I actually believe that more is better, that it's a numbers game, and I like to play along. I'd rather have 10,000 potentials clients than 100. I reckon the problem is just that we try to reach them all at the same time. Marketers are becoming (or always were) lazy. With the least amount of effort reach the maximum amount. Just because it's a numbers game, you still can potentially reach more people when you mail 10,000 instead of 100. And even with better researchtools or better analytics this'll still remain the preferred way.
BUT it's just a matter of time. I see it on a lot of mailinglists that are being used for this reason. Declining response rates, more unsubscribes,... But it declines so gradually that most people only notice it when the list is too tainted to be used and it's already too late.
It IS a numbers game, but knowing how to use them is what separates the marketers from the boys :)
Nice post... hope it opened up some eyes with some people.
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
I agree numbers are effective when used properly. I'm not sure if the model of buying mailing lists is the way to do it.
Let's say a 10,000-strong email list costs $1,000. Is it up-to-date? Does it need harvesting? Is it fully separated into sub-topics or sub-niches? Are all the contacts real people (I've seen generic contact info being used on mailing lists before)?
So to go through this information (unless you're taking the mailing company's word that everything is good) means man-hours and research. Suddenly your 10,000-strong mailing list looks more like 7,000 (exaggerated cull). You've just wasted time, money and man hours to find this out.
Look at the opposite approach. Using analytics that you mention to gauge who's coming to you, why, where they're going next, etc. That's giving you the targeted info you need to make a real marketing impact.
Connect with these people, know their needs, and I just feel that the high numbers can still be used, but now with physical results instead of hit and hope.
Great points, Tom, and I agree - still too many boys out there. ;-)
Guest
· 6 months ago
I think the same applies to Twitter now that you can buy followers by the thousands. They claim to be "targeted," but it's unlikely they will be as well researched and tailored to your niche as they could be if you did the work yourself.
John Haydon
· 6 months ago
Great point.
Measuring retweets and clickthroughs (with services like bit.ly) is good, but then comparing those with actual purchases from Paylpal is often very sobering.
Potential never paid the bills. Or Enron's retirement benefits.
John
suzemuse
· 6 months ago
Whenever someone asks me how many people follow me on Twitter, I usually reply that I don't really know, but I *interact* with a few hundred.
It's the interaction that is key, and that drives my behaviour on the tool.
@johnhaydon you are absolutely right - potential doesn't pay the bills. People do. But that can go too much the other way too. People shouldn't interact on social networks with the *intent* of doing business with people. It has for me and always will be a secondary element.
Interaction + intent = success, no matter what your goal.
Beauty post, my friend!
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
Great point, Sue. Interaction is so overlooked. People think it just came about with the rise of social media. No, interaction has been around since we learned to share the first hunting fire thousands of years ago.
You just have to be looking for it.
John Haydon
· 6 months ago
In terms of the "investment" part of ROI, you invest:
Time Good content Your ear Your heart
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
Simple and succinct, Mr Haydon, and true in each regard.
Peter Korchnak
· 6 months ago
We continue to be of the mindset that "more is better", more emails, more followers, more touches. Time and again, however, we see that "better is better", better emails, better followers, better touches. Unfortunately, the human tendency to overlook or suppress information that conflicts with what we already believe is often too strong. Ironically, it seems that only more of these quality over quantity posts will convince the traditionally educated marketers to ditch the numbers game; after all it takes 9-11 touches to make an impact...
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
The funny thing is, it can be applied to pretty much anything, Peter. What's better for you - more food or better food? More research tools or better research tools?
This idea that more is better seems to have grown in the 80's, with the Yuppie movement. Sadly, many people still feel Gordon Gecko and his Wall Street approach is the way to go. If you like out-of-date principles, then maybe they're right. ;-)
jacstar
· 6 months ago
does this have something to do with Papa Cullen actor Peter Facinelli?
it better not, i tell you what
Stuart Foster
· 6 months ago
Potential means shit. Actual results do. Thanks for setting some people straight Danny.
ZenMommy
· 6 months ago
i love that this is both reassuring and unsettling to me all in the same moment. thanks danny, for always making me think.
Kim Woodbridge
· 6 months ago
Supersize my followers - LOL
I used to be very generous about who I followed back but I've reached my BS limit on twitter. If someone tweets about getting followers, I'm not going to follow.
Recently I noticed that there are people with 3000+ followers who have only tweeted 10 times - how is that possible? Those 10 tweets must have been amazing ;-)
Did you just start using Disqus? I don't remember seeing it here before. Any reason why?
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
Never underestimate the power of the abnormal follow/follower ratio tweet ;-)
I did just start. I used it last year but had major issues with it following my switch to Thesis, for some reason. New 1.5.1 and WP 2.8 seems to have done the trick. I'm curious how the social reactions work out as well as the Twitter and FB Connect.
