Enjoyed this post from Clement. Nailed something I’ve been harping on about for the past few years – no one lead gen model is right. Test rigorously and correlate to revenue. Different businesses perform differently.
What is crucial in assessing marketing performance – and I’d argue this could be true for nearly any industry – not just tech and SaaS – is that Organic direct matters most. Put all the effort into making that work first. As Clement points out, the reason is simple – the best performing brands put viral and word of mouth to work in driving extraordinary performance from Organic direct.
“When you look at the 3 profiles above you notice that the channel from where most of the leads seems to come is the “organic — direct” channel…. The reason is that most of the fastest growing SaaS interviewed had a viral coefficient k well above 0.”
The great marketers I’m seeing embrace efficiency as a cornerstone marketing metric. They are focused on building a marketing platform – or loop – by which scale and speed are accelerated by the market independent of and at a multiple of spend. Rather than a myopic focus on marketing attribution in one channel or part of the business, they are focused on the total performance and efficiency of the platform. They are building Growth Loops!
So, lead generation models important subsets of the marketing model in total. Focus not just on organic generation (you’d better be great at it though) but also on creating a marketing platform that fuels and fires on its own.
Again a few negative tweets are used to make a story. This time Starbucks cups get a whipping. At what point does the media feel compelled to use data to support an assertion that a brand is facing a problem?
I’m assuming Starbucks is using a sophisticated social media monitoring tool like Lexer? At what point do they retort with the facts?
Really, it’s a clever little marketing ploy that’s worked – we are talking about coffee cups.
The coffee isn’t worth talking about that’s for sure.
Facebook messenger could be one on the most important business messaging platforms this year. Take part in the NYT messaging experiment and you get a sense of the platforms potential for customer service and support, communicating around events, and product launches.
Until now I’ve relied on Twitter but this is interesting.
Flying as frequently as I do from Australia to the US you learn a few things. Here’s my current tips and tricks:
- Qantas is by far the best airline on the route with stunning lounges, the best Inflight service, great seats, and friendly staff. But…
- They are ridiculously over priced. Both United and Air NZ offer great value for money with a reasonable drop in service in United’s case and close to parity with Air NZ.
- Don’t fly Qantas to San Francisco. They have their museum grade, ancient 747-400s on this route. The seats are awful and lie about as flat as a Byron Bay Backroad. On my last three flights neither the power or lousy video screen worked. On the LAX route you get fancy new planes. Don’t pay the same for less.
- United is flying the Dreamliner to San Fran and LA. It’s fantastic. There is something about the lighting and air quality that makes the flight better. But alas, it’s United so the food is awful, the staff unpleasant and any other hope of little touches are best not anticipated.
- Air NZ via Auckland is a great alternative if the price is right. Great staff, generally modern planes on the long haul routes, and upgraded lounges that as a whole are far too packed with travellers from a multitude of airlines to enjoy.
- American is flying these routes more. But then you’d have to be seduced by an amazing price or really want to fly American.
- If heading to NYC, try the Sydney – Honolulu – NYC route. It’s an overnight flight so sleep is easy and you have the option of a day or two in Hawaii on the way up or back.
Hope this is useful and welcome other thoughts and tips.
On pondering the merit of yet another new iPhone purchace – to which the only benefit I can see is a better camera – I got to thinking about how one might justify the purchase.
They ain’t cheap. I already have a museum grade collection of digital devices. And the one of got is ok enough.
But here’s the difference between this purchase and most – I live on my phone. According to Instant, between two and four hours per day. And I take a heap of photos. Thousands per year in fact.
So unlike a Tuxedo – which maybe gets used 40 times in ten years – maybe, just maybe, upgrading every year makes all the sense in the world.
Once it was the PC we could justify upgrading due to all that added power and functionality. Now it seems it’s the phone.