Thoughts From The Cake Scraps

The name that you pick for your product, service, blog, etc. is part of what defines your brand.  If you have read my blog you may remember the post about knowing what you are worth as a brand, but what that post didn’t talk about is the name of the brand.

The name of your brand is the first thing that people associate with a product.  People don’t usually start talking about a product without saying who makes it.  It is a critical element to the story of the product.  The part that boggles my mind is how odd some names are.  The names defy logic.  Take Cuil for instance.  The first clue is that if I say Cuil – said cool – you probably have no idea how to spell it.  If you have to spell your brand name to people I think you substantially decrease the odds of starting a brand.

I have to admit that I even broke my own rule in the first edition of this blog by calling it “Thoughts From Thee Cake Scraps”.  There is a reason that I called it “Thee” but it doesn’t matter.  The reality is that when I was telling people about this blog I would have to say “Thee” and make sure that they doubled up on the “e”.  That is no way to tell people about your new product.

I am sure there are exceptions to this rule, but I am equally sure that many more odd brand names have failed than have made it.  Note that when I say odd I mean how easily you can communicate your brand name.  It doesn’t have to make sense, just make it easy to communicate.

This has been a Thought From The Cake Scraps.

eBay is once again changing the way it does business by adding more restrictions to its sellers.  Remember when eBay added in the features that allowed a buyer to rate a seller on several categories?  Well now eBay is using that as a basis to say if sellers can continue to sell.

This excerpt from BizWeek illustrates it quite well:

In a nutshell, eBay wants its sellers to keep a 4.3 or above (out of 5-star) composite average on several metrics on which customers leave feedback. The most controversial is the shipping and handling feedback. A 4 in this metric means “reasonable,” but if a seller starts getting mostly 4s, eventually that will pull her overall rating down below 4.3. If a buyer rates the shipping charges as “neutral” (3) or “unreasonable” (2)—even if that perception is mistaken—the seller’s ratings will plummet and her account can be suspended. Sellers do have 30 days to increase their rating while they’re suspended, but if they’re not selling, it’s obviously tough to get better feedback.

It is clear that eBay really does not want to be in the auction business anymore.  These new rules make it very difficult for sellers, and exceptionally difficult for low volume sellers, to stay compliant.  All it takes is one or two disgruntled buyers and you are screwed.  I am glad that I got out while things were still not all that bad.

These sort of changes make me wonder though.  A business always has to be evolving or they risk being left behind.  You have to find new opportunities or niches to fit in to have growth.  But what if you lose your core competency while doing so?  Are you so focused on growth that you would risk the thing that made you great?

eBay was known as a place for auctions.  That was what they were good at.  As they move toward a model that is now focused on Fixed Prices not auctions, I think they are giving up more than they realize.  It is easy to blame the lower profits on the economy now, but I would think this would be a time for eBay to shine.  People are selling stuff they don’t need and also looking for stuff at a good price.  As eBay continues to make these changes I wonder if the current economic circumstance is clouding eBay’s view of the business model they are chasing after.  Then again, maybe eBay is positioning itself to take on Amazon.  This could get interesting.

This has been a Thought From The Cake Scraps.

It doesn’t take very long to find some sort of list on the internet.  In fact, lists are a pretty common thing that people blog about, create sites about and if you are really talented like The Movie Checklists Blog you blog about the list site you are creating.  But I am not talking about those lists.  I am talking about the lists you really care about; the lists that are responsible for all of that junk mail you get.

There are all sorts of lists and you may be frightened to know about them, but don’t be.  All of them have your name because you said they could – though it may have been unknowingly because you didn’t actually read the agreement you said you read.

Now there are some general lists such as “Grandparents” or “Self Identified Democrats and Republicans” but they get much more specific than that.  For instance, if you are reading this blog you may be on the “Tech Stock” list that

… contains individuals who have purchased subscriptions to high-priced investment advisory newsletters that specialize in finding technology stock investment opportunities

You may still say that that isn’t all that specific and I can see your point of view, but what about a list of “Socially Active Small Business Owners“.  Would “Joe The Plumber” make that list?

The answer doesn’t really matter and you may still say that that information isn’t all that specific.  Once again, I may agree to an extent, but I think the next list will make you reconsider.  There is a “Pet loving Execs” list described as:

…business executives who enjoy spending time with their dogs, cats or both while working at home. The average age of prospects is 52, and they earn an average of $79,000 per year.

