Ad Your Comment Here

Check out HubSpot TV this week for a discussion on digital activism

Kate — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:35:18 +0000

I’ll be on HubSpotTV this Friday as a guest. We’ll spend a few minutes talking about digital activism before diving into a week of news.

You can either view online or, even better, if you’re in Cambridge, come on down to HubSpot (see site for details). There’ll be food from Lansdowne Pub as well!

Check out HubSpot TV this week for a discussion on digital activism is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

What’s this thought leadership thing all about?

Anya — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:59 +0000

PR agencies, consultants, industry experts and your board of directors are all talking about it. Thought leadership! The latest industry buzzword, the serious business’s way of talking about social media and a more stoic way of saying “we’re gonna make you a star!”

What B2B company CEO doesn’t want to be considered a thought leader? Who doesn’t want the rest of their niche industry flocking to them for visionary ideas and insightful analysis of trends? In reality, most companies and CEOs have been striving for this for years. The marketing team didn’t invent a new concept, they’ve just re-packaged it and sold it based on the use of new tools and techniques to (try) to accomplish it.

But not every thought leadership program is a success, in fact there are probably a lot more failures than successes, and I think that’s because a lot of people don’t understand what it really means and what it’s really going to take in order to achieve “leadership” status. So here are a few things I argue need to be taken into account before you go down the thought leadership path:

1) You are going to have to stick your neck out.

Being a thought LEADER means you’re ahead of the pack. In many cases, that means making bold statements about the future, disagreeing with other major industry voices, and having a strong and consistent point of view that is DIFFERENT from everything else around you. A lot of people feel like they want to get involved in the industry conversation, but they don’t want to ruffle any feathers (and there are a lot of feathers to ruffle… customers, clients, partners, analysts, reporters, employees, the board, etc.) If you’re not willing to stick your neck out, then you’re going to be seen as a leader, you’re just another voice saying the same things already being said in other circles. Boring. No one is going to listen.

2) You can’t be an expert on everything.

You probably can’t even be an expert on everything your company does, unless you only have one product and it’s very niche. Sure, you have a business intelligence software company. But there are a lot of BI experts. Niche out. Pick a particular aspect of BI that is new, on the forefront, or that your company and you yourself are particularly good at and knowledgeable about. You can link your thoughts on this niche back to the whole, but the point it, if you’re a generalist, then you’re not an expert. You’ll spread yourself too thin.

3) You can’t use your boardroom voice.

Please. Don’t do it. Don’t decide you’re going to start creating content and positioning yourself as a thought leader, and then insist on a buttoned-up suit and tie voice and attitude. Relax. Let your passion, frustration and knowledge show through. In any situation in which you are positioning yourself as a thought leader, being the boardroom voice is not the way to go. Just think about the last conference you attended. Who was the best speaker there? Chances are, it was the guy who talked off his corporate powerpoint the whole time and never cracked a smile or got fired up.

4) You can’t be lazy.

You’re not lazy, I know. But establishing yourself as a thought leader can be a full time job, so it takes a lot of commitment. You need to constantly stay up to date on industry news and trends, and you need to adhere to a strict schedule of producing content and communicating with your audience. You also need to stick to these things even if at first you’re not seeing huge results. Building a program like this takes time, so you need to make sure you’re in it for the long haul… before your start.

5) You need to share the love.

Everybody wants a voice. So if you’ve got a platform, invite them to share their voice on your territory. This can apply in any number of situations, including asking a customer to contribute, or a partner, or a board member. Encourage an ongoing discussion where you become a leader AND a facilitator. Share the pulpit, and you’ll widen your reach and expand your list of loyal supporters.

Make sure you consider these factors before investing time, money and energy into a full-blown thought leadership program. Not every company is cut out to be THE leader, sometimes it’s best to focus on offering a great core product and communicate well with customers and potential customers, not striving to become the go-to industry guru.

Thought Leadership for Social Marketing Success (socialmediatoday.com)

What’s this thought leadership thing all about? is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

Segmenting your “Social Media Marketing” for Success

Kate — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:55:57 +0000

(Note, this piece assumes that an organization has created a strategic plan for using social media, rather than having someone in a cube in the back office posting to a blog once a week).

