MA8 Digitaalinen markkinointi (luento 5)


Published on

Aiheesta "Asiakkaiden hallinta Internetissä" .

Turun kauppakorkeakoulu, 12.4.2012.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MA8 Digitaalinen markkinointi (luento 5)

  2. 2. Menestymisen resepti? (Nielsen, 2008) ‖ The V × C × L website success is: B= formula for − B = amount of business done by the site − V = unique visitors coming to the site − C = conversion rate (the percentage of visitors who become customers); note that the concept of conversion applies not only to ecommerce sites, but to any site where there is something you want users to do − L = loyalty rate (the degree to which customers return to conduct repeat business) Of course, there are further variables to consider, such as the size of the shopping cart and the marginal profitability of the most popular products. But roughly speaking, a website‘s success is derived from multiplying these three numbers.‖2
  3. 3. Konversio -> uskollisuus (tulevaisuutta?) ―However, as conversion rates double — and later, double again — we‘ll eventually reach the point where the usability investment for continued improvements becomes much more expensive than current budgets. We‘ll then need to discover ever-more esoteric ways of satisfying customers, and those ways are unlikely to emerge from the cheap and fast user-testing approaches that dominate today. We‘ll soon reach the point where increasing the loyalty rate is the best way to achieve substantial improvements in website business metrics. Whereas we might aptly call the period 2000–2010 the conversion decade for website usability professionals, 2010– 2020 will be the loyalty decade.‖ (Nielsen, 2008)  konversioeroosio? (M.ex, 2006) Lue lisää: http://www.marketinge ving-website- conversion/website- conversion-3 erosion.html
  4. 4. Kysymys: What is the difference between cost per sale and cost per acquisition? Vastaus: customer lifetime value (CLV)4
  5. 5. Kritiikki analytiikkaa kohtaan (Maurya 2010) • Asiakkuuden elinkaaren seuranta. Analytiikkatyökalut tuottavat usein aggregoitua tietoa rajatulta ajanjaksolta – tuloksena sivuilla hetkellä x tehtyjen muutosten seuraaminen hetkellä x+1 saattaa olla hankalaa (annotaatio?) • A/B-testien pitkäaikaisten vaikutusten seuranta. Ryhmä A ja Ryhmä B; edellinen freemium-sivulle ja jälkimmäinen trial-sivulle. Kumman ryhmän asiakkaat ovat mukana vielä 6 kk:n päästä? (ID-identifiointi?) • Retention seuranta. Koska asiakkaita ei voida identifioida, ei pystytä sanomaan mitä he ovat tehneet pitkällä aikavälillä. (rekisteröityminen?)5
  6. 6. Rekisteröinnin problematiikkaa… • hyöty: tieto asiakkaasta helpottaa markkinointia, rekisteröinti vähentää asiakkaan myöhempää vaivaa • haitta: asiakkaat vihaavat rekisteröitymistä ‖Assume up to 80% to 90% attrition if you are asking them to register for a username/password, for example. So if you can make it very short – 2-3 pages at most – with progressive commitment of personal information, you‘ll get further along in your design. And obviously, you‘d ideally want to test for drop-off at each point, and optimize each step as if it were a landing page.‖ (Chen 2007) • ratkaisu: lykätty rekisteröinti (deferred registration), pyydä vasta konversion jälkeen6
  7. 7. Evästeet (cookie) asiakkaiden seurannassa • pieni tekstitiedosto, jonka Internet-sivu tallentaa käyttäjän tietokoneelle myöhempää tunnistamista varten • mahdollistaa esim. asiakkaiden seuraamisen, tunnistamisen ja automaattisen kirjautumisen • ongelmana vanheneminen ja useat tietokoneet # Esimerkki-eväste # Pvm. 2012-10-12 FACEBOOK- username=Joni SALASANAVUOTO!!!1 password=ma8_jee7
