OnlineMarketerBlog

I love this time of year. It’s the season when people slow down, plan, and re-focus on their goals. I do it. You do it.

For smart marketers, a great way to stay up to date is through the very best information (makes sense, right?). So here are some of the books that I’ve found most helpful, most insightful, and the best guides for marketing in the coming years.

You can purchase items I recommend at the OnlineMarketerBlog store, including Kindles and books like these that I reviewed in 2009:

• - Mitch Joel’s Six Pixels of Separation In my mind, this is the first post-web 2.0 book and a must-read for savvy online marketers.
• - Paul Gillin’s Secrets of Social Media Marketing This is a great book to take your online marketing to the next level. However, newbies might be frustrated by the scope of experience needed to fully understand all of the lessons in this book. That said, this is great for those generally familiar with online marketing tools.
• - Goldstein, Martin, and Cialdini’s Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways To Be Persuasive This is a book every marketer should revisit every couple of years. If you want to convince people – and who doesn’t? – you should read this book.
• - David Meerman Scott’s World Wide Rave The perfect primer for business in a web 2.0 world. It offers a great entry point for new marketers and fresh ideas for more familiar readers.
• - Scott Fox’s e-Riches 2.0 This is a must-read for anyone dipping a toe in the online marketing world. It details everything one could hope to know and offers an in-depth look at the tools and philosophy behind today’s online marketing. A little more basic than World Wide Rave, but a great primer.
  
• - Hunter and Waddell’s Toy Box Leadership This book is a good reminder of how to lead, without taking too heavy a tone. For the ambitious and parents, especially.

I spend over 500 hours per year writing this blog. And even more time reading and researching the material that goes into it. A lot of that material comes from books like these.

Marketers can gain the smarts and skills needed for success through books like these. But like Lavar Burton says, “Don’t take my word for it.” Try out some of these books, or others I’ve discussed on the blog, and let everyone know what you think of them in the comments section below.

You can read full reviews for all of these books on the Book Reviews page. Plus, my reviews from last holiday season might give you some more ideas as well.

(The links used above are affiliate links which means I get a small referral fee from Amazon if you purchase them from this page. This does not raise the price for you and it’s a nice way to show appreciation if you enjoy this blog. Thanks!)

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below. You can also show some love by buying stuff from the nice people advertising to the right.

(Image courtesy of morizo via Flickr)

I don’t often veer off the strict marketing road here at OMB, but the fight against cancer is important to me and millions of people around the world (and maybe you, too).

I’m happy to announce that you – folks who care enough to read this blog, plus my family and friends – raised $300 to fight prostate and testicular cancer! Plus, my corporate team raised over $1,500!

Thanks to many folks, including fellow marketer David Mullen, I raised several hundred dollars to benefit a good cause. And I never could have done it without such a committed, wonderful group of readers of this blog. For that, I thank you.

I don’t reflect very much on how this blog has affected my life, but it’s times like these when I want to thank the whole OMB family – readers, visitors, and hard-core fanatics (both of you), alike. I sincerely, sincerely appreciate it.

If you missed the chance during “Movember,” it’s not too late. You can still donate to my MOvember page.

Or, if you’d like to make other year-end charitable gifts, here are two worthy groups BG and I support (both accept tax-deductible donations):

• New Leash On Life dog rescue: We volunteer with NLOL (heck, we’ve been fostering Izzy for a couple months), and strongly believe in protecting otherwise-homeless or euthanized dogs in Chicago. You can make a tax-deductible donation on their site.
• Open Books operates a community bookstore and provides community programs to promote literacy. They’re a non-profit organization that actually does a lot of good for literacy (especially among children) in Chicago. You can donate here and make a real difference.

Thanks again for proving the quality of readership that this blog has. Your support – whether financial or just in spirit – made Movember a success and I can’t thank you enough.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below.

A Brief Intro…

I started this three-part series with a discussion of “the new creativity” and asked if the freemium business model would be better for video content sites like Hulu. Then, I outlined 7 ways Hulu could benefit from a freemium model.

And finally, after all of this persuasive writing, I’d like to examine how a few boneheaded marketers will probably f*ck up the whole “free video content” thing for everyone.

