A weekly Google Hangout dedicated to discussing content marketing, search marketing, SEO and more.
Will a Mindset Shift Make Social Media Easier for Marketers to Quantify?
Marketers know they need to use social media, but are they really using it to inform marketing decisions? How should they be thinking about social media differently?
Ray Grieselhuber, Founder & CEO at GinzaMetrics
Erin O’Brien, COO at GinzaMetrics
FULL VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Erin: Hey, everyone. Welcome to FOUND Friday. Today is Friday, March 27th. One of the things that we wanted to do during today’s episode is switch up the format that we typically follow a little bit. Throughout the course of months and years of being in this industry, Ray and I get asked a lot of questions every week around different topics. So we actually decided we would start aggregating some of these questions and then try to address them during the show as part of set topic.
There have been a lot of questions around the mindset shift to make social media easier for marketers to quantify. We thought that this would be a really great week to address this because we just released Social Media Intelligence a week or so ago. It seems like a fairly topical question. At this point, marketers really do know that they need to be using social media. There was recently a University of Massachusetts study that says 93% of the Inc. 500 businesses use at least one social media platform tool with LinkedIn being the highest usage but Facebook and Twitter hot on the heels of that platform.
The first question is: “Why are so many marketers having trouble quantifying social media efforts? What makes this so difficult?” A secondary question to that was: “Are the traditional ways of thinking about social media getting in their way?”
Ray: From my perspective, that would be certainly true. Because of probably the way social media became so prevalent in the minds of corporate marketers is that it’s all about audience and followers from day one. It’s basically a lot of these vanity metrics that we’ve talked about where it’s how many likes did you get, how many followers do you have, and compare that with your competitors.
Sure, it’s interesting and it can base from measurements from measure of audience or Sure Voice perspective. But it doesn’t really get to the heart of it’s what you’re doing or have been working. Engagement only matters if you’re going to measure it in such a way that you can demonstrate an overall impact on your business. Too many marketers I would say get focused on only measuring the vanity side of that and they don’t actually look at what it means for traffic, revenue, ongoing loyalty, retention, and so forth.
Erin: This idea of vanity metrics, that’s not a good indicator of how something really contributes to your business. There are a few things that I think makes it difficult for people to quantify social media effectively for business.
The first of it is that there are a lot of channels that got added in a relatively short span of time. If you think about the [2:53 inaudible] of other marketing mediums, we had radio, we had TV, and we had print. That was all over the course of decades of stuff. We had e-mail came out and e-mail has been around for years before this other explosion of channels really happen.
With social, it wasn’t just social media happened, it was Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Pinterest, it’s all these different things. Every time one of these new channels comes out, people have to figure out, “Is this right for my business? How can I use this?” They’re getting pushed sometimes from the executive suite to get on these different channels really quickly and maybe don’t know how to even set up engagement metrics or their correct metrics from the start. I think that that’s a really big challenge. Coupled with that is it actually takes time to learn the value of social media interactions and engagements. That doesn’t happen in a week. People don’t start to like your Facebook page or start to follow you on Twitter, and typically instantly show revenue. It takes some time to understand how that nets out in terms of conversions.
To what you said, these original metrics, I think where the vanity metrics came in was social media was trying to prove itself as a legitimate channel. Because people were trying to legitimize using social media for business, they were showing whatever numbers had the biggest traction. Whether or not that actually meant anything for the business, it was like, “Oh, we got 10 million followers. We’re totally doing awesome.” But we’re not really seeing any change in the bottom line. Now that started to flesh out a little bit. That’s making some changes.
The next question is around individual versus group measurement. It says, “Is it better to measure social media results by individual pieces of content or should we as marketers change focus and look at measuring by campaigns or some sort of different measurement tactic?”
Ray: I’m guessing we agree on this. I think that you need to measure it in such a way that makes sense for what you were doing. What that means is, a lot of times when you start talking about campaigns, you have to understand what that means for you. If you are looking at campaigns as something that’s part of an advertising campaign or social media campaign or content creation campaign, all of those things could mean different things and they can actually all be connected very well if you’re really on top of things. But most of the companies that we see out there are still struggling to unify those three different sets of activities.
Calling all of that one single campaign is probably masking a lot of different issues that are lurking there. The campaign way of organizing things is really useful because you get a simple project. You get everyone involved around a certain thing and you can measure the effectiveness of it. Understand what that means first and then decide if it makes sense to organize your social marketing around that. And if it does, then figure out how you’re going to feed it, measure it, and improve on it over time.
