Veeroll Crushes It Using Facebook Ads, And Now You Can Too!

Spending only $2,500, tech startup Veeroll was able to sell 122 subscriptions in two weeks using targeted Facebook ads. Depending on the size of your company, that is either pocket change, or your entire social ad budget. Deciding the best strategy to help grow your business can be tricky. Luckily, Veeroll was kind enough to share exactly what they did to achieve these results in a recent article on digitalmarketer.com. Ironically, Veeroll is a company that helps its customers generate video ads automatically. Nevertheless, here are some of the key takeaways from their experience.

The first lesson is to avoid doing all of this on your own. Most entrepreneurs are people that want to turn a great idea in the viable business. That doesn't mean they are experts in digital marketing. Join  a community group and seek advice from people who do this for a living. Advertising on Facebook can be risky, so it helps to have an expert on your side to help you optimize your CPC and other metrics.

The second lesson can be abbreviated as ABO - Always be optimizing. Use the Facebook Ads manager reporting system to see who is responding and who is not. This will help you see trends and give you the insight needed to find out if your message is resonating with your intended audience and leading to actionable results.

The third, and potentially biggest takeaway, is that video creates a higher engagement rate than image or text. Period. According to data from Simply Measured, videos are typically shared 1200% more times than links and text combined. This is probably part of the reason why Facebook and other social media companies are investing in video at their current rate.

The fourth lesson is to know your audience. Veeroll ran their Facebook campaign in two different phases. The first phase was a website click campaign aimed at people on the network who expressed interest in Veeroll's niche market. They also tried to find look-a-like profiles to their current mailing list. The second phase of the campaign was sent to a another segment of the same "cold" audience, along with a set of "warm" leads who had previously visited the website and blog. Veeroll also found if beneficial to be creative with the ads that were sent. Give your audience something fun to do or watch as a way of standing out from the crowd.

The fifth lesson was that the ads were much more successful when there was a focus on "giving over getting". You can't always know which stage of the buying process your target may be in, but you are going to greatly increase the likelihood of your ad being effective if you consistently provide something of value. Veeroll noticed a significantly higher relevance score when the ad recipients perceived value from the ad.

The final lesson is the be organized, but don't wait forever to pull the trigger. Before you start your campaign have a specific goal and strategy in mind. Revisit your plan often to ensure your ads are working. At the same time, you won't score on the shots that you don't take. While this of advertising may seem intimidating, you aren't going to reap any rewards if you refuse to take a risk.

The Future Is Finally Here. What Does That Mean For Media Companies?

Virtual reality. For so many years, even just hearing the words got me excited. It has been this "thing" that is going to change the world and the way we live in it. But at the same time, it has always been just out of reach.  At 35, I can recall even at a very young age being told by my parents and teachers that VR is going to be here one of these days. But as I got older, it just never really seemed to materialize. It has always been this illusive target. Believe it or not, but the concept of virtual reality is almost as old as the television. You can watch some early videos of VR on YouTube. It's pretty entertaining. Anyway, are we finally on the verge of a major technological breakthrough that will bring VR to the masses?

VR was brought back to the forefront of technological discussion after the sale of Oculus to Facebook for Billion dollars. This acquisition shows just show serious tech companies are getting about the potential of VR. It leads me to wonder if the future is finally here?

Mark Zuckerberg essentially triple stamped a double stamp (Pro Tip: You can't triple stamp a double stamp; If you know your "Dumb and Dumber" banter) at F8 when we made it clear that VR and AR (augmented reality) are going to be a major part of the strategic vision for Facebook, just as for Google, Samsung and presumably Apple.

A recent article by Justin Hendrix dove into the what all of this means for media companies. He argues that since there is a significant chance VR will emerge as an important communications medium in the next decade, it's time to structure experiments to build expertise and open up opportunities. The challenge is that many media companies are already spread thin from a budgetary standpoint in order to keep pace with the transition to mobile and the increased focus on big data. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any type of business model that can be utilized. The best way to stay ahead of the game will be to encourage first-mover employees to experiment and to partner with universities and tech companies. The both seem to have the financial resources and enthusiasm for VR, but are lacking in the content department.

