creates content, 9 respond to created content and 90 simply are just lurkers — may no longer be accurate.  But even if the rule still holds, that still means quite a few people are engaging in the practice of posting customer reviews and comments.

For most people who post reviews, their reasons for doing so are positive, if the results from a recent YouGov survey of U.S. consumers are any guide.  The research was conducted in November 2014 among American respondents age 18 or older.

When asked why they post consumer reviews online, the survey respondents cited the following reasons:

  • To help other people make better purchase decisions: ~62% cited as a reason why they post
  • It’s polite to leave feedback: ~35% of respondents cited
  • It’s a way to share a positive experience: ~27%
  • To make sure good vendors get more business: ~25%
  • To warn others about a bad experience: ~13%
  • To expose bad vendors: ~12%

Interestingly, the older the age of reviewers, the more likely it is that they upload reviews for the reasons listed above:  Respondents age 55 or older cited all but one of the six reasons in greater percentages than the average for all age groups.

What about the flip side of the equation?  Do those who post feel that others are posting reviews for the same reason?

thumbs up and downThat’s where the picture gets a bit murkier.  It appears that those who post do so for positive reasons … but they don’t necessarily think others are posting for similarly positive purposes.

In fact, about two-thirds of the survey respondents felt that some reviews are written by people who haven’t actually purchased the product or service.

A large portion — 80% — think that businesses write positive online review about themselves.

And nearly 70% believe that businesses post negative feedback about competitors’ products.

So it’s interesting:  People see themselves participating in online ratings and reviews for the right reasons, yet they suspect that other posters may not be playing fairly — or maybe even gaming the system.

It’s an indication that while user reviews are welcomed in practice, there are also nagging doubts about the veracity of what people are reading.

Still, surveys find that many consumers cast those doubts to the side, and continue to read user reviews and be influenced by them.

B-to-B Buyers: Who’s Engaging with What Content?

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Manufacturing, Marketing Communications, Media Consumption, Social Commentary, Social Media , , , , , , , , ,

Different Types of ContentIn my work with manufacturing companies and other B-to-B firms, I’m often asked what type of informational content is the most worthwhile and valuable from a marketing standpoint and for attracting and converting customers.

The question is relevant for most companies because there are limits on marketing resources (both time and dollars), while the methods companies can use to communicate with their target audiences are far more extensive and varied than they were in the not-too-distant past.

The answer to the question about the best information content is always one of “degree” … because the most valuable piece of content for any single prospect or customer is the one that sparks him or her to buy.

And that one piece of critical content could be one of many things.

Helpfully, we now have a new survey that can help with a bit more quantification.  The research, which was conducted by content marketing firm Eccolo Media, surveyed technical buyers (engineers, managers and directors).

It’s a relatively small sample (fewer than 200 respondents), but the directional results are worth consideration.  I also think that the results can be applied to other B-to-B buyer types as well.

One finding that came as a bit of a surprise to me was that most buyers read just two to five pieces of content before making their decisions.

What kind of content do they consult most often?  Here’s what these respondents reported:

  • Product brochures and data sheets: ~57% consult this type of content
  • E-mail communiqués: ~52% consult
  • White papers: ~52%
  • Competitive vendor worksheets: ~42%
  • Case studies/success stories: ~42%
  • Technical guides: ~35%
  • Custom magazines/publications: ~35%
  • Video content: ~35%
  • Social media content: ~34%
  • Webinars: ~34% 

As for which of these types of content are considered the most worthwhile and influential to buyers, the ranking is somewhat different:

  • Product brochures and data sheets: ~39% rate as highly influential content (top five resources)
  • White papers: ~33%
  • Case studies/success stories: ~31%
  • Technical guides: ~23%
  • Competitive vendor worksheets: ~22%
  • Videos:  ~17%
  • E-mail communiqués: ~15% 
  • Social media content:  ~14%
  • Custom magazines/publications:  ~14%

The Eccolo Media report draws this conclusion from its research:

“Marketers have been good at producing large volumes of content, but not quality content and not the right type of content … The more content we produce, the more likely it is to fail.”

One thing the research clearlyshows is that companies need to spend more effort in collecting and publishing customer case examples and success stories, because those appear to have a disproportionately higher degree of influence over potential buyers — if only they are available to consult.

More broadly, the types of content that are of greater value to buyers tend to be the ones that require more time and effort to prepare.  The adage that “success is 20% inspiration and 80% perspiration” appears to apply to marketing content development as well.

More summary findings from Eccolo Media’s 2015 B2B Technology Content Survey Report can be accessed here.

What are your thoughts as to the relative merits of different types of content?  Whether you’re a B-to-B marketer or a B-to-B buyer, please share your thoughts with other readers here.