SearchStars 2018: Jono Alderson, Yoast
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•134 views
"Digital marketing in a post-digital world" Presentation from SearchStars - Swedens largest search marketing conference.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie SearchStars 2018: Jono Alderson, Yoast
Ähnlich wie SearchStars 2018: Jono Alderson, Yoast (20)
Mehr von Topvisible AB
Mehr von Topvisible AB (9)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
SearchStars 2018: Jono Alderson, Yoast
- 1. @jonoalderson@jonoalderson Digital marketing in a post-digital world Are you ready for what comes next?
- 2. @jonoalderson I’m going to explore five ideas which are keeping me up at night.
- 4. @jonoalderson #1 The gap between brands and platforms is widening
- 6. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Most brand websites are a mess
- 8. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Most platforms are much sleeker
- 11. @jonoalderson #2 We’re becoming increasingly reliant on paid advertising
- 12. @jonoalderson
- 13. @jonoalderson But this model is imperfect.
- 14. @jonoalderson
- 15. @jonoalderson ...And your content marketing is just another way of buying visits from platforms.
- 16. @jonoalderson “What if there was an alternative?”
- 17. @jonoalderson Here’s some good news. You can put your content on their platforms. For free.
- 18. @jonoalderson #3 We’re entering an age of distributed content
- 20. @jonoalderson Brands are ceding control of ‘their’ customer experiences and content
- 21. @jonoalderson This is a revolution from an owned media model to a distributed content model
- 22. @jonoalderson Fast forward… Managing this is going to get harder.
- 23. @jonoalderson What experience does your website offer, which is distinctly valuable?
- 24. @jonoalderson Our current paradigm is to build the biggest castle.
- 25. @jonoalderson That approach doesn’t work in a world when nobody wants or needs to visit your website.
- 26. @jonoalderson PS: How does your analytics and attribution work, when people don’t (need to) visit your site?
- 27. @jonoalderson You need to start to build brand equity in different environments, through distributed content.
- 28. @jonoalderson “But, conventional business logic suggests that you shouldn’t build value on rented platforms!”
- 29. @jonoalderson #4 We need a new(?) marketing model
- 30. @jonoalderson We need to change the way we think about the relationship between our marketing and our audiences
- 31. @jonoalderson “The roles of content and brand websites need to shift away from conversion, and towards positively influencing brand preference and recall”
- 33. @jonoalderson
- 34. @jonoalderson You have to influence earlier
- 35. @jonoalderson
- 36. @jonoalderson What if you thought about your distributed content strategy in a radically different way?
- 37. @jonoalderson But those are yesterday’s brands, right? What about tomorrow?
- 38. @jonoalderson #5 When there are no more opportunities to interrupt
- 39. @jonoalderson I recently bought a new laptop.
- 40. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Moment Build (or adjust) a consideration set Reduce consideration set Evaluate & reduce risk Choose Act
- 41. @jonoalderson All marketing and advertising assumes that I can interrupt.
- 42. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson A more realistic buying cycle Moment Build (or adjust) a consideration set Reduce consideration set Evaluate & reduce risk Choose Act
- 44. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Moment Build (or adjust) a consideration set Reduce consideration set Evaluate & reduce risk Choose Act
- 45. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson “I need a new laptop” Build (or adjust) a consideration set Reduce consideration set Evaluate & reduce risk “Here are some great options for you [...]” “Okay, tell me more about the second one”
- 46. @jonoalderson How do you influence the consideration set, when the customer isn’t there?
- 47. @jonoalderson Outsourced ownership is a already thing.
- 48. @jonoalderson
- 49. @jonoalderson
- 50. @jonoalderson The funnel no longer exists
- 51. @jonoalderson To be clear, I’m not saying that assistants replace all (re)search...
- 52. @jonoalderson ...But as we increasingly use voice search, chat bots, and assistants, these systems will decide what we don’t see.
- 53. @jonoalderson Brands who aren’t surfaced will fail, because they never enter the consideration set.
