Now, please take this infographic with a grain of salt ... there's a lot of theory and unsubstantiated numerical wizardry going on here ... click here for the article/chart.
The point isn't to argue or defend the chart ... the point is to get us to think about low-cost customer acquisition.
As catalogers, we cling to high-cost customer acquisition. We love to pay co-ops and Google money for new customers. It's easy. It's predictable. It scales ... we can hire one person to acquire new customers via co-ops and search ... one person!
A lot of what we're going to be asked to do in the future is like the old-school, two-step programs. Remember those? We'd advertise with a blow-in, allowing the customer to request a catalog ... this request got the customer on our customer file, where we'd market to the customer in the future.
Our future includes a lot of "two-step" activity ... using social/mobile as a "prospect list", eventually converting prospects into buyers, with luck. At first, this won't appear to "scale", it will seem like a lot of work for very little payback.
It sure seems like we're headed in that direction though, doesn't it?
Helping CEOs Understand How Customers Interact With Advertising, Products, Brands, and Channels
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Switching Up Creative
A large e-commerce brand sent me forty (40) consecutive email marketing messages featuring a percentage off message above the fold. Interest...
-
It is time to find a few smart individuals in the world of e-mail analytics and data mining! And honestly, what follows is a dataset that y...
-
It's the story of 2015 among catalogers. "Our housefile performance is reasonable, but our co-op customer acquisition efforts ar...
-
Ok, we all know that as we spend more we get more customers, but at an ever-diminishing rate of return. The diminishing rate of return is wh...
Superb, brilliant weblog structure! I like your blog post Low-Cost Customer Acquisition and method of writing,
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete