Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Oct 13, 2009
Marketing on $700 a Year (BrandWeek)
This is an excellent story that discusses companies using low-cost marketing methods. It includes a look at how one start-up company, Mint.com, grew in just two years to be worth over $170 million while spending very little on marketing. Instead they (along with other companies mentioned in this story) use smart web tactics to get noticed and to spread the word. While Mint spent somewhat more than the $700 mentioned in the story title, considering their size they still grew the business on a relatively small marketing budget.
Thanks to new social media and communications technologies, partnered with adept PR strategies, Wells showed that building a so-called Web 2.5 brand doesn’t need to cost much these days—and the experience is liberating.
Are the marketing tactics used by the companies discussed in this story reasonable options for anyone starting an online business today or did these companies simply get in at just the right time when few other companies were using these tactics?
Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Oct 11, 2009
Online Marketing Research: It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times (FastCompany)
The use of online research panels has for some time received bad reviews from serious marketing researchers who have questioned the validity and reliability of this form of research. Their key complaint has to do with who participates in these panels and what their real motivation is to be part of a panel. This is particularly a problem when online participants are rewarded for their efforts such as receiving cash or other incentives. Now several big marketing companies are pushing to find out how good the information really is that comes from online panels.
While most fill out surveys to be heard, those who take surveys for the money turn out to be less diligent about filling out the survey. Certain research panels tend to give outright cash gifts which attract more of those people.
How can the results of panels cited in the story be consistent when replicating their own research but show inconsistency across panels (i.e., when the results of one panel are compared to another)?
Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Oct 07, 2009
The Promise of Self-Segmentation (Strategy+Business)
Defining a target market is often viewed as the first step in building a successful marketing strategy and nearly all marketers find the best approach to take for identifying markets is through market segmentation. Traditionally marketers have relied on extensive marketing research, including crunching numbers found in large data storage areas such as CRM systems, when they attempt to identify their segments. But this story argues that Internet social networks and other technologies are allowing customers to do their own segmenting and all a marketer needs to do is tap into these technologies to see what type of groups exist.
In this new era of branding, companies must focus on ethnic, cultural, religious, sports, or other segments, not markets. This pivot could be achieved through CRM systems, but self-segmented communities of interest provide a more effective alternative. Such communities can provide fast, low-cost market research, generate ideas and feedback about new offerings, help improve corporate and customer-to-customer service, strengthen relationships, provide an early warning system about problems, and promote favorable word-of-mouth.
Is this author simply providing a new twist on what is already well known about segmentation or do these ideas offer something that is truly new?