There are plenty more lists that you can look at over at DMNews if you are interested.

Now this post is not meant to be a fire-alarm or get people all up in arms about privacy.  This isn’t meant to rat out companies who may be purchasing these lists.  In all honesty, they are buying the list because they think that they have a product that you want.  Does it mean extra junk mail?  Yes, but if it doesn’t make the company money to mail you they will stop (perhaps excluding credit card offers).  This is part of life.  Always assume that when you give out your information, it has the potential to be given or sold to someone else.

We live in a world where information is everywhere.  Consumers have more choices because of the internet and specialty companies are trying to find you as much as you are trying to find them.  Competition for business is fierce and companies cannot afford to do the broad mailings nearly as much as they used to.  Why mail people who will probably not have any interest in your company’s product when your company has a limited budget and is also trying to decrease its paper use?

Each company is just trying to stay relevant to its customers and acquire new ones.  They will do what it takes to get to that point.  They will track you with e-mail and internal campaigns as well as buy lists from various vendors.  If you don’t like it then it may be time for you to start reading all that fine print before you sign.

This has been a Thought From The Cake Scraps.

I am no political analyst and this blog isn’t about politics, but since a presidential election only comes around once every 4 years and last night was the last presidential debate I decided to write something short, sweet, and to the point.

I thought both candidates did a fine job in the debate last night.  Obama was as good as ever at deflecting attacks and McCain came out with fists swinging while not appearing overly aggressive – for the most part.  That said, I think that both of them got stuck on Obama’s associations with people too long and it caused McCain to skip over what appeared to be to be a critical point.

The issue was negative campaigning.  No question both ran negative campaigns to some extent, but the extent is all debatable which is why I skip over that point.  What I don’t want to skip over is a point that McCain made about Obama that was then never brought up again.

The following was stated by McCain and is from a transcript that CNN has on their site:

And, Sen. Obama, when he said — and he signed a piece of paper that said he would take public financing for his campaign if I did — that was back when he was a long-shot candidate — you didn’t keep your word.

And when you looked into the camera in a debate with Sen. Clinton and said, “I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain about public financing before I make a decision,” you didn’t tell the American people the truth because you didn’t.

If true, does that strike anybody else as a point worth returning to.  You can talk to anybody about nearly any politician and hear about broken promises.  Here was a great example of somebody doing exactly that.  I really wanted to hear more about this.  Is this true?  Did Obama make these promises?  If the answer is yes to both of those questions – as it seems to be – I would think that would be a bigger issue to the American Public than any of the associations with people that the McCain camp is trying to put front and center.

What do you think?  Was this a missed opportunity?  Does it not matter?

Best of luck to all candidates for President and make sure you vote (early if you want or can)!

This has been a Thought From The Cake Scraps.

Previously I have covered how a site’s internal campaigns track you and how a website should track you but Fitbit tracks you in a whole new way.

I originally read about this a few weeks ago and just saw another post about it over at TechCrunch and I still think that it is pretty sweet.  The device claims to be able to:

help you determine how much exercise you’ve been getting and how many calories you’ve burnt. It can also tell you how many steps you have taken and how well you’ve slept, all based on its internal motion detector.

I have heard of a device that can track calories you have burned, or at least take a guess at it, but what I found to be really interesting is the claim that it can tell how well you have slept.  I am a pretty light sleeper and I would be really interested to know how often I really wake up during the night.  I also think that it is a great way to remind people the importance of exercise.  Besides, who can not love something that basically seems like Nike + iTunes on speed.

The other really cool thing is that

All data gets automatically synchronized to your computer and then the web through a wireless base station, so you don’t even have to plug it in. Once synced, you can view your health reports online. -TechCrunch

There is something awesome about graphs, charts, and numbers that I generated myself that just seems better than graphs, charts, and numbers that I didn’t.  The only problem is that all this sweetness is $99.  Is that really worth it?  I’m not sure but I signed up on their website to get an e-mail as soon as they get some in stock.

I wish Fitbit the best of luck on creating a business that makes money.  The road is littered with those who have tried, but I think this one has a chance.  I suggest you go check it out for yourself.

