GM Says Facebook Ads Ineffective, Pulls $10M Campaign. Money-Saving Move Or Big Whoops?
So, GM pulled its $10 million Facebook ad campaign because their marketing team feels the ad platform is ineffective. This is an interesting move, considering Facebook’s IPO is due out on Friday, but that’s not what I want to talk about. I’m wondering if this really was a wise decision. (On a slightly unrelated note, the Business Insider’s headline is a fantastic example of a link bait headline. Anyway, back to my rant… er, I mean post.)
This is from the WSJ article:
“GM marketing executives, including Mr. Ewanick, met with Facebook managers to address concerns about the site’s effectiveness and left unconvinced advertising on the website made sense, according to people familiar with GM’s thinking…”
Given that I don’t know GM’s campaign particulars, I can only guess why the ads weren’t performing. That being said, I can’t help but think GM’s marketing agency got it seriously wrong somewhere along the line. This has left me with a number of questions and quite a bit of confusion.
Are GM’s Low Click-Throughs Really an Indication of an Ineffective Platform?
First of all, Business Insider reports GM’s $10 million Facebook ad campaign suffered from a low click-through rate (CTR). Business Insider suggests part of the problem could be the fact that Facebook ads have a lower than expected ROI in general. I’m not so sure you can make this assumption, or lay the blame on Facebook’s ineffectiveness.
With a budget of that size, I think it’s fair to assume that the company was paying for a huge number of ads. Combine that with a low CTR, and I can’t help but think targeting and segmentation were significant factors here. It suggests to me (keep in mind that I’m purely guessing at this point) that one (or more) of three things happened:
- They targeted far too wide of an audience.
- They targeted the wrong audience.
- They approached the right audience, in the wrong way.
Can You Really Compare Facebook Ads to Other Platforms?
I also question the comparison of Facebook and Google AdWords. (Before I go any further, I want to say that I have a huge amount of respect for Wordstream. I will happily recommend them to anyone, and I do so regularly. This is not critiquing the company, their report, their quality, or their work. I’m merely exploring the topic and questioning BI’s use of the study in this context. With a bit of luck, I’ll maybe even inspire a bit of healthy debate that I can learn something from.)
With no way to see the data, how it was collected, or where it came from, I don’t feel I could confidently make the assumption that Facebook ads are less effective than Google ads. (Not that I’m 100% confident with any of my other assumptions in this big rant little post, either.)
Another reason why I don’t think it was an appropriate use of the study in this instance is because Google AdWords and Facebook ads are far too different. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
I enjoy these kinds of studies and find them helpful, but at the same time, I don’t think the Wordstream team intended the study to be used in this manner. I think it was merely intended to make people think about where their money is going and make sure they consider all the options. I think it was also a great way for them to publish their findings and encourage discussion.
To put this another way: The scientific or healthcare communities don’t make major decisions based on a single study. They subject the study to a peer review and perform multiple studies on the same subject before making a broad, definitive decision like cutting a $10M ad campaign.
So, do I think Facebook ads are less effective that Google’s paid ads? Not yet. I think they’re two very different systems, with different users, different advertisers, and as a result, the two systems are worlds apart.
And while we’re on the topic, let me present this idea: When users search Google, they’re actively searching for a solution to a particular problem. When users are on Facebook, I don’t think their sole reason for being there is to research a product. So, the idea of measuring the ROI of your Facebook ad campaign by the number of sales and click-throughs you get is a bit flawed.
(According to one Oracle study (Word Doc), “24 percent of consumers say they incorporate their online purchasing activities on social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace, nearly the same number of people said they didn’t even know this is a possibility.”)
The Buying Process, Yardsticks, and How Facebook Ads Fit Into It
Now, I don’t know about you, but the buying process I go through when I want to purchase a vehicle is quite a bit different from the one I follow when buying a pair of shoes, a magazine subscription, or music. I have, on rare occasion, been known to click on a Facebook ad to purchase a Christmas gift. BUT, I can promise you that I’ve never clicked on a Facebook ad to purchase a vehicle. I don’t research vehicles on Facebook, either. (I usually talk to mechanic friends of mine to find out what they’ve been fixing lately.)
What if 5% of these click-throughs resulted in a sale? What’s the value of a click-through, anyway? How many of those click-throughs are converting? It could be very little. It could be almost all of them. In truth, you just don’t know. Someone could be clicking on the GM ad, checking out the car, and looking at the vehicles offered by their competitors, before stopping in at the dealership on his or her way home from work the next day.