Intrigued? I thought so. Let’s get into it.

They’ll Never Pay For It. Until They Do.

In my last post, I outlined a plan where Hulu could profit by packaging some already- (or mostly-) existing assets into an awesome premium package some viewers would gladly pay for.

Hulu would be happy because they’d be making money. Their free audience would be happy because they’d still get great shows for zilch. And their premium audience would be happy because they’d get a bunch of perks and cool stuff for a nominal fee.

You’d think everyone would be happy, right?

Peter Verna, senior analyst with eMarketer is pessimistic that these perks could be bundled together into a premium package. He was quoted in a November OMMA article, “Trim Marks“:

“It’s fair to say that consumers are generally not willing to pay directly for online video…

I also think that if Hulu and YouTube are going to start charging for some of their content, they should limit it to feature films. Virtually everything else they offer seems to work better in an ad-supported context, with the caveat that user-generated clips are challenging to monetize through any model.”

True, most of the examples in “Trim Marks” were from digital studios creating original content. But comments like Verna’s certainly apply to sites like Hulu and the lessons ought to be applied to any website specializing in video content. The history of online video over the past 10 years or so would support his notion that people generally won’t pay for online content.

My point is that premium customers aren’t paying for online video. They’re paying for more flexibility. They’re paying for the ability to suggest shows or brag to their friends. They are paying for a better user experience.

A Lonely Voice Crying Out From The Wilderness

Of course, not all agencies are going to challenge their clients to try new business models. Many are happy to pretend the world isn’t changing.

In that same OMMA article, John McCarus, VP and director of brand content at Third Act, said “We have made an investment in this and we are doing everything we can to connect the stars in the content-creation community with clients that understand the space and have an appetite.”

OK, that’s McCarus’ idea, but will this sit well with content creators? Isn’t this the definition of selling out? If online trust is built through honesty, sincerity, and reputation, I don’t see how this will work long-term. Sure, one-offs will flock to it, but creators looking to connect will likely shy away from this business model.

But the suits go ever further! Studios need to “make room for advertisers to play an active role in the shape of a show,” says Alan Schulman, executive creative director for The Digital Innovations Group.

Are you friggin’ kidding me? So instead of advertising against content, they will dictate the content as well?

Read the rest of this entry »

This week I’ve been positing a theory to you folks: That the new creativity is ideally expressed through a freemium business model.

And today, I’d like to apply this theory. Let’s kick this idea around:

I believe a freemium model would best suit video sites like Hulu and others, rather than a traditional “subscription” model where some content lies behind a firewall. A bunch of video sites like Hulu are looking to monetize, but who will find the process that entices viewers to pull out their wallets?

Today, I will outline 7 ways Hulu could package what they already have into a freemium model users would willingly pay for (clamor for, more like it).

[Quick sidenote: For the lead-in and first official post in this series, check out the links in the first paragraph. Since this is #2 out of 3 in the series, subscribe to ensure you receive the third in this series and all subsequent posts. Now, back to the fun!]

Let’s See It In Action

If the new creativity is getting someone to tell their friends about your product, how much is a crappy ad going to convince me? Not much. And when was the last time you bragged to a friend about an old-school subscription?

The new creativity and the freemium model were made for each other.

Consumers tell their friends about great new services, especially free ones. As virally distributed critical mass builds, a certain fraction of those folks will opt for a premium version of that service.

The new creativity brings people in. A freemium model expands this audience and makes the whole endeavor profitable.

But what about Hulu? It’s nowhere near as big as Google-owned YouTube, but Hulu almost certainly has more pressure to produce profit. Ad overlays are tolerated, but a subscription model was recently mocked by CNN because it “may send most of Hulu’s users searching for alternatives.”

Consider this:

What if Hulu adopted a freemium model? What types of premiums could they offer for a small cost to a fraction of the tens of millions of people who watch?

And what if the premiums were outside the narrow realm of “content”? Ad Week reported that “A Hulu rep said the company’s strategy of offering high-quality content supported by advertising remains unchanged, while leaving the door open to adding paid content.” But what if it wasn’t just content they charged for?

