Lessons to learn from Blekko and T-Shirt marketing

You may or may not have heard about a relatively new search engine named Blekko – and fortunately it doesn’t matter hugely in the context of this post. If you’re interested in playing around with data and search, then it’s definitely worth checking out, but the important thing for this article is in the picture:

Free T-Shirt sent by Blekko

It’s a picture of a T-Shirt sent to me by Blekko. I can’t remember where I first saw their offer mentioned (Possibly Reddit), but if you emailed them via an address listed on their blog, they offered to send a T-Shirt and a cool little trading cards booklet which I can’t find to photograph right now. And shortly afterwards, they created Blekkogear, which continues to offer shirts and trading cards to anyone that emails them.

How lovely and fluffy right?

Isn’t that lovely? A nice free T-shirt – and they’re one of those rare companies that actually sends things outside of the U.S as well! But it’s not really marketing is it – it’s not like a homepage advert on a big website or investing thousands in a PPC campaign.

Wait a minute – there’s ROI here:

Now the team at Blekko might just think it’s a nice thing to send out shirts, or they might be doing it because they realise there’s a lot of value in it – or it might be a mixture of the two. Either way, it’s worth considering what costs and returns they might be getting. In terms of costs, the T-shirt design may have been an internal thing, or it might have cost them some cash, say $500 for the sake of this exercise. And each T-shirt with the image would be say, $20 on average using print-on-demand to avoid overstock, with say $10 for shipping each time (I have no idea of postage costs in the U.S, but in the UK, I’d guess it’d be probably £2 for a domestic parcel).

And let’s imagine that as Blekko, the Blekko blog, and the places it was shared are quite techy, they get 200 people enquiring about a shirt.

So that’s:

  • Design: $500
  • Shirts: $4000
  • Shipping: $2000

Total spend $6500.

That seems like a lot of dough for 200 T-shirts doesn’t it?

But wait a second…

They’ve let the offer percolate amongst a techy crowd, which is exactly the core market for Blekko – if it’s going to go mainstream, it’s most likely going to do it with the earlier adopters actively advocating and teaching others about it, as it will have to battle some change intertia to move people away from Google or even Bing, which have a ‘traditional’ search engine and also lots of brand recognition/advertising budget.

Say 25% of the T-shirt recipients are like me and have a blog. They’re not necessarily A-list bloggers, and they’re chuffed enough to post an article with a link to Blekko and Blekko gear. That’s 50 blog posts, and links – depending on the site, paid links can be somewhere between $50 and $200 judging by the going rate on various sponsored post and linkbuying services and the enquiries I regular see being pitched to a variety of bloggers (And in sponsored posts etc, those links are meant to be ‘nofollowed’ – the voluntary ones to Blekko are ‘Dofollowed’, which is handy). So that’s potentially about $10,000 worth of links.

I’m not a heavyweight tech blogger, and tend to be somewhere above average on most of the ranking services I’m registered on – e.g. AdAge, Technorati, Wikio, PostRank etc, etc. So knocking a little off my average article views, you’re probably looking at circa 10,000 page views targetted at the tech/marketing audience Blekko want to reach. Put that at a CPM of say $10, and that’s another $100, before we look at how the offer has spread via social networks, social sharing sites, and other word-of-mouth routes.

Then there’s the offline impact. I hang out with a lot of people involved in digital businesses, and I’m quite likely to be wearing the Blekko shirt on some of those occasions – if people haven’t heard of the name, like any normal geek, they’ll ask about it, and not only see the name, but get my quick take on what it is and does. And odds are, they’ll decide not to just take my word for it and have a look themselves. Coincidentally, the T-Shirt has arrived just before the Digital People in Peterborough Curry Night, so that’s 16-20 geeks.

And then there’s the fact that although I’ve heard the name and taken a quick look at some reviews of Blekko (and spend a quick bit of time playing), I still ahven’t really sat down and worked out exactly what it could do for me. But having received the T-shirt, I may not consciously think of it as a bribe, but it’s made me think nicely of the company, and every time I see it, I’ve got a visual reminder that I saved a load of Blekko information and intended to sit down and work through how I could utilise it effectively. With limited time in the day and countless startups appearing in my RSS feed that get filed for the mythical ‘when I get some spare time’, that visual reminder makes all the difference. I don’t know what the lifetime value is of a new user for Blekko, but say it’s $20. Out of the initial 200 T-shirts, they’re likely to convest a fair amount – say 20%, or 40 people. And from online and offline interactions, those people will probably spread the word to say 100 people (Average number of Facebook friends is 150 as an example). That’s 4000 additional people, and if 5% like Blekko, that’s another 200. Without going to the next degree of Kevin Bacon, we’ll say that’s 240 new users with a lifetime value of $4800.

So quick maths time:

Remember the costs?

  • Design: $500
  • Shirts: $4000
  • Shipping: $2000
  • Total spend $6500.

And the benefits?

  • Linkbuilding: $10,000.
  • Equivalent CPM ads: $100
  • User lifetime value: $4800
  • Offline recommendations: How much would you value someone’s friend recommending your product?
  • Total: $14,900.

$8400 of benefits already, so why aren’t more companies doing it?

Really rough calculations without getting into Blekko’s business model, accurately looking at social media sharing and recommendation values etc, but you probably get the message, and I save the calculations to decimal places for paying clients… But that not only leaves the question of why more companies don’t allow for offers like this, and limit their giveaways to conferences, trade shows or to members of the traditional press (Conference freebies end up as noise unless they’re really special – and traditional mainstream press still appreciate free schwag but are a bit more jaded than most people).