Alternatively, let’s say a wife saw an ad with the picture of a car she likes. She realizes it’s the car from the TV ad she saw the night before. So, she turns to her husband and says, “This car looks really interesting. I hear it has x, y, and z features. Maybe we should get one of those?” The husband then stops at the dealership to look at the car. They may not make the final decision for weeks or even months after that. Are they going to say they heard about the car on Facebook when they made the purchase? Not likely.
Because GM has a fairly strong presence on Facebook, it might not notice much of a difference, but I’m worried that they won’t realize what they’ve missed out on. That’s like saying you lost the $5 million lotto prize because you forgot to buy a ticket for Monday’s draw.
I’m not the only one considering the validity of the Business Insider article and GM’s decision to pull the ads. Marty Weintraub of Aim Clear also has doubts and published his own rant on the topic, which has a number of other issues I didn’t bring up here. Business Insider also made some interesting arguments on both sides of the fence.
I don’t know. Am I way off base here? The only thing I’m completely sure of is this: I would have loved to hear the arguments GM’s marketing team gave against the campaign. I think it would have been quite interesting and informative.
5 Post-Penguin Content Strategy Tips
If there’s one thing the last two Google algorithm updates have in common, it’s panic. The Panda Update started it all off. Legitimate sites tanked, while crap websites floated to the top of the search results. Leaving site owners confused and wondering how to update their content strategies.
(Photo Courtesy of ICanHazCheezburger)
Penguin was next, and it caused just as much panic, if not more. Sites that had sat in the top ten for years suddenly vanished. And practices that had worked well for a good many years suddenly had negative effects on the site’s rankings. The result? Even more legitimate sites felt the slap of the penguin.
While Google said this last update was designed to affect those using crap tactics like link networks and keyword stuffing, it seemed to do much more than that. Duplicate content, (which has been an issue for quite some time), large amounts of copied or republished content, and pages created specifically (and solely) for SEO purposes also seem to be creating hassles.
This has left website owners with more questions than answers. Now what are they supposed to do?
Consider Your Audience
I really thought this was Marketing 101, but after seeing tons of posts recommending that you focus on keywords and link building tactics, I’m not so sure. I’m not saying I disagree, but you need to use basic common sense. If you’re building a brand (as opposed to a turn-and-burn site), you should always consider your audience. That’s the whole point of creating the site in the first place!
Sadly, far too many website owners focus on what they want to tell everyone, rather than what their audience wants to hear. And to these people, I have one thing to say:
You don’t matter.
No one cares about a brand or a company. They don’t care about what you think, and they certainly don’t want to hear about the next big idea you have. They aren’t going to hand over the cash just because they like you.
Customers care about the benefits and value you can provide. That’s it. And without providing them with some sort of payoff, the rest doesn’t matter. It’s only after you’ve provided this value and built up a rapport with your customers that loyalty, devotion, and other important elements in the sales process come into play.
(Photo by Jurvetson)
Stop Creating Content for the Sake of Creating Content
Lots of websites create and publish content simply because they’re trying to maintain a regular schedule, or because their SEO professional told them to publish x number of articles monthly. This is all well and good. These things definitely have benefits, but eventually, you’ll run out of things to say and start publishing junk.
(While James Chartrand didn’t specifically mention SEO or marketing benefits in her post about abandoning her editorial schedule, she did talk about how the constant need to create great content can ruin your image. The comments are also full of good information and ideas.)
And your customers want something in return for investing time and energy into your company (even if that “investment” is nothing more than clicking a link to your site). Stop providing that value, and they might not come back.
Think of it like this: Every time you come home, the family dog greets you at the door and you give him a treat. Then, you run out of treats, so you shout at him. Run out of treats often enough, and the dog is going to stop greeting you at the door (or bite).
You might not be yelling at your site visitors (and I’m not saying they’re dogs), but you get the idea. Everything you create, publish, and spend time on should have a purpose and a point. And if you keep your audience’s needs in mind, this step should happen naturally.
If It Seems Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is
“All you have to do for a number one ranking is distribute 30 articles a month to 2000 different sites. These articles cost $10 each, so you can be number one for just $300!”
Ready for the bad news? If an SEO strategy seems really easy and cheap, it’s probably not going to work. And if it does work, it won’t work for long. As soon as Google updates its algos, the value will disappear and all that money and time will be wasted.