Erin: What I find really interesting about this question is that it assumes that you can accurately measure campaign performance without measuring individual content performance and rolling it up. The whole point is, if you want to measure something at the aggregate or 60,000 foot view level, you need to be able to understand the weeds on the ground. What we’re talking about here is it may not be in your day-to-day function to need to know individual content performance because you may not be individually responsible for updating changing or creating that content. But if you can understand at the granular level, then the day that you’re looking at in aggregate, I would argue it’s likely not very valid because it should be taking into account that granularly level. So you need a tool to do that.
Talking about what you’re saying about campaigns being an individualized thing and being tailored around what you need to accomplish, campaigns mean something different to everyone. Campaigns can be holiday sale. It can be time of year like a spring type thing. It can be around product lines or solutions. It can be around audience types. It can be around geographies. Multiple campaigns can be running at multiple times. So you need to use a tool that allows you to see individual content performance and have content be part of different campaigns and to create campaigns in a way that actually makes sense for your business. Not in some sort of predetermined way that somebody else had said is what a campaign is because it really is, like you said, a very individualized experience and you need to be able to set those parameters up.
There’s no separating the two. So using any sort of tool that only does one or the other seems crazy. Only looking at one or the other especially if your job is in a strategic role, it doesn’t seem like a very good winning proposition either.
Ray: Yeah, agreed.
Erin: The next question, “Is measuring social media by campaign still too narrow?” is actually kind of a funny follow-up question to the one that we just talked about. The question is, “What about the value of overall increased engagement? Should we just be able to look at, in spite of campaigns from a social perspective especially, the value of lots of people engaging with us and knowing who we are?”
Ray: I think there are a lot of different opinions out there. I don’t think that that in and of itself is valuable for a couple of reasons. One is, who are the people you’re talking about? It’s very easy to spoof users who don’t manage. It’s very easy to get spammy. It don’t matter what you’re doing. They’re not influencers. Sometimes they’re not even real people. Just measuring some number of people engaging with your content can be meaningless.
The other thing is what does that mean for you? If you got a lot of engagement but no traffic, then did you have a branding impact? Maybe yes, maybe no. You’re probably not able to measure it. What we look at a lot of times with our data is because we have this combination of social and search data, we’re able to tell you if there was a long-term and lasting impact on your content campaign. We look at social as being much more immediate and search impact as being much more long term. You can use those together very well.
If you’re creating new content, you’re getting a lot of lift – that lift in engagement is creating backlinks, it’s creating more people linking to your site as an authority on whatever topic you’re writing about – then you use both channels very effectively. You can say at that point that yeah, you did have a very positive impact. But without measuring some sort of traffic or conversion revenue-related metric or search impact, it’s hard – in my opinion – to say that you had anything really useful come out of that experience.
Erin: It is interesting that you bring up the idea of social thing more immediate and search as being more long term. That’s one of the things that we touched on a while back that I always want to try to drive home. Search and social go hand in hand from a standpoint of organic conversations and topical descriptions and a lot of things, so they have really awesome symbiosis. One of the things that’s really interesting about that is social conversations can have a lasting impact on search results and search results are the lasting flavor of creating content that you expect to be found for a long time and not have to pay to constantly drive traffic to through advertising or other paid channels or have to pay a community manager or someone to manage a social channel and constantly talk about that single piece of content. You’re supposed to be building this conversation. Then what hopefully would happen is that through organic means, that conversation continues, grows, and moderates itself without your day-to-day investment.
That being said, what about the value of increased overall engagement thing? I see this all the time. I think the point of any sort of data or analytics is to make existing decisions with future strategies better and the point of your marketing stuff is to create conversions and revenue. It’s conversions or it’s revenue, it’s whatever you consider that thing to be. Whether it’s something as simple as a straight or as an e-commerce purchase or it’s downloading a whitepaper, which a lot of people consider a conversion or it’s purchasing something or donating to a cause if you’re a non-profit. That’s a conversion, that’s a thing.
When we’re talking about that, if I get a million page views and not one single person converts, that metric of traffic or engagement doesn’t really matter. If I get ten page views and all the ten people convert, I would say that I would rather take B, that second option. I think most people would agree. The problem is that for so long because of things like traditional web-based marketing and traditional e-mail marketing, people would just do this spray-and-pray method of “I’m just going to send something to a million people,” and naturally a few people will work. Numbers meant gains.
