Active vs. Passive Content Marketing | ioninteractive.com


BY SCOTT BRINKER 

According to the latest research from the Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs, 91% of B2B marketers have embraced content marketing. In fact, on average, B2B marketers are now allocating 1/3 of their budget for content marketing initiatives.

Marketers are making a big bet that content marketing tactics will deliver the outcomes they need: brand awareness, customer acquisition, and lead generation. These are their top organizational goals:

Brand awareness is important, but hard to quantify. However, customer acquisition and lead generation can be quantitatively measured. And indeed, more and more organizations are now tying these metrics directly to their content marketing initiatives. The top 5 measurement criteria for B2B content marketing success — with the customer acquisition and lead generation metrics emphasized — are:

  • Web traffic (60%)
  • Sales lead quality (51%)
  • Social media sharing (45%)
  • Sales lead quantity (43%)
  • Direct sales (41%)

So how well are marketers doing at achieving their goals with content marketing? Unfortunately, not as well as they would like. Only 36% of B2B marketers believe they are effective at content marketing — down from 40% last year.

Part of the challenge is creating great content. But great content is only the starting point.

To harness that content for customer acquisition and lead generation, marketers have two other responsibilities: distribution and value capture. Much has been written about how to distribute content with social, search, and paid campaigns. But ways of effectively capturing value with content marketing have received less attention. I’m only half-joking when I say that content marketing plans sometimes look like this:

  1. Create amazing content.
  2. ???
  3. Get more leads and sales.

When you author terrific content and successfully deliver it to the right audience, you have accomplished value creation. You have given your prospects and customers something of value. Depending on how it’s presented — do the people consuming the content clearly associate your company with the value delivered? — this achieves the first goal of building brand awareness.

But in the crowded and noisy digital marketplace, and in the busy lives of most prospects, that brand moment is fleeting. The question for marketers — and frankly, many prospects — is: what happens next?

Active vs. Passive Content Marketing >>>   Leer más “Active vs. Passive Content Marketing | ioninteractive.com”

Anuncios

Landing Pages 3.0: How Content & Context Plays A More Meaningful Role

Most of the fields on the form were required. The “submit” button was still in vogue. And the payoff for filling out the form? A phone call from a sales rep.

Okay, so this first generation of landing pages wasn’t very good. But such pages were effective enough in lead generation that they got the ball rolling. Marketers started to wonder what they could do to make landing pages better.
Landing Pages 2.0: The Beginning Of Best Practices

To me, 2008 was the year when a new generation of landing pages took off — call it Landing Pages 2.0.

Two great books came out that year, Landing Page Optimization by Tim Ash and Always Be Testing by Bryan Eisenberg, and launched what I would characterize as the “best practices” era of landing pages.

Best practices were things that everyone using landing pages could — or should — follow. They included:

A/B and multivariate (MVT) testing — test, test, test your ideas
“message match” continuity between ads/emails and their landing pages
shorter and friendlier forms with better calls-to-action (CTAs)
emphasis on text content (not Flash!) to improve SEO and quality scores
“social proof” with logos, awards, certifications, testimonials, etc.

A year and a half ago, I put together the READY Conversion Optimization Framework as a broad summary of the most universal landing page best practices of the time:


by  | http://searchengineland.com

Landing pages have evolved a lot over the past five years.

Back in 2007, landing pages were almost cliché — what I would call Landing Pages 1.0. Take this example from Google — yes, Google — with the prototypical structure: a headline, a short description or some bullets, a small image (“hero shot”), and a form.

A Google landing page in 2007 Leer más “Landing Pages 3.0: How Content & Context Plays A More Meaningful Role”