Bad article marketing is just one example. Even great link building techniques can be a bad thing if they’re overused. Your marketing strategy needs to be customer-centric and have variety, if you want to get anywhere and avoid animal updates like these.
To do this, you need to take three steps:
- Assess what you’ve already done and what you have access to.
- See where your industry is in terms of news and information.
- Identify things your target audience isn’t getting from your competitors.
The resulting strategy you create should be as unique as your website and the customers who frequent it. (As a side effect, creating a strategy like this should also naturally eliminate low-quality tactics like keyword stuffing and constant content republishing.
(Photo by Cayusa)
Resist the Urge to Put a Band Aid on the Issues
It’s hard to resist the panic when your site’s rankings and traffic drop, but don’t scramble and take desperate measures to fix things. You could very well end up costing yourself far more than you gain.
For example, I recently spoke to a website owner who removed all the backlinks to his site that didn’t come from standard websites that had a Toolbar PageRank of 3 or higher. This sounded good, at first. But think about it: Now, all his links are the same. There’s no variety. And there are now no low quality links, which would appear naturally anyway. He also spent the better part of a week getting rid of these links. (The value and accuracy of Toolbar PageRank is a whole other post…)
My suggestion? If the links and content you’re worried about are really bad and likely having a significant negative effect, get rid of them. Otherwise, forget about the low quality stuff and start investing in higher quality content and links. Take the opportunity to do it right. Create a link bait strategy and build better links, for example.
Here’s something else to be aware of:
In the process of trying to fix things, this site owner obliterated all of his content, except the site’s main pages. This worked. The site rose in the search results. But, a short time later, the site’s rankings started to fluctuate, and eventually it plummeted beyond its previous position.
What happened?
It could have been a few things. First, he may have very well eliminated content and links that were keeping his site afloat. Interestingly, Google had also released another algo tweak while he was making changes to his site, so that could have done it, too. But because everything happened so quickly, he has no idea which actions helped the site and which one harmed it.
All the time and money he had invested in his site is wasted. Customers that might have landed on his site through various links will now get a 404 page. And, instead of a few tweaks, this site owner now has to start over from scratch.
If you feel the best way forward is to remove content, links, or make other changes to your site, do yourself a favour and make the changes slowly.
- Keep track of what you do and when you do it.
- Give the search engines time to assess and rank everything, before making additional changes.
- Make sure the changes are reversible, at least at the start.
- Try to change a small area first. This way, you can get an idea of what the results will be, before you invest heaps of time into making the change.
- Get a second opinion and do some research. This way, you can be sure that the problems you’ve identified are actually problems.
Variety, Creativity and the Desire to Stand Out
Perhaps the best thing to come out of all this is the challenge Google has presented to the billions of brands trying to be found online. With these last few changes, the search engine has upped the ante and challenged website owners to go beyond blending in. Take advantage of it.
Get creative with your strategies, your content, and your branding. Take risks. Have fun with it, and don’t be afraid to branch out a little. You’ll give your readers some relief from the same old stuff and improve your rankings and authority in the process.
Focus on variety. Use different mediums, markets, industries, and strategies to give your site (and link profile) as much variation as possible. Not only will this help immunize your site against future updates, but it will also help expand your reach and capture the eye of different audiences.
Remember: Nike didn’t become an industry leader by fitting in. This company created amazing products, took chances, and did things differently from everyone else. And today, thousands (or even millions) of people won’t wear anything else but Nike brand sneakers.
Want to know more? Head over to Success Works to watch Heather Lloyd-Martin’s video on the subject. In the meantime, what tips do you have for recovering from Google’s algorithm updates?
Copywriting Master Class Sneak Peek: Creating Successful Link Bait
It’s here! Yesterday, I released the first ebook in the Copywriting Master Class series. It’s 40 pages packed with link-bait-creation goodness!
Today, I thought it would be fun to share a sample of it with you. Enjoy!
Boost the Strength of Your Content
Congratulations. Things seem to be rolling along nicely. Your link bait may even be ranking well in the search results, thanks (at least in part) to a little known ranking factor called ‘Query Deserves Freshness’ (QDF).
(The search engines believe newer content is better, so they often list new content higher in the search results to see how it does. It’s also the result of the high number of links, traffic, and attention new content gets compared to older content. And without maintaining this momentum and establishing your piece, it will start falling in the search results.)
To make the most of your new rankings, and the attention your fresh, new piece of link bait is getting, you’ll need to increase its strength and visibility almost immediately. In fact, I make this part of the pre-planning phase because it takes work and time.
