Marketers
Must Be Great Skeptics
- Главная
- Разное
- Дизайн
- Бизнес и предпринимательство
- Аналитика
- Образование
- Развлечения
- Красота и здоровье
- Финансы
- Государство
- Путешествия
- Спорт
- Недвижимость
- Армия
- Графика
- Культурология
- Еда и кулинария
- Лингвистика
- Английский язык
- Астрономия
- Алгебра
- Биология
- География
- Детские презентации
- Информатика
- История
- Литература
- Маркетинг
- Математика
- Медицина
- Менеджмент
- Музыка
- МХК
- Немецкий язык
- ОБЖ
- Обществознание
- Окружающий мир
- Педагогика
- Русский язык
- Технология
- Физика
- Философия
- Химия
- Шаблоны, картинки для презентаций
- Экология
- Экономика
- Юриспруденция
Why Great Marketers Must Be Great Skeptics презентация
Содержание
- 1. Why Great Marketers Must Be Great Skeptics
- 2. This Presentation Is Online Here: bit.ly/mozskeptics
- 3. Great Skepticism Defining
- 4. I have some depressing news…
- 7. Does anyone in this room believe that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the Sun?
- 9. The Earth (and everything in the solar
- 10. Let’s try a more marketing-centric example...
- 11. In 2009, Conversion Rate Experts built us
- 12. One of the most commonly cited facts about CRE’s work is the “long landing page.”
- 13. The Crap Skeptic The Good Skeptic The
- 14. The Crap Skeptic The Good Skeptic The
- 15. In fact, we’ve changed our landing pages
- 16. What separates the crap, good, & great?
- 17. Assumes one belief-reinforcing data point is
- 18. Doesn’t make assumptions about why a
- 19. Seeks to discover the reasons underlying
- 20. Will more conversion tests lead to better results? Testing
- 21. Obviously the more tests we run,
- 22. Via Wordstream’s What is a Good Conversion Rate?
- 23. Via Wordstream’s What is a Good Conversion
- 24. Hmm… There’s no correlation between those
- 25. Via Factors That Drive How Quickly You Can Run New Online Tests
- 26. Trust Word of Mouth Likability Design Associations
- 27. How do we know where our conversion problems lie?
- 28. Ask Smart Questions to the Right People
- 29. We can start by targeting the
- 30. Our tests should be focused around
- 31. Testing button colors
- 32. Testing headlines, copy, visuals, & form fields
- 33. Designing for how customers think about their problems & your solution
- 34. THIS!
- 35. Does telling users we encrypt data scare them? Security
- 36. Via Visual Website Optimizer Could this actually HURT conversion?
- 37. Via Visual Website Optimizer
- 38. Via Visual Website Optimizer A/B Test Results
- 39. We need to remove the security messages on our site ASAP!
- 40. We should test this.
- 41. Is this the most meaningful test
- 42. Via Kayak’s Most Interesting A/B Test vs.
- 43. Via Kayak’s Most Interesting A/B Test
- 44. Good thing we tested! Good thing
- 45. What should we expect from sharing our content on social media? Social CTR
- 46. Just find the average social CTRs
- 47. Via Signup.to’s Analysis of CTR on Twitter
- 48. Via Signup.to’s Analysis of CTR on Twitter
- 51. 306/701 = 43.6%... WTF??
- 53. Phew! We’re not alone. Via Chartbeat
- 54. Assuming social metrics and engagement correlate
- 58. OK. We can create some benchmarks
- 59. That is an insane amount of variability!
- 60. There are other factors at work
- 61. Timing Source Audience Affinity Formatting Network-Created Limitations to Visibility Brand Reach Traffic Engagement
- 62. Let’s start by examining the data and impacts of timing.
- 63. Via Facebook Insights
- 64. Via Followerwonk
- 65. Via Google Analytics
- 66. There’s a lot of nuance, but
- 67. Comparing a tweet or share sent
- 68. But, we now know three things:
- 69. Do they work? Can we make them more effective? Share Buttons
- 70. After relentless testing, OKTrends found that the following share buttons worked best:
- 73. OKTrends found that removing all but a
- 74. And that waiting until the visitor had
- 75. We should remove all our social
- 76. Buzzfeed has also done a tremendous amount of social button testing & optimization…
- 77. And sometimes they do this…
- 78. And sometimes this…
- 79. Is Buzzfeed still in testing mode?
