The document discusses key metrics for tracking website and customer success, including unique visitors (V), conversion rate (C), and loyalty/retention rate (L). It explains that the overall success of a website is derived from multiplying these three factors. Subsequent sections discuss challenges with analyzing customer journeys over time across devices, attribution of sales to different marketing channels, and calculating customer lifetime value. The document emphasizes the importance of analyzing metrics at a cohort level rather than only looking at aggregate numbers.

1. To track and serve…
ASIAKKAIDEN HALLINTA
INTERNETISSÄ
1

2. Menestymisen resepti? (Nielsen, 2008)
‖ The V × C × L website success is:
B=
formula for
− B = amount of business done by the site
− V = unique visitors coming to the site
− C = conversion rate (the percentage of visitors who become
customers); note that the concept of conversion applies not
only to ecommerce sites, but to any site where there is
something you want users to do
− L = loyalty rate (the degree to which customers return to
conduct repeat business)
Of course, there are further variables to consider, such as
the size of the shopping cart and the marginal profitability of
the most popular products. But roughly speaking, a website‘s
success is derived from multiplying these three numbers.‖
2

3. Konversio -> uskollisuus (tulevaisuutta?)
―However, as conversion rates double — and later, double again —
we‘ll eventually reach the point where the usability investment for
continued improvements becomes much more expensive than
current budgets. We‘ll then need to discover ever-more esoteric ways
of satisfying customers, and those ways are unlikely to emerge from
the cheap and fast user-testing approaches that dominate today.
We‘ll soon reach the point where increasing the loyalty rate is the
best way to achieve substantial improvements in website business
metrics. Whereas we might aptly call the period 2000–2010 the
conversion decade for website usability professionals, 2010–
2020 will be the loyalty decade.‖ (Nielsen, 2008)
 konversioeroosio? (M.ex, 2006) Lue lisää:
http://www.marketinge
xperiments.com/impro
ving-website-
conversion/website-
conversion-
3
erosion.html

4. Kysymys:
What is the difference between cost per sale and cost
per acquisition?
Vastaus:
customer lifetime
value (CLV)
4

5. Kritiikki analytiikkaa kohtaan (Maurya 2010)
• Asiakkuuden elinkaaren seuranta.
Analytiikkatyökalut tuottavat usein aggregoitua tietoa
rajatulta ajanjaksolta – tuloksena sivuilla hetkellä x
tehtyjen muutosten seuraaminen hetkellä x+1
saattaa olla hankalaa (annotaatio?)
• A/B-testien pitkäaikaisten vaikutusten seuranta.
Ryhmä A ja Ryhmä B; edellinen freemium-sivulle ja
jälkimmäinen trial-sivulle. Kumman ryhmän asiakkaat
ovat mukana vielä 6 kk:n päästä? (ID-identifiointi?)
• Retention seuranta. Koska asiakkaita ei voida
identifioida, ei pystytä sanomaan mitä he ovat
tehneet pitkällä aikavälillä. (rekisteröityminen?)
5

6. Rekisteröinnin problematiikkaa…
• hyöty: tieto asiakkaasta helpottaa markkinointia,
rekisteröinti vähentää asiakkaan myöhempää vaivaa
• haitta: asiakkaat vihaavat rekisteröitymistä
‖Assume up to 80% to 90% attrition if you are asking them
to register for a username/password, for example. So if you
can make it very short – 2-3 pages at most – with
progressive commitment of personal information, you‘ll get
further along in your design. And obviously, you‘d ideally
want to test for drop-off at each point, and optimize each
step as if it were a landing page.‖ (Chen 2007)
• ratkaisu: lykätty rekisteröinti (deferred registration),
pyydä vasta konversion jälkeen
6

7. Evästeet (cookie) asiakkaiden seurannassa
• pieni tekstitiedosto, jonka Internet-sivu tallentaa
käyttäjän tietokoneelle myöhempää tunnistamista
varten
• mahdollistaa esim. asiakkaiden seuraamisen,
tunnistamisen ja automaattisen kirjautumisen
• ongelmana vanheneminen ja useat tietokoneet
# Esimerkki-eväste
# Pvm. 2012-10-12 FACEBOOK-
username=Joni SALASANAVUOTO!!!1
password=ma8_jee
7