I am curious to see how tech and media companies alike begin to utilize this new exciting technology. Discovery has already started making investments in VR. This might be the only way I can get my soon-to-be wife to go on a safari, or sky diving with me. This should Hopefully if and when VR does go mainstream it will be more than just "the world's greatest porn machine". Not that there is anything wrong with that from a business perspective. Someone is going to make a killing doing that, but I digress. Would love to hear your opinions on this. is VR just going to be for gamers and lonely people, or will other industries take advantage of the new wave of enthusiasm and create experiential products that can be enjoyed by the masses?

Has Digital Media Made it Easier to Sway Voters and Steal Elections?

Just for a second, close your eyes and imagine someone involved in running a major political campaign being implicated in an activity that is devious, probably illegal, and extremely influential all at the same time. Shocking, right? I will give you a moment to either pick your jaw off of the floor, or stop laughing. Although I have a feeling it is probably the latter. Okay, so maybe it is no secret that political hacks have been engaging in shady shenanigans since the invention of elections. But, now that the front lines of politics are becoming increasingly digital, is it possible that the battle is only getting dirtier, and potentially more dangerous? 

I recently read an article in Fortune Magazine that commented on the increasingly influential role that social media (particularly Twitter) has played in the 2016 election. That in itself shouldn't be a surprise. Twitter provides a platform for candidates to directly engage with constituents on a massive scale. Something else that may not be a surprise is the recent accusations by TechRepublic that candidates are using fake followers to boost their following and increase their influence. The Clinton and Trump campaigns have faced the most skepticism to this point. So, this leads one to ask if this trend is creating a real impact. Do bots and fake followers really matter?

There is no more perfect an example of this dangerous slippery slope than Andrés Sepúlveda. Andrés is a Latin American political operative recently profiled by Bloomberg. He used a custom software to direct 30,000 Twitter bots to create false enthusiasm for candidates and spread rumors about the opposition. He says the tactics gave him “the power to make people believe almost anything.” It is scary to think you can influence millions of people at a moments notice all around the world by spreading lies. Think of the impact that can have on an election. Andrés being the true pro that he is, also hacked emails and stole data. He currently resides in prison, but what's interesting is that the person who originally employed Andrés claims to have been contacted by Donald Trump's campaign.

So, that leads to my ultimate question. Are the online campaign tactics of today inherently nastier, dirtier, and more impact full than those of elections before the modern age? I mean, how much damage could someone really do back before information was so easily shared? If you aren't an American history buff, the answer may surprise you.

For example, the 1888 election between Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison was plagued will dirty tactics such fake letters, vote buying, and outright fraud. In the end, Cleveland lost the election despite winning the popular vote. Sound familiar? Al Gore, I am looking in your direction. Rutherford B. Haynes won the 1876 Presidential election through a backroom deal that led to the end of the Reconstruction efforts after the civil war. Perhaps nothing can top the 1824 election in which Speaker of the House, John Clay essentially robbed Andrew Jackson (whom he loathed) of the Presidency, despite Jackson winning both the popular vote and majority of electoral votes. John Quincy Adams would be the benefactor of that scandal. So, whether it is misinformation, or downright corruption, the tactics of yesteryear did just as much to impact elections as anything someone can come up with on Twitter. Is it scary? Yes. Can it impact an election? Probably. But frankly, we have seen worse over the years.

Don't just take my opinion, what are your thoughts? Are election tactics any worse today than they used to be, or do we as voters just have selective memories?  

Is Social Sharing More Powerful Than Web Traffic?

If you talk to people working in social media and digital marketing, you will hear about the importance of web traffic. In fact, web traffic is typically considered to be a primary indicator of the potential success of an online based company. On the surface, that theory makes sense. Web traffic is tangible and easy to track. Additionally, one can assume that if a website is getting a lot of traffic, there is a good chance that the site/business has generated interest in the market place.  However, in a recent article, Jeff Bullas pointed out that site traffic only tells part of the story.

Jeff's main point is that it's not just the traffic that your site is receiving, but the quality of that traffic. The power of the web does not come from content or traffic alone. There is a big difference between site "tourists" (who visit your site, spend no money, and never return) and site "residents" (people who return to your site often and actually engage or spend money). Additional research has shown that 83% of current CMO's believe that social sharing is the most important benefit of social marketing. Not web traffic.  

