Tonight, I am moved to write about how *not* to craft compelling paid search campaigns:
There are so many things wrong with this ad that it's tough to figure out where to start... but we can start with the ad "title" - which is perhaps the most critical component. It's the first thing a user sees and it's typically the largest, boldest font. In this case, the word "widget" is neither relevant to the rest of the ad nor particularly differentiated. The title should showcase the brand, describe the product and/or have a call to action. A generic, bland word like "widget" does not incent me to click through.
Likewise, the ad body should have a call to action and, in the few alloted characters, give an overview of what to expect after the jump. Asking a user to "download" something is rather aggressive - particular when it has no mention of the aforementioned "widget". Similarly, the text has no relevancy within itself: the words widget, download, desktop, and shortcut are used... but there is no relationship to pizza or Pizza Hut. Huh?
My favorite part of the ad is how carelessly Pizza Hut uses each of the characters (typically a very precious piece of ad). 16 characters are dedicated to spelling out www.pizzahut.com within the ad body - even though that exact same tagline is shown directly beneath it. Meanwhile, they have chosen to only utilize six characters in the title to spell out "widget".
I am guessing that it would also be a reach to assume that Pizza Hut is tracking the ad, the clickthroughs and the conversions (to an order or .com registration)...
This week the Widget World Expo took place in New York and Fred Wilson gave a supposedly terrific speech titled "Why Widgets Is The Wrong Word For What We're Doing". I really wish that I had been able to attend the conference - but the schedule didn't allow for it. Fred's deck in embedded below and Silicon Valley Insider gives the following recap:
To Fred, the “problem with widgets” stems back to the original separation between content and the first widgets — ads. Google was smart to put its own contextual ad widgets (AdSense) in the sidebar of its searches, being clear to its users that its content (search results) were pure and separated from their ads (paid results).
However, as widgets started to be used to display other web content -- Fred notes that his first widget was Flickr’s photostream widget, back in 2005 -- they became "relegated to the sidebar and increasingly seen as ad units and increasingly ignored.”
But they shouldn’t be ignored, Fred argued. They should be integrated into the flow and experience of the page. Developers, he said, need to put more focus on widget user experience.
This ties into a question that I get multiple times a day: what makes a great widget? The answer ties directly into Fred's point that "developers need to put more focus on widget user experience".
1. Give Users a Reason to Come Back
A widget will fail if it doesn't give users a reason to engage and a compelling reason to return. When designing a widget, ask the following questions: "What's the value proposition for a user? What's their motivation to embed the widget?" You'll find that the answers are closely aligned: dynamically changing, interesting content prevents staleness and adds value to a webpage in a way that a static banner cannot. There are countless ways to do this: sales rankings, RSS updates, community activities, etc.
2. Make it Customizable
Being "relegated" to the sidebar isn't a bad thing... it's consistent, highly trafficked real estate. But the publisher should (at least) be able to control the widget's size and color / theme. There are no standard widget units (or IAB sizes) and it's important to remember that your widget is a guest on other peoples' websites; consequently, you should make it as simple as possible for the publisher to create, grab and embed. Customizations can go much further: Jib Jab's Starring You widgets are great examples of full personalization.
3. Market Softly and Carefully
I agree with Fred that widgets are "increasingly [being] seen as ad units and increasingly ignored.” I don't associate that, however, with placement locations (his belief) - in fact, we at Widgetbox have data showing that in-widget engagement is less a factor of location and more a factor of widget design. I believe the reason is that a lot of widgets are closer to 'portable advertisements' than branded widgets. The marketing and branding on a widget should be done gently - if it's too aggressive, publishers are turned off and unlikely to dedicate their valuable real estate to (what is essentially) unpaid ad units.
Here is an example of a highly successful widget that follows the above rules (400,000 installs and millions of views each month). The BabyTicker widget tracks the development of a baby inside the widgetized womb:
1. Engagement: users embed the widget to share progress with family and friends; meanwhile, viewers check back regularly to monitor the baby's growth. Proof that users find the BabyTicker compelling and useful: some of their most active embed locations are on start pages like Netvibes, iGoogle, PageFlakes, etc.
2. Customization: you can set the size, the mother's name, the number of babies and the due date. The widget reflects those changes and grows accordingly.
3. Branding: There is prominent, but intrusive, branding beneath the widget for Babystrology.com.
I found the first post particularly thought provoking:
I've posted every day for almost five years. Its a routine and a habit that's hard to break
But today, I've got nothing to say that's blog worthy
I've twittered six or seven times and posted three times on tumblr
I think its time to acknowledge that long form blogging every day may be coming to an end
I certainly agree that blogs are changing and the distributed, social content landscape has made 'short form' discussion easier and more effective. That said, I think everything serves a different purpose: long form blogging is the table at which the conversations occur, introductions are made and meals are enjoyed. Fred might not have considered the above post "blog worthy" - but he still found value in posting it and 29 readers found it engaging enough to comment. Those comments were likely shared via Twitter, FriendFeed and email...
To me, the most important evolution of social content is that we are now empowered to produce and consume in a variety of formats and platforms... and I find that choice and distribution open me to new relationships and new content. Proof enough is that much of my richest dialog is still through email. Email continues to be a great source of recommended reading and intense discussion. If email is closed discussion, blogging is one-to-many discussion and services like Disqus, Twitter and FriendFeed are opening those discussions further.
Tonight, the Boston Celtics have an opportunity to win the 2007-2008 NBA Championship against the Los Angeles Lakers. The game will likely draw huge ratings and put an exclamation point on a terrific, renaissance season for the NBA.
But not all news is good for commissioner David Stern. After the first game of the NBA Finals (and a spectacular game at that - pitting Paul Pierce against Kobe Bryant), the Tim Donaghy scandal worsened. Donaghy, who has now been under investigation by the FBI for over a year, claimed that the other referees fixed NBA games... citing a critical elimination Game 6 between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings (the Lakers won that game, then won Game 7 and went on to win the championship).
AdAge released a poll this week that was conducted before the Donaghy scandal - and it reveals a huge brand problem for David Stern that surely is worsened by Donaghy's claims: 41% of NBA fans say the league alters games and 26% say the Lakers-Celtics finals a setup. Wow.
Those are troubling numbers... but they are also conflict the success the NBA has seen over the past year (viewership, ticket sales, etc). And the NBA isn't the only league with problems:
- The NFL's integrity has been questioned with the Spygate scandal and the league has had a long-running problem with players and the legal trouble
- Major League Baseball's massive steroid problems were aired publicly and have ruined the era's best hitter (Barry Bonds) and best pitcher (Roger Clemens)
- The NHL has neither problem, but playoff games draw lower ratings that ESPN's rerun of past Word Series of Poker events
So does any of this really matter? Ultimately the health of the league is (mostly) predicated on talent and competition. The Donaghy scandal hasn't deterred viewers for basketball. Too many Michael Vicks and Pacman Jones haven't made the NFL any less popular. And steroids likely contributed to baseball's resurgence. The only sport lacking a major scandal is the only sport struggling to stay afloat.
For the NBA, one thing is apparent: the players drive the league. Despite Donaghy (and whatever other external events occur) - fans want to see great athletics and great athletes. As long as Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Lebron James and other stars continue to play, people will continue to watch.
Today, while listening to my favorite radio show (The Thundering Herd), I noticed that ESPN started pushing ads directly into the programs. I pay $40 a year for Insider 'privileges' which, among other things, gives me access to on-demand ESPN radio shows that were commercial free.
But today, the Thundering Herd (Colin Cowherd's radio program that I listen to throughout the day) had one or two ads running between segments... this was new and, frankly, this pissed me off. But as I got angry and questioned why / how ESPN could ask me for a premium subscription AND introduce advertising on top of that - I realized that it all comes down to content. Sure: I might be upset, but I won't cancel my Insider subscription because the content is simply too good. I can still access the programming on-demand (in addition to other features) - and I value the content enough that - while I might willing to complain about advertising - I am not willing to cancel my subscription.
In summary:
At the end of the day, if the content is good enough and unique enough, a business model exists.
I love Twitter. And I've written about why.
I also struggle with Twitter... and I've written about that too.
But one thing remains consistent with my Twitter usage: it happens on third-parties like Twhirl and Alert Thingy as I rarely visit Twitter.com (unless on my Blackberry).