I got into an interesting discussion in the comments section of a post about social media success over on B2B Voices with Mark W Schaefer, wherein I came to the conclusion that we were both basically saying the same thing, but looking at the process differently.

It really emphasized the importance of segmenting your overall Program in order to accurately identify success – or failure. This could be your business program, your marketing program, your sales program… in this case it’s the program that you’ve decided to supplement with social media.

It goes without saying that you should be setting measurable goals for your Program, and that they should all point towards money, whether it’s in a corporate setting or a non-profit setting or what have you. The dough may come in different forms, but let’s be honest, without it, you really don’t exist. However, the ability to bring in this money more often than not does not rest on one single mechanism, it rests on many.

All of this may seem blatantly obvious when I say it, but it really surprises me how many times I hear that social media is a failure because it didn’t sell something, or how many times people expect that a Twitter following is directly related to ROI.

The conversation should go more like this:

“The website traffic from the month of October increased by 40%, with 80% of that being from our new Twitter program. Additionally, the number of sales that resulted from our website increased by 30%. We can draw the conclusion that our Twitter program is bringing in valuable traffic to our website, which has always had a great conversion rate.”

Or, perhaps more telling:

“The website traffic from the month of October increased by 40%, with 80% of that being from our new Twitter program. However, the number of sales that resulted from our website didn’t change. Either our Social Media Program is not bringing in valuable website traffic, or our website is not structured in a way to convert viewers to customers.”

This conversation is entirely dependent on the goals you’ve set out for your Social Media Program, and then how they are linked to your other programs. The process looks like this:

Identify overall Program Goals
Identify Components that will go into this Program to achieve those goals
Determine the goals of each separate Component and how each of those goals is connect to your overall Program Goals.

So, if our social media program brought in more qualified leaders to our website (Component Goal), which was restructured to funnel any traffic to a new sales team (Component Goal), who would then convert them to users (Component Goal), we profit (Program Goal). If one of these fails, it doesn’t mean all of them are failures.

Of course, if you set up your social media program to get direct sales, and that’s not happening, then yes, social media is a failure. But just because your sales are not increasing when you start using social media doesn’t categorically mean that your Social Media Program is a failure. If you haven’t touched your website in 5 years and you were never getting sales from it, and you’re hoping to increase website traffic with social media, your problem is probably not social media, it’s your website.

A couple of scenarios to consider:

Social Media Success + Sales Team Success = Program Success

Social Media Success + Website Failure = Program Failure IF the website was in place to convert viewers to buyers

Social Media Success + Website Failure = Program Success IF the website was in place to actually convert without the website (therefore you’re really running two separate programs)

Social Media Success + Customer Service Success = Program Success (this is an implicit one that addresses the Lifetime Value of the Customer, and assuming that with happier customers, you will get continual long-term share-of-wallet from them)

Social Media Failure + Sales Team Success = Program Failure IF social media was meant to bring increased leads to the Sales Team

Social Media Success + Product Failure = Program Failure (more accurately, this would be Business Failure, since nothing can support a lousy product)

I could go on with various scenarios, but I’ll stop….

The focus here is on the Component level and the fact that, far too often, people draw too-direct a connection between a Social Media Program (which, at first glance, can seem quite qualitative) and money coming in the door. By highlighting a series of connections, you’ll be much better equipped to account for success, measure for it, and build an effective overall Program that is illustrated in stages, rather than “If I build a Facebook, when should I expect to see money in the door.”

This is why it’s so important to think strategically about what a social media program really means for your company, and how it fits into a Program that has been well thought out, and is well-measured. Don’t go out and hire social media guru and expect him to move mountains unless you plan on allowing them access to your overall business processes and make darn sure that he is capable of making the above links and laying out effective goals that support your Program.

Wrapping Your Head Around Social Media (slideshare.net)
8 biggest mistakes made in social media (lansner.freedomblogging.com)
Are You Expecting Social Media To Help You Sell? (wealthyways4you.com)

Segmenting your “Social Media Marketing” for Success is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

Your Customer are Talking to You. Are you Listening?

Kate — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:11:32 +0000

This article was written for PINK Magazine, published today.
How do you grow when consumers and clients are spending less? Maintain or increase marketing your business spending to get ahead of competitors who don’t, adjust your product portfolio, support your distributors, adjust pricing – all risky and challenging when cash flow is down.

