Empowered

How social networks make money

Josh Bernoff — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:35:40 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

We're arguably 10 years into the social network phenomenon (Friendster was founded in 2002). By now we should know the main business models. But popular sites like Tumblr (no visible means of support) raise the question, are there really any other good ways to make money other than advertising?

Here are the significant models:

Advertising. Facebook is already making multiple billions on ads on pages. Networks without ads on pages make money form ads on search (Twitter promoted tweets, for example).
Brand pages. Twitter has started to roll these out. As I understand it, you don't have to pay for the Facebook brand page, you just pay for ads to drive people to it.
Premium accounts. The freemium model is in place at sites like Flickr and DeviantArt. Charge members more for extra storage or to avoid ads.

There are others you hear about that haven't gotten big yet. Second Life created an economy around selling land. There are virtual goods. Merchandising the vast amounts of data that these networks collect is a possibility, although obviously it has privacy implications (Is there a market for behavioral data in the aggregate? Is it legal to sell targeting data at all?).

And I'm discounting the "get a lot of users and then sell to a bigger company" model. This just shifts the revenue question to the new owner. (YouTube's model is advertising now, even if that wasn't that big at the time it was sold.)

I'm interested in what you've seen -- what other models are out there, and how promising are they? When this finally matures, will it all be advertising based?

Five stages in dealing with Google's control of your data

Josh Bernoff — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:42:46 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

There's plenty of serious analysis going on about Google assembling all your data (and using it to improve your experience across devices). This is going to make Google stickier and harder to live without, ramp up the pressures on how they expose controls on data collection and use, and increase the seriousness of possible data breaches.

But most of all, it's raised everyone's consciousness about just how much data Google collects, and made us wonder if we should be worried.

As we're all grieving the loss of our privacy, maybe Elisabeth Kübler-Ross can help us to get through the five stages of dealing with Google's knowing everything about you.

Denial. Wait a minute, Google. You're customizing search results based on my queries about erectile dysfunction? You read my gmails and are offering me vacations in Tijuana and criminal defense lawyers? My social security number is in some of those emails. You won't use that, will you?
Anger. How can I stop using these indispensable Google tools? Everybody already knows my gmail address, I'm lost without Google maps on my iPhone, and I gave up my newspaper subscription for Google News. Untangling this will destroy my productivity. I hate you but you're so useful I can't live without you. Dammit, Google, how could you do this to me?
Bargaining. Let me see your privacy controls. I guess I could turn personalization off on some of those searches I did for untraceable poisons. I'll tell you what, let's just hold onto the last three months data, then I'll feel better. And if you promise you won't boost your Google Plus search results over Twitter, we'll be fine. I guess. Let me try this for a while and see if it bothers me. Just promise me you'll let me opt out and delete everything later. And don't tell my wife. OK?
Depression. I guess I'm stuck. My choices are to give up Google, spend hours tweaking privacy settings, or just live with you knowing everything about me. I'm just going to curl up and stop clicking and tapping now. I have no friends in real life and my wife already left me since I spend all my time on the smartphone. This has gone far enough. Right this second, I'm googling how to give up your devices. Oops! Damn!
Acceptance. I admit it. I can't live without you. I love you more than anything else in my life. Just collect everything. I guess I trust you. I can live with this. You're a good friend and helper to me, and all you need is data I don't use much anyway. What the heck. Go with it. I feel so much better now.

Photo "Angel of Grief" by Konrad Summers via Flickr.

We are all pirates -- SOPA-inspired stories from 15 years of media analysis

Josh Bernoff — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:57:24 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

With SOPA blackouts all over the news, I wanted to take a step back and ask: do we know what piracy is? Sounds like a simple question, but here are a few stories that show just how confused people are.

In the 2000s, I wrote a Forrester report about file sharing. Our reports are available to paying clients or for a fee. But we share the reports with the people we interview as a courtesy. Among the people I interviewed was one at a prominent media-company lobbying organization that represents copyright owners -- one of the very organizations that is right now pushing SOPA and ridiculing the opposition. So when the report was done, I contacted the staffer at the organization to send him a copy of the report. "Don't bother," he said, "We already have a copy." "How did you get it?" I asked. "One of our member companies, a movie studio, had a copy and they emailed it to us."

