Making Better Call-to-Actions with Simulation Contexts and Behavioral Tracking

Dynamic advertisement delivery strives to serve ads most relevant to the user’s behavior.  I feel we can develop more effective call-to-actions in a similar way by helping the user select a relevant context, and then using simulation in that context to refine our sense of what call-to-action is going to appeal to that user.  I realized in the process that we have not given this adequate consideration in some recent interactive pieces we’ve produced, but we will be more sensitive to this in the future.

For example, in basic equipment orientation-type of presentations, we always have some means to contact the manufacturer for more information.  We have taken a simple-minded, lazy approach in this, which is bad.  Not only does it require the user to make an effort to tell us what he feels is relevant (which, for those who do so, should be treated specially because the effort in successfully requesting contact likely means the user is fairly serious about something), but also it ignores any patterns of interest we might have detected in the user’s behavior using the orientation.

I think I more productive approach would be to weave the request for information, or suggested contact, much more into the user’s discovery of the content, unobtrusively, but intentionally.  In the title of this post, I mention “simulation contexts.”  What I’m thinking is that one can use a user’s selection of different ways in which a product is used (different contexts) to help narrow what type of relevant information the user might want to acquire.  It’s not just making a simulation that highlights unique or compelling features–it’s creating contexts that have problems which the product is suited to solve (and hence the user can see how the product saves the day).

If we understand better what context is relevant to the user’s pursuit of information, we can make it easy for the user to request that information in that context, or understand where to go for more details.  I believe that the more that the user has to disconnect mentally from content discovery/exploration to go find how to contact the advertiser, the more likely they will not.

Did I mean to say “Simulation-Based Advertising”?

As I delve a bit more into what we want to address in “simulation-based marketing,” I realize that a lot of what I have said relates specifically to how we are introducing or portraying products to the prospect or customer.  In other words, it deals with the ‘advertising’ side of product marketing, not so much with other aspects (such as determining the product, target audience, pricing, etc.).  A friend of mine came up with the name of “educational advertising,” which is appropriate, but sounds kind of academic.  “Simulation-based Advertising” sounds a bit technical, so I’m still searching for the right combination of words.

Is a Product Demo Simulation-Based Marketing?

I was explaining to a friend today about my ideas regarding “simulation-based marketing,” and he said that in his (IT) line of work, they demonstrate their software to potential customers, using fake data.  The question becomes, “is simulation-based marketing” just another term for doing product demos?

I think that at the heart of product sales and marketing is a product demo, since the point is really to tell prospects what the product is and why they should want it.  However, simulation-based marketing is a broader concept, encompassing not only the product demo itself, but also the context in which the demo is presented.

For example, he does his demonstrations live (via the Internet, through WebEx or GoToMeeting), as well as at conferences.  The kind of simulations I originally thought about were more of the variety where there is no live element to it, i.e., it is self-running.  Clearly, though, that is only one possible mode for presenting demonstrations, and our work in the past few years has expanded to build out the other components for online product demonstrations, namely SimTracker (for behavioral metrics), and LiveDrive (our own term, not the online storage site), for synchronous meetings around specific products.

In my head, I’ve always thought about marketing as about generating awareness, where it goes over to sales to do things like conduct product demos and close the sale.  However, especially in today’s markets where access to product information is so readily available (people making buying decisions virtually completely on the basis of what they find on the Internet), it makes sense that companies use product demos even as first-exposure to prospects so the prospects are aware of competitive or unique features.

Bottom line is that I think one could tease apart a product demonstration meant for marketing, from one meant for sales.  They may have a great deal in common (and also have a lot in common with product demos used for training or customer support, for that matter), but I could see someone making a distinction between a product demo meant to generate awareness of capability, versus a product demo for the actual sale that is more comprehensive.

I would love to hear from marketing people about where this fits into traditional marketing (or sales).

Simulation-Based Product Marketing

Over the past few days, I have been trying to focus on what I do and where I feel me and my company’s expertise lies.

I enjoy creating effective materials that use equipment simulations as part of marketing and training efforts.  When I say “simulation” to any group of people (who will stand still for more than a few seconds), that word seems to eclipse the importance of whatever other words surround it.  However, as I quickly follow-up as an example, “good simulation-based training” is foremost about ‘good training’, not something to be judged necessarily on how accurate the simulation is.