- 54. @jonoalderson
- 55. @jonoalderson So, how do we market?
- 56. @jonoalderson I think that systems will use three concepts to make these decisions.
- 57. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson 1. Availability Is it open/nearby/valid? 2. Suitability Is it good/right/cheap? 3. Implied Preference Does it align with what I understand of your values?
- 59. @jonoalderson Implied preference Past behaviour + connected data
- 60. @jonoalderson You need to positively influence the consideration set before the customer expresses a need...
- 61. @jonoalderson 2018 System takes previous brand interactions into consideration 2018 Thinking about buying a new laptop 2017 Retweeted a clever joke about Moore’s Law 2016 Read a really interesting article about graphics cards and visual machine learning
- 62. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Direct actions: ● Read an article ● Liked/shared a social post ● Installed an app ● Reviewed a service/product Network actions: ● Actions from peers Lookalike actions: ● Behaviour & characteristics of lookalike audience
- 63. @jonoalderson Is everybody familiar with how lookalike audiences work?
- 66. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson People who like technology People who like wine People who struggle to articulate their favourite colour People who don’t like Apple products
- 67. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson “I need a new laptop” “Here are some great options for you [...]” “Show me the second one” ???
- 68. @jonoalderson Let’s call this “brand currency”
- 69. @jonoalderson Brand currency is a ‘score’ between me and a brand. It’s affected by our interactions.
- 70. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson “I need a new laptop” I LOVE DELL “I’ll get one of these!”
- 71. @jonoalderson So, how do you earn currency?
- 72. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson 1 Story Messaging or elements of the service surprises + delights. 2 3 Fulfillment The service is available, and is of appropriate quality. Experience Brand interactions are deeply meaningful (eg, answer Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) The Brand Currency Hierarchy
- 73. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Fitbit makes me feel like I’m in control of my health Tesco put things I need onto shelves Uber make my travel completely frictionless (through the removal of fear and uncertainty) Amazon (retail) has everything I’ll ever need, ‘frictionlessly’ Having Amazon Prime means I ‘already have’ everything I need The shop at the end of the street repairs my bike occasionally. The Brand Currency Hierarchy
- 74. @jonoalderson Yeah, that’s a bit wooly.
- 75. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson #3 Brand currency Direct preference Implied preference Lookalike preference Opportunity to be present in a consideration set #1 Brand marketing Top of funnel messaging Distributed content Meaningful marketing Opportunity to deliver an experience #2 Brand experience Direct interactions (and sales!) Network interactions Lookalike interactions Opportunity to generate brand currency
- 76. @jonoalderson | @distilled @jonoalderson Simon Swan - http://bit.ly/simon-brand-currency
- 77. @jonoalderson Here’s a scary thought...
- 78. @jonoalderson All brand interactions, by everyone, everywhere, affect brand currency.
- 79. @jonoalderson Everyone, everywhere* *not to scale People who might feasibly ever buy from us Where we should invest the majority of our marketing People who might feasibly ever visit our website
- 80. @jonoalderson
- 81. @jonoalderson Maybe that’s not that crazy...
- 82. @jonoalderson
- 83. @jonoalderson This is what modern digital marketing looks like.
- 85. @jonoalderson I’m not sure. Sorry.
- 86. @jonoalderson I do know that... This is radical, challenging.
- 87. @jonoalderson I do know that... Early adopters will win.
- 88. @jonoalderson I do know that… Early adopters will win are already winning.
- 89. @jonoalderson I do know that... Current models will fail.
- 90. @jonoalderson I do know that... Brand is everything.
- 92. @jonoalderson #1 Familiarise yourself with the technologies which are changing the web.
- 93. @jonoalderson #2 Consider how this is changing consumer expectations and behaviour.
- 94. @jonoalderson #3 Prepare for a world where marketing will need to influence inferred preference.
- 95. @jonoalderson #4 Start to optimise for experiences which fulfil a brand promise.
- 98. @jonoalderson
Hinweis der Redaktion
- This is going to be FAST.
