Mobile shopping may finally come of age

For years mobile shopping has been something that is always in the sandbox and never really worked in reality. However this year with a larger population using tablets we may start to see more mobile users shopping from a wireless device. I think the big reason why is a cell phone is just too small to communicate as effectively as a larger screened tablet.

That said I can see the future with apps that make it easier to purchase via your phone. Essentially allowing you to not have to fill out a form. The old “Amazon One Click” for your cell phone that works on all sites.

Here is some data from Mojiva:

70% of mobile users report to spend more that $20 on electronic items

40% say they will spend  up to $50 per gift.

It will be interesting to see the results in first quarter on how many holiday purchases where made via a mobile devices such as a cell phone and tablet.

Where do your B2B leads come from? and latest study 2011 Demandbase National Marketing and Sales Study breaks down lead acquisition as follows:

23% of sales leads come from the corporate website

14% come from email campaigns

7% from online ads

3% from social media

I have heard from other lead aggregators that their social and wireless efforts have not paid off so this data seems accurate. There may also be an offset by defining the leads from the online ads compared to the corporate site. Often users follow the ad but do not submit info. Then go back after reviewing other sites from a different URL directly to the site. Bottom line is 23% of sales from corporate websites is significant.

Damandbase conclusion is that corporate sites are still not putting enough content and product / service information to satisfy and persuade the prospective customer. This indicates that the 23% would increase with the correct content and call to action.

Googles latest “Content Farmer” update and how it effects lead generation companies.

I am sure by now you have all heard about Googles latest farmer update that is designed to cut down on sites that are considered content farms to generate ad revenue. Google is rightly so trying to provide more in-depth and targeted results.

“Our goal is simple: to give people the most relevant answers to their queries as quickly as possible…This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on…” – Official Google Blog Feb 24th

Danny Sullivan’s article Number Crunchers: Who Lost In Google’s “Farmer” Algorithm Change? Has some very interesting data on which sites are affected and by how much. I have copied his top 100 sites that are affected below.

There are two effects Google’s changes will have on lead generation.

  1. Many of these sites are used as 3rd party lead gen sites for lead companies that put their lead generation forms and or ads on their site. The immediate effect is less leads will be generated however some of these sites have always delivered poor quality leads some generated by white papers so the effect may not be all that bad for the end user buying a lead and may help the lead industry.
  2. Many lead generations sites improve their organic ranking by providing articles to content farms. By doing this they get high quality inbound links. In a short period of time many of the high quality links will be considered low quality links and will drop the lead gen’s site ranking. This will decrease the number of organic leads they receive effecting their profit margins.

What does this all mean? Perhaps lead quality will improve although there will be less leads. Google will provide better quality results… perhaps but certainly in the short term lead gen companies are going to have to increase their Google PPC campaigns to make up for the offset in acquired leads.

In the top 100 most effected sites below you will see all lead categories effected from education, health, business to business etc.

Sistrix: Most Keyword Rankings Lost
Upon request, Sistrix will send people a full list of 331 domains that were found to have lost in its analysis. With Sistrix’s permission, here are the top 100 domains that suffered losses, sorted by total number of keyword positions lost. Also show is the percentage loss. For example, was found to have 216,419 top rankings before the change, which dropped to 53,512 rankings after — a loss of 162,917, or 75%.

Domain Positions Lost % Loss 162,917 75% 141,469 79% 130,231 71% 102,820 67% 62,049 72% 58,666 63% 52,084 70% 50,909 62% 44,621 69% 41,260 61% 39,509 56% 36,945 48% 34,494 81% 32,981 67% 31,711 64% 29,835 78% 29,011 39% 28,513 68% 27,594 40% 26,650 56% 25,867 42% 25,621 77% 24,135 71% 23,346 70% 22,506 67% 22,254 57% 21,949 39% 21,615 86% 21,528 43% 21,510 73% 21,421 48% 21,096 56% 20,042 73% 19,655 58% 19,625 51% 18,931 66% 18,877 77% 18,625 49% 18,175 38% 16,743 78% 16,386 70% 16,201 62% 15,162 70% 14,259 72% 14,190 78% 13,766 38% 13,541 85% 13,426 75% 13,340 69% 13,324 34% 13,312 57% 12,900 48% 12,601 35% 12,600 54% 12,387 75% 12,380 41% 12,154 67% 11,938 63% 11,804 76% 11,639 67% 11,410 47% 11,191 55% 11,167 76% 11,000 48% 10,832 80% 10,699 40% 10,560 70% 10,423 63% 10,331 47% 10,298 76% 9,781 32% 9,412 75% 9,293 52% 9,135 67% 8,986 58% 8,974 75% 8,909 27% 8,632 65% 8,594 46% 8,577 64% 8,539 66% 8,473 48% 8,316 61% 8,240 58% 7,948 55% 7,927 34% 7,908 50% 7,828 47% 7,807 73% 7,779 62% 7,728 63% 7,695 78% 7,660 59% 7,652 62% 7,619 63% 7,445 64% 7,401 62% 7,252 29% 7,171 69% 7,124 67%

From Danny Sullivan’s article Number Crunchers: Who Lost In Google’s “Farmer” Algorithm Change?

e-Book Prices Rise to High

I love using my Kindle for a number of reasons; I can carry a bookshelf of books with me, I can change the font size, I can review books before reading them. But one of the most important is the price of a book. I often spend $5 for a book, sometimes $1. Not any more…

Since Barnes and Nobles released the Nook and with the release of the iPad the publishers got greedy and the new contracts for book prices are in some cases the same as the cost of the book store. This does not make any sense since the cost to create an ebook $0.00 and to distribute $0.00 should significantly reduce the price of a book. I am not the only one upset about this. Online groups are starting a PR war giving best seller authors 1 star on Amazon because the book is over priced for an ebook or released late after the hardbound release.

Think about the effect of  this…a one star reviews on good books just because of the price. This throws the whole online crowdsourced marketing campaign into tail spin with long term effects.

Here is a cost example:

$20 book % of list price Cost Profit e-book
bookstore 40% $12 $8 $6 (Amazon 30%)
book Wholesaler 60%, $8 $4 $0
Publisher 30%   $8 $8
Author 10%   $2 $2
Agent 15% or Authors %   $0.30 $0.30
Author final     $1.70 $1.70

*Data from:

So let’s take out the costs if we had an e-book. The bookstore is now Amazon at 30% of list. The wholesaler does not exist. Assuming the publisher still gets 30%, e-books should cost 70% less that list or for a $20 book would be $6.

The publishers have to take note to what happened to the music business. If they increase the price too much piracy will increase. I have found sites where I was stunned to fine compete collections of top authors for free.

I think Amazon is upset about this, you will noticed they now say “ This price was set by the publisher”.

Interestingly Borders is about to go bankrupt and I heard Barnes and Nobles had a 70% increase in digital sales due to the Nook. Not sure what the time frame was but it is clear that the digital book era is well on its way. And everything digital costs less, companies have to be more creative in their business models to survive.

Don’t get me wrong I would happily pay a few extra dollars if I new the author was getting the money… Funny I am starting to rediscover the public library again.