  8. 8. Attribuutio-ongelma (Kelly 2009) ―One of the most difficult problems to solve is the issue with giving proper credit to the ‗original source‘ of the lead or sale. Some of the PPC systems refer to this as the ‗assist‘ and they pass special tracking cookies to the user that will help indicate in the click stream data future visits from this user. This typically helps credit PPC campaigns and reduces the cost per acquisition (CPA) for that channel. This is great, but it is flawed. This generally assumes that the visitor used one computer, and few of us use one computer. We usually have an office computer, a home computer (we have 2), plus mobile devices. Consider this situation (which is probably quite typical): 1. Husband is searching for vacation spots for his family during his lunch at work. He does several searches, including hitting a few paid ads. 2. He runs out of time and has to get back to work, so he emails himself the links to the pages of the sites he liked to his home email account so he can show his wife later that evening. 3. He gets on email at home and pulls up the pages on his home computer to show his wife and kids what he found. 4. They continue to do more research and even bookmark a few sites/pages and will revisit in a couple of weeks so they can think about it. 5. They revisit the site a few weeks later by hitting the saved bookmark and from there, decide to purchase. Now in this case, it‘s going to be virtually impossible for the marketer to track this sale all the way back to the paid search ad because he lost him as soon as he switched computers. And if this happens often enough, he will think his paid search campaign is ineffective because it is not driving any sales. Newsflash: most people don‘t buy anything on the first visit! There is likely going to be multiple interactions, extensive research, bookmarking, etc. before any purchase is made over a several-week (depending on the product) sales cycle.‖8
  9. 9. Ratkaisu: kohorttianalyysi (Maurya 2010) tehtyjen muutosten vaikutus voidaan nähdä kohorttien kautta konversionkehitystä voidaan seurata omissa funneleissa eri viikoilla rekisteröityneitä seurataan erikseen 9
  10. 10. Customer lifetime value • CLV = tuotto, joka yhdestä asiakkaasta saadaan asiakkuuden aikana • arvioitu vs. toteutunut • tekijöitä (KissMetrics) – keskimääräinen ostoksen arvo (esim. ostoskorin arvo) – ostokertojen määrä asiakassuhteen aikana – asiakaskohtainen kate – retentio-% – diskonttaustekijä ks. lisää! lifetime-value/?wide=110
  11. 11. Asiakkuuden arvon ekstrapolointi (Liew 2010) ―A typical pattern found in subscription businesses is that after a steep drop off after an initial period, month-on-month attrition rates tend to level off. You can see a similar pattern in this example, where after the first month, month-on-month attrition rates are around -6% (ie month N subs ~ 94% of month [N-1] subs). If you see a pattern like this, you can extrapolate forward using the same month-on-month attrition across several years. As you can see in the model, we extrapolate an average lifetime of 9.77 months by extrapolating forward over 5 years of data. So if you were a subscription business charging $20/month with 90% gross margins (after accounting for customer service costs for example), then you would attribute a lifetime value for a new customer of 9.77 x $20 x 90% = $176. This sets an upper bound of what you would be willing to pay to acquire a customer (although in practice, you would prefer to see a ratio of CAC/LTV in the 25-35% range).‖11
  12. 12. Aikaulottuvuuden aiheuttamia ongelmia • Ongelma: kuinka paljon voit käyttää uuden asiakkaan hankintaan? • Ongelma: SaaS-liiketoimintamalleissa asiakashankinta täytyy maksaa HETI, mutta rahat saadaan vasta ajan päästä – paradoksi: on mahdollista, että mitä enemmän yritys saa asiakkaita, sitä enemmän se tuottaa tappiota – keinoja: pyydä koko vuosi ennalta (alennus); upselling; puskurointi • Ongelma: churn eli asiakaskato – absoluuttisen kadon määrä kasvaa asiakasmäärän lisääntyessä, vaikka kato-% pysyy vakiona; ts. joka kuukausi tietty osa käyttäjistä tippuu pois – kuinka minimoida asiakaskato?12
  13. 13. Esimerkki asiakaskadosta (churn) SaaS- liiketoimintamallissa Date of initial subscription Drop from previous Mth 1 Mth 2 Mth 3 Mth 4 Mth 5 Mth 6 Mth 7 Mth 8 Mth 9 Mth 10 Mth 11 Mth 12 Average month Still Subs at end of first month 98.1% 90.3% 91.1% 89.7% 92.4% 91.5% 90.5% 95.3% 94.4% 94.2% 99.1% 97.3% 93.7% Second month 54.7% 60.8% 48.7% 49.0% 53.4% 50.5% 56.7% 54.6% 48.0% 52.0% 51.7% 52.7% 56 % Third month 54.8% 48.9% 43.4% 46.8% 50.8% 53.3% 54.4% 44.2% 46.1% 46.0% 48.9% 93 % Fourth month 48.7% 45.9% 43.1% 43.4% 52.5% 49.7% 40.8% 42.8% 44.2% 45.7% 93 % Fifth month 40.7% 43.0% 40.6% 44.9% 47.6% 37.2% 41.2% 40.2% 41.9% 92 % Sixth month 41.2% 41.3% 44.2% 42.8% 37.3% 38.0% 39.4% 40.6% 97 % Seventh month 40.5% 45.7% 38.9% 33.2% 36.5% 34.8% 38.3% 94 % Eighth month 40.0% 41.9% 29.5% 33.8% 34.8% 36.0% 94 % Ninth month 37.3% 34.0% 30.0% 32.8% 33.5% 93 % Tenth month 35.8% 33.0% 30.1% 32.9% 98 % Eleventh month 29.3% 30.9% 30.1% 91 % Twelfth month 29.2% 29.2% 97 %13
  14. 14. Aggregaattiharha (Chen 2007) ―When you compare to the week 1 to week 2 cohort, you can tell that 1) there was a 25% increase in new users (100k to 125k), and that the retention rate DECREASED to 40% (50k/100k versus 50k/125k). This would be a red flag that your site was sucking, even if your aggregate stats looked good: In either case, this might hint at a bad systematic condition within the site, but ultimately the aggregate numbers hide the problem. In either case, not being able to acquire and retain brand new users is a problem, and without measuring the groups separately, it seems impossible to assess the true situation.‖14
  15. 15. Asiakashankinnan ansa tilauspohjaisessa liiketoimintamallissa (York 2010) Kasvu hidastuu väistämättä ellei hankittujen asiakkaiden määrä kasva nopeammin kuin asiakaskato. Asiakaskato vaikuttaa siihen, kuinka paljon uusista asiakkaista voidaan maksaa!15
  16. 16. Vertaismarkkinoinnin (viraalikertoimen) kompensoiva vaikutus asiakaskadossa (York 2010) Viraalikasvu on eksponentiaalista, maksettu asiakashankinta lineaarista. Molempiin vaikuttaa kato, mutta korkea viraalikasvu voi lyhyellä aikavälillä kompensoida korkeankin kadon Huom! Retention ollessa alhainen (ja kadon korkea), lyhyen viraalipiikin edut haihtuvat16 nopeasti (shark fin)
  17. 17. Asiakashankinnan kasvuparadoksi (York 2010) Jos kato-% pysyy vakiona, johtaa se yhä suurempaan määrään luopuneita asiakkaita, vaikka samalla uusien asiakkaiden määrä kasvaisi kuinka paljon tahansa. Sama kuin kaataisi vettä vuotavaan ämpäriin. Retention (asiakasuskollisuuden) kasvattaminen on siis ensiarvoisen tärkeää.17
  18. 18. Asiakkuuden ja asiakkaan laadullinen kehittyminen (York 2010) Asiakas Suosittelija Evankelista Lisäksi laadullinen ero asiakkaan vaikutusvallassa; ts. kaikki evankelistat eivät ole yhtä arvokkaita. Opetus: asiakkuuden rahallinen arvo ei ole ainoa mittari asiakkuuden arvoa määritettäessä!18
  19. 19. Analytiikan ongelmia (Performable 2010) • Kampanjat tehdään “siiloissa”. Eri kanavien kampanjat eivät ole aidosti integroituja – viestit voivat olla erilaisia, koordinaatio puuttuu eikä pystytä keskitetysti seuraamaan niiden tuloksia ja yhteisvaikutusta. Kampanjametriikat eivät ole vertailukelpoisia, ja eri kanaville on omat strategiansa, joista vastaavat eri ihmiset. Vaikea saada yleiskuva (snapshot) markkinoinnin toimivuudesta. S • Data on usein anonyymia. Vaikea rakentaa I I asiakassuhdetta, jos asiakas on täysin tuntematon. Kuinka L yhdistää statistiikka yksittäisiin asiakkaisiin tai O asiakasryhmiin? • Mittarit kertovat tietystä hetkestä, eivät kehityksestä. Esim. tiettyjen asiakkaiden keskiostot voivat kasvaa, toiset eivät osta enää ja pitäisi harkita uudelleenaktivointia, jne.19
  20. 20. Paluu Wanamaker-dilemmaan… ―If you are like most companies, you probably have several marketing promotions going on across multiple channels. Maybe what you have is some online pay-per-click (PPC), organic search engine optimization (SEO), direct mail and radio. Good marketing requires that we know and understand what sales are costing us from each channel. Well, how do you know how much you are going to spend in each marketing channel? The fact is, most are guessing. In order to properly assess what you are going to spend in each marketing channel, it is necessary to understand what you are willing to spend to acquire a new customer (cost per acquisition), and ultimately, the lifetime value of the customer. Wait, what is ‗lifetime value of the customer‘? That is the net dollars a customer is worth to you from the moment they become a customer to the moment they are no longer a customer.‖ Sääntö #1 CAC < CLV20
  21. 21. 21
  22. 22. stalkkaustiedot22
  23. 23. Customer lifetime tracking (Performable 2010) Tämä on… …unelma23
  24. 24. ”Metrics are people, too” ―The things we‘re trying to solve are if someone comes to the site multiple times and then they sign up, let‘s say on the third or fourth time, we‘re allowing you to identify that user and we’re trying to attach all of those times that they came, previously, to that customer. What that means is that we‘ll understand the first touch point they had with you and where it came from, and we‘ll be able to attach that for the history of that user using your product. And that‘s a much different view than most analytics have, which is either page-view tracking or event tracking. This is actually, honestly, people tracking, which means that we‘re trying to actually track people.‖ (Nivi 2010)24
  25. 25. Markkinoinnin automaatio (Performable 2010) ‖Most marketing automation programs are based on a defined schedule, hitting your customers‘ inboxes before they‘re ready for them. Performable automation is different. By connecting to its cross-platform marketing analytics, Performable can automate emails and trigger other messages based on real user behavior on and off your site. In the example to the right, a company has used Performable and the company‘s existing email service provider to target shopping cart abandonment by automatically sending limited time offers to any customer who placed an item in a carts but never checked out.‖ • automatisoitu markkinointiviestintä Hyödyt • ajansäästö • workflow Ajastettu Reagoiva • ennakointi viestintä viestintä Ei korvaa oikeaa25 vuorovaikutusta. Miksi?
  26. 26. ”Monikanavamaksimi” (totta vai tarua?) “The more points of contact you have with someone, the more likely they are to convert into something more.” (Rucker 2010) Keinot esim. • retargeting • Facebook-iteraatio26
  27. 27. So, you’ve got all this data… • Liian informaation riskit: – vanity metrics – analysis paralysis • Miten erottaa jyvät akanoista? – asiakaskohtainen seuranta (vs. keskiarvot) – kohorttianalyysi (vs. aggregaatit)27
  28. 28. ”Social media espionage” (Salminen & Degbey 2011) relationship Company A Customer competitive Company B intelligence • semi-public information • vulnerability; exposure; risk (degrees of control) • opportunity • switching behavior; • responsive behaviors discontent; window of • companies are driven to opportunity transparency! (”conversations are • choice of engaging or not being held on the web with or without our consent.”)28
  29. 29. Strategic grid of social espionage (Salminen & Degbey, 2011) Engage Not engage Spy Full pot ―Machiavellian payoff‖ Not spy ―Sucker‘s payoff‖ Empty pot For example, if a competitor suffers from technical problems, a possible reaction would be to launch an opportunistic marketing campaign (…). Therefore, the process would aim to (1) detect competitor‘s problem, (2) respond rapidly by offering alternative, (3) win new customers. It is critical that the common pitfall of (…) delayed action is avoided – (…), the window of opportunity is easily lost as customers take adaptive behavior. (…) there is a common bullwhip effect that hinders big corporations‘ ability to leverage real-time information efficiently. A possible solution involves removing the firm‘s CI unit and instead empowering operational units to take direct action based on their proprietary judgment. “Customers are talking about their desires, needs and issues on Twitter, Facebook and blogs so why not take advantage of all this information to create a strategy built on leveraging the weaknesses of competitors. If your rivals are offering a window of opportunity, it makes complete sense to use social media to take advantage of it.” (Evans 2010)29