8. Attribuutio-ongelma (Kelly 2009)
―One of the most difficult problems to solve is the issue with giving proper credit to the
‗original source‘ of the lead or sale. Some of the PPC systems refer to this as the ‗assist‘
and they pass special tracking cookies to the user that will help indicate in the click
stream data future visits from this user. This typically helps credit PPC campaigns and
reduces the cost per acquisition (CPA) for that channel.
This is great, but it is flawed. This generally assumes that the visitor used one
computer, and few of us use one computer. We usually have an office computer, a
home computer (we have 2), plus mobile devices.
Consider this situation (which is probably quite typical):
1. Husband is searching for vacation spots for his family during his lunch at work. He does
several searches, including hitting a few paid ads.
2. He runs out of time and has to get back to work, so he emails himself the links to the pages of
the sites he liked to his home email account so he can show his wife later that evening.
3. He gets on email at home and pulls up the pages on his home computer to show his wife and
kids what he found.
4. They continue to do more research and even bookmark a few sites/pages and will revisit in a
couple of weeks so they can think about it.
5. They revisit the site a few weeks later by hitting the saved bookmark and from there, decide to
purchase.
Now in this case, it‘s going to be virtually impossible for the marketer to track this sale all
the way back to the paid search ad because he lost him as soon as he switched
computers. And if this happens often enough, he will think his paid search campaign is
ineffective because it is not driving any sales.
Newsflash: most people don‘t buy anything on the first visit!
There is likely going to be multiple interactions, extensive research, bookmarking, etc.
before any purchase is made over a several-week (depending on the product) sales
cycle.‖
8

9. Ratkaisu: kohorttianalyysi (Maurya 2010)
tehtyjen muutosten vaikutus voidaan
nähdä kohorttien kautta
konversion
kehitystä voidaan
seurata omissa
funneleissa
eri viikoilla
rekisteröityneitä
seurataan erikseen
9

10. Customer lifetime value
• CLV = tuotto, joka yhdestä asiakkaasta saadaan
asiakkuuden aikana
• arvioitu vs. toteutunut
• tekijöitä (KissMetrics)
– keskimääräinen ostoksen arvo (esim. ostoskorin arvo)
– ostokertojen määrä asiakassuhteen aikana
– asiakaskohtainen kate
– retentio-%
– diskonttaustekijä
ks. lisää! http://blog.kissmetrics.com/how-to-calculate-
lifetime-value/?wide=1
10

11. Asiakkuuden arvon ekstrapolointi (Liew
2010)
―A typical pattern found in subscription businesses is that after a
steep drop off after an initial period, month-on-month attrition
rates tend to level off. You can see a similar pattern in this example,
where after the first month, month-on-month attrition rates are around
-6% (ie month N subs ~ 94% of month [N-1] subs).
If you see a pattern like this, you can extrapolate forward using the
same month-on-month attrition across several years. As you can
see in the model, we extrapolate an average lifetime of 9.77 months by
extrapolating forward over 5 years of data.
So if you were a subscription business charging $20/month with 90%
gross margins (after accounting for customer service costs for
example), then you would attribute a lifetime value for a new
customer of 9.77 x $20 x 90% = $176. This sets an upper bound of
what you would be willing to pay to acquire a customer (although
in practice, you would prefer to see a ratio of CAC/LTV in the 25-35%
range).‖
11

12. Aikaulottuvuuden aiheuttamia ongelmia
• Ongelma: kuinka paljon voit käyttää uuden asiakkaan
hankintaan?
• Ongelma: SaaS-liiketoimintamalleissa
asiakashankinta täytyy maksaa HETI, mutta rahat
saadaan vasta ajan päästä
– paradoksi: on mahdollista, että mitä enemmän yritys
saa asiakkaita, sitä enemmän se tuottaa tappiota
– keinoja: pyydä koko vuosi ennalta (alennus); upselling;
puskurointi
• Ongelma: churn eli asiakaskato
– absoluuttisen kadon määrä kasvaa asiakasmäärän
lisääntyessä, vaikka kato-% pysyy vakiona; ts. joka
kuukausi tietty osa käyttäjistä tippuu pois
– kuinka minimoida asiakaskato?
12

13. Esimerkki asiakaskadosta (churn) SaaS-
liiketoimintamallissa
Date of initial subscription
Drop
from
previous
Mth 1 Mth 2 Mth 3 Mth 4 Mth 5 Mth 6 Mth 7 Mth 8 Mth 9 Mth 10 Mth 11 Mth 12 Average month
Still
Subs at
end of
first
month 98.1% 90.3% 91.1% 89.7% 92.4% 91.5% 90.5% 95.3% 94.4% 94.2% 99.1% 97.3% 93.7%
Second
month 54.7% 60.8% 48.7% 49.0% 53.4% 50.5% 56.7% 54.6% 48.0% 52.0% 51.7% 52.7% 56 %
Third
month 54.8% 48.9% 43.4% 46.8% 50.8% 53.3% 54.4% 44.2% 46.1% 46.0% 48.9% 93 %
Fourth
month 48.7% 45.9% 43.1% 43.4% 52.5% 49.7% 40.8% 42.8% 44.2% 45.7% 93 %
Fifth
month 40.7% 43.0% 40.6% 44.9% 47.6% 37.2% 41.2% 40.2% 41.9% 92 %
Sixth
month 41.2% 41.3% 44.2% 42.8% 37.3% 38.0% 39.4% 40.6% 97 %
Seventh
month 40.5% 45.7% 38.9% 33.2% 36.5% 34.8% 38.3% 94 %
Eighth
month 40.0% 41.9% 29.5% 33.8% 34.8% 36.0% 94 %
Ninth
month 37.3% 34.0% 30.0% 32.8% 33.5% 93 %
Tenth
month 35.8% 33.0% 30.1% 32.9% 98 %
Eleventh
month 29.3% 30.9% 30.1% 91 %
Twelfth
month 29.2% 29.2% 97 %
13

14. Aggregaattiharha (Chen 2007)
―When you compare to the week 1 to week 2 cohort, you
can tell that 1) there was a 25% increase in new users
(100k to 125k), and that the retention rate DECREASED
to 40% (50k/100k versus 50k/125k). This would be a red
flag that your site was sucking, even if your aggregate
stats looked good:
In either case, this might hint at a bad systematic
condition within the site, but ultimately the aggregate
numbers hide the problem. In either case, not being able
to acquire and retain brand new users is a problem, and
without measuring the groups separately, it seems
impossible to assess the true situation.‖
14

15. Asiakashankinnan ansa tilauspohjaisessa
liiketoimintamallissa (York 2010)
Kasvu hidastuu
väistämättä ellei
hankittujen
asiakkaiden
määrä kasva
nopeammin kuin
asiakaskato.
Asiakaskato
vaikuttaa siihen,
kuinka paljon
uusista
asiakkaista
voidaan maksaa!
15

16. Vertaismarkkinoinnin (viraalikertoimen)
kompensoiva vaikutus asiakaskadossa (York 2010)
Viraalikasvu on
eksponentiaalista,
maksettu
asiakashankinta
lineaarista.
Molempiin vaikuttaa
kato, mutta korkea
viraalikasvu voi
lyhyellä aikavälillä
kompensoida
korkeankin kadon
Huom! Retention
ollessa alhainen (ja
kadon korkea),
lyhyen viraalipiikin
edut haihtuvat
16
nopeasti (shark fin)

17. Asiakashankinnan kasvuparadoksi (York
2010)
Jos kato-% pysyy
vakiona, johtaa se yhä
suurempaan määrään
luopuneita asiakkaita,
vaikka samalla uusien
asiakkaiden määrä
kasvaisi kuinka paljon
tahansa.
Sama kuin kaataisi
vettä vuotavaan
ämpäriin.
Retention
(asiakasuskollisuuden)
kasvattaminen on siis
ensiarvoisen tärkeää.
17

18. Asiakkuuden ja asiakkaan laadullinen
kehittyminen (York 2010)
Asiakas Suosittelija Evankelista
Lisäksi laadullinen ero
asiakkaan
vaikutusvallassa; ts.
kaikki evankelistat eivät
ole yhtä arvokkaita.
Opetus: asiakkuuden
rahallinen arvo ei ole
ainoa mittari asiakkuuden
arvoa määritettäessä!
18

19. Analytiikan ongelmia (Performable 2010)
• Kampanjat tehdään “siiloissa”. Eri kanavien kampanjat
eivät ole aidosti integroituja – viestit voivat olla erilaisia,
koordinaatio puuttuu eikä pystytä keskitetysti seuraamaan
niiden tuloksia ja yhteisvaikutusta. Kampanjametriikat eivät
ole vertailukelpoisia, ja eri kanaville on omat strategiansa,
joista vastaavat eri ihmiset. Vaikea saada yleiskuva
(snapshot) markkinoinnin toimivuudesta.
S
• Data on usein anonyymia. Vaikea rakentaa
I
I
asiakassuhdetta, jos asiakas on täysin tuntematon. Kuinka
L yhdistää statistiikka yksittäisiin asiakkaisiin tai
O asiakasryhmiin?
• Mittarit kertovat tietystä hetkestä, eivät kehityksestä.
Esim. tiettyjen asiakkaiden keskiostot voivat kasvaa, toiset
eivät osta enää ja pitäisi harkita uudelleenaktivointia, jne.
19

20. Paluu Wanamaker-dilemmaan…
―If you are like most companies, you probably have several
marketing promotions going on across multiple channels. Maybe
what you have is some online pay-per-click (PPC), organic search
engine optimization (SEO), direct mail and radio. Good marketing
requires that we know and understand what sales are costing us
from each channel.
Well, how do you know how much you are going to spend in each
marketing channel?
The fact is, most are guessing. In order to properly assess what you
are going to spend in each marketing channel, it is necessary to
understand what you are willing to spend to acquire a new customer
(cost per acquisition), and ultimately, the lifetime value of the
customer.
Wait, what is ‗lifetime value of the customer‘? That is the net dollars a
customer is worth to you from the moment they become a customer to
the moment they are no longer a customer.‖
Sääntö #1
CAC < CLV
20

21. 21

22. stalkkaustiedot
22

23. Customer lifetime tracking (Performable
2010)
Tämä
on…
…unelma
23

24. ”Metrics are people, too”
―The things we‘re trying to solve are if someone comes to the
site multiple times and then they sign up, let‘s say on the third
or fourth time, we‘re allowing you to identify that user and
we’re trying to attach all of those times that they came,
previously, to that customer. What that means is that we‘ll
understand the first touch point they had with you and where it
came from, and we‘ll be able to attach that for the history of
that user using your product. And that‘s a much different view
than most analytics have, which is either page-view tracking
or event tracking. This is actually, honestly, people tracking,
which means that we‘re trying to actually track people.‖ (Nivi
2010)
24

25. Markkinoinnin automaatio (Performable
2010)
‖Most marketing automation programs are based on a
defined schedule, hitting your customers‘ inboxes before
they‘re ready for them. Performable automation is different. By
connecting to its cross-platform marketing analytics,
Performable can automate emails and trigger other
messages based on real user behavior on and off your site.
In the example to the right, a company has used Performable
and the company‘s existing email service provider to target
shopping cart abandonment by automatically sending limited
time offers to any customer who placed an item in a carts but
never checked out.‖
• automatisoitu markkinointiviestintä Hyödyt
• ajansäästö
• workflow
Ajastettu Reagoiva • ennakointi
viestintä viestintä
Ei korvaa oikeaa
25
vuorovaikutusta. Miksi?

26. ”Monikanavamaksimi” (totta vai tarua?)
“The more points of contact you have with
someone, the more likely they are to convert
into something more.” (Rucker 2010)
Keinot esim.
• retargeting
• Facebook-iteraatio
26

27. So, you’ve got all this data…
• Liian informaation riskit:
– vanity metrics
– analysis paralysis
• Miten erottaa jyvät akanoista?
– asiakaskohtainen seuranta (vs. keskiarvot)
– kohorttianalyysi (vs. aggregaatit)
27

28. ”Social media espionage” (Salminen &
Degbey 2011)
relationship
Company A Customer
competitive Company B
intelligence
• semi-public information • vulnerability; exposure; risk
(degrees of control) • opportunity
• switching behavior; • responsive behaviors
discontent; window of • companies are driven to
opportunity transparency! (”conversations are
• choice of engaging or not being held on the web with or without our
consent.”)
28

29. Strategic grid of social espionage (Salminen
& Degbey, 2011)
Engage Not engage
Spy Full pot ―Machiavellian
payoff‖
Not spy ―Sucker‘s payoff‖ Empty pot
For example, if a competitor suffers from technical problems, a possible
reaction would be to launch an opportunistic marketing campaign (…).
Therefore, the process would aim to (1) detect competitor‘s problem, (2)
respond rapidly by offering alternative, (3) win new customers. It is critical
that the common pitfall of (…) delayed action is avoided – (…), the window
of opportunity is easily lost as customers take adaptive behavior. (…) there
is a common bullwhip effect that hinders big corporations‘ ability to leverage
real-time information efficiently. A possible solution involves removing the
firm‘s CI unit and instead empowering operational units to take direct action
based on their proprietary judgment.
“Customers are talking about their desires, needs and issues on
Twitter, Facebook and blogs so why not take advantage of all this
information to create a strategy built on leveraging the weaknesses of
competitors. If your rivals are offering a window of opportunity, it
makes complete sense to use social media to take advantage of it.”
(Evans 2010)
29