Link Back to Your Own Link Bait
Usually, when I create an important piece of content, I also develop a guest posting strategy to go with it. This way, I’m generating links to keep the content up in the search results, but I’m also driving fresh traffic to the piece, while expanding my reach. (I’ll write more on this later, but in the meantime, check out The Fine Art of Creating a Guest Posting Strategy.)
This strategy is almost identical, except for what I choose to write about, and how I choose my targets.
For example:
Let’s say we’ve created link bait for a car manufacturer entitled ‘The 20 Strangest Cars on the Road’. For guest posts, I would create content that looks at customizing cars, odd cars from history, unique uses for various cars, and other content that touches on the subject of the link bait piece, but doesn’t duplicate it. If it fits, I may add a little extra intrigue by borrowing an image or video from my link bait piece, to use in the guest posts.
Then, I publish a few of the guest posts on the same day as my link bait, a few more the next day, and so on. Why? When readers click through from the guest post to read more of my content or see what I have to offer, they’ll land on the link bait piece, and continue reading. After all, if they were interested in the guest post enough to click through, they’ll likely be interested in our link bait as well.
The transition is smooth, and readers are more likely to read further, rather than returning to the first site. (I should add that I normally don’t publish additional blog content immediately after a link bait piece. I like to milk my link bait for all it’s worth, before moving on.)
The second reason for this is to create a safety net. If something goes wrong with the piece (it attracts the wrong audience, feedback is negative, it’s not getting attention, etc.), I have time and the opportunity to make changes and get things back on track.
When choosing sites to guest post on, I tend to stay away from others in my industry. Instead, I search out sites that are target rich. This means their readers are interested in the content, use my chosen social media networks, and own websites (are likely to link back).
So, in our example, I would look for sites such as car magazines, companies that specialize in customizing cars, high-end recreation websites, and others who attract people with a high income, and an interest in expensive cars. I may even create pieces that look at cars driven by top CEOs and target business magazines and websites.
Blog posts aren’t the only format you can use, of course. Other types include:
- Videos
- Slide shows/presentations
- Ebooks
- Articles
- Press Releases
- An app, widget, game, software, or tool
- White papers
- Case studies
You can use anything really. The only rule is that whatever you choose has to link back to your site and target the right audience.
Continue to Generate Interest
It’s no shock that people lose interest in your content the second you press publish. So, if you’re going to keep people coming back in the weeks ahead, you’ll need to keep working with it.
One I way I accomplish this is to create…
Want to read the rest and find out how I keep traffic coming to my link bait? You’ll have to get your own copy of Copywriting Master Class: Creating Successful Link Bait.
Why Google +1 Stinks For Social, Business, Ranking or Otherwise
The latest hot topic is the launch of Google’s +1 feature. While some are singing the Facebook ‘Like’ killer song, others are professing it to be a smart business tactic and others are having blackhat dreams. Of course, not long after it was announced, I received an invite to a Facebook question on the subject.
This poll led to some great discussion and I added my two cents as well (I’ll let Mike tell you about that on his blog) . The truth is, I’m just not that excited about it. I don’t see it doing well, and while it may rope a few businesses, and a number of sites will likely use it, it just doesn’t have the power.
Is +1 Really a Social Thing? No, but Yes
When people originally started picturing +1, they compared it to the Facebook ‘Like’ feature. There’s no denying the similarities, at least not after it is out in the wild and on your favourite sites.
Unfortunately, for social media lovers, +1 is missing a key feature known as aggregation and conversation. Facebook does this, and does it well. So, other than seeing an ad that some guy from Tuktoyaktuk I know through Twitter clicked or +1′d (which is a social failure all on its own), it has no real purpose.
That isn’t the only role +1 is speculated to have on the Web, however. And really, iIt isn’t exactly meant to be social.
(Credit)
+1 As a Business Thing and Cash Grab
Not long after it launched, Search Engine Watch published several speculations about the real purpose behind +1. Aaron Wall and Loren Baker said it’s purely a business thing, created specifically to push Adsense ads, Google Accounts, and other features. I completely believe it. Anyone who read the Adwords blog that day would too, and let’s not forget Google is in this to make money.
By launching +1, it can push businesses to use Place pages and other local, business specific features it has been known to monetize in the past. This is fully their right, and just may work, but I highly doubt they’ll be successful.