While the field of “simulation-based training” is roaring along, I have yet to hear the phrase “simulation-based marketing.”  Based on some shoddy and incomplete research (i.e., doing hasty web searches and looking at the first few pages of results), I have yet to see this term used.  Feeling somewhat presumptuous, I wonder if I am the first person to use this term.

When I say a ’simulation-based product marketing piece,’ I mean “a presentation designed to engage viewers with the product, in which the product is reproduced to some level of interaction, for the purposes of selling to, or persuading them to buy it.”

At its core, and this relates to our work over the past few years, is the notion of “Product Engagement” (PE).  I have seen people use the term “brand engagement,” but I haven’t seen as much attention to “product engagement”, though clearly this concept is at the heart of pretty much all types of sales.  Often we talk about “putting the product into a prospect’s hands,” or giving a prospect a “hands-on feel” for the product.  ‘Product Engagement’ could be a way to measure how successful a presentation is at giving the prospect the feel for a device.  Not to carry this too far, but PE doesn’t have to relate to a simulation — it could be an assessment of an experience with the actual product itself.

In the same way a simulation or model always makes assumptions about what it is representing, the engagement is never quite identical to using the product in an on-the-job experience (except, of course, using the product in an on-the-job experience).

The idea of PE highlights an important distinction between sim-based product marketing and what could be considered a broader, sim-based product training.  In training, ultimately, our goal is to transfer correct performance using the device in realistic conditions.  In marketing, our goal is to give the prospect confidence that they know how they will perform.

Here are two posts I think that relate very well to this discussion:

• Devin Day – ‘Authentic Product Engagement‘ (Nike)
• ShiftControl – ‘Selling Product Engagement‘ (Coke)

The materials I see on the web relate to how products can be linked into games and into social media.  At the forefront of this area, like most, seems to be the B2C manufacturers, though a post I made a few months ago about Malvern Instruments is one demonstration that the B2B community wants and needs this approach.

I think there is a confusion between ‘engaging the viewer’ and ‘engaging the viewer with the product’.  I think that is why so much interactive marketing today focuses on games and game-like elements, because they misdirectedly (is that a word?) believe that the goal is to engage the viewer and then sneak the product in somehow.  When I hear discussions around the idea of ‘product placement’, it almost seems like a dirty secret that the manufacturer is placing its product in a position, hoping the viewer notices it–but doesn’t notice it too much.

This seems ridiculous to me.   I believe that if one makes a marketing piece about a product and lets the viewers interact with the product in realistic situations, situations that highlight the competitive or unique features of the product, then the viewer engagement will take care of itself–those viewers who are interested in the product will be retained, and those interested simply in the ‘fun’ aspect will not.  Isn’t this the core group that the marketer wants to attract?

I think that one of the neat parts about simulation-based marketing is that the concepts and materials fit so well  into other important business categories, namely training (for sales reps, customers, service technicians, etc.) and even product design and manufacturing (designing products that can engage users).  The path, then, being set is to align processes along having users interact with the product.  If one has confidence in the superiority and quality of one’s products, isn’t that the best way to sell it or learn how to use it?

Simulation-Based Marketing

I think that the same concept I’ve presented regarding ‘product marketing’ could be viewed in a larger context of purely “Simulation-Based Marketing.”  My vision is that the broader concept does not necessarily involve equipment or devices (though it could), rather, it is about re-creating the ownership experience (hence the ’simulation’) for a prospective customer.

Measuring Engagement

Thanks to the folks at Unisfair via Twitter, I just saw a very nice blog post about developing metrics for engagement of social media: http://econsultancy.com/blog/4887-35-social-media-kpis-to-help-measure-engagement.  As my focus is on ‘product engagement’, I have been thinking about how that fits into other activities that express a viewer’s/user’s interest level.

Joerg from Unisfair mentions the Unisfair Engagement Index, an attempt to measure engagement in virtual events–another  interesting concept.  It seems like a useful endeavor to focus on a grouping of interaction opportunities — like a virtual trade show — and then distill the engaging elements.