30. Startup neuvoo toista…
―In your case, you might want to contact people that are
frustrated with existing tools, like basecamp:
a quick search for #basecamp reveals:
– It seems like #Basecamp does about 70% of a lot of
things, but not 100% of any-one-thing. Too bad.
– cuting off after 20 messages within categories & not
having pagination sucks! I cant find anything!!!!!
– WTF kind of sense does it make to click on a Milestone
link & go to a LIST of milestones instead of THE
milestone?
The first one looks promising. You might contact him
and see if he would use your product.‖
30

31. Suoramarkkinoinnin mahdollisuus, kun
mainonta on liian kallista
―We‘ve had trouble using adwords to test out shopping
site as well. Our clicks typically cost $.50 or so. Quite an
expensive way to experiment. As a result, we‘ve moved
to contacting people directly on twitter. There are a lot of
people stating their interest for women‘s accessories. In
addition to being free, twitter also allows you to actually
communicate directly with the people that will be using
your site / testing your idea.‖
31

32. Case ”United breaks guitars”
Katso:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo
Olet Unitedin markkinointipäällikkö. Miten reagoit?
United
− videon kehuminen
− soitto ja pahoittelu
− pyyntö käyttää videota
koulutusmateriaalina
− lupaus muuttaa käytäntöjä
− 3000 $ lahjoitus
hyväntekeväisyyteen
32

33. Case British Petroleum
―Twitter is very confused by BPGlobalPR, the conspicuously fictitious
Twitter account ―belonging to‖ the public relations division of British
Petroleum. On May 20, the anonymous author began posting silly tweets in
which he/she proclaimed that the ocean is “half-full” of oil, not half empty,
announced a free matches giveaway, and instructed readers to send $25
for “B.P. Cares” t-shirts. This is not so funny to people who fail to identify
it as a joke! ―wait, seeing two sea-creatures fight makes ruining thousands of
lives and much of the south‘s economy worth it?‖ asked one user. Another
Twitterer took an equally brave stand: ―I think it‘s disgusting that
@BPGlobalPR is making flippant jokes about the destruction of our wetlands-
-see the preceding retweet.‖ Others skipped the pulpit and went straight to
nonsensical death wishes: ―why the hell are you all being so nonchalant about
this?! You've destroyed the ocean‘s balance, I hope you die in the
recession.‖‖ (Weiner 2010)
 Lähti liikkeelle BP:n kömpelöstä reagoinnista; heikkoa maineenhallintaa,
osaamattomuus Twitterin käyttöön
33

34. Hmm….
34

35. McDonald’s vastaa…
35

36. Viral contamination? (Roth 2011)
―In response, McDonald‘s sent a tweet of its own on Saturday: ‗That
pic is a senseless & ignorant hoax McD's values ALL our customers.
Diversity runs deep in our culture on both sides of the counter.‘
But that clearly wasn't enough to clear things up, because Twitter
users continued to send out the picture, with that same message of
condemnation: ‗Seriously McDonald’s.‘ Indeed, so many people
sent ‗Seriously McDonald‘s‘ Tweets that the phrase became a
leading entry on Twitter‘s trend list.
That led to a second, blunter McTweet, on Sunday: ‗That Seriously
McDonalds picture is a hoax.‘
The latest pushback effort seems to have helped keep the photo
from spreading too much further--but there’s no telling how
many people out there still think the photo is for real.‖
36

37. Process for emergency reaction in social
media (Salminen, working paper)
Phase Description Company imperative
0 emergence ‖patient zero‖ emerges in oblivion
1 alert story reaches some company should be
virality alerted (‖set filters‖)
2 reaction the public participates take corrective
in discussion measures (‖react‖)
3 counter- the public responds to capture and analyze
reaction company‘s reaction responses (‖listen‖)
4 decisive the company clarifies take action to
reaction how it will help to solve demonstrate
the problem seriousness (‖signal
credibility‖)
5 spread or company becomes withdraw from
decay either a good or bad discussion (‖exit‖)
example
37