- Brand websites exist to provide a specific function. They have pages where you can read content, click on links. They give you the information you want, but only when you seek it out. They enable you to purchase the product or to make an enquiry. These are all singular tasks. The website is explicitly designed to allow you to complete these, on demand. Websites are where you go to do the thing. And, because of these kinds of interactions are typically static, transactional things, websites rarely provide a fluid, dynamic, interactive, personalised process. Transactional experiences are only interesting when I want the thing they offer (or if I can be convinced that I want it). If I’m not interested, there’s no incentive to visit and consume.
- This is oversimplified. They started with a store, and a desktop website, maybe a shared inventory in a database. They’ve iterated through a multiple generations of tech, and bolted on tech + solutions as they needed them So they’re never at the cutting edge, their sites are often riddled with issues, they’re generally not sleek, or enjoyable to use Mostly, because their focus is the thing they sell, and their website is just a marketing asset. ...Which means that every additional component exponentially increases the cost and complexity of change + additions So when something like AMP, or Progressive Web Apps, come along, it’s a monolithic project, and it goes horribly wrong.
- Platforms are where people spend time, rather than where they go to complete a task The content is typically or curated by those people, and they, to a degree, manage their own experiences. However; the product is the consumer, and the platform sells them back to the owners and marketers of websites (either as data, or as visits) To brands, platforms are marketplaces for consumers. They’re synergistic. They provide a discovery mechanism for those advertisers, who might otherwise struggle to organically attract consumers directly.
- For platforms, their business is their tech stack - so they get it right. They build systems designed to be more fluid, flexible, modern. This is a ‘hub and spoke’ model (also oversimplified). They’ve adopted new technologies and new ways of thinking; like Angular, Node, Vue, app routing, agile + modular coding, etc. So when something like AMP, or Progressive Web Apps, comes along, you’re just adding another node; rather than bolting on another thing. It costs 1/1000th of the time/effort/resource for them. Traditional business has struggled. But platforms and disruptors are building this way.
- Platforms attract audiences, and serve them the content they want. Those audiences, in turn, fuel those platforms’ content. Websites buy their eyeballs and clicks, to serve them them content they want. However… experientially, platforms are winning.
- The quality gap will continue to widen. Websites will feel increasingly clunky and transactional in comparison. The best experience in class becomes the expectation; anything less feels bad. The tech obviously not the only factor, but it’s a big one, and it’s exponentially increased the speed of change, and the scope of capabilities. The implications... Consumers will be less and less likely to want to proactively visit business websites, of their own volition, unless they’re already at the point of conversion for the thing they want.
- Businesses rely on getting visitors from a platform to a website. To your content. Your marketing collateral, editorial, sales messaging. To achieve that pull mechanism, we advertise. AdWords is a platform. Facebook is a platform. Google’s organic search experience is a platform(!). We run campaigns, invest in AdWords and Facebook, strive to rank highly in organic search results, and put billboards on street corners. We find opportunities to interrupt the media, content and experiences which consumers are engaging with. We buy clicks and eyeballs.
- Sure, everybody makes some money. BUT... Customers generally don’t want to be ‘pulled’ out of platforms. We’re creating friction. Ads disrupt the experience; bad experiences mean people’s platform preferences erode or change. It’s a tricky balance.; Platforms don’t actually want customers to leave their platforms at all.
- Even Google, as a platform, don’t want you to search-then-click-on-someone-else’s-site. That means they lose your eyes, your attention, your potential revenue. That’s why they’re moving into more and more ‘in platform’ experiences.
- Maybe you’re using branding, through attempts to earn visits and attention from search engines and in social media. We challenge our businesses to have blog, to produce editorial content, to have opinion, to write compelling copy, etc. Because if we can attract consumers from search and social - people who’re interested in our content, advice or opinions - maybe we can sell something to them later. Except… Those visitors are still coming from platforms. And you’re still paying to for the time/resource to produce, support and market that content. Your content marketing is just another form of interruption advertising.
