¿Cómo realizar una atribución correcta de conversiones? 1ª parte ‹ de Marketing Online

Hasta el día de hoy, plataformas que marcan una tendencia como las de Google Adwords, utilizan el modelo de atribución de crédito de conversiones al último clic, dentro de un período de 30 días, que es el que dura la cookie de campaña. Esto provoca que muchas conversiones fruto de primeras visitas al site que han generado campañas muy genéricas, se las terminen acreditando las campañas de marca u otra más específicas en una etapa más avanzada en el ciclo de compra (ver artículos sobre ciclo AIDA).

Como os podéis imaginar, es claramente un problema ya que no se está atribuyendo el verdadero impacto de las campañas “sembradoras” sino sólo a las “cosechadoras”. A juzgar por esta información, mucha gente decide parar sus campañas genéricas, o reducir la inversión, y esto es el primer error que se suele cometer. Este tipo de miopía, anula la inteligencia de marketing.

Pero el problema es aún más complejo porque el usuario de hoy es “multicanal”. Esto quiere decir que ni Adwords, ni los buscadores son las únicas fuentes de impacto que un usuario tiene en su ciclo de compra o previo de iniciar el mismo.


Via Scoop.ithuman being in – perfección

¿Qué es mejor, atribuir conversiones al primer clic o al último? . ¿Atribuir más peso al primero que al último, o al último que al primero?. La verdadera respuesta es: ninguno de las anteriores.
Para ser más claro, y en palabras que creo que esbozó un gran profesional de la analítica web, Mikel Chertudi, “No existen modelos correctos, aunque algunos son útiles“.

Con esta bofetada os anticipo la complejidad, a la vez que lo crítico que resulta el contar con un modelo de atribución útil para la optimización de campañas de Marketing Online, y la optimización de los presupuestos invertidos en las áreas de generación de tráfico que realmente aportan valor a tu empresa. Leer más “¿Cómo realizar una atribución correcta de conversiones? 1ª parte ‹ de Marketing Online”

Si el 85% de las decisiones de compra son inconscientes, ¿por qué no hacernos expertos en neuromarketing?

El análisis del comportamiento del consumidor gana cada vez más relevancia desde la óptica emocional y nos afecta a cualquier herramienta de marketing que pretendamos utilizar, desde la publicidad y la comunicación, el punto de venta, la imagen y posicionamiento de las marcas o cualquier otro estímulo que presentemos a nuestros potenciales consumidores o compradores.

El neuromarketing constituye un avance importante en el análisis y comprensión del comportamiento del consumidor a través de la aplicación rigurosa de los conocimientos y las técnicas de la neurociencia, y se revela como una nueva herramienta fundamental presente y futura de la investigación de mercados.


http://www.marketingdirecto.com
-.-

El 85% de las decisiones de compra son inconscientes. Conducta, aprendizaje, memoria, sensación, atención, cognición, percepción, emociones y actividad cerebral son conceptos que han adquirido una nueva dimensión en el ámbito empresarial y, concretamente, en el contexto del marketingEsta dimensión es el eje principal del neuromarketing.

El análisis del comportamiento del consumidor gana cada vez más relevancia desde la óptica emocional y nos afecta a cualquier herramienta de marketing que pretendamos utilizar, desde la publicidad y la comunicación, el punto de venta, la imagen y posicionamiento de las marcas o cualquier otro estímulo que presentemos a nuestros potenciales consumidores o compradores.

El neuromarketing constituye un avance importante en el análisis y comprensión del comportamiento del consumidor a través de la aplicación rigurosa de los conocimientos y las técnicas de la neurociencia, y se revela como una nueva herramienta fundamental presente y futura de la investigación de mercados. Leer más “Si el 85% de las decisiones de compra son inconscientes, ¿por qué no hacernos expertos en neuromarketing?”

Insights first, ideas second

A more strategic way of generating ideas is to focus on building ideas on top of insights. Don’t get me wrong, thinking stuff up is fun. You let your imagination run wild, think of the impossible and think all kinds of stuff only you can imagine. It’s your own dream world! Mostly all these ideas will be way ahead of their time or not even doable. That’s why we need to combine our imagination with our intellect. Our intellect drives our capability to discover insights and our imagination helps put the pieces together in a new way.

So how do you discover new insights?


(…)Abstract
By Jorge Barba, an Innovation Insurgent | http://www.game-changer.net

Insights, they’re the seeds of new groundbreaking ideas.

A more strategic way of generating ideas is to focus on building ideas on top of insights. Don’t get me wrong, thinking stuff up is fun. You let your imagination run wild, think of the impossible and think all kinds of stuff only you can imagine. It’s your own dream world! Mostly all these ideas will be way ahead of their time or not even doable. That’s why we need to combine our imagination with our intellect. Our intellect drives our capability to discover insights and our imagination helps put the pieces together in a new way.