I had to point out that our reports are copyrighted content and cannot be shared indiscriminately. Slowly, the staffer realized that he had revealed something embarrassing -- that to his organization, movies or music were worthy of protecting but Forrester's report, since it was just print, didn't seem to require the same protection. There was no further comment from him or his company. And there was no apology, either.

In 2003 I interviewed an executive at LimeWire (since shut down), a company that produced file-sharing systems used by many to trade copyrighted music, obviously mostly without permission. LimeWire was free, but made some of its revenue by selling a premium version. Waggishly, I asked "Are there any copies of the files for LimeWire's premium software on your file-sharing service?" Suddenly, he became shocked. Creating software is a lot of work, he explained, and the results are valuable -- sharing it this way would be very wrong. I pointed out the hypocrisy of his position, he couldn't see it. When we published what he said in the report, he again objected to my telling the story and sent me a blistering email in protest.

Attitudes vary. A friend of mine gave me a gift of a hard drive full of pirated music and movies from Bittorrent -- obviously he didn't see a problem with it. (I have never used it.) I also have a 12-year-old son who regularly creates YouTube videos and watches them. Once I explained that music was subject to copyright and using it without permission was stealing, he removed copyright music from his videos and started asking a lot of reasonable but very difficult-to-answer questions. He is attempting very carefully to do the right thing, but the online world he lives in exists because people don't obey the rules.

What have I learned?

Digital piracy is frictionless and nearly riskless. We all do it. And all of us who create content are victims. Go ahead, comment on this blog if you never do it. Never share a copyright article. Uh huh. I thought so.

We all value our own content more highly than content from others --that's clear from the stories I've heard.

Here's the difference between fair use and a copyright violation: When I use your content it's fair use. When you use mine, it's a copyright violation.

Whatever you can say about SOPA, it is an attempt to give copyright owners tools to interfere with copyright violators, tools that are easier to use than lawsuits.

Since we all violate copyrights, there are far more violators than copyright owners. All those users rose up yesterday, goaded on by the companies and organizations that have built their popularity on frictionless digital activity, like Google and Wikipedia. Their awareness tactics worked brilliantly and will water down SOPA or kill it.

The forces behind SOPA want to create friction. The people who consume Internet content -- all billion of us -- hate friction. And we're scared about giving the power to create that friction to people who may make arbitrary decisions.

Interactive marketers aren't the only ones who'll suffer if SOPA passes. Copyright owners: I think you're going to have to find another way.

Photo from OakleyOriginals via flickr -- used through Creative Commons license, of course!

Do people care about the data you collect? Now, more than ever, they do.

Josh Bernoff — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:00:16 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

Today Forrester published survey results intended to answer the questions "Do people care if companies collect their data, and does it affect their decisions about the companies?"

The short answer to both questions is, yes.

In a survey of 37,000 US and Canadian online adults, we first asked how concerned people were with companies accessing their personal information. More than 70% were concerned about social security numbers and credit cards. Less than half cared about their phone number, and only 19% were concerned about their online reviews. This proves people are at least thoughtful, and distinguish between extremely sensitive information and other information.

The second big conclusion is that age matters, and young people are more open. For example, 47% of 55-64 year-olds were concerned about access to their behavioral data, compared to only 33% of those 18-24. Young people were also far more willing to give up information in exchange for discounts.

Finally, 44% of consumers say they have not completed an online transaction because of something they read in a privacy policy. Again, this is far more likely to happen to older consumers, and the percentage has increased since 2008.

Marketers -- especially direct marketers -- love data. But now, over 15 years into the Web, consumers are becoming far more aware of how data collection can go awry, and are voting with their pocketbooks. You can collect and use this data broadly and hope you don't run afoul of an angry consumer with a lot of Twitter followers ready to destroy your brand with your own behavior. You can exploit young people's willingness to part with data -- they have so much less to protect, after all. Or you can adjust your policies based on this rising level of awarness. It's up to you.

The report, by Forrester Customer Intelligence analyst Fatemeh Khatibloo, is available here. (Non-Forrester-clients will see an excerpt.)

The Global Social Takeover

Josh Bernoff — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:35:34 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

I recently pointed out that Social 2012 is Web 2000 -- in the hype that surrounds it, and the reality that social interactivity, like the Web, is becoming embedded in everything people do.