38. Gmail v1
38

39. Gmail v2
39

40. Kommentit vaihtelevat kohteliaista erittäin
aggressivisiin (rant)
• I seriously wonder of Google designers are on drugs. Are u kidding with the new Gmail design. It looks horrible, and
it's much harder to navigate. Why does Google keep having to screw around with perfectly good designs.
Are u trying to drive us away to other companies?
• Please do not force us to switch to a new (and might I add, hideous) interface if we don't like it. Changing things for the
sake of changing them, despite quite a bit of negative feedback, and more importantly, without giving users the choice
to not have their interface changed, is a horribly blind management decision. I stopped using my Google Reader after
the layout switch. I will stop using Gmail if a new layout is likewise forced upon me. Users want choice and ease-of-
use. If you take away that choice and force users to adapt to a new look they may not like, you will lose users.
• You are making some of the worst decisions I've ever seen Google make. Some of the simplest things are the things
you are totally ruining.
• In Google Docs, the upload button doesn't say upload anymore--instead it's a box with an arrow coming out of it. "Oh,
but it's visually consistent!" you say. WHO CARES?! You're choosing dogmatism over pragmatism. You're following
a blind man towards a cliff.
• Oh, I'm sure I'm wasting my time--Google's demonstrated that it doesn't care what its users think anymore. Those of
us with sense remaining are like voices crying in the desert.
• Hey Alex, Fuck You. You've got a bunch of people beta-testing the "New" Gmail for you, and guess what, they're a
bunch of "Yes Men". They think if they say your new design is "teh awesome" that they'll benefit. Well, as someone
who actually uses G
• I HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE (TO INFINITY) THE NEW LOOK...THE FONT SIZE IS SET FOR THE BLIND...I HAVE
PERFECT VISION AND IT HURTS MY EYES EVERY TIME I LOOK AT THE PAGE. I HAVE TO SCROLL FOREVER
TO READ MY EMAILS OR ACCESS ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS/OPTIONS I SELECTED. THE SETUP
IS ATROCIOUS...WHAT ON EARTH WERE THEY THINKING.Mail, on a "Real World" PC system, let me tell you the
"New" Gmail is well nigh unusable.
• I AM REALLY STARTING TO HATE GOOGLE. THEY MADE A CHANGE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO AND SAID
YOU COULD CHANGE IT BACK TO THE OLD FORMAT, BUT THAT NEVER WORKED EITHER. JUST A
THOUGHT...WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO GIVE US ("THE PEOPLE") THE OPTION OF OPTING INTO
THE NEW LOOK.
• There is the HITLERISTIC (Google - cram it right down your throat) approach - here is the change DEAL WITH
IT, NO, we don't read how your telling us how bad it is, no we don't care if it doesn't work for you, or at all, we
don't read your comments we are being polite by asking for them but they mean nothing.
• etc. etc…
40

41. Product modification backlashes: Anatomy
of a rant (Salminen 2012, working paper)
• user express hate for various motives
– feel they have not been listened
– change resistance
– don‘t understand need for change
– company is perceived as arrogant and authorative
– emotions: insecurity, sense of deception
• tactics for ranting
– polite
– repetitive
– aggressive
– compromising (constructive)
• group effect
– others negative comments reinforce the cycle of rants
– strong group coherence and aggression towards deviation
41

42. Share of discussion (Salminen 2012)
share of discussion: suhteellinen osuus, jolla yksi
brändi osallistuu tuotekategorian keskusteluihin
– asiakkaat eivät puhu niin paljon brändeistä kuin mitä
yritykset luulevat (fallacy of mindshare), vaan
enemmänkin omista ongelmistaan
– yrityksen on oltava läsnä näissä keskusteluissa, ei
ainoastaan niissä joissa keskustellaan brändistä
– tapa vaikuttaa on tuottaa hyötyä keskustelussa, ei
mainostaa omaa tuotetta
• bränditunnettuus (brand awareness)
• yhteys harkintajoukkoon (consideration set)
• epäsuora suostuttelureitti (indirect route to persuasion)
42

43. Aitoa vai ei? Kas siinä pulma…
43

44. Epäaidon viestinnän tuntomerkit
• epämääräisiä viittauksia tutkimuksiin, ei kuitenkaan
linkkejä niihin
• markkinointiadjektiivien käyttö (‖maailman paras‖)
• ei mainita huonoja puolia
• linkki yrityksen sivulle
• vastikään rekisteröitynyt käyttäjä
44

45. Kiitos!
PE
10:
15
45