Getting Granular: The DigitalGrit Blog

76% of SMBs Generating Leads Online, Only 20% Using PPC

According to InternetNews.com today, small- and medium-sized business owners are doing well with their Web sites:

According to the ISP Interland's Summer 2005 Small and Medium-sized Business Barometer, 76 percent of SMBs said they pluck plenty of leads from their Web sites. Another 57 noted in the survey said they generate leads from their Web sites. Fifty-seven percent said they made money either directly or via offline purchases influenced by their Web sites.

And although a surprising 82% claim to generate monthly revenue from their sites, these folks appear to be conservative with their use of the Web:

Among the features that SMB's said they use to help market their Web sites: e-mail marketing topped all at 60 percent. Another 54 percent said they deploy search engine optimization to make sure they're found online, and 27 percent said they use online coupons. But only 20 percent indicated they use pay-per-click as a marketing tool. Farther down the list was the use of blogs (19 percent), podcasting (11 percent) and RSS (10 percent) for generating sales.

Only slightly more than half are even OPTIMIZING their sites. And only 20% use PPC?  I understand fully the budget-driven "if-it-ain't-broke-don't fix-it" mentality to which many businesses subscribe when it comes to their Web presence, but gosh, don't these folks realize the boost they'd get from even a small investment in Google AdWords? The ROI on a well-done campaign can be astronomical.

But I'm preaching to the choir, here. It's just amazing to me how little search seems to have caught on in this market. Perhaps we need a few more evangelists out their focusing on the SMBs...

76% of SMBs Generating Leads Online, Only 20% Using PPC

According to InternetNews.com today, small- and medium-sized business owners are doing well with their Web sites:

According to the ISP Interland's Summer 2005 Small and Medium-sized Business Barometer, 76 percent of SMBs said they pluck plenty of leads from their Web sites. Another 57 noted in the survey said they generate leads from their Web sites. Fifty-seven percent said they made money either directly or via offline purchases influenced by their Web sites.

And although a surprising 82% claim to generate monthly revenue from their sites, these folks appear to be conservative with their use of the Web:

Among the features that SMB's said they use to help market their Web sites: e-mail marketing topped all at 60 percent. Another 54 percent said they deploy search engine optimization to make sure they're found online, and 27 percent said they use online coupons. But only 20 percent indicated they use pay-per-click as a marketing tool. Farther down the list was the use of blogs (19 percent), podcasting (11 percent) and RSS (10 percent) for generating sales.

Only slightly more than half are even OPTIMIZING their sites. And only 20% use PPC?  I understand fully the budget-driven "if-it-ain't-broke-don't fix-it" mentality to which many businesses subscribe when it comes to their Web presence, but gosh, don't these folks realize the boost they'd get from even a small investment in Google AdWords? The ROI on a well-done campaign can be astronomical.

But I'm preaching to the choir, here. It's just amazing to me how little search seems to have caught on in this market. Perhaps we need a few more evangelists out their focusing on the SMBs...

I still believe in Opt-In.

Call it overly optimistic. Call it child-like faith in the goodness of humanity. The truth is, I still believe in opt-in email -- and I think we all should.

Why bother posting about this now, when we all know it's a best practice? Well, recently, I visited the sites of several well-respected publishers. I'm still not signed up for all the newsletters I ought to be reading (as if I'll have time to read them once I've subscribed - hah!) so I went to these publishers-who-shall-not-be-named to opt-in for their widely read publications.

I hit their sites, ticked off the little box for the publication for which I'd been searching, entered my email address....and there it was.

Below the subscriber agreement, in tiny letters, a little box. An OPT-OUT box for additional newsletters and "partner communications." 

My shock was visible. When did this become acceptable? Who said, particularly in the days of CAN-SPAM and inboxes crammed beyond capacity, that opt-out was okay?

Do these publishers realize that by changing the rules of best practices they're potentially harming all enewsletter publishers? No one reads those little boxes too carefully. (One publisher was tricky enough to use the old "I do not wish to receive..." so you actually have to tick the box to opt out! Sneaky.) This practice is nothing more than permission spamming, and it blocks the way for legitimate opt-ins to enter awaiting inboxes.

Really, it just stinks.

I can only assume that these publications run on an ad revenue model and need to pump up their numbers to keep their prices up. But let's face it: opt-out can only lead to high unsubscribes and ultimately hard bounces.

So...two words to the wise. The first to publishers: Use opt-in. It's respectful, it's kind and it's better for the industry in general. Your readers will love you for it and be more likely to trust your future communications - and they'll be less likely to unsubscribe.

Second to sponsors: Make sure you're sponsoring an opt-in only publication. Not only will you be supporting the good guys, you'll be sending your message to people who may actually be interested, not annoyed.

I still believe in Opt-In.

Call it overly optimistic. Call it child-like faith in the goodness of humanity. The truth is, I still believe in opt-in email -- and I think we all should.

Why bother posting about this now, when we all know it's a best practice? Well, recently, I visited the sites of several well-respected publishers. I'm still not signed up for all the newsletters I ought to be reading (as if I'll have time to read them once I've subscribed - hah!) so I went to these publishers-who-shall-not-be-named to opt-in for their widely read publications.

I hit their sites, ticked off the little box for the publication for which I'd been searching, entered my email address....and there it was.

Below the subscriber agreement, in tiny letters, a little box. An OPT-OUT box for additional newsletters and "partner communications." 

My shock was visible. When did this become acceptable? Who said, particularly in the days of CAN-SPAM and inboxes crammed beyond capacity, that opt-out was okay?

Do these publishers realize that by changing the rules of best practices they're potentially harming all enewsletter publishers? No one reads those little boxes too carefully. (One publisher was tricky enough to use the old "I do not wish to receive..." so you actually have to tick the box to opt out! Sneaky.) This practice is nothing more than permission spamming, and it blocks the way for legitimate opt-ins to enter awaiting inboxes.

Really, it just stinks.

I can only assume that these publications run on an ad revenue model and need to pump up their numbers to keep their prices up. But let's face it: opt-out can only lead to high unsubscribes and ultimately hard bounces.

So...two words to the wise. The first to publishers: Use opt-in. It's respectful, it's kind and it's better for the industry in general. Your readers will love you for it and be more likely to trust your future communications - and they'll be less likely to unsubscribe.

Second to sponsors: Make sure you're sponsoring an opt-in only publication. Not only will you be supporting the good guys, you'll be sending your message to people who may actually be interested, not annoyed.