- 80. Nope. They’ve found it’s best to
- 81. OK… Well, then let’s do that… Do it now!
- 82. Testing a small number of the
- 83. Buzzfeed & OKTrends share several unique
- 84. Unless we also fit a number
- 85. BTW – it is true that
- 86. Does it still work better than standard link text? Anchor Text
- 87. Psh. Anchor text links obviously work.
- 88. It has been a while since
- 89. Testing in Google is very, very
- 90. 1) Three word, informational keyword phrase
- 91. A) We pointed 20 links from 20
- 92. #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17
- 93. See? Told you it works.
- 94. While both results moved up the
- 95. Princess Bubblegum and I are in
- 96. 1) Three word, informational keyword phrase
- 97. B) We pointed 20 links from 20
- 98. #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17
- 99. Good thing we tested! This is
- 100. Does it influence Google’s non-personalized search rankings? Google+
- 101. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post Google+ is just too damn high.
- 102. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this
- 103. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this
- 104. Google explicitly SAID +1s don’t affect
- 105. The correlations are surprisingly high for
- 106. First, remember how hard it is
- 108. #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 At
- 109. 42 minutes later, after ~30 shares, 40
- 110. #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 48
- 111. At least we proved one thing –
- 112. Many G+ users personalized results, however, were clearly affected.
- 113. #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27
- 114. Could Google be donking up the test? Sadly, it’s impossible to know.
- 115. GASP!!! The posts did move the
- 116. Sigh… It’s possible that Jenny’s right,
- 117. More testing is needed, but how
- 118. Phew! We’re not alone. Via Chartbeat
- 119. If I were Google, I wouldn’t
- 120. Ready to Be Your Own Skeptic?
- 121. Rand Fishkin, Wizard of Moz | @randfish | rand@moz.com bit.ly/mozskeptics
This Presentation Is Online Here: bit.ly/mozskeptics
Слайд 9The Earth (and everything in the solar system, including the Sun)
revolves around our system’s gravitational Barycenter, which is only sometimes near the center of the Sun.
Слайд 11In 2009, Conversion Rate Experts built us a new landing page,
and increased our subscribers by nearly 25%. What did they do?
Via CRE’s Case Study
Слайд 13The Crap Skeptic
The Good Skeptic
The Great Skeptic
Let’s change our landing page
to be a long one right now!
We should A/B test a long landing page in our conversion funnel.
How do we know page length was responsible? What else changed?
Слайд 14The Crap Skeptic
The Good Skeptic
The Great Skeptic
“I do believe sadly it’s
going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe.”
“Listen, all magic is scientific principals presented like "mystical hoodoo" which is fun, but it's sort of irresponsible.”
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Слайд 15In fact, we’ve changed our landing pages numerous times to shorter
versions and seen equal success. Length, it would seem, was not the primary factor in this page’s success.
Слайд 17
Assumes one belief-reinforcing data point is evidence enough
Doesn’t question what’s truly
causal vs. merely correlated
Doesn’t seek to validate
Слайд 18
Doesn’t make assumptions about why a result occurred
Knows that correlation isn’t
necessarily causal
Validates assumptions w/ data
Слайд 19
Seeks to discover the reasons underlying the results
Knows that correlation
doesn’t imply
causality
Thoroughly validates, but doesn’t let imperfect knowledge stop progress
Слайд 21
Obviously the more tests we run, the better we can optimize
our pages. We need to build a “culture of testing” around here.
Слайд 23Via Wordstream’s What is a Good Conversion Rate?
Do Those Who Test
More Really Perform Better?
Слайд 24
Hmm… There’s no correlation between those who run more tests across
more pages and those who have higher conversion rates. Maybe the number of tests isn’t the right goal.