Forrester Research just published its annual global review (for clients) of participation in social interactivity, and it bears this theme out on a global scale. Even more fascinating are the variations around the world.

If you've read Groundswell, you know that we analyze participation on a ladder, with different consumers reaching different rungs. At the top are activities that demand a lot of participation and creativity, like the Creator group that blogs or uploads video. In the middle are activities that are easier, like reacting to content (Critics) or Joining a social network (Joiners). Near the bottom are the people just consuming the stuff, the Spectators. The Inactives do none of these activities. The groups overlap -- most Creators are also Spectators, for example.

This year's numbers from the US and Europe are very similar to last year's, because social has stabilized and saturated. Now 73% of Americans and 69% of Europeans are in the Spectator group. Only the Joiner category grew significantly, reinforcing the idea that Facebook has replaced the Web as the center of online attention for many.

But the really spectacular numbers in this year's results came out of Asia. Among the people we survey in metropolitan areas in China, 96% are Spectators and 76% are Creators, people who actually generate social content. In metropolitan India, 96% are Spectators, and 80% are creators. Can you imagine living in a society where eight out ten online adults were blogging, publishing Web pages, or uploading video?

What can you learn from this? A few reflections:

Online social activity reflects a universal human connection. We are all social. Facebook and its regional comparables, like Sina Weibo in China, are now part of the social connective tissue everywhere there is Internet (or smartphones).
Strategies aren't the same everywhere. The more active social consumers in India demand a different strategy than the more passive ones in, say, Germany, where only one in three online consumers is in a social network. Creative approaches treat these cultures differently or even connect across borders, like Smirnoff's Nightlife Exchange Project.
Look to Asia for innovation. The next big social trend -- the next bend in the road after Twitter and Facebook -- may be emerging from those Chinese consumers. Watch for it.

Innovation is work (Part 2: From ideas to implementation)

Josh Bernoff — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:27:49 -0500

Yesterday I described the start of our innovation challenge. At the end of a month we'd generated 65 ideas, and knew which ones were popular. But how to move forward?

This is where our judges came in. I recruited about 15 people to help with the process. They included many senior managers here (the COO, the CMO, our new chief business technology officer, and the head of human resources) as well as new product and strategy experts, an operational expert, some very senior analysts, and the managers of several of our research and sales groups. This diverse set of judges proved crucial in moving forward.

Recruit senior experts to help judge the ideas.

I split the judges into two groups: a set of more operationally focused people for the Quick ideas (easy to implement now), and a more product-focused group for the Detailed ideas (requiring further budget or study).

We had the judges score the ideas they would be evaluating (either the Quick set or the Detailed set) on potential (revenue, cost, or productivity improvements) as well as effort, cost, and strategic fit. Many, but not all, of these scores mirrored the ones that got the most votes. The judges did this scoring on their own schedule but on a deadline; they were done in couple of weeks. We narrowed the ideas down to the eight best in each set, 16 in all.

It's crucial to have an open, relatively objective system to choose ideas for further study.

Now the fun began. We set up two 3-hour evaluation meetings, one for the Quick ideas, one for the Detailed. These were hellishly difficult to set up, since they involved videoconference and WebEx with senior people and presenters in San Francisco, Singapore, Amsterdam, Dallas, and New York, but I felt it was crucial to complete each evaluation meeting in a single 3-hour window. We told each innovator to create an eight minute presentation, no more. Each presentation to the group was followed by six minutes of questions. So each evaluation meeting heard eight snappy presentations over two hours. Then we discussed and voted. At the end of the process, we had picked seven of the 16 ideas to move forward with, and none of the judges had to spend more than a single three-hour meeting.

I was worried about the shortness of the presentations, but they worked great. The snappy format really focused the presenters as well as the judges. And the best ideas definitely stood out. We selected a wide variety of different ideas -- new product ideas, new process innovations, ways to make our reports better and to make our employees happier and more productive. (I'd like to tell you more but it's too soon . . . you'll see!)

The presenters were diverse. Among the innovators we picked (you can see their pictures above) were people in sales, client services, marketing, and research. Some had a long tenure, others had only been working for us for a couple of years. (I was one of those submitting ideas and one of my own ideas was picked, but I think all the judges and the presenters would tell you we ran the process very objectively.)