If the new creativity is a method of encouraging consumers to talk about the brand to other consumers, while creating more direct access to the brand…let’s think creatively about how Hulu can create something users will not only pay for, but tell their friends about as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

This week, I am writing a three-part series about business models for online video websites. Sites are changing. Online business is changing. Video is blowing up.

It’s time we really thought about the best way to profit from creating and displaying video, while providing the best experience for the user.

Let’s get to it.

(Quick note: Subscribing ensures you won’t miss subsequent posts.)

What’s A Hulu Subscription Look Like?

In recent days, Hulu – the NBC/Fox/ABC-backed video site – released and then recanted news that it intended to charge for service via News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey.

Carey said that Hulu would need to incorporate a “meaningful subscription model as part of its business.” But he didn’t go into any more detail than that.

Most pundits assumed this meant a firewall-blocked subscription model in the works – a slightly backwards-looking model that succeeds best in scarcity: scarcity of quality content and scarcity in access.

But we don’t live in that world anymore. The online channel has tons of quality content and most content creators/publishers are tripping over themselves to provide online access to their work.

The old version of a subscription model would be met with great hostility considering 1) there is no lack of free video content online and 2) it reeks of a bait-and-switch to start charging for something that had already been totally free.

So how can Hulu make money?

The New Creativity

I had already been thinking about this in my review of old business models (easily or not-so-easily) moving into the digital space. I detailed the changing business models in my post Why The New Creativity Changes Everything.

I advocated what Joseph Jaffe dubbed “The New Creativity” in The Beancast episode #76 around minutes 37-38. The short version is this:

• The old creativity was centered around innovative ways that advertisers and marketers could loudly/rudely/creatively interrupt a consumer’s day in order to push their brand message.
• The new creativity requires that the advertiser or marketer create an experience so compelling that consumers share it amongst their peer groups.

So, instead of a one-way marketer-to-consumer system, we now have a system where marketers try to influence the influencers, while also realizing that they are in a dialogue with all consumers and potential consumers as well.

Sounds simple, right? It helps explain why we’ve seen the boom in things like social media marketing and the downward trend in direct marketing and TV/radio ads.

The “Freemium” Option

If Hulu is to succeed, especially when in direct competition to Google-owned YouTube, it needs to be nimble and creative. They need to think beyond non-contextual ads and firewalled content.

Largely embraced by social networking sites, a freemium business model hasn’t been adopted by many larger, more traditional companies. But it has the potential to provide a great customer experience and differentiate Hulu from well-known competitors.

A recent eMarketer study reported on an Abrams Research survey in which social media leaders were asked the best way to monetize social media (note: it doesn’t say how they determined who was a “social media leader,” but just go with me for a second).

The most popular answer? 45.5% of respondents answered that a freemium model would be most profitable – more than double the next most popular response.

Chris Anderson defines a freemium business model in The Long Tail:

“Already, one of the most common business models on the Internet…is to attract lots of users with a free service and convince some of them to upgrade to a subscription-based ‘premium’ one that adds higher quality or better features.”

It is roughly a business where most of the basic services are free, but a percentage of uses pay for more/better/quicker elements of that basic package.

Flickr is a common example. Anyone in the world can start an account and upload 100MB of photos and 2 videos per month. This satisfies a great (happy) majority. However, a “Pro” account provides unlimited uploads, archiving, high-res options, and expanded groups.

The key is that the paying customers – the committed 10% let’s say – cover the cost of the 90% using a basic service for free.

A freemium model isn’t for every business. It favors businesses that are tech-centric, start-up/new, agile, and almost exclusively offering an online service. But what model could be more perfect for the era of social networks?

Let’s See It In Action

Tomorrow, I will outline seven ways Hulu could package technology they already have into a freemium model users would willing pay for (heck, I sure would).

Sites like Hulu, facing competition from Google and a number of start-ups, will need to be nimble and smart. I hope you join us tomorrow to gauge for yourself whether my suggestions would be worthwhile for sites like Hulu.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below.

(Image courtesy of (A3R) angelrravelor (A3R) via Flickr)