Ruud Hein of Search Engine People also spent some time speculating how the data gathered through +1 could be used for ranking purposes. Ok, I could maybe see that working too, but…
Google Forgets About One Important Thing
There is no doubt in my mind that, if business owners see their ads will be found more easily because someone clicked a button, they’ll pay to opt into the feature. This side of the feature will likely fly.
What they did forget about, however, is that people actually have to click and use the +1 feature, and they have to be in your social network. Will people really use it? I honestly can’t see it.
Facebook’s ‘Like’ and Twitter buttons already do this and have already been adopted by users. Why would they switch now? I sure wouldn’t. Right now, I have two groups of people I share things with. Business associates, with whom I share things on Twitter, and family/friends, who I share with on Facebook. What incentive or benefit do people have to switch?
The other issue is that people actually have to go back to the SERP at this point to +1 something. Now, I don’t know about you, but I spend a fair amount of time wandering online. I jump from link to link, switch tabs, and do a fair bit of digging. Why in the world would I waste time researching something or pressing the back button repeatedly to find a stupid button that may or may not be seen. Others, such as Lee Odden and Jon Henshaw have expressed similar concerns.
Here’s another conundrum Google has: I have three distinct social circles: 1) Friends and family who don’t know and don’t care about what I’m mumbling about, using, and sharing online because it’s usually work related. 2) Work related people who actually may be interested in the things I share. 3) Friends and acquaintances, who understand and may be interested in the odd tidbit, but really could care less for the most part.
Why would I share personal things I like with group #2? Why would I share work related things with group #3? In the SERPs, they get it all, even if it’s research for a client project. On my social networks, I can share it with people who are already looking at what I have to say. If it’s personal, I share it on Facebook. Work related stuff gets shared on Twitter. Why would I need a third?
I would also like to add that what I find relevant, quality, and interesting is only shared by a small percentage of my social connections. Many times, I pass up the links they share elsewhere because they simply aren’t that valuable, in my opinion. Having these same links show up in the SERPs isn’t going to make me any more interested.
What Google Needs To Do If It Ever Hopes To Go Social In Any Way
I think marketers and Web-savvy people pretty much agree that Google sucks at anything social. They just don’t seem to grasp the concept, and either mimic things other companies already do well, or create something so disjointed it’s essentially useless as a collaboration or social tool. Google has yet to decide where it stands in a world out of its control.
The way I see it, businesses are jumping into social media with both feet and figuring out what to do with it all afterward. Many of them post without any real central location or any way to access it all. They fail to create a hub of value.
Google, one the other hand, has already been including features such as tweets and status updates in the search results. What it really needs to do is aggregate all social content and serve it up much like it does in the search results already. However, give users an option to filter it globally, within their social circles, and divided by lists.
Give users a global dashboard, much like some social apps already do, where they can see all of their social networks at once, search their content, and find what they need. Create a hub that consumers can use to see a company’s social interactions and reviews all in one place.
Greplin is already very much like this for your own social stuff, and Trunkly is great for aggregating several sites into one place, but they both still have a long way to go, if they intend to become an aggregated social hub. Sadly, they need access, power, and money. Sort of like what Google already has, but has dedicated mostly to neat toys. In short, Google needs to stick to what it does best: search.
The other thing Google needs to do is connect all of its services together so that they play nice with each other. My Motorola ATRIX phone automatically picks up all of my contacts, including those stored in Google contacts, and puts them all together in one central location where all of my apps can access and use them. Why doesn’t Google do that?
Of course, I’m not sure I’d want Google having quite that much information about me, but it already has way more information about me than any other company on the planet, most of which it can gather without permission or a password. Make things like Google Docs easily sharable and workable right from the major social networks. I’d love to be able to share a calendar or item from Google Docs with a quick push of a button or two, or define groups for collaborative work, without having to set up each site separately. Remove the repetition! And for goodness sakes, make sure all it’s current offerings are integrated and work together!
They have true potential here, and simply are failing to use it.
Creating A User Generated Content Strategy
While I am a copywriter, I find that most of my time is spent creating various types of content strategies. Of those, user-generated content (UGC) strategy requests are coming up more and more frequently and there’s several reasons for this. For me, one of the biggest reasons is the popularity of social networks and the enjoyment we get from them. If we like them, everyone else will too right?
(Credit)
Well, there’s more to it than just saying ‘we’ll do a little bit of x, y, and z’. Your UGC needs to match your marketing plan and business goals, but it also needs to cater to the needs and desires of your client base. In short, the strategy must satisfy everyone involved and provide value on one side of the conversion process or the other.