I was very pleased when, after his 3-hour meeting, the COO Charles Rutstein told me "That was a good use of time."

Short presentations for vetting work well. Get senior executives involved in the process, but don't waste their time.

At the conclusion of this process I realized we were not at the end of something, but at the beginning. We had endorsed the ideas, now the innovators need to make something of them.

As a result, we have started work on incubating these ideas. I will be working with all the innovation leaders to help them gather the allies and resources they need. Each will start with a community on our HERO platform that they can use to coordinate their activities.

We will learn from this and will conduct more iterations in 2012. Culturally, it's our hope that this process helps Forrester be not-just idea-focused -- which we are -- but more effective at turning ideas into positive change for the company. That's a good message for employees to embrace.

Innovation is work. Ideas are easy to come up with. But the right process floats the best ideas to the top and gives the innovators tools to turn ideas into projects, products, and processes that can make an impact, and can transform your culture.

Innovation is work (Part 1: Generating Ideas)

Josh Bernoff — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:24:17 -0500

When we set up our sharing system, the HERO Platform, here at Forrester Research, one explicit goal was to improve innovation. There's a virtuous circle: the innovation element would get people further into the sharing platform, and the sharing platform would give us the structure we needed to innovate. I'd like to tell you how things came out (so far). We learned a number of lessons, things that may or may not be intuitive, which I'll call out here in bold italics. Today I'll describe how we got started; tomorrow I'll get into winnowing ideas down and launching innovators forward.

If I learned one thing, it is that making innovation happen is hard work -- for the person running the process, for the innovators, and for the people making the judgments and the company management. So why do it? Here's the big takaway:

Innovation systems require a carefully thought out and clearly described process. Innovation systems should help find good ideas and create a path to put them into practice. If there is no clear path from ideas to implementation, you're just fooling around.

This is how we started. Forrester Research is a company full of innovative people, in my experience. But we did not have a systematic process for encouraging those innovations, and as we near 1300 employees around the world, it's not getting any easier. People say "I have an idea" and then get frustrated that nothing happens. This is a problem at a lot of companies. So our explicit goal was to create a path by which innovators and their innovations could get traction and move forward.

Know what problem you're solving with your innovation system.

We launched the HERO Platform in August. We declared October "Innovation Month" and officially launched an idea community within HERO. I made a decision that there would be one email to the whole company and no more. All of the other promotion was within the HERO Platform. The innovators themselves would do a lot of the promotion, by requesting people to review their ideas.

Don't promote innovation with a barrage of email.

The innovation community included the key features I've seen in every successful innovation system: the ability to search, vote for, comment on, and share ideas (and see the ideas with the most commentary and the most votes). It took a couple of weeks to really get going, and there was a flurry of activity at the end, but for the most part it just worked. There were hundreds of votes and comments on 65 ideas. Of the 65 ideas, most were pretty good or excellent. While some companies have a continuous process (Intuit is one), we specifically time-limited it to encourage contributions and then take the contributed ideas and select the best for implementation.

Use deadlines and time-limits to encourage contributions -- position your innovation process as a "challenge" or "contest."

We asked people to classify their ideas as Quick (easy to implement now) or Detailed (requires further budget or study), since we wanted to evaluate the two types of ideas separately from each other.

One thing we added to the off-the-shelf system was fields that required people to think about the benefits and the cost of their ideas (and we encouraged people to use the effort-value evaluation to discipline their thinking). We also asked people to choose one from "I want to lead the launch of this idea," "I want to be a part of the launch of this idea," and "Someone should take this idea and run with it." (I recently spoke to a client who had a bunch of undifferentiated ideas in his system and had become frustrated with suggestions that included no indication of how much they would cost or who would make them happen. I was pleased that we didn't fall into this trap.)

Ideas have costs -- systems should encourage innovators to think carefully about them.

At the end of all this we had indications of which ideas were popular. But were they the best, and how should we implement them? This was the second part of the process, which I'll describe in tomorrow's post.

The Hitchens post

Josh Bernoff — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:17:45 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

Christopher Hitchens just died.