  30. 30. Startup neuvoo toista… ―In your case, you might want to contact people that are frustrated with existing tools, like basecamp: a quick search for #basecamp reveals: – It seems like #Basecamp does about 70% of a lot of things, but not 100% of any-one-thing. Too bad. – cuting off after 20 messages within categories & not having pagination sucks! I cant find anything!!!!! – WTF kind of sense does it make to click on a Milestone link & go to a LIST of milestones instead of THE milestone? The first one looks promising. You might contact him and see if he would use your product.‖30
  31. 31. Suoramarkkinoinnin mahdollisuus, kun mainonta on liian kallista ―We‘ve had trouble using adwords to test out shopping site as well. Our clicks typically cost $.50 or so. Quite an expensive way to experiment. As a result, we‘ve moved to contacting people directly on twitter. There are a lot of people stating their interest for women‘s accessories. In addition to being free, twitter also allows you to actually communicate directly with the people that will be using your site / testing your idea.‖31
  32. 32. Case ”United breaks guitars” Katso: Olet Unitedin markkinointipäällikkö. Miten reagoit? United − videon kehuminen − soitto ja pahoittelu − pyyntö käyttää videota koulutusmateriaalina − lupaus muuttaa käytäntöjä − 3000 $ lahjoitus hyväntekeväisyyteen32
  33. 33. Case British Petroleum ―Twitter is very confused by BPGlobalPR, the conspicuously fictitious Twitter account ―belonging to‖ the public relations division of British Petroleum. On May 20, the anonymous author began posting silly tweets in which he/she proclaimed that the ocean is “half-full” of oil, not half empty, announced a free matches giveaway, and instructed readers to send $25 for “B.P. Cares” t-shirts. This is not so funny to people who fail to identify it as a joke! ―wait, seeing two sea-creatures fight makes ruining thousands of lives and much of the south‘s economy worth it?‖ asked one user. Another Twitterer took an equally brave stand: ―I think it‘s disgusting that @BPGlobalPR is making flippant jokes about the destruction of our wetlands- -see the preceding retweet.‖ Others skipped the pulpit and went straight to nonsensical death wishes: ―why the hell are you all being so nonchalant about this?! Youve destroyed the ocean‘s balance, I hope you die in the recession.‖‖ (Weiner 2010)  Lähti liikkeelle BP:n kömpelöstä reagoinnista; heikkoa maineenhallintaa, osaamattomuus Twitterin käyttöön33
  34. 34. Hmm….34
  35. 35. McDonald’s vastaa…35
  36. 36. Viral contamination? (Roth 2011) ―In response, McDonald‘s sent a tweet of its own on Saturday: ‗That pic is a senseless & ignorant hoax McDs values ALL our customers. Diversity runs deep in our culture on both sides of the counter.‘ But that clearly wasnt enough to clear things up, because Twitter users continued to send out the picture, with that same message of condemnation: ‗Seriously McDonald’s.‘ Indeed, so many people sent ‗Seriously McDonald‘s‘ Tweets that the phrase became a leading entry on Twitter‘s trend list. That led to a second, blunter McTweet, on Sunday: ‗That Seriously McDonalds picture is a hoax.‘ The latest pushback effort seems to have helped keep the photo from spreading too much further--but there’s no telling how many people out there still think the photo is for real.‖36
  37. 37. Process for emergency reaction in social media (Salminen, working paper) Phase Description Company imperative 0 emergence ‖patient zero‖ emerges in oblivion 1 alert story reaches some company should be virality alerted (‖set filters‖) 2 reaction the public participates take corrective in discussion measures (‖react‖) 3 counter- the public responds to capture and analyze reaction company‘s reaction responses (‖listen‖) 4 decisive the company clarifies take action to reaction how it will help to solve demonstrate the problem seriousness (‖signal credibility‖) 5 spread or company becomes withdraw from decay either a good or bad discussion (‖exit‖) example37
  38. 38. Gmail v138
  39. 39. Gmail v239