Thanks to Web 2.0 and social media, your customers are giving you a perfect opportunity to put minimal dollars to find out what they’re saying about your company. And if they’re not, ask them…..

[For the full article, please visit the PINK Magazine site]

Your Customer are Talking to You. Are you Listening? is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

A discussion on crowdsourcing: Interview with Matt Johnston Part II

Kate — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:39:16 +0000

This is the second half of our two-part discussion on crowdsourcing with uTest’s VP of Marketing and Community, Matt Johnston. The first installment of our interview is here.

So, you’ve gathered a bunch of information and data from your users. How do you address issues of IP and who owns the content, both from the perspective of your client companies and from your users? How do you protect the rights of both of those groups? Do either of those groups give certain aspects up by using your model that they may not have to otherwise?

That’s a legitimate issue for crowdsourcing companies who are creating something new – for example, in categories like copy writing, design, development and animation. In such instances, companies like Guru, crowdSPRING or GeniusRocket have to think carefully about fairness and address these issues head on and up front. Clear communication (and consistent enforcement) of the rules is vital to maintaining a level playing field in a B2B crowdsourcing model.

In the case of uTest, we don’t have to worry about issues of IP ownership because the customer created the apps and simply wants to test them with our community. The IP issues that are sometimes a concern for new customers are around IP protection.

Again, in this case our job is to establish the ground rules that protect everyone, and then to communicate them clearly and consistently. In the case of uTest, the client created the app and they own it. Testers have no rights to the app or to any of the bugs that they discovered within that app. Beyond that, companies can require testers to sign an NDA and testers are forbidden from sharing any information about customers, their apps, or any bugs outside the uTest platform (including blogs, message boards, Twitter, Facebook, etc.).

You’ve spoken about 90-9-1 Rule, which says that 90% of your community will be passive users, 10% will be active and engaged, and 1% will be the “stars.” Can you shed some light on these numbers and how each group can add value to the process?

We had a great discussion about this at the recent TiE event! The 90-9-1 rule states that 90% of community members will be “lurkers,” 9% will be part-time contributors and 1% will fully adopt and become “super users.” While the math changes from crowd to crowd, the underlying premise does not: the vast majority of the contribution or participation will come from your top users. This isn’t just true in crowdsourcing, it’s true on message boards, social networks, blogging services, and most online user bases.

If you’re building an ad-based revenue model, you may not care, because even “lurkers” generate page views. However, if you’re building a transaction-oriented revenue model like uTest is, you need participation in order for a community member to make a direct contribution.

Thus, one of uTest’s keys to success is to identify those future “stars” early on so we can nurture them along the path to success. We recognize that some testers join our community because they want to use their testing skills to earn money, while others join because they want to network with their peers and consume the educational content that we provide. We welcome all testers into our community, but we make a special effort to engage those who want to participate in projects.

We talk a lot about “inside-the-transaction” vs. “outside-the-transaction” types of participation. The former refers to testers who are participating in projects, reporting bugs and getting paid (as well as building their reputation). The latter refers to those who don’t participate in projects, but could still make meaningful contributions. This could be by subscribing to our newsletter, commenting on our blog, participating in our forums, or contributing content, ideas and expertise to other members of our community. Both types of participation are valuable to uTest’s long-term future, but the wants and needs of these two groups are unique, so we cater to them as such.

Your company didn’t just come to the decision to implement crowdsourcing one day, you actually built the entire company on that model specifically. It’s in the name – uTest. Do you feel you could have gotten similar results had you been offering the same end-products through more traditional methods of production/testing? Would they have been worse? Could things be better using a different model?

If we tried to do this with a traditional model, the results wouldn’t even be close to what we’ve achieved to date. It would be impossible from a logistics or financial perspective for us to have built the level of testing coverage that we have today. We’re doing testing for some of the top software companies in the world in our first year of operations – no small feat. And we couldn’t do it without our community and our investment in our community.

The testing needs in the world of software have become exceedingly complex. Companies now have to test their apps across locations, languages, operating system, browser, as well as handset makers and models, and wireless carriers. This is a prohibitively expensive task for even the most mature and sophisticated companies. And crowdsourcing is uniquely suited to meet the challenges of software testing. That underlying belief is what prompted our co-founders to build uTest based on a crowdsourcing model – and what led me to join the company.