By all accounts he was an irascible, hard-drinking pain in the ass.

In print, he took on the likes of God, Mother Theresa, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Henry Kissinger. Here was a man who had an infinite supply of courage, a razor wit, and the irresistible drive to use it.

I know Hitchens only through reading him. The argumentation is brilliant, the prose uneven but driven, and the result . . .

The result is that now that he's gone, he has left an indelible mark, almost exclusively by writing.

Learn from that. Be not afraid, and it's better to leave to a mark.

This inspires me. I'll be 62 (as he was) in 9 short years, and I don't want to be forgotten.

Social 2012 is Web 2000

Josh Bernoff — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:24:40 -0500

by Josh Bernoff

Here's what it was like in 2000: the Web frenzy was underway, and the predictions for it were completely out of hand. In many ways, they were overblown. And yet the long-term impact of the Web was far more pervasive than any of us had expected, along surprising dimensions.

It's the same now. Social technology in 2012 is the Web in 2000. The predictions both over- and underestimate its significance. Here's some perspective (always a badly needed commodity) from the Web of 2000, applied to the social technology world of now.

In 2000, less than two-thirds of American consumers were online, but many of them were only occasional users. Broadband made the difference -- it turned a "check-occasionally" experience into one that was a pervasive part of every interaction between companies and people. The rise of broadband was far more important than the rise of online penetration.

Now, more than half of Americans are in a social network. But as in 2000, keep your eye, not on penetration, but on the enabling technology, which in this case is mobile. Mobile changes social from a "check-when-I'm-at-a-PC" experience to one that pervades everyday life. Mobile penetration in the US will reach one in three consumers this year. The explosion of cheap smartphones in 2012 is what will make social part of the fabric of every interaction.

In 2000, all eyes were on eCommerce. Every company we worked with wanted an eCommerce strategy, and the likes of pets.com and furniture.com were threatening to challenge bricks-and-mortar retail. Commerce was huge, for sure -- try $60 billion this holiday season -- but for most companies selling online wasn't the big impact (and rather than killing bricks-and-mortar, the Web became an important strategic element of every traditional retailer). Instead of eCommerce, for most companies, it was service that mattered. Consumers wanted to get information both before and after the sale -- every company had to deliver on that promise.

Now, social commerce is again a big topic. But the overblown expectations around Groupon may lead to another disillusioned collapse. Once again, the real power of social technology is in service -- the successful companies are those that live up to their customers' service expectations by responding to queries in the social world, as Zappos and Comcast now already.

Finally, in 2000, all the focus was on how the Web changed companies' relationships with their customers. But arguably, the impact of the Internet was broader within companies. Everyone got email. Everyone got laptops with browsers installed. And as a result, organizations flattened -- anyone could reach anyone else, electronically, anywhere. This vastly increased the speed of collaboration and ratcheted up competitive demands.

Now, again, the focus is on social technology as it affects consumers. But increasingly, from Chatter to Newsgator, the staid old Intranet is becoming a social network that feels a lot like Facebook. Social interactions within companies are transforming the speed of interaction and flattening corporations even further. If you work for a sizable company, you may find in the next few years that your corporate social network is far more important to you than your Facebook page. Social will transform what it means to work in a company, just the Internet did.

Here's the value of perspective. Try to lift your viewpoint out of the tired old social technology dichotomy -- "We all have to do this now" vs. "Social is truly overhyped." Instead, ask yourself, once the social connection is part of every interaction, for most consumers, and both within and outside of companies, how will the world be different? The strategic thinker prepares for that.

Winners of the 2011 Forrester Groundswell Awards: Consumer International

Josh Bernoff — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:25:00 -0500

This is our last installment of the Forrester Groundswell Awards: the International division, for entries from outside North America. If you think the US is where all the action is in social applications, you're way off. As you'll see from these entries, there's innovation happening in Singapore, Brazil, The Netherlands, and all over Europe that's arguably beyond anything we've seen in the states. While there is plenty of diversity here, one agency -- DDB -- had an awful lot of winners and demonstrated a competency that other agencies should at least take a close look at. These winners are being announced today at the Forrester's EMEA Marketing & Strategy Forum.