There are a lot of reasons why people share content but numerous studies show there are three primary motivators:

• The content serves as an extension of their self-identity (it makes me look cool, relevant, smart)
• Sharing is an act of kindness to help others
• Sharing shows support of a person, brand or cause

The reason they feel so strongly because they know that 70% of their customers are more likely to buy something when it was shared by a friend. Sharing content indicates that you have read the material and deem it worthy of passing along to your network. Essentially that person has decided to become an advocate for that brand.

The emphasis on trust over traffic makes for a compelling argument, The bottom line is that there is a growing trend where consumers are making decisions based on recommendations from their network. I see this trend growing in my line of work as well. Currently, 89% of people thinking about switching jobs consult with a member of their network before making a decision, 

While this theory makes sense, it is not without its challenges. The chief among them being that it takes time to build trust. In my last blog post I spoke about common marketing myths. One of those myths was that success should be instant. Therefore, content marketers are going to need to ignore than myth and adopt a more long-term strategy. This can be easier said than practiced when dealing with tight budgets and high expectations. 

 So what do you think? How much more likely are you to try a product of service that was recommended by a friend? 

Digital Marketing Myths: Don't Believe The Hype

I recently read an article about common digital marketing myths that are believed by scores of small business owners around the world. It highlighted five separate myths that can prevent or derail the success of a small business, or prevent it all together. I figured I would give a quick rundown of the myths that particularly resonated with me.

The first and probably most egregious myth is that digital marketing is only for big businesses. If nothing else, professor Kaplan's class has given me a whole new respect for the value of the long tail. You don't have to be a huge company spending millions of dollars on Super Bowl Ads to effectively market your business. You just need to be visible to the niche customers that are looking for you. A well developed website and a savvy SEO strategy can be the answer for a small business with an equally small budget.

Second, is the myth that email marketing is really just spam and that it doesn't work. After our last class, I think it is safe to say that the value of email marketing is unquestionable. It is inexpensive and has proven returns. Again, even if you have almost no money, you can use tools like Mailchimp, Benchmark, or Vertical Response to reach thousands of potential customers for free. As long as you offer value, your odds getting seeing a positive ROI are good.

Finally, (and I am lumping two myths together here) we have the myth that you need to be everywhere, and that success should come quickly. Both of these ideas couldn't be further from the truth. I experienced this first-hand while leading a social media focused talent acquisition strategy for a publicly traded company. One of my initial goals was to be everywhere the candidates could potentially be. We were on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Zip Recruiter, Monster, etc. However, I only fully invested my time in LinkedIn. We set up some automated job sharing campaigns, but they were never successful. It took a year to realize that the people we wanted to hire (and more importantly, who wanted to work for us) just weren't finding us through those channels. And it wasn't because of our messaging. It was because they simply weren't there. By doing fewer things better, we ended up being more successful. My advice to business owners is to spend some time thinking about where you customers are going to be. You probably won't be successful advertising to lumberjacks on Pinterest.

 At LinkedIn we work with companies on employer branding. The goal of most of these campaigns is to be seen as a great place to work in the eyes of potential employees. This in turn makes the job of corporate recruiters much easier. Setting up realistic expectations of success, as well as a timeline to realize that success is critical. Clients who expect to see instant changes are nearly always disappointed. It just doesn't work like that. That is why we typically advise our clients to allow for several months to a year before we expect to see long-term benefits of any campaign.

Take your time, do your research, and take advantage of the many low cost options that are out there. Finally, do as Flavor Flav would say and "Don't believe the hype". Small companies can be successful in the digital marketing world.

Evergreen Content: The Gift That Keeps On Givin' The Whole Year

In a recent article, I read about the many benefits of producing quality content. While this seems like a no-brainer, I never thought about why quality content is not only more enjoyable to consume, but also has substantial back end implication related to SEO.

An example of an evergreen blog post in my line of work might be, "How to craft the perfect LinkedIn profile". It is considered evergreen because it is relevant, helpful, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. It is not a fad that will fall off the face of the earth in a couple of weeks. Essentially, the content continues to attract web traffic for prolonged periods of time. The good news is that evergreen content isn't limited to just blog posts. Typical formats include ebooks, videos, landing pages and guides. The article recommends using free tools like Google Keyword Planner  and Quora to help you find out what is going to be most relevant to your audience.

