First results are “in” from the new campaign type. They are disappointing but not surprising. The bottom line: We cannot use this campaign “right now” to bring cash to the company. The test was valuable and we’ll continue to build on it; but we’re going in a different direction for December. In the meantime, my report showing stats, analysis and action plan follow:
I ran the campaign a few hours on Wednesday, all day on Thursday and a few hours yesterday. Here are the calling campaign results:
Of the 91,319 numbers dialed, 18,301 people picked it up and said “hello”. This represents a big 20.04% of calls dialed, significantly higher than what I’ve been seeing recently, which was in the 16% range. Good news! Also, almost 16% of those who received the call actually listened to the message. This is also a very good statistic compared to recent numbers. The hard cost from our VoIP wholesale provider was $66.78 for these calls. Now, let’s look at how many of these people actually visited the website:
This is a screen shot from Google Analytics which allows us to analyze performance on our campaigns. we had 46 unique visitors from those 3 days (we’ll likely get a few more today & tomorrow). This represents 1.58% of all those who listened to at least part of the message. That’s actually a very GOOD rate, and higher than I had hoped for! Also, it represents about 0.25% of all calls made, which is also in the acceptable range (0.25% to 0.50% is what we hope to achieve in most campaigns, to be profitable).
However, on the first 2 days, I had people going through a “squeeze page” to get to the sales page. I showed you the squeeze page in the last article. I knew this would reduce the number of real visitors to the sales page, but I didn’t know how much. now I know. Until I changed it yesterday (so people go directly to the sales page and skip the squeeze page), 16 of the 46 unique visitors completed the form and went to the sales page. This means only 34.78% of the people who SHOULD HAVE seen the sales page, did not see it. Another important indicator is the number of times the video at the top of the page was actually played by visitors:
Here you see “Video Opened” 56 times, which matches the number of visits (“opened” simply means somebody logged onto the web page and the video loaded and is ready to be played). Of the unique visitors, people started it 12 times (26.09%), which isn’t surprising given the fact that for 2/3 of the time they visited this page, those people only saw the squeeze page, so the majority of people visiting didn’t even know a video was there. A more accurate depiction is the 16 people who completed the squeeze page and went to the sales page. That represents 75% of those visiting the page played the video, and 9 of them actually completed the 2-minute presentation. So more than half of those starting it (56.25%) completed it. That’s good. I have no doubt we located a number of very sincere people with this campaign. Even more important though is the average length of time people stayed on the web page: 1:19 minutes. Of course, again, this is a skewed number because for this test the vast majority of visitors only saw the squeeze page, so we don’t really know the average length of time visitors were on the sales page. We’ll get that number in a future analysis.
The foregoing statistics do not support selling a $27 or $35 product on the web page. There is a possibility that we could improve the numbers to a point where it’s economically feasible, but not at this stage of the game. To do that, we need capital which we don’t have. The only way it would be feasible is if the $27 monthly payments continued for at least 10 months or more. That’s something we cannot know without applying at least 2 years of statistics to a campaign like this. We simply don’t have the capital to develop this particular type of campaign for driving traffic to the website at this time. However, we gained a lot by running the campaign.
There is a wealth of knowledge we obtained in the past 3 days. We now know, for instance, that we really CAN get a great 1.58% response rate from cold calling. That’s a very amazing rate, considering the best I saw over the summer was about 0.50% at best. The conclusion I draw here is that we made the response a socially-acceptable type of response method (i.e. visiting a web page). This is far more palatable for most people than actually TALKING to somebody (i.e. “press 1 for a live agent”). I am convinced, however, that some tuning and tweaking should result in a consistent response rate in excess of 1% on most Press 1 campaigns. This is VERY exciting news to me! It will bode well for our Clients as we move forward.
Another phenomenal number is the cost figure. This means that we really ARE offering a fantastic deal to our Clients when we charge them only 1 cent for a “live” connected phone call. Despite the fact that we’re paying for each and every connection, the vast majority of which are answering machines for which we must pay, we’re STILL making a healthy profit when we charge only 1 penny for live connected calls. Most competitors charge by the minute, and those who charge per call include the answering machines, but fail to disclose to their customers that answering machines comprise about 2/3 of all answered calls (67.22% in today’s example).
Another VERY positive sign from this campaign is the fact that we had 56 visits to the page so far (likely to increase today & tomorrow) and 46 were unique visitors. This is actually a VERY exciting development! This is a direct marketing campaign on which we got a 1.58% “real” response rate! That’s a substantial response for a cold-calling campaign in which we appealed to the general public and not a specific demographic marketing list. This means we absolutely CAN drive people to a web page using voice broadcast.
I won’t be experimenting with this campaign again for some time. The only reason is the fact that we don’t have sufficient excess capital to “perfect” the campaign. I do believe we could make this campaign work, but as I mentioned, it will “work” only in the context that sufficient people will buy (minimum 2% of visitors) and those visitors must continue paying their $27 monthly payments for at least 10 months to generate a profit. The most important thing to realize on this type of campaign: The product sold MUST be a big-ticket item or it won’t be profitable.
Our own action plan is to immediately begin a B2B campaign with call transfer, looking for VBL, MVBL and RAL prospects. In other words, we have ample evidence to show that we should be able to generate a good and profitable revenue stream when we sell our services by USING our service. The reason is simple. Even though the VBL is only $27, anybody who runs a lead-generation campaign will need to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to make it produce a viable result for them. Therefore, the profits we make from the license fee plus message delivery fees should earn a decent profit for us.
This represents a shift in our in-house marketing strategy from selling the business opportunity, to selling the one service we can perform right now: VOICE BROADCAST. I invite any of you Associates who want to join in this effort to contact me right away. We’ll only be able to fill one or two positions right now as “company” reps, but if you wish to do this as an Associate, RAL holder or VBL holder, the field is wide open! Let’s get started and bring in some business!