I've used Twhirl and Alert Thingy heavily over the last few weeks and have a completely unsatisfied feeling. They are each great as way of pushing and pulling data from Twitter... but really, that's about all they offer. Sure, there are quick links / buttons for various actions like direct messaging, searching, etc... but there really is no available functionality that isn't offered at Twitter.com (or FriendFeed.com for that matter).
Twhirl and Alert Thingy each have some much data and activity running through them that they really have no reason to be merely an API service. They should both be revealing interesting data sets and trends. For instance, I would find Thwirl infintely more useful / valuable if it surfaced my network's must 'interesting' information - perhaps that's base on my network's reading habits, click trends, etc.... whatever, it is, showcase some information or trending that can only be accessed via Twhirl. After all, that's really the only way to distinguish yourself among the competition (and there happens to be tons) and the only way to leverage your massive usage.
A complete side note - I'd LOVE some sort of mobile integration!
I am disappointed by the 'iPhone 2.0' - it doesn't have video recording - let alone MMS.
... But today I dropped my blackberry and severely scratched the screen. It made me consider whether to:
1) buy a new Blackberry Curve
2) wait until the new Blackberry Bold arrives
3) trade it in for the new iPhone 3G
The answer was pretty easy: It's time to convert to the new iPhone. I don't love the iPhone for reasons I've already written about. First, the new version isn't as innovative as it claims. Second, I use my Blackberry to send numerous daily emails and really do need a full keyboard. Third, I have no complaints about my current Blackberry and its interface.
But... now that I need a new phone, the biggest draw to the iPhone 2.0 is it's platform.... especially considering my role at Widgetbox. I love my Blackberry - but the iPhone's open platform is attractive enough to draw me towards Apple. I already know I won't love the iPhone - but I am sure there will be plenty of applications that I grow to love.
I work in a world of platforms, applications and widgets - at this point, I feel guilty using my Blackberry (despite loving it) because it's neither the future of mobile nor is it the representative of the (open) web philosophies I believe in.
Assume a solo tech founder has all the skills needed to complete a given Web application for a startup. What would be more valuable in a co-founder - additional tech skills to get to a prototype quicker or someone with seasoned startup experience to help seek funding, work on marketing, business plan, recruiting, etc?
I've seen enough to be convinced that there is no single, best answer. That said, I do have some advice:
- First, it is imperative that you surround yourself with smart, equally motivated and excited people... technical or not.
- Second, if you are not technical, it is important to have either a co-founder or very early non-technical leader. Do not rely on outsourcing technical work from the start as costs will mount faster than you expect and innovation is consequently very difficult.
- Rather than searching for a "technical" or "non-technical" co-founder, search for someone who fills the qualities and skillsets you need and don't necessarily have. When we launched InGameNow, we put together a team of co-founders that filled the key skillsets we believed were critical to our success: business, design and development.
- The business and launch plan will dictate how important technical and non-technical founding roles are. There is value in having a client / partner facing lead; but for highly complex products, the upfront work will likely rest upon the technical leads (and there may not be an upfront need for marketing / business development).
- Most importantly, make sure you work well together. Chemistry is a critical part of any relationship.
The Hacker News community voted this as the most useful comment (and I agree):
Your best bet, from my experience, is someone with the startup experience, business connections, marketing knowledge, and general know-how to execute on a completely different side of the business while you concentrate on the prototype.
But for best results, and to avoid the pitfall davidw pointed out, get someone who knows the basics of hacking too so he/she doesn't ask you to build a website that can shoot lasers out of the screen.
Using Widgetbox's Blidget tool, I've turned each of the Techmeme Leaderboard blogs (the top 100 headline sources) into widgets and broken them down into four pages. Each widget refreshes itself dynamically - staying atop of the blogs' newest content. The page refreshes itself after 20 seconds and moves to the next set of popular widgets. Of course, you can select any of these widgets and embed them directly into your blog, social network or start page (ie iGoogle and Netvibes).
I encourage you to send feedback - this was a quick test to see if people are interested in seeing their content in widget form (and then grabbing their favorite sources). I only included sources in Techmeme's leaderboard that had accessible RSS-enabled content that was relevant to Techmeme and technology.