Now because there’s so much noise and there’s so many people who have been doing this, what you really need is tailored content. That’s where I think this engagement part is important. Being engaged with people who care about what you do is a great way to differentiate yourself. Try to be engaged with the right people. You can’t engage with everyone. That’s crazy. It’s like trying to be best friends with a thousand people. You can’t be best friends with a thousand people. I can barely be best with two or three.
It’s a time requirement because you have to be invested in them if you want them to be invested in you. That’s another weird thing about biting off more than you can chew. We won’t get into it but it’s a good one.
Erin: The next question is about using social media as a distribution channel. “Is it enough to just use social as a distribution channel? If you’re not using it as just a distribution channel and using it to have these conversations or to participate in conversations that other people are having, how do you know that that’s a worthwhile endeavor? Why should you tackle that? Can that actually be measured?”
Ray: That’s a really interesting question. I think that this one really depends on what type of site you’re talking about. I think it also depends on the specific site within whatever industry you’re talking about. On the media side of things, any sort of publishing discussion-oriented site, everything from traditional new sites to newer sites out there that are revamped blogging platforms – Medium.com is a really good example – I would guess that the majority of the traffic these days coming to those sites is probably from social. It doesn’t make sense for them to run advertising for obvious reasons to get traffic in very large quantities.
Search is good but search is very difficult. I’ve come across very few media publication-based companies that are effective at managing search over the long term. The really good ones are killing it, of course, but it’s a whole process that a lot of them don’t really understand. But social for them is exactly what they’re looking for because Facebook in particular, Twitter as well, they’re able to publish content, they almost don’t have to do any engagement on their own in order to actually make that stuff go viral if it’s well written. If it has got catchy headlines then people are going to share and discuss it.
I would say the thing that probably the companies or the publishers behind that content needs to focus on is making it as controversial as possible because that’s really what gets page views. Controversial and/or meaningful additive with value added to it but I think that the traffic that we see really comes from people who are sticking their neck out and saying things that are likely to spark some sort of discussion.
Erin: Yes, the discussion thing is really interesting in terms of being able to measure its value. I think that this is not something that I foresee people being able to measure the value of effectively anytime in the near future. I think that’s just because conversations are so subjective.
People have tried it with NLP and semantic measurement in terms of tone and assigning positive, negative, and neutral sentiment of things. I think that that’s a lot of BS because of the linguistic differences and a lot of other things I’m not going to get into. Whether or not there’s inherent value in having conversations or participating in conversations, I would say it’s interesting. I do think that there is value in having conversations and participating in conversations with people in your industry if you would like to do that.
One of the dangerous things to do is what I call the dive bomb, which is you’re bored for a few minutes and you see a posting or it’s something that you really care about and you just dive bomb in, make a comment, and then peace out and don’t respond again for another seven months. A little while later, bam! You go in and you do the same thing. What happens here is, if you’re going to participate, you really need to participate. I think that this is where the rise of the community manager what four or five years ago really started to become important to people was these are people paid to get involved.
Where I think this is actually kind of a problem is it sometimes misses the mark in terms of connecting the audience with the people at a company who they’d really want to talk to. Let’s say it would be really good for people interested in the technology, it would be great if they could just talk to an engineer who want to be involved in the conversation sometimes. Or for marketing to be involved in somebody who has product feedback as opposed to it all going through one centralized group of people who may not actually be specifically trained in any of those particular areas so they don’t necessarily have the same response.
I think what you end up getting is a more, in some cases, customer support-style canned response which is going to, I think, eventually become the equivalent of dialing in and getting an automated computer person on a help line for something. That will be really frustrating because they all have the exact same answer. I don’t want to somebody who has the exact same answer as a conversation on social. If I needed that, I would just go to FAQs or one of those live support chat things.
I think that that’s a really different problem. I see it moving that way. I don’t think we’ll be able to measure conversations or the value of them soon unless what you’re talking about can do this. Some analytics platforms can do this. You know where everybody who you have closed the deal with came from and so you would actually be able to say something to the effect of, “I had a conversation with this person on Twitter and now they’re a customer.” Or, “This person saw my Facebook post. We started to have a discourse and now they use our product.” That’s entirely possible, as well.
It’s actually how you and I met, which I think is funny. There is some, depending on the day, and you’re [19:16 inaudible] the fact that we met by me posting product feedback about Ginza on Twitter.