So how do you discover new insights? Leer más “Insights first, ideas second”

The Innovation Gap – Leaders versus Teams

Most large organizations are built to optimize a set of predictable processes which support and maintain a given set of products or services. Over time our management styles have migrated to the point where we’ve optimized these processes and the products they enable to the detriment of new thinking, new products and new services. At least that’s what the senior executives think. What they miss is that while we’ve gotten really good at managing the status quo, most people aren’t energized by that work, and actually have plenty of free brain cycles left to commit to interesting new work. Most senior executives not only remember the organization as it was, but underestimate the engagement, capability and insight of the people who are in those roles now, or just don’t make enough demands of those teams. To those executives, the organization seems “brittle” – too unwilling or unable to change to meet the dynamics of the marketplace. That’s too bad, because I suspect they are wrong about their organizations.


by Jeffrey Phillips

The Innovation Gap - Leaders versus TeamsIt strikes me regularly that senior executives of many firms underestimate the insights and abilities of their companies. I guess that many of us grow up with a backward-looking preference. We prefer to remember how things were “when we were there” and expect those attributes and features to remain the same. For most of us, the people we worked with and the companies we worked for are still locked in the past, unbending and unchanging. I’m stealing a bit from Seth Godin’s recent post about “senior management“. His point, and mine, aren’t that senior managers are myopic or uninspired, although that’s certainly possible. It’s more that they have a vision but often aren’t confident that the organization can achieve the vision without painful change. These executives remember the organization as it was, rather than as it is.

Most large organizations are built to optimize a set of predictable processes which support and maintain a given set of products or services. Over time our management styles have migrated to the point where we’ve optimized these processes and the products they enable to the detriment of new thinking, new products and new services. At least that’s what the senior executives think. What they miss is that while we’ve gotten really good at managing the status quo, most people aren’t energized by that work, and actually have plenty of free brain cycles left to commit to interesting new work. Most senior executives not only remember the organization as it was, but underestimate the engagement, capability and insight of the people who are in those roles now, or just don’t make enough demands of those teams. To those executives, the organization seems “brittle” – too unwilling or unable to change to meet the dynamics of the marketplace. That’s too bad, because I suspect they are wrong about their organizations. Leer más “The Innovation Gap – Leaders versus Teams”

The Innovation gap between Executives and their teams

Most large organizations are built to optimize a set of predictable processes which support and maintain a given set of products or services. Over time our management styles have migrated to the point where we’ve optimized these processes and the products they enable to the detriment of new thinking, new products and new services. At least that’s what the senior executives think. What they miss is that while we’ve gotten really good at managing the status quo, most people aren’t energized by that work, and actually have plenty of free brain cycles left to commit to interesting new work. Most senior executives not only remember the organization as it was, but underestimate the engagement, capability and insight of the people who are in those roles now, or just don’t make enough demands of those teams. To those executives, the organization seems “brittle” – too unwilling or unable to change to meet the dynamics of the marketplace. That’s too bad, because I suspect they are wrong about their organizations.


It strikes me regularly that senior executives of many firms underestimate the insights and abilities of their companies.  I guess that many of us grow up with a backward-looking preference.  We prefer to remember how things were “when we were there” and expect those attributes and features to remain the same.  For most of us, the people we worked with and the companies we worked for are still locked in the past, unbending and unchanging.
I’m stealing a bit from Seth Godin‘s recent post about “senior management“.  His point, and mine, aren’t that senior managers are myopic or uninspired, although that’s certainly possible.  It’s more that they have a vision but often aren’t confident that the organization can achieve the vision without painful change.  These executives remember the organization as it was, rather than as it is. Leer más “The Innovation gap between Executives and their teams”

The dirty secret to finding a Unique Selling Proposition for something that isn’t unique

♠ When you’re selling, finding a point of difference is essential. You have to set yourself apart in the minds of your ideal prospect as the only—or at least the best—choice. Typically, the basis for this differentiation is a strong unique selling proposition (USP).

Figuring out a USP can be pretty hard—because, bluntly, you usually aren’t unique in a way that your prospects care about. And you aren’t selling anything unique in a way they care about. Virtually no one is. So what do you do?

If you’re smart, you cheat. Not in a dishonest way. Just in a cunning way. Read on, and I’ll let you in on the dirty lil secret that makes finding a USP much easier.
The three ways in which you can differentiate yourself…>>


♠ When you’re selling, finding a point of difference is essential. You have to set yourself apart in the minds of your ideal prospect as the only—or at least the best—choice. Typically, the basis for this differentiation is a strong unique selling proposition (USP).

Figuring out a USP can be pretty hard—because, bluntly, you usually aren’t unique in a way that your prospects care about. And you aren’t selling anything unique in a way they care about. Virtually no one is. So what do you do?

If you’re smart, you cheat. Not in a dishonest way. Just in a cunning way. Read on, and I’ll let you in on the dirty lil secret that makes finding a USP much easier.

The three ways in which you can differentiate yourself…>> Leer más “The dirty secret to finding a Unique Selling Proposition for something that isn’t unique”