This has been a Thought From The Cake Scraps.

I have previously posted on Swoopo (Pure Profit: A Look At Swoop) and on the types of auctions they have. And as you can probably tell from the title, they are making a ton of money. Well apparently one Swoopo wasn’t enough so enter PennyCave.

PennyCave operates on the exact same concept as Swoopo. You purchase your bids from PennyCave and then you use the bids on various auctions they have going. But, they can’t outright copy Swoopo so they have their own set of what I call gimmicks to sucker you out of your money. If you don’t have any background on either Swoopo or PennyCave read my post on Swoopo which describes in detail how the sites work.

Gimmick 1: All Penny Auctions This is the most glaring gimmick that PennyCave has. By having each bid raise the price of the auction by only a single cent it makes the total price look very attractive. Consider seeing something worth $100 going for just $11.53. Then remember that that is 1,153 bids each at around $1. Swoopo has this style of auction but not each and every auction.

Verdict on Gimmick 1: Fails to help the customer or be less of a scam.

Gimmick 2: Discount On Bids If you buy bids in bulk you can save money. Since you waste the money anyway I don’t see that as a huge bonus, just a ploy to get you to buy more bids. I am guessing the thinking here is that while it is true that you will pay less for an individual bid, ultimately you will bid more than you would have with a standard cost bid ($1). Therefore, overall you will spend more money because you know your bids were cheaper, but who is going to calculate by how much? This also makes it difficult to see how much you really have into the site in bids because each bid may cost something different if you buy bids at different times.

Verdict on Gimmick 2: Fails to help the customer or be less of a scam.

Gimmick 3: Shipping Included This one is pretty self explanatory. In reality it is just another ploy to get you to think that you are not really spending that much. The real trick here is that in your mind you will look at an auction for $4.20 and think it is not so bad because shipping is included. That would be good logic if it didn’t take (at minimum) $315 in bids to get to that price.  And that is using a rate of 75 cents a bid, the lowest possible rate when buying bids and you have to buy $1000 worth of bids to get it.

Verdict on Gimmick 3: Fails to help the customer or be less of a scam.

Gimmick 4: ‘Auctions Live’ Time Frame This is another great example of ‘helping the customer’ meanwhile ‘robbing them blind’. By limiting the time the auction is live from 10 AM to 12 AM what looks a perk to you, the bidder, is really a scam by PennyCave to not let the auction end during an off peak time. By having bidding during a time that ‘you won’t miss the end’, guess what, neither will anybody else. That means that you will get to bid against everybody else and drive up the price and waste your precious bids. Time to celebrate this great customer service.

Verdict on Gimmick 4: Fails to help the customer or be less of a scam.

Gimmick 5: Fewer Live Auctions Clearly this is to minimize risk. Less live auctions means that more people will be bidding/betting on those auctions. On the plus side, you have less things to lose money on.

Verdict on Gimmick 5: Helps the customer control betting but ultimately fails to be less of a scam.

As you can probably tell I am not enamored by this site. It is very easy to get in over your head. Currently it looks like there are actually some good deals in the finished auctions section, but that is because the site is so new. Once more and more people start using the site it is only going to get worse and the deals with it. Just look at eBay and how they are moving from auctions to fixed price. It is not that you can’t get good deals, it is just that it is a lot harder to get the deal for the amount of time you invest.

The bottom line is to stay away from these sites – so called “entertainment shopping” sites – unless you go into it with a set amount of money that you are willing to lose. If you don’t plan ahead like this you are bound to end up over investing in the auction and come out way behind. Just look at this auction where there is over 900 bids (at almost $1 each) and the thing retails for just $280. Not smart.

This has been some Thoughts From The Cake Scraps.

In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal Activision’s CEO, Robert Kotick, hinted that instead of the current structure for the Guitar Hero franchise – where Activision must pay for the use of an artist’s song – the tables should be turned. The idea being that Guitar Hero is such a great channel for distribution of songs that it is actually saving rock ‘n’ roll.

It is worth noting that Activision – and video games in general – are different from radio in that Activision has a contract with the owners of the song whereas in radio royalties are paid.