I'm going to monitor for a few weeks in regards the spam issue I used to have with DISQUS, but so far looks okay.
Kasey Skala
· 6 months ago
Danny, you and I are agreeing a lot lately. It must be from my reading of your posts.
Here are my thoughts on #'s
Numbers mean squat. To the commentor above, I'd rather have 100 quality leads that are loyal customers than 10,000 potential casual leads. I want the people who have shown support in the past. I want the higher conversion rate. Yes, I understand the need for new customers, but those will come. I'll market to the 100 that I know will respond.
I could see how for major brands like Coke, Nike, McDonalds that numbers could matter more. But let's be honest, how many of us work for these companies? This is my biggest gripe right now - people spouting off case studies and info about Fortune 500 companies. These results, while important, rarely reflect the majority.
As far as Twitter folks, again, it's a personal opinion. Me - I'd rather have quality conversations. I'd rather know who I'm talking too and would prefer that my followers know me. Or at least would recognize my name if I sent them a tweet. To me, those who are following everyone in an popularity contest-effort are simple making up for something. It's the ego thing. No longer does 20,000 followers mean anything.
I'll leave you with this: potential is always associated with failure. You never hear anyone say Michael Jordan had so much potential. Those that had potential are always those who never live up to the hype. The marketing campaign had so much potential, if only... So quit with the potential play.
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
A lot of marketers seem to forget the current loyal customer base. Much of it is based on the "We need more" approach and, yes, new blood is always needed.
But if you look after your current "database" and look after it well, you might just be surprised how much new business can come your way organically.
Cheers, Kasey. :)
Tom Vanlerberghe
· 6 months ago
As I was the commentator :)
Playing by numbers, most of us know the 80/20 rule, where 80 of your income is generated by 20 of your customers. If you focus to hard on those 20, forget about the other 80 and something happens (let's say a worldwide economic crisis, I know it's a wild idea) there's a chance you lose those customers you put all that effort into and nothing to back it up. Seen it happen plenty of times.
And trying to go fo the organic growth is fine by me, but than you should already have a large base or the growth will go to slow, especially in the beginning. It's easier to go from 500 to 600 customers than from 10 tot 20. And those are important numbers, cause they'll be responsible for the way you build success or fail.
I don't have any problem with buying mails, as long as you respect them. If that means that even in the end I'll end up with 500 of my 10,000 mails, I'll still have 5 times more mails in a rather short period of time than when they grow organically. But you have to respect privacy, avoid spamming, update the database,... And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't buy 500 mails if I already have 500 good ones. That means you're already established enough, you're in a comfortzone.
It's easy to say that it's wrong, but if you're starting out, you can either take a jump forward and skip a few levels or slowly move forward gradually going past each level.
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
Agreed - you shouldn't focus too hard on them, but neither should you neglect them from being too focused on other numbers.
While I hear what you're saying about economic effects of existing customers, it can also be used to increase their loyalty with you. Better deals to keep with your company, educating possible cost of relocating to a new vendor, etc. One of these Catch 22 situations.
Yes, it can definitely help when starting out. Though with money being tight for anyone starting out, it makes even more important the need to have quality information over quantity-led info.
Thanks for continuing to contribute to a great discussion, Tom, appreciate it. :)
Tom Vanlerberghe
· 6 months ago
Ofcourse I agree with you on that one. Just trying to avoid the danger of underestimating the power of quantity. But they should go hand in hand...
fun discussion
Teresa Basich
· 6 months ago
The age old quality vs. quantity fight! Is it bad that I keep agreeing with you? Seriously, though, I'm a huge advocate of targeting instead of blasting.
You could even apply this argument to targeting big-name online presences who don't give a crap about your product vs. targeting the smaller people who love your product: Who, really, is more valuable?
Targeted targeting?
Numbers mean little when they're all based in potential; quality numbers, like you said, are where it's at. Those are the numbers that drive business.
spinchange
· 6 months ago
"If you really want to show off your numbers, show off the amount of sales you got from your last project."
from your lips to the space's collective ear.
Tim Jahn
· 6 months ago
In high school, a week or so before my band's next show, I'd head over to Kinkos and copy dozens of flyers onto neon colored paper. Then my band and I would head over to another high school in our district where we had some friends and put flyers on all the cars in the parking lot.
We thought that putting as many flyers as possible on as many cars as possible would equal more people at the show.
Nope. People are so jaded to flyers on cars already, I'm willing to bet 99% of ours were thrown out. Only really our friends at that high school knew who we were and would consider going to our show.
Seems obvious to me now, but to the uneducated and unexperienced, quantity always seems to be the answer. If we had just targeted those who liked our style of music...
Danny Brown
· 6 months ago
Seems a no-brainer, right? Target the responsive as opposed to battering down new doors of unaware strangers? 'Course, you do need to get the new attention too, but why not use your music fans to help as well?
GlobalPatriot
· 6 months ago
The ROI concept comes to mind, the discipline in which we should be focusing our efforts on measuring the return (benefit) we derive for the time and money we invested. Sadly, too many quote the top line numbers - followers, connections made, emails sent - because they're easy to measure and sound impressive, instead of quantifying the results - sales made, projects identified, relationships enhanced - as these metrics require work to produce.
ravm
· 5 months ago
You stated that the numbers game is utter bullsh*t and I completely disagree. What you're really discussing is a divergence of approaches, both of which are equally effective when executed well. Now, you could state that being real and geniune makes your approach morally superior to grabbing a huge customer mailing list and spamming it, but your entire postulation gets destroyed in the face of so many people who are succeeding with these types of strategies. And I assure you that if people are doing it, they are experiencing some financial measure of success, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So while you and I may despise such tactics, to discount them as ineffective is an injustice to the trade.
Danny Brown
· 5 months ago
I'm not discounting the approach in general, "Ravm" - I'm questioning the method and its overall effectiveness if you have to put extra time and man hours into making that approach effective.
If you're hitting people that aren't targeted because of entrusting a mass mailing mindset, then you're wasting resources that could be put to much better use elsewhere if that mass mailer info is incorrect and out-of-date.
I've worked and used both methods for employers in the past and I know they do work, to a degree. But I've also seen so many marketing budgets cut because of a poor response rate, and that's hurt companies more than the "moral" aspect of spamming.
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts, appreciate it.
Definition
· 5 months ago
Great posting. I like this.
People are so jaded to flyers on cars already, I'm willing to bet 99% of ours were thrown out. Only really our friends at that high school knew who we were and would consider going to our show.
Jackie Adkins
· 5 months ago
Hi Danny, I'm a little late on this discussion, but just stumbled upon it while going through some of your older ones. Before reading your post, I was reared up ready to completely disagree with you, but after reading it, i think I was confusing "numbers" with "data."
I would agree that higher numbers aren't always better, and your Twitter example is a perfect one. However, I'd argue that numbers in a data analysis sense are very valuable from a market research perspective, as they help you both in planning a marketing project as well evaluating it once it's done. This way, you're not going completely off of your gut, but taking calculated risks.
Danny Brown
· 5 months ago
Completely agree with you Jackie. It's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of market research and data mining, as opposed to blanket email lists. And, as you say, the after results speak for themselves why data analysis is so important.
All Comments
BUT it's just a matter of time. I see it on a lot of mailinglists that are being used for this reason. Declining response rates, more unsubscribes,... But it declines so gradually that most people only notice it when the list is too tainted to be used and it's already too late.
It IS a numbers game, but knowing how to use them is what separates the marketers from the boys :)
Nice post... hope it opened up some eyes with some people.
Let's say a 10,000-strong email list costs $1,000. Is it up-to-date? Does it need harvesting? Is it fully separated into sub-topics or sub-niches? Are all the contacts real people (I've seen generic contact info being used on mailing lists before)?
So to go through this information (unless you're taking the mailing company's word that everything is good) means man-hours and research. Suddenly your 10,000-strong mailing list looks more like 7,000 (exaggerated cull). You've just wasted time, money and man hours to find this out.
Look at the opposite approach. Using analytics that you mention to gauge who's coming to you, why, where they're going next, etc. That's giving you the targeted info you need to make a real marketing impact.
Connect with these people, know their needs, and I just feel that the high numbers can still be used, but now with physical results instead of hit and hope.
Great points, Tom, and I agree - still too many boys out there. ;-)
Measuring retweets and clickthroughs (with services like bit.ly) is good, but then comparing those with actual purchases from Paylpal is often very sobering.
Potential never paid the bills. Or Enron's retirement benefits.
John
It's the interaction that is key, and that drives my behaviour on the tool.
@johnhaydon you are absolutely right - potential doesn't pay the bills. People do. But that can go too much the other way too. People shouldn't interact on social networks with the *intent* of doing business with people. It has for me and always will be a secondary element.
Interaction + intent = success, no matter what your goal.
Beauty post, my friend!
You just have to be looking for it.
Time
Good content
Your ear
Your heart
This idea that more is better seems to have grown in the 80's, with the Yuppie movement. Sadly, many people still feel Gordon Gecko and his Wall Street approach is the way to go. If you like out-of-date principles, then maybe they're right. ;-)
it better not, i tell you what
I used to be very generous about who I followed back but I've reached my BS limit on twitter. If someone tweets about getting followers, I'm not going to follow.