Ray: Yeah, that’s actually an excellent point. One of the things that we really touched on too much was B2B versus B2C and within B2C the different types of segments. I would argue that a brand that has an act of interest in selling CPG type goods definitely should be super engaging on social media especially in response to any feedback.
Any sort of consumer product where people being really happy or being pissed off can have an impact on your business over the long term definitely should be engaged. B2B obviously should be all over social media. You should be engaging with your potential users. You should be spot in activity on potential competitor’s accounts and everything else. It definitely does not matter quite a bit what product we’re talking about.
Erin: The issue there is bandwidth. With my recommendation which is don’t do it unless you’re really going to commit to it and be part of a conversation, don’t come in, drop a comment to engage with somebody as a response and then peace out and not stay part of the conversation. That’s worse. But if you can’t actually get involved on a regular basis, don’t do the dive bomb thing. Just wait until you’ve got the bandwidth to really do it right.
I do agree the B2B versus B2C thing is really interesting. I was having problems with a banking institution and I was like, “Hey, such-and-such bank is really missing the mark here right now.” They responded to me directly. They said, “Hey, here’s my personal cell phone number. We’ll fix this.” And they did, which I thought was really awesome. I appreciated that.
I think that there’s a difference between monitoring for mentions or monitoring for problems and then getting you to customer support versus engaging in a conversation. Because I didn’t say, “Oh, I don’t understand how such-and-such banking thing works,” I just said I had a problem. That was like a monitoring thing. I don’t want o go too crazy on it but I do think that there’s a really big difference between monitoring and responding to support problems and engaging into a conversation like the way that you would in a forum where somebody says, “I don’t understand the value of link building.”
The next question is, “What if your competitors have more followers than you? Does that impact your bottom line? If it doesn’t impact your bottom line, then why are we concerned with that measurement at all?”
Ray: A really good and interesting question. The interesting about a lot of these questions is they start off sounding very simple and as you start diving into them, they’re not. A lot of times, I’ll start off by saying “it depends” because it does.
As a pure numerical value, I don’t think it matters if the competitor has a lot more followers than you because there’s no way to just by looking at that number of followers determine what that actually means. Do you actually collect revenue the exact same way as your competitors? Is there some sort of one-to-one correlation between the number of followers that you have versus the overall size of your business and your traction and everything else? Does your competitor have a bunch of bullshit followers? We see there are a lot. We saw this with one of our competitors where someone pointed out that we had this one competitor had a lot more followers. We looked at a lot of their followers and it’s a bunch of bought accounts and stuff that had volume. I was like, “Well, we’re not going to do that because there’s no point.”
I think it really depends. If you’re doing an accurate comparison of two audience sizes and you are in direct competition with another company and you are going after the same people and the high quality kind of followers tend to follow your competitor more than you, yeah, that’s a problem. Definitely go after those. Figure out how to get those people as part of your audience and/or re-segment somewhere else. I think that that’s definitely something worth looking into.
Erin: Yeah. I always start answers with “it depends” too. It’s because it does. It’s funny. We did a couple of releases, so I want to tie together this idea of Social Intelligence and Competitor Discovery because the instrument of knowledge is the same here which is it’s not about whether or not your competitor has more followers. It’s about whether or not they’re engaging with people you care about and what specific content and actions they’re taking to make that happen. One of the things that Competitor Discovery does that is the reason it got so much interest from people is it’s actually telling you the specific keywords, topics, and things that they are talking about that are attracting the people you want to attract. It’s also telling you the specific content that they’re using so you know: are they driving people to a landing page about a 20% off thing? Are they driving people to a specific feature? Are they offering tons of free content in terms of e-books, whitepapers, case studies, etc.? You can actually see that and you can see what things people are interested in.
You can also use this top keyword activity area that I really love. I’m talking about our site specifically but it’s because I’m talking about the data you need to figure this stuff out with. Top keyword activity not just for you but for your competitors is super important because top keyword activity for your competitors is telling you what they’re talking about that’s actually driving traffic to them.
So I don’t care if they have 100 million followers if no one is paying attention. What I care about is, if all of a sudden 100 potential buyers of my product are clicking on something on Twitter or Facebook or LinkedIn because they’ve come up with a really great messaging strategy or a really great offer or a really cool feature – that I want to know about. That’s important.