This seems like a classic game of chicken. As you may have guessed, the argument of promotional value is not new to the industry. A band needs to get play time to become famous, though the internet is changing that slightly, and the radio station needs bands to make music otherwise the radio station has nothing to play. They both depend on each other to make money.

I think that the main difference in Activision’s situation is that they are not worried about bands trying to ‘make it’. They are giving new life to bands that were fizzling out in the next generation. This puts them in the unique position to make this work. The Guitar Hero brand is heavily, though not fully, dependent on good songs. People love the concept of the game and having classic rock songs is just a perk. Therefore, I would argue that while it may be difficult to have the next release of Guitar Hero be a smash hit with no headliners it would not be impossible. They could easily release some sort of “Tomorrow’s Rockers” edition that featured unsigned bands and sell plenty of copies.

Overall, this is a great move on Activision’s part because they know what their distribution channel is worth. The tricky part is to state your worth and not overstate your worth and be caught with your pants down. I think the music companies are dangerously close to the latter. The resurgence of some of their artists is because of Guitar Hero and more artists want a piece of the action.

This is why the music companies are in such a tough spot. They want to get paid for the songs, but I’m sure there is pressure from the artists just to get them in the game. They see it as a great avenue to get a new fan base. Now you also have Activision pushing back to the music companies and saying “why should we be paying you for promoting these fizzling bands?”. The music companies are being pressured from both sides and they don’t really have solid ground to stand on.

This is going to be very interesting to watch. Who’s going to win and who is going to chicken out?  And can you really apply this to your blog writing?

Thanks for reading the thoughts of The Cake Scraps.

I just had the opportunity to watch Episode 97: “Airplane on a Conveyor Belt” and it was very interesting.  The question they were out to answer was “Can an airplane take off if it is on a conveyor belt that is moving the opposite direction from where it is trying to take off?”  Without much thought a person would say no.  I sure did.  My thoughts being that with the conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction the plane would just sit still.

WRONG

This brings us to 2 questions “why is it wrong?” and “how is that related to marketing?”

The first question takes some getting used to.  The Straight Dope has a good explanation and I will attempt to summarize it here.  The answer is in short that the speed of the conveyor belt does not matter.  A plane forces itself through the air via the engines.  The wheels spinning on the conveyor belt merely provide a way for the plane to have less friction with the ground.  The plane is not using the wheels to push itself the way a car does.  Essentially, the plane will move forward no matter what.

The best visualization I can give you is this: Picture a plane flying in the air.  Now imagine that its wheels are down.  Now put a conveyor belt in your picture moving in the opposite direction the plane is flying.  Does the plane slow down?  No, the wheels will just spin like crazy.  It has no effect on the plane flying in the air because the wheels are free spinning and are not a means of propulsion.  Get it?  The dynamics don’t change on the ground.

Here is another way to think of it.  If you were on roller skates and moved yourself by only pulling on a rope you would not have to exert any more effort to pull yourself forward on standard ground than on a conveyor belt.  The reason is that you are moving because of pulling on the rope and therefore even with a conveyor belt on the ground you will not move backwards, the wheels will just spin and you pull yourself forward as normal.  Replace you with a plane and the rope with an engine and you have this one all wrapped up.

So now on to the second question, how this has to do with marketing.  It reminded me of a simple fact of marketing: things are not always as they seem.  And beyond that even when you have the information it might be difficult to understand.

This all revolves around one thing: what is driving this?

The reason the plane example is hard to understand is because people think a plane moves like a car – which uses the ground to propel itself – when it, as obvious as it may seem, moves like a plane – which is not driven by the ground.  Understanding what is driving the plane is fundamental to understanding the answer as a whole.

This is the same as with marketing and web analytics.  It is great that people are coming to your site or people love your marketing, but finding out why they love it is the only way you can repeat it.  If you sell clothing and a particular ad drives people to the site you have success.  But what if the reason isn’t the product but who the product was on or what the setting was of the photo shoot.  Trying to turn that into a campaign – which you should be tracking – is going to be impossible if you don’t know what is driving the sales.  If you feature the same product but on a different person does it still sell?  Or perhaps is was the combination of all 3 that did it and you can’t reproduce the same thing no matter how hard you try.  You will be left spinning your wheels.

Whenever you start to read data coming in from your various campaigns, remember that that is all it is – data.  Data does not become information until you have context.  And context is only actionable if you know what is driving the whole thing.  The answers may not come easily, and it may be a ton of work, and even then you yourself and/or others may question the results, but if you have solid reasoning and understand what is driving it you are in a very powerful position; the position of having not data or even information, but knowledge.

I try and follow Jeremy Schoemaker over at ShoeMoney and was reading the ShoeMoney Biography and loved his “Coke Theory”.  Here is the Coke theory from that biography:

Maximum and diverse revenue streams are built on fairly narrow marketing concepts that are then diversified. This is what Jeremy Schoemaker calls, “The Coke Theory. If you are already making Coke then you can make Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, etc and turn a profit on those as well. A company can achieve growth through small degrees of separation between sites, maximizing diversity within a small industry.

That is so true.  Really you can substitute almost any major brand in there.  I don’t even know how many types of M&Ms there are now but it is the same concept.  Skittles even tried it with Chocolate Skittles.  Okay, bad example.  So it may not work everywhere but it is still a great idea.

Basically the Coke Theory is all about branding.  What can we do with the brand or how can we leverage it?  That is the question(s) the companies are always asking.  But it is also perfect for a brand you may not always think of, yourself.

This can be a difficult thing to grasp.  I mean think of how most of us go through college.  If you are like me, you just want a job coming out of college and you are not too concerned with where, so long as it is in the general area of where you want to be.  I constantly struggle with balancing technical skills with strategic skills.  How narrow should I focus my development to become a stand-out in my current position?  How do I balance that with not wanting to corner myself because it is the only thing I am good at?

I have found that the Coke Theory helps strike a balance.  It is alright to focus on one thing as long as you are not afraid to branch out later on.  Take on risk!  These things will not always fall onto your plate.  You have to request them and find them; ultimately you branch out.  That is a great way to grow your skill set because even if you fail at one of these activities you still have your core skill set to fall back on.

You are a brand and a core competency is critical, but taking risks to find new activities and responsibilities is where you will really learn.  So when you get back to your job take a second and ask yourself: “What flavor of Coke can I create next?”

Interruption is a way of life here in America. I remember reading somewhere that in Japan if a person is working by themselves they are not as likely to be interrupted because it is assumed that they are in thought whereas in America if you are working by yourself it means you are available because it is assumed you are not busy. Not sure if that is true or not, but I know that if I see someone at their desk I will talk to them if I need them. I always ask if they have time, but I still ask because – in famous final words fashion – it will only take a second.

How does this relate to web analytics? It relates because of the definition of a visit. If you are new to web analytics, you may wonder “What is a visit?”.  Web Trends Live has an excellent glossary of terms which is where I pulled this definition from:

Visit: A visit is an interaction a unique visitor has with a website over a specified period of time or activity. In most cases, if a visitor has left a site or has not executed a click within 30 minutes, the visit session will terminate.

My question is, is this the correct length of time? Should it be longer than 30 min because of how many distractions/interruptions we have in a day? I read a great interview at FastCompany.com about how often people get interrupted at work. The average time between switching tasks was 3 minutes and 5 seconds. That is a lot of moving around. It took an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to get back to something they switched from.

This would give credence to the 30 minute rule that is laid out for us, but I still have to wonder if it is correct. I think that with tab browsing people are more likely to have a longer lag time between looking at one page and looking at another. I think that since the onset of ‘restore session’ – when you open up a browser that you previously exited with multiple tabs active – lag times between activity have increased. ‘Fires’ come up at work and need to be handled, e-mails come in, the phones ring, etc. The reality is that while a person may be idle for 30 min they would say that it was one visit. This begs the question of who defines a visit, the web site or the viewer?

My main concern is that this time frame may skew some data that looks at visits by a visitor for a given period of time. Perhaps you will get data that says people visit your site multiple times in one day – probably considered a good thing – when really you just can’t keep a visitors attention and they keep having a 30 min or more delay in between their activity. This would actually then be a bad thing because you are not keeping the viewer involved which may discourage them from coming back.

Clearly an industry needs standards and, honestly, web analysts are lucky to have any standards at all in a field that changes so quickly while being so young. That said, hanging on to old standards just for the sake of standards isn’t such a great policy either. It doesn’t need to change today, but it is something to keep thinking about as browsing habits evolve.