Recently I noticed that there are people with 3000+ followers who have only tweeted 10 times - how is that possible? Those 10 tweets must have been amazing ;-)
Did you just start using Disqus? I don't remember seeing it here before. Any reason why?
I did just start. I used it last year but had major issues with it following my switch to Thesis, for some reason. New 1.5.1 and WP 2.8 seems to have done the trick. I'm curious how the social reactions work out as well as the Twitter and FB Connect.
I'm going to monitor for a few weeks in regards the spam issue I used to have with DISQUS, but so far looks okay.
Here are my thoughts on #'s
Numbers mean squat. To the commentor above, I'd rather have 100 quality leads that are loyal customers than 10,000 potential casual leads. I want the people who have shown support in the past. I want the higher conversion rate. Yes, I understand the need for new customers, but those will come. I'll market to the 100 that I know will respond.
I could see how for major brands like Coke, Nike, McDonalds that numbers could matter more. But let's be honest, how many of us work for these companies? This is my biggest gripe right now - people spouting off case studies and info about Fortune 500 companies. These results, while important, rarely reflect the majority.
As far as Twitter folks, again, it's a personal opinion. Me - I'd rather have quality conversations. I'd rather know who I'm talking too and would prefer that my followers know me. Or at least would recognize my name if I sent them a tweet. To me, those who are following everyone in an popularity contest-effort are simple making up for something. It's the ego thing. No longer does 20,000 followers mean anything.
I'll leave you with this: potential is always associated with failure. You never hear anyone say Michael Jordan had so much potential. Those that had potential are always those who never live up to the hype. The marketing campaign had so much potential, if only... So quit with the potential play.
But if you look after your current "database" and look after it well, you might just be surprised how much new business can come your way organically.
Cheers, Kasey. :)
Playing by numbers, most of us know the 80/20 rule, where 80 of your income is generated by 20 of your customers.
If you focus to hard on those 20, forget about the other 80 and something happens (let's say a worldwide economic crisis, I know it's a wild idea) there's a chance you lose those customers you put all that effort into and nothing to back it up. Seen it happen plenty of times.
And trying to go fo the organic growth is fine by me, but than you should already have a large base or the growth will go to slow, especially in the beginning. It's easier to go from 500 to 600 customers than from 10 tot 20. And those are important numbers, cause they'll be responsible for the way you build success or fail.
I don't have any problem with buying mails, as long as you respect them. If that means that even in the end I'll end up with 500 of my 10,000 mails, I'll still have 5 times more mails in a rather short period of time than when they grow organically. But you have to respect privacy, avoid spamming, update the database,... And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't buy 500 mails if I already have 500 good ones. That means you're already established enough, you're in a comfortzone.
It's easy to say that it's wrong, but if you're starting out, you can either take a jump forward and skip a few levels or slowly move forward gradually going past each level.
While I hear what you're saying about economic effects of existing customers, it can also be used to increase their loyalty with you. Better deals to keep with your company, educating possible cost of relocating to a new vendor, etc. One of these Catch 22 situations.
Yes, it can definitely help when starting out. Though with money being tight for anyone starting out, it makes even more important the need to have quality information over quantity-led info.
Thanks for continuing to contribute to a great discussion, Tom, appreciate it. :)
Just trying to avoid the danger of underestimating the power of quantity.
But they should go hand in hand...
fun discussion
You could even apply this argument to targeting big-name online presences who don't give a crap about your product vs. targeting the smaller people who love your product: Who, really, is more valuable?
Targeted targeting?
Numbers mean little when they're all based in potential; quality numbers, like you said, are where it's at. Those are the numbers that drive business.
from your lips to the space's collective ear.
We thought that putting as many flyers as possible on as many cars as possible would equal more people at the show.
Nope. People are so jaded to flyers on cars already, I'm willing to bet 99% of ours were thrown out. Only really our friends at that high school knew who we were and would consider going to our show.
Seems obvious to me now, but to the uneducated and unexperienced, quantity always seems to be the answer. If we had just targeted those who liked our style of music...
If you're hitting people that aren't targeted because of entrusting a mass mailing mindset, then you're wasting resources that could be put to much better use elsewhere if that mass mailer info is incorrect and out-of-date.
I've worked and used both methods for employers in the past and I know they do work, to a degree. But I've also seen so many marketing budgets cut because of a poor response rate, and that's hurt companies more than the "moral" aspect of spamming.
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts, appreciate it.
People are so jaded to flyers on cars already, I'm willing to bet 99% of ours were thrown out. Only really our friends at that high school knew who we were and would consider going to our show.
I would agree that higher numbers aren't always better, and your Twitter example is a perfect one. However, I'd argue that numbers in a data analysis sense are very valuable from a market research perspective, as they help you both in planning a marketing project as well evaluating it once it's done. This way, you're not going completely off of your gut, but taking calculated risks.
Cheers!