Why is evergreen content so helpful to your webpage and SEO results?

Evergreen content ranks well in Google, gets high engagement and provides long-time value. All of this engagement shows Google that the content must be valuable and relevant to a large audience. When Google’s algorithm notices that your content is gaining a lot of engagement, the end result is a higher ranking in search.

Why does this matter to me?

That ranking matters because only 16% of clicks are collected by sites listed after the first page of a google search. Therefore, it is definitely in your best interests as a blogger to be on that first page. A great evergreen post is often a well-written piece that answers a common problem in a particular industry or field that also provides multiple links to other relevant content.

Once you have created your content, don't forget to share it. Everywhere. Share it on your site, share it by email and share it via social media.

Relief From Whack-a-Mole Marketing

I read an interesting article recently written by a friend of mine that turned out to be very topical to our most recent class. Harry St. John works at LinkedIn in our marketing department. Ironically, I also happened to coach his older brother while was a lacrosse player over ten year ago. That however, is another story for a different day.

Anyway, Harry commented on the constant game of whack-a-mole that currently exists between publishers and ad-blockers. While publishers are going to greater and greater lengths to allow companies to advertise, the problem does not look like it is going to go away any time soon.  It really is just the side-effect of bad advertising. In fact, a recent survey found that 75% of people have become motivated to black ads because of their intrusiveness. Frankly, if marketers created content that was compelling enough for potential customers to want to see it, it wouldn't be blocked.

At LinkedIn, sponsored update campaigns are one of the fasted growing offerings of our marketing solutions. Companies are typically only allowed to share content with users that follow their company. However, with sponsored updates, a company can now share particularly compelling information with anyone our platform deems relevant. The campaign is done on a CPC model. Customers only pay for the clicks, not the numbers of impressions. Once the post have been made, LinkedIn offers analysis that shows the level of engagement, and how many new followers were gained for time the update.

With a focus on providing value, it is not uncommon to see 20, 30, or even 40% additional value driven from the free social actions that follow the initial release. People don’t want to block a well-executed a sponsored update; they want to share it.

There will be much debate about ad-blockers in the future as the game of whack-a-mole continues, but it would be great if marketers took this recent increase in blockers as a call to focus on well targeted, interesting ads. 

There's No Sharing in Basball!

One of my favorite lines from any sports movie is the famous, "There's no crying in baseball" line delivered by Tom Hanks in "A League of Their Own". His character was making the point that pro athletes (particularly women) are not supposed to show emotion during the game. It was a joke. What is not a joke is the fact that professional athletes in nearly every sport are banned from sharing while on the field. That is, they are banned from using social media while the game is live.

However, the tide is slowly beginning to turn. The NFL allowed players for the first time to tweet during the 2016 Pro Bowl. Most recently, The MLB has decided to lift it's ban on 'in-game" social media use by allowing players to use Snapchat in the dugout during one spring training game on March 11th. (Click on the article  for more information.) There is no doubt that social media now plays a major role in professional sports. Players and teams alike boast millions of followers. Social media provides a great platform to showcase the games biggest stars and most popular players. It also gives the fans greater access to the teams they love and creates a stronger sense of connectivity to the players who make the game so fun to watch. It is difficult to argue that strong business case cannot be made.

This leads to the bigger question. Should athletes be allowed to tweet, snap, or post during a game? I think it really depends on the sport. I grew up playing hockey and lacrosse before eventually giving up hockey to accept a college lacrosse scholarship. Looking back on my experience, I don't see how social media can play a role during a game. The action is too fast paced and the act of taking a picture from the bench, or sharing a tweet while the game is live is just not practical.

However, I don't see the harm in allowing players to use social media in a sport like baseball, football, or even golf. These sports provide much longer periods of downtime and do not require the level of constant attention like hockey, basketball, or my beloved lacrosse. Fans of the game will most likely want the access and the leagues will probably continue to become more socially friendly, but I don't know if there is ever going to be a widely accepted practice among all professional leagues.

I don't know if there is a right answer to this question, but I would love to know your thoughts.

Can YouTube really give you a whiter smile?

The days of wondering if social media can have a more significant impact than traditional media are over. In a recent article I learned how Colgate, a 209 year old company, shunned its traditional methods of marketing to better engage with its intended demographic.

After deliberating the best way to introduce a new Colgate Optic White Express White toothpaste, Philip Durocher, vice-president & general manager of Colgate Palmolive NA Oral Care said,  "In the past, we've tried to hit millennials over the head in TV and print. When we looked at reaching and connecting with them where they really are, YouTube was the logical place to go."  

That's right, instead of hiring a well-known celebrity to star in a series of TV and print ads, Colgate reached out to YouTube stars Andrea Brooks  and Blair Fowler. Are you asking yourself who they are? I certainly did. Andrea and Blair each host their own beauty and makeup show, and have over 5 million YouTube subscribers between them. Using the pair co-stars, Colgate created a reoccurring series on YouTube called "The Smile Show". With a trusting and captive audience, the duo acted not only as spokespersons, but also as actual users of the product. This gave them the ability to speak to their experience and progress over time. The show has been viewed over 24 million times and racked up an astonishing 84 years worth of viewing time.

The results weren't too shabby either. In fact, Colgate was able to increase brand awareness by 13%, purchase considerations by 10.8% and brand interest by 1116%. Colgate could not have imagined this type of success with traditional marketing campaign and will continue to shift dollars to digital. Durocher finished by saying, "I cannot imagine the company ever stepping back from where we got to this year; we will definitely be more and more into digital and especially digital video."

I think this is a brilliant idea and will become increasingly popular. These YouTube starts have something that is hard to come by. They have the attention and more importantly the trust of their millions of viewers. Study after study shows that people are more likely to act on recommendations from someone they trust. Additionally, consumers are finding ways to bypass advertisements regardless of the format. Traditional methods fail to get their message to the intended audience. Kudos to Colgate for being willing to try something new, and showing that old dogs can learn new tricks. Can watching YouTube really give you a whiter smile? I am going to have to say yes.

A few words for advice to those thinking about starting a social media campaign

I recently read an article about the ins and outs of running a social media campaign, and how social media continues to "revolutionize" the marketing industry. It is true that social media has given companies access and a voice that was once reserved to only the biggest and most powerful organizations on the planet. There are now multiple channels that give even the smallest of companies the ability to interact with its customers, vendors, and evangelists alike.
However, the increase of accessibility doesn't mean anything goes. The normal rules of business and success still apply. A company can't just be social for the sake of being social. I hear about this all of the time in my line of work, Companies want to get involved in social media because they know that their peers are doing it and they don't want to miss out on the action. Before you know it, they dive in head first with no idea what they are doing, or even what they are trying to accomplish. It isn't long before these poor souls wave their collective white flags in defeat and become social naysayers. Is it the fault of social media? Of course not! If you said yes, then you are the same kind of person who blames the poor polar bear at the zoo for acting like a polar when some drunk frat boy climbs into his den on a dare.

While my example may be a bit extreme, the lesson rings true. It's not the wild west of marketing. You can't shoot first and aim later. Here are three easy to follow tips that will help ensure your social blood sweat and tears are not shed in vein.

1. If you want to succeed, you have to have a plan that ties into the overall business strategy. It sounds simple enough, but seriously, stop and ask yourself why you are doing this in the first place. If the campaign won't promote the overall business strategy, abort.

2. Treat social just like any other business or marketing campaign. You have to have goals. In fact, it is best to have targets in mind before you even start. This will make it easier to benchmark your progress during the campaign. Who are you trying to reach? What do you want to say? What do you ultimately what them to do? The answers to even these basic questions will help you determine where to spend your money. Social platforms are not one-size-fits-all.

3. Choose platforms that have cross functional capabilities. This will help you amplify the message while minimizing the amount of work you have to do. Speaking of the message, remember that quality content is king. Think of social just like any other conversation. You have to have to bring something of value, or you will be ignored.

So there you have it. While these rules may not make you a social media mogul, they will certainly help you  avoid becoming a social media misfit. Good luck and Happy sharing!