Listening (Consumer International)

Winner

Accor Manages Online Reputation and Customer Service by Sythesio

Synthesio created a tool and system designed to track the online reputation of 12,000 of Accor's and competitors' hotels worldwide in 8 languages. This included a single global dashboard, 40 country-specific dashboards, and 4,000 dashboards for individual hotels with detailed data on 30 topics for local geographies. As a result, the volume of positive feedback online increased by 55%, online sales are up by double digits, and Accor now better understands what its customers want and can identify. Accor has also improved training and employee rewards based on this listening program.

Talking (Consumer International)

Finalists

Cisco Flip Your Profile by DDB and Tribal DDB Singapore

McDonalds Nuernburger Social Product Launch by Neue Digitale/Razorfish GmbH

Audi Q3: Social Car Launch on YouTube by Neue Digitale/Razorfish GmbH

Smirnoff Bangkok Remix by Winderman Bangkok

Winner

KLM Tile & Inspire by Tribal DDB and DDB Amsterdam

KLM’s social program asked social network members around the world to convert their profile picture into a Delft Blue tile holding their face and their personal inspirational words, to be painted onto an airplane. The animation film around "Tile and Inspire" reached half a million views on Youtube. After three weeks, more than 120,000 tiles were created in the campaign's 8 key countries. In key markets KLM's brand preference rose from 15% to 19%. And the tiled plane itself keeps drawing interest on airports around the world.

Energizing (Consumer International)

Finalists

Black Eyed Peas Roadie by DDB Brazil

Cara a Cara by DDB Brazil

The Morning Line by KalkaHensel

Winner

How the Marmarati Launched Extra-Old Marmite

To launch the extra-strong variant of Unilever’s breakfast spread Marmite, We Are Social invented the Marmarati, a Victorian-style secret society of super-fans. These Marmarati recruits posted 150 blog posts and 6,000 tweets, reaching about 2.4 million online readers. 67,000 people voted on the entries on the Marmarati web site. Most importantly, the campaign generated $600,000 in sales for the first six months, at only 20% of the cost of a typical product launch.

Supporting (Consumer International)

Winner

TOK&STOK Twitter Manuals by DDB Brazil

The Tok&Stok furniture chain in Brazil wanted to find the greenest possible way to provide instructions for its easy to assemble furniture. They used Twitter: manuals were reduced to 140 character tweets with a link to the assembly diagram. Consumers simply have to look for the hashtag with the name of their furniture and follow the instructions.

Embracing (Consumer International)

Winner

Come Back Ferrorama by DDB Brazil

The toy company Estrela challenged the fans of Ferrorama, a toy train, on Orkut, which is Brazil’s biggest social newtork. The challenge – prove their dedication by running the train on a torturous pilgrimage across 20km, using and reusing 120 meters of track, and never stopping. The group involved the public uploading video, tweets, and photos of the five-day journey. Their success led Estrela to relaunch the toy. It sold out within a month, including 1230 pre-orders, and has transformed the company’s marketing and business strategy to embrace the digital and social world.

Social Impact (Consumer International)

Finalist

MADLTD (Make a Difference, Lead the Difference) by HCL Technologies

Winner

A Singapore Spring by Tribal DDB Singapore

The site about the elections aimed to collect all the conversation and allow people to see and comment on it. In the week leading up to polling day, the site tallied 44,000 instances of political buzz on social media, blogs, forums, and other sites. When it opened, it tallied 80,000 page views in the first three minutes. In 7 days of campaigning, it hosted 252,000 page views and 6,000 visits a day, and was shared over 2,000 times on Facebook.

Mobile Application (Consumer North America)

Finalist

Sotheby's International Realty Mobile Campaign by Smarter Agent

Winner

Starhub "Musical Fitting Rooms" by DDB and Tribal DDB Singapore

This program is just amazing. Starhub’s program used fitting rooms in clothing stores and near-field communication to sell music downloads. To reach youth buyers, the music download site StarHub in Singapore hired DDB and Tribal DDB. They worked with clothing stores to put RFID tags on clothes. When the buyer enters the fitting room, a device in the room detects the piece of clothing and plays music that matches the clothing in style – say, country music for a flannel shirt. Then they beam a text message to the mobile phone asking if they customer wants to buy the song. Results: 84% click through rate, and music downloads increased by 21%.