Слайд 26Trust
Word of Mouth
Likability
Design
Associations
Word of Mouth
Amount of Pain
CTAs
UX
Effort Required
Process
Historical Experiences
Social Proof
Copywriting
CONVERSION DECISION
Timing
Discovery
Path
Branding
Price
(it’s a complex process)
Слайд 28Ask Smart Questions to the Right People
Potential Customers Who Didn’t Buy
Those
Who Tried/Bought But Didn’t Love It
Customers Who Bought & Loved It
Professional, demographic, & psychographic characteristics
Professional, demographic, & psychographic characteristics
Professional, demographic, & psychographic characteristics
What objections did you have to buying?
What objections did you have; how did you overcome them?
What objections did you overcome; how?
What would have made you stay/love the product?
What would have made you overcome them?
What do you love most? Can we share?
Слайд 29
We can start by targeting the right kinds of customers. Trying
to please everyone is a recipe for disaster.
Слайд 30
Our tests should be focused around overcoming the objections of the
people who best match our customer profiles
Слайд 38Via Visual Website Optimizer
A/B Test Results
They found that without the secure
icon had over 400% improvement on conversions as compared to having the image.
[Note: results ARE statistically significant]
[Note: results ARE statistically significant]
Слайд 41
Is this the most meaningful test we can perform right now?
(I’m
not saying it isn’t, just that we should prioritize intelligently)
Слайд 43Via Kayak’s Most Interesting A/B Test
A/B Test Results
“So we decided to
do our own experiment about this and we actually found the opposite that when we removed the messaging, people tended to book less.”
- Vinayak Ranade, Director of Engineering for Mobile, KAYAK
- Vinayak Ranade, Director of Engineering for Mobile, KAYAK
Слайд 54
Assuming social metrics and engagement correlate was a flawed assumption. We
need to find a better way to measure and improve social sharing.
Слайд 58
OK. We can create some benchmarks based on these numbers and
their averages, then work to improve them over time.
Слайд 60
There are other factors at work here. We need to understand
them before we can create smart metrics or useful expectations
Слайд 61
Timing
Source
Audience Affinity
Formatting
Network-Created Limitations to Visibility
Brand
Reach
Traffic
Engagement
Слайд 66
There’s a lot of nuance, but we can certainly see how
messages sent at certain times reach different sizes and populations of our audience.
Слайд 67
Comparing a tweet or share sent at 9am Pacific against tweets
and shares sent at 11pm Pacific will give us misleading data.
Слайд 68
But, we now know three things:
#1 - When our audience is
online
#2 – Sharing just once is suboptimal
#3 – To be a great skeptic (and marketer), we should attempt to understand each of these inputs with similar rigorousness
Слайд 73OKTrends found that removing all but a single button (the “like”
on Facebook) had the most positive effect.
Слайд 74And that waiting until the visitor had scrolled to the bottom
of the article produced the highest number of actions
Слайд 75
We should remove all our social sharing buttons and replace them
with a single slide-over social CTA for Facebook likes!
Слайд 80
Nope.
They’ve found it’s best to show different buttons based on both
the type of content and how you reached the site.
Слайд 82
Testing a small number of the most impactful social button changes
should produce enough evidence to give us a direction to pursue.
Слайд 83
Buzzfeed & OKTrends share several unique qualities:
They have huge amounts of
social traffic
Social shares are integral to their business model
The content they create is optimized for social sharing
Social shares are integral to their business model
The content they create is optimized for social sharing
Слайд 84
Unless we also fit a number of these criteria, I have
to ask again: Is this the most meaningful test we can perform right now?
Слайд 85
BTW – it is true that testing social buttons can coincide
with a lot of other tests (since it’s on content vs. the funnel), but dev resources and marketing bandwidth probably are not infinite ☺
Слайд 87
Psh. Anchor text links obviously work. Otherwise Google wouldn’t be penalizing
all these sites for getting them.
Слайд 88
It has been a while since we’ve seen a public test
of anchor text. And there’s no way to know for sure how powerful it still is.
Слайд 89
Testing in Google is very, very hard. There’s so many confounding
variables – we’d have to choose our criteria carefully and repeat the test multiple times to feel confident of any result.