It’s really funny when we talk about this. It was last week I think – it may have been this week – as you do you, you sent me a bevy of articles to read, which by the way, there’s like a million page list of articles that I had never read, but I do keep them. It was about somebody who’s not a competitor but another B2B SaaS company driving page views and leads by doing webinars. I was kind of laughing pointing to FOUND Friday as something that we do but also I was thinking this is where the leave [? 26:14] office and that those are kind of metrics that make them look good to people. But in my opinion I actually don’t know from all those webinars, were those qualified leads? Are those people who just signed up and then didn’t end up doing anything, are they people who even qualify to buy their product, who have budgeting decision? Are they people who ended up converting? Is it made up of mostly customers? Who knows, right?
Because we don’t know the end of that metric, I think that one of the things that does happen sometimes is people share these metrics to tell a story, to do as I was mentioning in the first question which is people felt like they had to defend social media as a legitimate source. So then we’re like, “Oh well, I got a zillion followers, blah, blah, blah.” What’s the legitimacy of that number?
To me, when somebody tells me that some other company did X I’m like – what’s interesting is if doing that thing that have driven 500,000 page views and 100,000 leads had actually tripled their bottom line, I think that would have been the number they shared. I think they would’ve been like, “We tripled revenue by doing X.” But because you didn’t say that, you gave me some other really large numbers, I’m telling you either you don’t know how it contributed to the bottom line, which the company’s analytics they feel like they have to know or it didn’t. Anyway, that’s just my two cents of that kind of nonsense.
Two more questions. We’ll see if we can get them in before the end of the show. The first is that social has moved beyond posting and talking with people in a free off-handed way and now there’s a bunch of paid options on social media. There are sponsored tweets and sponsored Facebook posts. LinkedIn has all these paid options. There’s advertising across all of these different options. The question is around their being a measurable advantage to using both paid and owned when it comes to social or if brands should try to stick to one or the other?
Ray: So that question is – you’re talking about within social, should you be using some combination of paid and what we would call organic?
Erin: Yeah. Because we do see brands that do one or the other where people are just say, “Oh, I can’t afford to have a full-time person on Twitter so I’ll just pay to sponsor some tweets,” or “I’ll pay this highlight post.” Or we have people who are like, “You know what, social media is free and I have an account manager or I have a community manager or somebody monitoring this so I don’t need to do anything paid because it’s free by nature.”
Ray: Guess what? It depends.
Erin: It’s shocking.
Ray: Yeah. Again, there’s no quick answer here. Obviously, if you can get the organic engagement from people then probably as we see in search, you are going to have better long-term loyalty, you’re going to have better engagement, you got better conversions, you’re going to have people talking about you because whatever it was that caused that engagement in the first place is likely going to continue to be an engine for some sort of time going forward.
If it’s paid acquisition on social, yeah, it totally works. It’s just a matter of, do the economics work out? You probably are dealing with shorter loyalty terms based on that. But it can be really effective especially if it’s some sort of retargeting enabled thing because you are either getting people to remember your brand or you’re reaching new people who’ve never seen your brand in the first place. It has a lot of the same benefits as traditional advertising which works, it’s just you’re paying a lot more for that acquisition.
Erin: You know it is really funny, there are a lot of things to this that are amusing to me. This cost of acquisition thing is something I think that sometimes people – they’re like, “Okay, I’m going to dedicate let’s say $100 a month (or $1,000 a month or whatever it is) to a campaign on social.” And let’s say that you have an app that you’re going to charge people $1 for and then you end up doing this. You find out you get 1,000 new people and it cost you $2,000 to do it and that each of these 1,000 people only paid $1 for this app. So you spent $2 a person to get $1 back. I’m concerned that we don’t understand how math works.
Ray: Yeah, right.
Erin: That’s just kind of the idea. That’s one of things, right? Obviously, you know math.
Secondly, the conversation around long-term engagement versus this one-time pop, there’s still a ton of data coming out about how these paid opportunities actually contribute to the marketing mix and your bottom line and what they do to fuel conversations. Because what we’re really talking about is sometimes you do need a spark to start a conversation because trying to do it organically for every conversation unfortunately doesn’t always work in a very noisy world. So boosting a post for like $5 for one day just to keep it up at the top of people’s news feeds to make them aware can sometimes spark an organic conversation that will catch fire on its own.