About uTest

uTest is the world’s largest marketplace for software testing services. The company provides real-world testing services through its community of 20,000+ professional testers from 158 countries around the world. Hundreds of companies – from web startups to global software leaders – have joined the uTest marketplace to get their web, desktop and mobile applications tested. More information can be found at http://www.utest.com or the company’s Software Testing Blog at http://blog.utest.com.

A discussion on crowdsourcing: Interview with Matt Johnston Part II is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

A discussion on crowdsourcing: Interview with Matt Johnston Part I

Kate — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:13:51 +0000

We’ve interviewed Matt Johnston, VP of Marketing and Community at uTest, to discuss some of the concepts around the use of crowdsourcing. This is the first installment of that discussion.

uTest provides software testing services for web, desktop and mobile apps. The company offers this testing to companies of all sizes – from five-person startups to Fortune 500 enterprises – by leveraging its community of 20,000+ QA professionals from 157 countries around the globe.

You have a pretty well-defined explanation of what crowdsourcing is to you – and what it isn’t. In fact, I think you said that you had two big criteria that have to met for a process to be considered crowdsourcing. Can you talk a bit about what this definition includes? What doesn’t it include?

That’s a good question – and one that’s hotly debated in crowdsourcing circles. From my perspective, the first criteria is that something of substance needs to be sourced. I’ve heard people say that they’re going to “crowdsource a question” and then simply publish a one-time poll with a single question – that’s not crowdsourcing to me, it’s glomming onto a media-friendly term.

Whether it’s for professional services like copywriting, photography, design, development or software testing, I think there’s some minimum level of contribution and value-add that’s required before you can say that something has been “sourced” (whether it be in-sourced, outsourced or crowdsourced). I’m not trying to define what this minimum criteria is, but I know that there’s a line.

The second criteria is that the output comes from a “crowd”, not just a single individual. There are many outstanding companies that use “onesourcing” models to great success (eg: Elance, Guru, OnForce). And in many categories, what the customer wants may be to find that one person who precisely matches their needs, as opposed to a team of people or collaborators. I simply don’t consider that crowdsourcing. In other categories and companies, the deliverable requires a team of people making a contribution (eg: uTest, Trada) and the overall deliverable is the sum of the contributions.

When it comes to implementing the crowdsourcing model, there are a lot of things to think about: control issues, organization, data gathering etc. What were some of the things uTest felt were the most important to address and how did you address them?

That’s the right question, because a common misconception is that crowdsourcing is easy… just build a crowd, add water, and watch the revenues roll in! A few hard-earned, hard-learned lessons that I’ve picked up:

This will sound odd coming from a marketing guy, but the first key to building a successful crowdsourcing model is structured data. The truth is that it’s not too tough to build a loosely assembled, unstructured crowd – what we call a “mob”. uTest’s plan, however, was to advance far beyond that and to create a rated, ranked community of professional testers. We use structured data to ensure that we can precisely match each customer’s project with the right testers, based upon location, languages spoken, hardware, software, expertise and, above all else, past performance. If you’re thinking about a crowdsourced model, structured data is the foundation upon which you’ll build it.
Recognize that you have two sets of customers – in our case, we have software companies and we have our community of testers. Most businesses are hardwired to think of their customer base as their lone stakeholders. The other constituencies (like vendors, employees, etc.) are there to serve the customer. In a crowdsourcing model, you must realize that you have two distinct sets of customers to whom you need to cater. Serving both audiences well on an ongoing basis is a difficult, but wholly necessary, balancing act.
There are two types of currency in an online community: money and reputation. Of course, money serves as a primary motivator, but the transparency and accountability of crowdsourcing motivates community members to build strong reputations. The net effect is that top performers get promoted and poor performers get demoted. In both the near- and long-term, this means that you’re simultaneously rewarding your best community members and better serving your clients.
The final lesson is that crowdsourcing is a model – an approach to solving a problem. It’s not a solution in and of itself. There are some verticals where it’s a great fit, and others where it’s not. If you’re considering incorporating crowdsourcing into your existing business (or launching a new business based upon this model), make sure that the space and the problem you’re solving are a good fit.