User-Generated Content Basics
You’ve been hearing the chatter about this type of content for months, so I’m not going to go into the basics. If you’d like to know more on those, you’ll find some great posts on TopRank (stats and integration), WiseGeek (nitty-gritty, point form ABCs), and Chris Grannell (Psychology of User Generated Content PDF).
We’ll add a great slide presentation here, too:
The Strategy’s Target
While it’s tempting to do it all with one strategy, you have to decide which product or service is most important. Which one needs the most attention and will hopefully leave you open to integrate other offerings? You can offer multiple opportunities at some point, but focus on one main goal at a time.
There’s a bit of a trick to this. If you get too granular, you will have to push really hard to get user-generated content and run the risk of not getting any at all. Not to mention, the views and interest in the subject will be lower. If you get too broad, your message and the purpose gets too muddled and diluted to be effective.
If you’ve become too general, you’ll have to start creating multiple sections, complex systems, and lots of rules or hands-on editing to keep it going. And while this is occasionally pulled off with flare, it usually just makes the system difficult for everyone. If you make it difficult, people just won’t bother using it.
Here are a few examples: An auto sales website might focus on Fords or used vehicles. A web designer can likely get away with pushing website designs or logos. If you are a shoe manufacturer that only creates one type of shoe, on the other hand, you can get away with pushing the shoe type and cover the entire site.
Gathering the Ideas For Your UGC Strategy
Every time I create a user-generated content strategy, I have to start be creating pools of information that we can manipulate and tweak in order to generate the ideas that we can either ditch, use, or put on hold. Sounds simple right? Just start listing off ideas, right? Well, not quite. Not saying that you won’t get lucky and hit a winner, but it’s not exactly a methodical approach.
To get this pool of ideas, I create lists of information we can pull from users and how those things can be integrated into a website.
Pre-Sales Funnel Needs — What do users need before purchasing your product or service? What do they have? What do they need to know if they’re going to buy from you?
Product Needs — What do users need while using your product or service? What sorts of things do they use with it? What can they do or use to get more from the things they purchase from you?
Post-Purchase Needs — What sorts of needs do they have after using your product or service? What’s their next step? What sorts of materials do they have to offer after use?
Website/Marketing Capabilities — What sorts of mediums do you have at your disposal that would make use of the previous three lists?
Under each of these, I just start listing all of the things that fit including information, products, services, ideas, and problems users will encounter at each stage. Then, I wander through various target-rich environments and see what the chatter is all about, what questions they’re asking, and what they’re praising. These get added to the lists, and by the time I’m done, I’ve got massive lists of ideas I can pull from.
In your last list, mark down the types of mediums or concepts your website either currently handles, or could handle with a reasonable amount of tweaking. Photo albums, membership areas, video uploading, audio collections, user-generated blogs…the list is endless. At this point, list them all. You never know when something odd will become a unique streak of brilliance. (Hey, it happens!)
Associate a Need, Want, Or Desire With an Idea
Here’s where your creativity, cleverness, and insanity come in handy. Look at each item and think about how you could present that information to others. While I’m in the middle of the process, I give myself extra brownie points if I can come up with something that will make people laugh, prompt a trip down memory lane, go ‘aaaahhh how cute’, or drive (healthy) controversy. You’ll also want to give yourself extra brownie points for any ideas that naturally show off the benefits or traits you’d like to highlight in your products and services.
(Credit)
Consider User Habits, Interests, and Preferences
Hopefully, by now, you’ve already profiled your target audience, your complementary businesses, and vendors (and know which of these three you’re focusing on here). This should be a complete profile which includes everything from demographics, beliefs, habits, economic situation, and any other little tidbits you can gather together.
Then, compare these details to the ideas you generated in the previous step, tossing out anything that might be offensive or otherwise unusable. Next, mark anything that’s likely ineffective because of these same traits and move them to the bottom of the list.
Choose the Best Concept
At this point, I’d move the ideas with the most brownie points to the top of your list, go through them, and try to find reasons to keep or discard each one. Be ruthless! (Oh, and do yourself a favor and write them down. Trust me. You only have to forget once to figure out why.)
Don’t toss out the ideas you didn’t use. You’d be amazed how many of these simple ideas can fit together. Also, if your idea *gulp* fails, you’ll have plenty of other ideas to fall back on.
Go ahead! Try it!
