Today I was talking with one of my company’s longtime clients about how much of a challenge it is to attract the attention of people in target marketing campaigns.
Her view is that it’s become progressively more difficult over the past dozen years or so.
Empirical research bears this out, too. Using data from a variety of sources including Twitter, Google+, Pinterest, Facebook and Google, Statistic Brain Research Institute‘s Attention Span Statistics show that the average attention span for an “event” on one of these platforms was 8.25 seconds in 2015.
Compare that to 15 years earlier, when the average attention span for similar events was 12.0 seconds.
That’s a reduction in attention span time of nearly one-third.
Considering Internet browsing statistics more specifically, an analysis of ~60,000 web page views found these behaviors:
Percent of page views that lasted more than 10 minutes: ~4%
% of page views that lasted fewer than 4 seconds: ~17%
% of words read on web pages that contain ~100 words or less: ~49%
% of words read on an average web page (around ~600 words): ~28%
The same study discovered what surely must be an important reason why attention spans have been contracting. How’s this tidy statistic: The average number of times per hour that an office worker checks his or her e-mail inbox is … 30 times.
Stats like the ones above help explain why my client – and so many others just like her – are finding it harder than ever to attract and engage their prospects.
Fortunately, factors like good content and good design can help surmount these difficulties. It’s just that marketers have to try harder than ever to achieve a level of engagement that used to come so easily.
More results from the Statistic Brain Research Institute study can be found here.
Over the past decade or so, consumers have been faced with basically two options regarding unwanted e-mail that comes into their often-groaning inboxes. And neither one seems particularly effective.
One option is to unsubscribe to unwanted e-mails. But many experts caution against doing this, claiming that it risks getting even more spam e-mail instead of stopping the delivery of unwanted mail. Or it could be even worse, in that clicking on the unsubscribe box might risk something even more nefarious happening on their computer.
On the other hand, ignoring junk e-mail or sending it to the spam folder doesn’t seem to be a very effective response, either. Both Google and Microsoft are famously ineffective in determining which e-mails actually constitute “spam.” It isn’t uncommon that e-mail replies to the personal who originated the discussion get sent to the spam folder.
How can that be? Google and Microsoft might not even know the answer (and even if they did, they’re not saying a whole lot about how those determinations are made).
Even more irritating – at least for me personally – are finding that far too many e-mails from colleagues in my own company are being sent to spam – and the e-mails in question don’t even contain attachments.
How are consumers handling the crossed signals being telegraphed about how to handle spam e-mail? A recent survey conducted by digital marketing firm Adestra has found that nearly three-fourths of consumers are using the unsubscribe button – and that figure has increased from two-thirds of respondents in the 2016 survey.
What this result tells us is that the unsubscribe button may be working more times than not. If that means that the unwanted e-mails stop arriving, then that’s a small victory for the consumer.
[To access the a summary report of Adestra’s 2017 field research, click here.]
What’s been your personal experience with employing “ignore” versus “unsubscribe” strategies? Please share your thoughts with other readers.
I’ve blogged before about the most expensive keywords in search engine marketing. Back in 2009, it was “mesothelioma.”
Of course, that was eight years and a lifetime ago in the world of cyberspace. In the meantime, asbestos poisoning has become a much less lucrative target of ambulance-chasing attorneys looking for multi-million dollar court settlements.
Today, we have a different set of “super-competitive” keyword terms vying for the notoriety of being the “most expensive” ones out there. And while none of them are flirting with the $100 per-click pricing that mesothelioma once commanded, the pricing is still pretty stratospheric.
According to recent research conducted by online advertising software services provider WordStream, the most expensive keyword categories in Google AdWords today are these:
“Business services”: $58.64 average cost-per-click
“Bail bonds”: $58.48
“Asset management”: $49.86
Generally, the reasons behind these terms and other terms being so expensive is the dynamic of the “immediacy” of the needs or challenges people are looking to solve.
Indeed, other terms that have high-end pricing include such ones as “plumber,” “termites,” and “emergency room near me.”
Amusingly, one of the most expensive keywords on Google AdWords is … “Google” itself. That term ranks 25th on the list of the most expensive keywords.
[To see the complete listing of the 25 most expensive keywords found in WordStream’s research, click here.]
WordStream also conducted some interesting ancillary research during the same study. It analyzed the best-performing ads copy/content associated with the most expensive key words to determine which words were the most successful in driving clickthroughs.
Running this textual analysis found that the most lucrative calls-to-action included ad copy that contained the following terms:
Are there keyword terms in your own business category or industry that you feel are way overpriced in relation to their value they deliver for the promotional dollar? If so, which ones?
How many times have you noticed location data on Google Maps and other online mapping services that are out-of-date or just plain wrong? I encounter it quite often.
It hits close to home, too. While most of my company’s clients don’t usually have reason to visit our company’s office (because they’re from out of state or otherwise situated pretty far away from our location in Chestertown, MD), for the longest while Google Maps’s pin for our company pointed viewers to … a stretch of weeds in an empty lot.
It turns out, the situation isn’t uncommon. Recently, the Wawa gas-and-food chain hired an outside firm to verify its location data on Google, Facebook and Foursquare. What Wawa found was that some 2,000 address entries had been created by users, including duplicate entries and ones with incorrect information.
Unlike a company like mine which doesn’t rely on foot traffic for business, for a company like Wawa, that’s the lifeblood of its operations. As such, Wawa is a high-volume advertiser with numerous campaigns and promotions going at once — including ones on crowdsourced driving and traffic apps like Google’s Waze.