Слайд 90
1) Three word, informational keyword phrase with relatively light competition and
stable rankings
Test Conditions:
2) We selected two results (“A” and “B”), ranking #13 (“A”) and #20 ( “B”) in logged-out, non-personalized results
3) We pointed links from 20 pages on 20 unique, high-DA, high-trust, off-topic sites at both “A” and “B”
Слайд 91A) We pointed 20 links from 20 domains at this result
with anchor text exactly matching the query phrase
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
B) We pointed 20 links from the same 20 pages as “A” to this URL with anchor text that did not contain any words in the query
Слайд 92#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
After 20 days, all of the links had been indexed by
Google. “A” and “B” both moved up 4 positions. None of the other results moved more than 2 positions.
Слайд 94
While both results moved up the same number of positions, it’s
almost certainly the case that #13 to #9 was against more serious challengers, and thus anchor text would seem to make a difference. That said, I’d want to repeat this a few times.
Слайд 95
Princess Bubblegum and I are in agreement. We should do the
test at least 2-3 more times keeping as many variables as possible the same.
Слайд 96
1) Three word, informational keyword phrase with relatively light competition and
stable rankings
Early Results from a Second Test:
2) We selected two results (“A” and “B”), ranking #20 (“A”) and #14 ( “B”) in logged-out, non-personalized results
3) We pointed links from 20 pages on 20 unique, high-DA, high-trust, off-topic sites at both “A” and “B”
Слайд 97B) We pointed 20 links from 20 domains to this URL
with anchor text that did not contain any words in the query
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
A) We pointed 20 links from the same pages/domains at this result with anchor text exactly matching the query phrase
Слайд 98#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
After 16 days, all of the links had been indexed by
Google. “A” moved up 19 positions to #1! B moved up 5 positions to #9. None of the other results moved more than 2 positions.
Слайд 99
Good thing we tested!
This is looking more conclusive, but we should
run at least one more test.
Anchor text = rankings. Stick a fork in it!
Слайд 102Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post
From a comment Matt
Cutts left on the blog post:
“Most of the initial discussion on this thread seemed to take from the blog post the idea that more Google +1s led to higher web ranking. I wanted to preemptively tackle that perception.”
“Most of the initial discussion on this thread seemed to take from the blog post the idea that more Google +1s led to higher web ranking. I wanted to preemptively tackle that perception.”
Слайд 103Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post
To me, that’s Google
working really hard to NOT say “we don’t use any data from Google+ (directly or indirectly) at all in our ranking algorithms.” I would be very surprised if they said that.
Слайд 104
Google explicitly SAID +1s don’t affect rankings. You think they’d lie
so blatantly? As if.
Слайд 105
The correlations are surprisingly high for something with no connection. There
have been several tests showing no result, but if all it takes is a Google+ post, let’s do it!
Слайд 106
First, remember how hard it is to prove causality with a
public test like this. And second, don’t let anything but consistent, repeatable, provable results sway your opinion.
Слайд 108#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
At 10:50am, the test URL ranked #26 in logged-out, non-personalized, non-geo-biased,
Google US results.
Слайд 10942 minutes later, after ~30 shares, 40 +1s, and several other
G+ accounts posting the link, the target moved up to position #23
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
Слайд 110#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
48 hours later, after 100 shares of the post, 95 +1s,
and tons of additional posts, the result was back down to #25
Слайд 111At least we proved one thing – the Google+ community is
awesome. Nearly 50 people shared the URL in their own posts on G+!
Слайд 113#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
Something very strange is happening in relation to the test URL
in my personalized results, though. It’s actually ranking LOWER than in non-personalized results.
Слайд 115
GASP!!! The posts did move the result up, then someone from
Google must have seen it and is messing with you!!!
Слайд 116
Sigh… It’s possible that Jenny’s right, but impossible to prove. We
don’t know for sure what caused the initial movement, nor can we say what’s causing the weird personalized results.
Слайд 117
More testing is needed, but how you do it without any
potential monkey wrenches is going to be a big challenge.
That said, remember this:
That said, remember this:
Слайд 119
If I were Google, I wouldn’t use Google+ activity by itself
to rank anything, but I would connect G+ to my other data sources and potentially increase a page’s rankings if many pieces of data told a story of engagement & value for visitors.
