Sharpening The Saw Ends In Spider Webs

An old mentor of mine has always preached that life is a journey and that you need to constantly "keep your saw sharp", implying that periodically you need to pick your head up from the grindstone and learn about evolving strategies, trends and techniques. Given the incredible pace in which options for marketing promotions [Kotler's P #4] are evolving, his advice is an absolute requirement to be effective.


Over the last couple of months [mostly between Xmas and New Years] I did a deep dive into the most current thinking on SEM and SEO. Gotta love Marketing Sherpa, Marketing Experiments, vendor white papers and easy access to thousands of online opinions. Well, it was encouraging to see that the techniques we have been using at IQ are current and in some cases "leading edge". We have moved beyond focused website optimization and scoring, landing page testing, conversion tracking and lead nurturing.


I see one 'gap' in current online practices.....current B2B approaches seem to be focused on either Instant Gratification or Long-term Nurturing. There is very little attention on the step after Instant Gratification but before actual sales team engagement. For IQ, given our sales cycle, a sales person is always involved in the purchasing process. So, let's compare a Typical B2B Lead Capture Best Practise (current IQ approach) to what I will call a Spider Web (potential IQ approach).


Typical B2B Lead Capture Best Practise

• Marketing campaign run [online / offline]
• Prospect is sent to a landing page with analytics tracking
• Landing page has a focused call-to-action (CTA)
• Prospect enters their information
• Prospect information is added to CRM system [lead scoring may happen]
• [Instant Gratification]
• Screen shows a "thank-you somebody will be in-touch" message
• The End

An Alternative Spider Web Approach

• Marketing campaign run [online / offline]
• Prospect is sent to a landing page with analytics tracking
• Landing page has a focused call-to-action (CTA)
• Prospect enters their information
• Prospect information is added to CRM system [lead scoring may happen]
• [Enter The Spider Web]
• Screen shows a "thank-you" message + contextually relevant additional information for the user to click-on / learn more about
• The End

What's the big difference between Spider Webs versus Typical B2B Lead Capture Best Practises? Maybe the following points can illustrate them:

1. When a prospect lands on a landing page, the message is tuned to where they are coming from (i.e. what campaign were they targeted with? what keyword did they click on?)

2. Once they have entered their information into your online capture form, you have additional knowledge of who they are (i.e. role, organization size, geography, etc.).

3. With this additional information, contextual content can be presented, engaging the prospect to learn more and to be better informed, ideally accelerating the sales cycle once the sales person speaks to them. For example, a person that self-identifies themselves as working for a manufacturing company, will be presented with a manufacturing specific case study.

Spider Webs are nothing more than a concept of mine but I feel strongly that success comes to those who innovate [and work bloody hard]. My IQ team still needs to refine how we implement and test the Spider Web concept, but the bottom-line goal is increasing the efficiency of our marketing campaigns. Test data will quickly identify whether it is a worthwhile concept or not.

Google - the amazing perpetual revenue engine

Google is truly an amazing revenue generator. In the last six months, our PPC advertising costs on select key-words have risen almost 300%. So, in order for a specific key-word to show on the first page of search results in positions 3 - 10 we are now paying $3.50 per click versus ~$1.20 in July 2007.

The cost increase can be attributed to Google's AdWord tools that prompt advertisers to optimize their campaigns and increase their positioning. Typically, all this means is that you need to increase your per word spend. Each time an advertiser optimizes their campaign, all other advertisers in the category suddenly need to re-optimize theirs. To add insult to injury, the optimized results are typically broad matches with inefficient campaign structures. A bit of a vicious and expensive cycle.

From a business standpoint, the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Google AdWords is starting to go down. Given Google's higher CPC we have begun to shift advertising $$$ to other vendors and other mediums. While there are oversight and reporting costs of managing campaigns across multiple engines and mediums, financially it makes sense. Over time, I would expect a similar reaction from other advertisers. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion engine and given the alternatives, I don't expect Google to become a perpetual revenue engine either.