Now, I say that if you’re going to do something like this, it damn well better work because they’re like paid advertising. One of the reasons we always advocate for a lot these more organic methods and trying to stay on top in terms of search and social is paid stuff stops working when you stop paying for it. So you don’t want to just have to fund this thing and every single thing indefinitely to make it work. It needs to have some weight on its own, some sort of value to your users or to your audience base that if you didn’t pump a single extra dollar into it, somebody would still be cool finding it.
So I always suggest that people do like a pilot program to see if a small campaign has any positive market impact for them. If it doesn’t do great, it may not mean that paid isn’t right for you. It may just mean that your first campaign wasn’t so good. I would say that this is actually where organic and search data could help you, is that the data that you collect on organic and search will actually tell you what types of topics and what types of content are mostly likely to succeed already because people are already natively talking about them, that are interested in your type of product. So you should probably start with those topics and conversations, not some random new topic and random new content that you don’t know if anybody cares about. So leverage the stuff that you already know works and then throw a little bit of money behind it and see if you reignite some flames.
Ray: Yeah. I agree on that. Math does need to be checked. I’m sure you’re understanding how that is going to affect you. The thing we talked about last week, maybe it was two weeks ago, was this idea of retention and how retention means a lot of different things depending on your business. For any commerce company, retention is repeat visitors, repeat customers. For B2B obviously, it’s people who don’t cancel. Almost every study out there has shown that retention is much higher – the loyalty is much higher – from people who come in through non-paid means because they found you. There’s that serendipity factor. You can acquire good customers through paid means but you’re paying a lot more for less overall loyalty and retention.
Erin: Yeah. It moves into this next question I think. What we’re talking about is churn is a really big problem. We talked about that not everybody calls it churn, they call it retention. “Is there value in sharing these metrics like the things that are going on with social outside of the marketing department? Is there benefit to the larger organization for this stuff?”
Ray: Yeah. In this case, I would say probably in most cases, yeah, I would say it’s true. The reason I’m kind of hesitating is because you really have to understand what the reasons are for doing that, as well. Just sharing these vanity metrics again goes back to what you were saying before where you can talk to executives, you can talk to other department members and say, “Hey, we got 500 re-tweets on some new blog post that we posted today.” It’s funny you get a buzz from that and everything else, but again what does that actually mean?
I think that if you’re going to share things outside of the marketing department, you have to be able to speak the language and you should know this as marketer. You have to speak the language of your audience and help make it relevant to them. So if you’re going to be telling something to somebody that you think they should pay attention to then you have to understand why they’re paying attention to it.
If it’s executives, they care about growth, they care about making more money, they care about things like loyalty and brand engagement and everything else. So frame it in that way. If it’s things that you’re sharing to other departments then you have to speak the needs of who you’re sharing it with.
Erin: It’s totally true. One, yes. Absolutely, there is value in social data to other departments for a lot of reasons. Social data is not just about re-tweets and followers and likes. It’s about the conversations that people are having around your industry which impacts product decisions. What should you be building? If you’re following the conversations that people are having around your industry, you’re probably able to come up with new features – changes that you need to make. You’re able to find support issues and so customer support and customer service is probably somebody that can figure that out.
From a strategic and higher up level, you can actually use social and search data together to predict where market factors might go. It’s like a hedge fund. They use the data to do a lot of prediction and analysis in that area. There are so many ways that you can take what social is doing and not just say, “Oh, it’s just cat videos,” and people talking about going to the gym or whatever. It’s real conversations happening with real people. If you’re looking for it right and real conversations happening between real people is something that brands don’t get to actually do most of the time. You’d have to conduct a focus group or do something like that and that’s still not as typically organically correct as doing it this way.
So you get real insight into what drives people’s decisions by listening to social and by paying attention to what people are searching for and how that changes over time. So if people used to describe products and services in one way and you start to see a shift of search data and people talking about it in a different way or looking for it, describing different terms, you might want to think about creating your content to use the new terms. Or you might want to consider why that is and what the next step in that evolution might be.
So many natural symbiosis there for what people should be thinking about and doing. I think that if you’re hoarding any sort of specific marketing channel thinking that nobody else would find it relevant, you’re probably not being creative enough. That’s how you’re thinking about what data is or somebody has discouraged you from sharing it, in which case, it’s screwed up.
Anyway, on that pleasant note, we’re actually a little bit over time, so I hope everybody enjoyed the new format. Thank you, Ray, as always, for participating and we will see you next week.
Ray: Alright. Take it easy.