  40. 40. Kommentit vaihtelevat kohteliaista erittäin aggressivisiin (rant) • I seriously wonder of Google designers are on drugs. Are u kidding with the new Gmail design. It looks horrible, and its much harder to navigate. Why does Google keep having to screw around with perfectly good designs. Are u trying to drive us away to other companies? • Please do not force us to switch to a new (and might I add, hideous) interface if we dont like it. Changing things for the sake of changing them, despite quite a bit of negative feedback, and more importantly, without giving users the choice to not have their interface changed, is a horribly blind management decision. I stopped using my Google Reader after the layout switch. I will stop using Gmail if a new layout is likewise forced upon me. Users want choice and ease-of- use. If you take away that choice and force users to adapt to a new look they may not like, you will lose users. • You are making some of the worst decisions Ive ever seen Google make. Some of the simplest things are the things you are totally ruining. • In Google Docs, the upload button doesnt say upload anymore--instead its a box with an arrow coming out of it. "Oh, but its visually consistent!" you say. WHO CARES?! Youre choosing dogmatism over pragmatism. Youre following a blind man towards a cliff. • Oh, Im sure Im wasting my time--Googles demonstrated that it doesnt care what its users think anymore. Those of us with sense remaining are like voices crying in the desert. • Hey Alex, Fuck You. Youve got a bunch of people beta-testing the "New" Gmail for you, and guess what, theyre a bunch of "Yes Men". They think if they say your new design is "teh awesome" that theyll benefit. Well, as someone who actually uses G • I HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE (TO INFINITY) THE NEW LOOK...THE FONT SIZE IS SET FOR THE BLIND...I HAVE PERFECT VISION AND IT HURTS MY EYES EVERY TIME I LOOK AT THE PAGE. I HAVE TO SCROLL FOREVER TO READ MY EMAILS OR ACCESS ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS/OPTIONS I SELECTED. THE SETUP IS ATROCIOUS...WHAT ON EARTH WERE THEY THINKING.Mail, on a "Real World" PC system, let me tell you the "New" Gmail is well nigh unusable. • I AM REALLY STARTING TO HATE GOOGLE. THEY MADE A CHANGE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO AND SAID YOU COULD CHANGE IT BACK TO THE OLD FORMAT, BUT THAT NEVER WORKED EITHER. JUST A THOUGHT...WOULDNT IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO GIVE US ("THE PEOPLE") THE OPTION OF OPTING INTO THE NEW LOOK. • There is the HITLERISTIC (Google - cram it right down your throat) approach - here is the change DEAL WITH IT, NO, we dont read how your telling us how bad it is, no we dont care if it doesnt work for you, or at all, we dont read your comments we are being polite by asking for them but they mean nothing. • etc. etc…40
  41. 41. Product modification backlashes: Anatomy of a rant (Salminen 2012, working paper) • user express hate for various motives – feel they have not been listened – change resistance – don‘t understand need for change – company is perceived as arrogant and authorative – emotions: insecurity, sense of deception • tactics for ranting – polite – repetitive – aggressive – compromising (constructive) • group effect – others negative comments reinforce the cycle of rants – strong group coherence and aggression towards deviation41
  42. 42. Share of discussion (Salminen 2012) share of discussion: suhteellinen osuus, jolla yksi brändi osallistuu tuotekategorian keskusteluihin – asiakkaat eivät puhu niin paljon brändeistä kuin mitä yritykset luulevat (fallacy of mindshare), vaan enemmänkin omista ongelmistaan – yrityksen on oltava läsnä näissä keskusteluissa, ei ainoastaan niissä joissa keskustellaan brändistä – tapa vaikuttaa on tuottaa hyötyä keskustelussa, ei mainostaa omaa tuotetta • bränditunnettuus (brand awareness) • yhteys harkintajoukkoon (consideration set) • epäsuora suostuttelureitti (indirect route to persuasion)42
  43. 43. Aitoa vai ei? Kas siinä pulma…43
  44. 44. Epäaidon viestinnän tuntomerkit • epämääräisiä viittauksia tutkimuksiin, ei kuitenkaan linkkejä niihin • markkinointiadjektiivien käyttö (‖maailman paras‖) • ei mainita huonoja puolia • linkki yrityksen sivulle • vastikään rekisteröitynyt käyttäjä44
  45. 45. Kiitos! PE 10: 1545