Management of the crowdsourcing model can seem – well – unwieldy and chaotic to people thinking about starting it out. How have you handled this aspect of the process? What are some key things to do or not to do?

This question made me laugh, because I was just debating this with a friend who runs a crowdsourcing company on the west coast. Ultimately your clients aren’t coming to you because they want crowdsourcing (really, they’re not). They’re coming to you because they have a problem to be solved and the traditional, status quo solutions aren’t cutting it and they’re exploring alternatives.

When it comes to managing crowdsourcing solutions, it can seem unfamiliar to clients. In those cases, it’s critical that the crowdsourcing company offers services and tools to help clients climb the learning curve. In cases like these, you’re really competing with muscle memory of the client (“I’m used to doing things in a certain way and vendors need to adapt to my needs …”).

Here are the steps that I’d follow if I was thinking about creating a crowdsourcing company or offering:

Start by looking carefully at the problem you’re trying to solve and the audience for whom you’re trying to solve it.
Understand how they’ve historically solved this problem.
Discover what works and doesn’t work for them with these traditional solutions
At this point, you have a decision to make:
1. Reduce the management burden on your customers to the point that using crowdsourcing is no more time-consuming than managing the traditional solutions
2. Convince the world that your crowdsourcing solution is vastly more effective (aka: better) or efficient (aka: cheaper) to the point that it’s worthwhile for them to learn a new motion.

More specifically, uTest has identified and leveraged the “reputation” system in their model. How have you done that and how has it worked to your advantage in having an effective community?

The reputation system behind a crowdsourcing model – or any community/marketplace model – is critically important. As stated previously, there are two types of currency in a healthy crowdsourcing model: money and reputation.

Of course, money serves as a primary motivator, but a well-designed reputation system creates effective incentives (and disincentives) for community behavior. Among a community of peers, how one is perceived is a powerful driver. For example, if everyone can see that I’ve achieved silver status, then I’m proud of my accomplishments AND I’m driven to achieve gold status.

As for the particulars of a reputation system (invisible vs. visible, stars vs. points, etc), there is no single right answer. Ultimately, it depends upon the space that you occupy and the make-up of your community. For example, eBay reveals the reputations of buyers and sellers in order to promote good behavior. Conversely, Google’s search algorithm (which is really just a reputation system for websites that tries to match the right sites with each query) is kept secret in order to prevent people from gaming the system.

The real key is to align your incentives (both monetary and reputation) with the desired behaviors. Before we ever build a new feature or make a change in our policies or pricing, we talk a great deal about what behavior are we incenting or disincenting.

We’ll be posting up the second half of our interview in the coming days, so be sure to check back! Do you have any experiences in crowdsourcing?

[Update: The second half of our interview is up]

About uTest

A discussion on crowdsourcing: Interview with Matt Johnston Part I is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

Marketers as Content Instigators

Anya — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:57:25 +0000

We hear it all the time. From clients, from fellow marketers, from our peers: Content creation is great, and there are so many people in our organizations and institutions who have a great story to tell, and want to tell it. The challenge is getting those people to sit down and contribute content in a meaningful and timely manner.

This is understandable. A discussion sprang up this week about why we don’t see more college presidents twittering. My first reaction? They’re already insanely busy, what college president has TIME for that? The same has happened time and again… the CEO of one of our clients wants to blog, and he’d be great at it, but we can never get him to sit down and write.

As marketers, this has become an interesting new challenge. We used to play the role of content creator ourselves. But with blogs, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube established as important communications channels, we’ve taken on a larger role of content aggregator and distributor, and even more important, content instigator.

I may be going down the road of coining yet another term for something someone has already named, but I think this is an important distinction to make. In order to get the right content in the right place with the right voice at the right time, we’ve got to have authenticity. And authenticity comes from having the actual person write, record, perform etc. Or as close to that as possible. We spend a lot of time worrying about what we’re going to create (a video, a podcast, a blog post, a newsletter article??) and where we’re going to put it (on the website, on the blog, on youtube, on twitter, on facebook, everywhere??)

But how much time do we spend chasing down the content itself? I would argue that many marketers would respond — A LOT! A major role that gets lost in the shuffle of our many varied new marketing responsibilities is that of content instigator.