Even worse – how have I managed to work with a load of brands that have somewhat iconic status amongst their fans, to the point where fans are potentially willing to pay to advertise that company, and yet the opportunity isn’t taken because no-one ever gets around to it? And that’s ignoring the concerns about the brand identity, and what happens in someone undesirable wears our logo etc.

If you’re trying to be ultra-exclusive and maintain your desirability that way, then you might not want to be letting just anyone into your branded shirts or other merchandise. But even then, letting the availability spread via word-of-mouth means you get that same benefit until such a time as your making enough mainstream cash not to care.

And I’m not suggesting you should stop all your other branding, marketing and advertising and bung it all into T-shirts, but when you’re spreading your budget between SEO, Social Media, Display etc, it’s worth allocating some to something which might serve as a social object if you’re lucky.

And the best bit of this whole argument?

If it works, I’m hoping I can renew my wardrobe… And the last time I got a free shirt and modelled it (SocialMedian back in January 2009), it roughly coincided with the company being acquired for $7.5 million. It’s the T-shirts that did it…

Lipstick on a pig….

Considering the current snow disruption to travel, and the fact that I had to cancel meetings today due to being stranded, the news that East Coast trains are about to appoint a new advertising agency came at the perfect time.

No disrespect to the advertising agencies involved, but I’m not sure any advertising agency is the solution to the problems East Coast has. Even when they’re not stumped by the presence of snow in winter, any advertising has to compete against the daily criticisms being made by paying passengers.

Peterborough station - 7:50am

Image by BadgerGravling via Flickr

Overcrowded, under-resourced, and charging for previously-free and unreliable wifi are just some of the things which advertising won’t solve. Add in the costs, the difficulty of reserving seats, the lack of effective information on delays, and you’ve got a pretty steep challenge to solve.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Misunderstanding cigarette branding…

The UK Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley has suggested cigarettes should be sold in plain packaging, as ‘the evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers’.

Sadly for those who want to prevent smoking, he appears to be talking cobblers – as suggested by the fact the previous Government ditched the same plan two years ago due to a lack of evidence to that effect.

What’s happened is that there’s a misunderstanding of the role of branding in cigarette smokers.

  • People encourage other people to start smoking.
  • Branding and People influence which particular product someone smokes.

Removing branding won’t make any difference to the amount of people trying smoking. It might make a difference in the number of cigarette companies, but the spread of cigarette smoking is largely spread by encountering other people that smoke and being influenced by them in some way. There’s a handy chapter in The Tipping Point on the triggers for smoking, quoting examples of being influenced by people who were seen as cool, and also smoked. The basic hypothesis is that some people who smoke happen to be cool, and therefore smoking is perceived as cool (Rather than smoking making someone cool – the reality is that it makes people smell of tobacco, wheeze when they’re running, and end up dying earlier more often than if they hadn’t smoked – but as a smoker for over 10 years, I already know this).

Cigarette by SuperFantastic on Flickr (CC Licence)

So why do tobacco companies spend so much on marketing, and finding ways to place their brands in your eye, despite cigarette advertising bans?

The first cigarette I ever tried was a Silk Cut Ultra Light – and yet for 10 years I’ve smoked Marlboro. I’m not sure it’s a coincidence that Ayrton Senna drove a Marlboro McLaren, Wayne Rainey rode a Marlboro Yamaha, and I actually suffered through the feature film ‘Harley-Davidson and the Marlboro Man‘. Given the choice, I’ll pay a slight premium for the familiar taste and amount of nicotine, plus the branding and image etc. But if that brand vanished tomorrow, I’d find another one in the time it took to run out of cigarettes. The fact is that in the past I’ve bought John Player Specials (JPS Lotus, JPS Norton), and Rothmans (Rothman Honda in the Wayne Gardner era) as fall-backs which have no relation in taste or nicotine levels.

Wayne Rainey driving out of turn 3 at the 1990...

Image via Wikipedia

I’d reveal a more effective way to tackle smoking, but unfortunately there’s a limit to how long I can write about the topic without nipping outside for a cigarette…

Do we get more than we give from the web?

It might sound like a philosophical question, but it’s something that new research by McKinsey for IAB Europe claims to have answered, claiming for 1 Euro spent on online advertising by companies, users get 3 Euros worth of services, with an estimated consumer service surplus about 100 billion Euros. (H/T PaidContent). You can download it yourself as a .pdf.

I’ve only had a quick glance through it and it seems pretty thorough, but as the always readable Rob Andrews points out, the estimated value is hypothetical as the ad-funded companies aren’t necessarily losing money. They reference services such as Wikis, but what I can’t find in there is a reference to the value provided to companies by the content uploaded by consumers in the form of comments, reviews, articles etc, or from inbound links from sites created by consumers ( for example).

As an example, I read PaidContent a reasonable amount, and I have no idea what their advertising rates are, but in theory I may be gaining more value from their content than they make from advertising. But, I occasionally comment, and that content also gets indexed by search engines. I’ve also linked to them on social networks, and that traffic is monetisable. And I’ve linked to them above with a link that will aid their search engine rankings for that article, which can carry a monetisable value, and definitely a recognisable benefit.

Of course, any effort to quantify all of this would be an epic undertaking which would still have areas people like me could pick at, but it worries me when I see claims that consumers are benefitting without also providing value back on top of ISP internet subscriptions. I’m also just checking to see if other revenue streams are included in the calculation, as ‘pure’ advertising would also discount affiliate links, event tickets etc.

I’m not suggesting that digital advertising provides too much revenue to content and service providers – my own little publishing empire is testament to that! But I also don’t see that situation changing, and in addition to looking at ways advertising may be more beneficial to the segment of consumers that are happy with the ad-funded model, we also need to be devoting serious time and research to other revenue streams and ways to fund quality content production.