- If nobody really wants to visit your website, or read your content (because they’re not ready to be interested in the thing), what are your options? And if platforms want to keep consumers in their ecosystem (more engagement = more preference = more data = more monetisation opportunities)... And if you want to reach a wider audience than just those who’re ready to buy, right now... Rather than paying for clicks, maybe there’s less friction in providing your content to potential consumers, on the platform they’re already on?
- All of the major players allow you to provide them with your editorial and ‘pull’ content, and they’ll serve it up in situ in a way which avoids all the awkward friction of a user having to leave their comfortable environment. These are, almost always, better experiences than you can provide. Because they’re using cutting edge tech, and they’re not full of crappy ads. This is rarely about direct selling - you can still do that with your pay-per-click style advertising - but this is an opportunity to build brand awareness and preference with consumers on their terms. That’s interesting. But… if your users can find and engage with you in a way which they prefer, from within other platforms, why should they visit your website? Moreso, even, why would platforms afford them the opportunity? Whilst these just look like content formats, it’s worth focusing on how they’re actually (other people's) platforms. Including AMP!
- ...sacrificing ownership for in-platform discoverability....with huge implications. Because in the same way that Google favours websites with AMP results (though shifting, and contentious), it’s in the interest of platforms to prefer content which fits neatly into their model and format than to ship visitors off to some clunky, slow, shouty website. So even if you choose not to engage with this revolution - to continue to try and drag people from platforms to your site - you’re going to be losing visibility, or it’ll become much more expensive to reach potential consumers on those platforms.
- ...A shift from websites publishing editorial and ‘pull’ content to attract consumers… ...to those consumers much more commonly encountering and engaging with that content in other environments. And if you want them to read your content, and to buy your things, you’re going to have to convince them that they want to do that.
- That’s just today’s platforms. The fragmentation, volume and velocity of these environments continues to increase. Tomorrow, there will be dozens of new places where your audience are, where they choose to consume content, consider products and services, and develop brand affinities on their own terms - without them ever visiting your website. Your content - or your competitors - is increasingly consumed (and purchase decisions occur) elsewhere. That means that people don’t go to your website as much. So this isn’t about ‘getting your content on Facebook’ - it’s about people interacting with your content ‘out there’.
- ...Enough so that consumers are willing to visit it directly, rather than consuming what you offer through their preferred platforms. If there isn’t a good answer, your traffic volumes are going to plummet. They’ll engage with you - or not - or your competitors - on their own terms, via platforms which give them better experiences, and less of your pesky and distracting advertising. That has upsetting ramifications for branding, marketing, and advertising in a world where our current paradigm requires (*analytics) customers to click your ads and visit your website.
- More pages. More visits. More conversions.
- Remember: Transactional experiences are only interesting when I want the thing they offer.
- The people who reach your measurable platforms will be a minority in your potential market; traffic you’ve bought or rented from platforms Critically, you won’t be able to measure the people you aren’t reaching - the people who never entered the buying cycle, never searched on Google, and never viewed your display These are the people who are happily consuming content and making purchase decisions from within their platforms of choice. They’ll never hit your radar. That makes it very hard to build business cases on the current model, which is to predict and forecast from visitor levels, to conversion rates, to revenue.
- Because there’s always a risk that external factors can destroy your foundations. But… your audiences aren’t visiting your website, because they’re only on those rented platforms. And those platforms are transient. They’re news feeds, content streams, apps.
- Your objective can no longer be to attract consumers to your website, in the hopes of converting some small percentage of those visitors to sale or action At least, not if you want to grow to reach new audiences, or to break free of renting or paying for visitors from platforms.
- Rather than my content being part of a funnel to pull visitors from platforms to my website and attempt to get them to buy... it needs to become a vehicle to grow my brand’s reach into the environments where my audiences are already consuming content. Rather than my website being the final destination in a purchase journey, it needs to become a hub for the stories I want to tell, and the values I want to showcase... ...it needs to feed content and conversations which are happening out there, outside of my control.
- To a generation of digital marketers who obsess about conversion rates and clicks, this might sound radical, and perhaps even dangerously naive. But the world’s most successful brands have long understood that this model works, and have embraced this kind of thinking for decades.
- Oldschool Their offline marketing works Their digital marketing looks unsophisticated But it optimises to awareness, recall and preference - not (often) for sales Women’s equality campaign, about the importance of providing opportunities of access, education, etc. It flashes a few logos at the end. If that resonates, and a week later I see those products, which do I choose?
- Just because your conversion mechanism lives online and is part of your website, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs to be the exclusive focus of your site. There’s often a drive from senior stakeholders that brand websites must operate as machines designed solely to convert visits into sales. Often, that means that any educational, supportive or branding content and functions are perceived as distractions from this focus, and a detriment to conversion rates. But conversion is frequently only the end of a journey which contains multiple touch points - many of which aren’t on your website or in your control.
- ALL the household brands you know behave like this. That’s why they’re household brands. Brands like Ferrari, Lego, Diageo, P&G, Johnson & Johnson and many others market exactly like this precisely because they understand that they don’t control the conversation.
- What would you put on your AMP pages, if you were trying to be remembered, rather than to sell? Or your Instagram profile, your YouTube channel. The WhatsApp groups you curate. What if you tried to optimize for influence for brand preference?
- As a consumer, when I’m researching and making a decision, you can advertise. Show me your special offer. Run a PPC campaign. Be visible in organic search results. Buy my attention.
- As a consumer, when I’m researching and making a decision, you can advertise. Show me your special offer. Run a PPC campaign. Be visible in organic search results. Buy my attention.
- I don’t have an emotional or brand relationship with any company in the gas/electric sector. Which is why I JUMPED at Flippr. Not just editorial content which is ‘out there’. I’ll never engage with an energy supplier, ever Flipper; automatically finds cheaper gas/electricity prices As a consumer, brands can no longer reach me in this market. I’m not in the funnel. There is no ZMOT. There’s no moment where brands can react
- Same for my mortgage. Habito. Why’s this interesting? Websites and brands frequently give me suboptimal experiences for commodity stuff, so I’m outsourcing parts of my decision-making As a consumer, you can no longer market to me
- You’re no longer in control, because it’s all happening out there. They’re not coming to your website.
- I’m not saying that I won’t have opinions or input as a consumer. I’m not saying that you won’t need to provide inputs and parameters (e.g., “my new laptop has to have a HDMI port and an onboard graphics card”) I’m saying that you’re already in a filter bubble, and systems are already deciding what you do and don’t see… ...And that as we all get Alexas, Google Homes, smart lightbulbs, Bixby, etc, they’ll increasingly, silently, filter out bad choices.
- Because there’s no evidence that I’ll prefer them vs another. Because there’s no opportunity for them to pitch me.
- ...when you don’t know if they’ll ever become a customer.
- Jono doesn’t buy laptops very often, and I don’t know much about his preferences. I do know he doesn’t want a Mac. I don’t want to have to ask him a ton of basic, annoying questions. However, here are a bunch of people with similar hobbies, tastes in music, social connections, job descriptions….
- Positively, or negatively Higher brand currency = higher recall, preference, affinity, propensity to recommend, etc
- Earn enough, and you can bypass that process entirely.
- Promise = how will this provide meaning. ‘Experience’ doesn’t necessarily mean a sale or conversion. Any good experience generates positive brand currency. Any negative one detracts. That’s hard, right?
- ...because lookalike audiences influence propensity to be chosen. That circle works in reverse. If you do bad things to lookalike audiences, you’re less likely to show up.
- They all market to everybody. And it’s not because they’re un-targeted. They just separate their marketing from their selling.
- Technically, conceptually, organisationally...
- These define your constraints and capabilities.
- Are you a website, or a platform? What do your audience want, and expect? Are you ready?
- How are you building brand currency? Are you sticky? What value do you offer people who look like your audience?