Instigator might be too nice. Nag, badger, bait, heckle, hound, cajole, bribe, beg! I’m sure most marketers have been reduced to some or all of these methods when attempting to get individuals to contribute to content marketing efforts. We’re learning every day what works (and what doesn’t) when it comes to trying to get the content creation process to go smoothly and work for all the different parties involved.

In a future post I’ll talk about some ways we’ve been successful in doing so, but my point here is that it’s something we don’t often talk about but that is crucial in many marketing efforts today. We hope you’ll share some of your experiences with content instigation issues, and we’ll continue to talk about it in new ways.

Marketers as Content Instigators is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

Presentation: Using social networks to advance your career

Kate — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:47:05 +0000

I did a quick talk at Emerson College today on using social networks to research companies, network, job search etc. I focused a lot of the presentation on personal branding, as I think that’s the crux of this whole equation: if you can demonstrate your value easily and in a more robust fashion than on your resume, you’ll be that much more attractive in the “real world.”

View more presentations from JustKate.

Presentation: Using social networks to advance your career is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

Organizing social connections

Kate — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:28:06 +0000

I decided it was a good time to rein in on the many social connections I have and that we’ve set up for the Other Side Group. I started out by going through the list and drawing it out…. it’s a little messy, but it got the job done.

I wrote down every outpost (and threw in blogs there) and drew arrows to determine where the connections were. From there, I was able to get a better picture of where all the content was going and coming from.

A few things I was able to do:

Clean up (I don’t use Jaiku or Tumblr, so I deleted the accounts)
Find overlaps (For instance, I have Twitter fed into Friendfeed, but I also had Twitter fed into BrightKite, which fed into Friendfeed, so it was posting twice)
See what I use the most (I use Twitter and Facebook)
Find holes (Could we maximize our company LinkedIn page more?)
Identify hidden potential (I’m thinking Posterous might play a larger role in the future)
Ask questions (I have a lot of stuff going into FriendFeed, but don’t ever actually use it… is it doing me good? Is that best practice for social media usage?)

It was a fun exercise, and I was able to learn a lot, and get a grasp on what all of my social media tools were doing for me out there. I’d highly suggest it for all of you heavy-users!

If you want to connect to me or to Other Side Group on any of these platforms:

Other Side Group

Website
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
BlipTV
Other Side Notes (Anya’s blog)
Anya on Twitter

Kate Brodock

Today and Tomorrow (website/blog)
Twitter
Facebook
BrightKite
Google Reader
FriendFeed
Posterous
Delicious
Disqus
Portfolio (Still needs work)

Organizing social connections is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here

If you were to put your blog audience in a presentation hall……

Kate — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:23:20 +0000

Illustration by Henry Blackburn in the New York GRAPHIC, Nov. 5, 1873 from the Dave Thomson collection.

I was explaining how to think about framing blog content as a thought leader to someone the other day and used the following analogy, which, at least in this particular case, proved effective.

Think of being able to have two different speaking opportunities, each one with a different section of your core audience, and each one with different goals. Allow me to elaborate.

Audience One:

Larger sized audience of people with a broader range of interests. Your role is to offer education at a level that many people will be able to find value in it, and most of them will want to hear more about it.

Audience Two:

Smaller sized audience of well-informed individuals and decision-makers. Your role here is to demonstrate your leadership in an area directly related to their needs, and to your solution. Your subject matter will be much more focused and in-depth.

Example: You offer a tool that greatly enhances the online fundraising capability for non-profits specifically on Twitter.

To Audience One you might talk about the role that social media plays in increasing support for your organization and allowing for more opportunities to donate.
To Audience Two you would talk specifically about the power of Twitter in general, and how that tool can be leveraged to enhance fundraising efforts. [Please note, I'm not discussing whether your language is sales-y or not... it never should be, but that's for another discussion].

Ideally, you have a series of speeches to Audience One, educating large numbers of people enough that you can convert them to a position where they might join Audience Two, and address Audience Two (converts from Audience One along with those who would have already been Audience Two candidates) in a few targeted speeches.

Translation? In general, a blog strategy works pretty well if you have your overall direction be focused on Audience One (most of your posts) and have a few posts strategically placed that target Audience Two.

How do you think of your blog strategy?

If you were to put your blog audience in a presentation hall…… is a post from: Ad Your Comment Here