With so much misleading location data swirling around, the last thing a company needs to see is a scathing review appearing on social media because someone was left staring at a patch of weeds in an empty lot instead being able to redeem a new digital coupon for a gourmet cookie or whatever.
Problems with incorrect mapping don’t happen just because of user-generated bad data, either. As in my own company’s case, the address information can be completely accurate – and yet somehow the map pin associated with it is misplaced.
Companies such as MomentFeed and Ignite Technologies have been established whose purpose is to identify and clean up bad map data such as this. It can’t be a one-and-done effort, either; most companies find that it’s yet another task that needs continuing attention – much like e-mail database list hygiene activities.
Perhaps the worst online map data clanger I’ve read about was a retail store whose pin location placed it 800 miles east of the New Jersey coastline in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. What’s the most spectacular mapping fail you’ve come across personally?
The owner of a business is arguably the single most important employee on the payroll. As such, the findings from a recent survey of business owners conducted by The Alternative Board are revealing.
According to the survey, which was conducted in May 2017, the typical business owner reports having only about 1.5 hours of uninterrupted, high-productive time per day.
Four in five of the business owners reported that they feel most productive in the mornings. It stands to reason, then, that nearly nine in ten respondents reported that they prefer to get the most important tasks of the day out of the way first.
The majority of respondents reported that they are most productive working from the office, but nearly one-third of them reported that most of their work is done from their home.
A majority of the respondents also reported that they spend the biggest block of their daily time on e-mail activities. Tellingly, less than 10% feel that this is the most important use of their time.
Asked to report on what factors are working against their employees achieving a high level of productivity in the owner’s business, these following four factors were named most frequently:
Poor time management: ~35% of survey respondents cited
Poor communications: ~25%
Personal/personnel problems: ~18%
Technology distractions: ~16%
Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that while there are certainly issues that affect business productivity, business owners have it within their power to improve time management, foster better communication between employees, and ultimately run a tighter ship.
Google’s trying to not have its local search initiative devolve into charges and counter-charges of “fake news” à la the most recent U.S. presidential election campaign – but is it trying hard enough?
It’s becoming harder for the reviews that show up on Google’s local search function to be considered anything other than “suspect.”
The latest salvo comes from search expert and author Mike Blumenthal, whose recent blog posts on the subject question Google’s willingness to level with its customers.
Mr. Blumenthal could be considered one of the premiere experts on local search, and he’s been studying the phenomenon of fake information online for nearly a decade.
The gist of Blumenthal’s argument is that Google isn’t taking sufficient action to clean up fake reviews (and related service industry and affiliate spam) that appear on Google Maps search results, which is one of the most important utilities for local businesses and their customers.
Not only that, but Blumenthal also contends that Google is publishing reports which represent “weak research” that “misleads the public” about the extent of the fake reviews problem.
Google contends that the problem isn’t a large one. Blumenthal feels differently – in fact, he claims the problem as growing worse, not getting better.
From this exercise, he sees a pattern of fake reviews being written for overlapping businesses, and that somehow these telltale signs have been missed by Google’s algorithms.
A case in point: three “reviewers” — “Charlz Alexon,” “Ginger Karime” and “Jen Mathieu” — have all “reviewed” three very different businesses in completely different areas of the United States: Bedoy Brothers Lawn & Maintenance (Nevada), Texas Car Mechanics (Texas), and The Joint Chiropractic (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina).
They’re all 5-star reviews, of course.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that “Charlz Alexon,” “Ginger Karime” and “Jen Mathieu” won’t be found in the local telephone directories where these businesses are located. That’s because they’re figments of some spammer-for-hire’s imagination.
The question is, why doesn’t Google develop procedures to figure out the same obvious answers Blumenthal can see plain as day?
And the follow-up question: How soon will Google get serious about banning reviewers who post fake reviews on local search results? (And not just targeting the “usual suspect” types of businesses, but also professional sites such as physicians and attorneys.)
“If their advanced verification [technology] is what it takes to solve the problem, then stop testing it and start using it,” Blumenthal concludes.
To my mind, it would be in Google’s own interest to get to the bottom of these nefarious practices. If the general public comes to view reviews as “fake, faux and phony,” that’s just one step before ceasing to use local search results at all – which would hurt Google in the pocketbook.
These days, there are more ways than ever to publicize a product or service so as to increase its popularity and its sales.
And yet … the type of thing most likely to convince someone to try a new product – or to change a brand – is a reference or endorsement from someone they know and trust.
Omnichannel marketing promotions firm YA conducted research in 2016 with ~1,000 American adults (age 18+) that quantifies what many have long suspected: ~85% of respondents reported that they are more likely to purchase a product or service if it is recommended by someone they know.
A similarly high percentage — 76% — reported that an endorsement from such a person would cause them to choose one brand over another.
Most important of all, ~38% of respondents reported that when researching product or services, a referral from a friend is the source of information they trust the most. No other source comes close.
This means that online reviews, news reports and advertising – all of which have some impact – aren’t nearly as important as the opinions of friends, colleagues or family members.
… Even if those friends aren’t experts in the topic!
It boils down to this: The level of trust between people has a greater bearing on purchase decisions because consumers value the opinion of people they know.
Likewise, the survey respondents exhibited a willingness to make referrals of products and services, with more than 90% reporting that they give referrals when they like a product. But a far lower percentage — ~22% — have actually participated in formal refer-a-friend programs.
This seems like it could be an opportunity for brands to create dedicated referral programs, wherein those who participate are rewarded for their involvement.
The key here is harnessing the referrers as “troops” in the campaign, so as to attract a larger share of referral business and where the opportunities are strongest — and tracking the results carefully, of course.