Frequency: All the time vs. at the right time

In the Focus roundtable I participated in last week with Lisa Horner, Lauren Goldstein and Craig Rosenberg, Lisa brought up the term "perpetual denamd gen." This concept is a paradigm shift for B2B marketers that can be a great opportunity or present fierce challenges — sometimes it's a combination of both.

The nature of publishing on demand and 24/7 availability of content has obviously changed expectations for all of us. It's not only increased our expectations for instant gratification, but it's raised those expectations about the kind of information we should have immediate access to.

As a result, many B2B marketers feel like hamsters on the perpetual content publishing wheel. We keep peddling faster and harder to crank out more content, fearing that if we miss one opportunity, our online influcence will tank, competitors will get their messaging infront of our buyers first, or, even worse, we'll be letting down those buyers we've been trying so valiantly to build relationshps with.

I'm guilty of feeling guilty about this. My last blog post was over a week ago. Due to project deadlines and work commitments, there simply was no time—or brain power—to write a blog post. It was on my mind every day. This little voice that kept telling me "go post, go post, think of something, go post!"

Interestingly, my blog didn't tank. Traffic kept coming because of the nearly 1,000 posts I've already written. I like to think that's because they provide something my readers find valuable and useful. Then again, they could be showing up only to see nothing new and think, "Crap - where's the new stuff?" Ugh.

Which is the point I'm trying to explore. How often is often enough?

I've spoken with marketers who are feeling the pressure. The capabilities of real-time publishing coupled with the mandate to generate more and better leads has morphed into this ridiculous idea that the more content we shove out the door, the better our results will be.

I'd like to say, not necessarily. Some of the consequences of hyper-frequency include:

• Becoming irrelevant because your content quality becomes "so so" instead of "wow" due to the rush.
• Irritating because it's just too much to try to keep up with - we're all busy, right?
• Your content becomes a commodity instead of being a welcome break to indulge and learn. Hey, if I don't read today's piece, there will be another tomorrow. No big deal.
• Channel fatigue happens because corners get cut as marketers post the same thing everywhere, checking off the platforms to show the task has been completed.

When publishing becomes about publishing rather than about sharing valuable information, marketing programs will tank.

Instead of embracing an "all-the-time" mindset, marketers need to consider the difference an "at the right time" approach can make.

The ability to do this well is dependent upon the amount and type of visibility you have into prospect and customer behavior. Data is becoming the holy grail for marketers. What we know can determine how we publish, as well as the type of information we choose to share and the places in which we choose to share it.

Getting frequency right is a balancing act that will obviously take some work to achieve. Determining the best ways to listen to and interpret our prospect's behaviors and respond accordingly is an important skill to master.

I don't have all the answers. It differs with each company I work with. Testing and refinements are part of the process. But with visibility into the right data, we can begin to discern patterns and schedule our programs accordingly. Some channels require more frequency, some less. Prospects will respond to frequency based on where they are in the buying cycle. We can't treat everything the same.

And, with the overwhelming amount of content available, I'd say that, once again, we need to focus on quality, not quantity.

As a conclusion to this post, I'll share with you an excerpt from a DMNews article with a comment from Dave Frankland, VP and research director at Forrester Research:

Despite the focus on real-time marketing, just because data and automation tools have made triggered messaging easier doesn't mean a brand should always market itself moment by moment. Rahter, brands should focus on marketing at the "right time.

"If a customer can only change a contract once a month, it might not be the time to trigger a message just because they visited your website. There is no use in sending them a message when the timing isn't right. It's about leveraging the data so that you can send the intelligent message at the relevant time."

What do you think about frequency? Can you share examples of hyper-frequency that have backfired? Or examples of how increasing frequency at the right time has resulted in better response?

Which data do you use to determine frequency?

 

Comments

[Babette Ten Haken]

Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful post, Ardath. Great analogy, the hamster on the wheel. After churning and burning to generate content, and presence, wisdom tends to prevail after a while (unless you want to hire hamsters to generate content all the time). Readers want quality and your voice rather than lots of "stuff." They follow because we provoke and challenge them. Even when we are late with a post. They know the good stuff is coming along, shortly.

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Babette,

Thanks very much for your comment. I like the "provoke and challenge" message. That's a good thing to keep in mind.

[David Laurence]

I reckon continuity ranks as high as frequency. I've experienced many suppliers who send a barrage of messages after I express interest in their product/service and then - nothing.Only one person (other than your good self) has maintained contact over a long time period ( ocassionally asking if the frequency is too high/low)- Perry Marshall.Yet I've never spent a penny with him ( or even posted a blog comment !)

[Automation]

Marketing interactions are always very important to know the market strategies and to gain good will in market

[Peter Johnston]

The idea of "the right information at the right time" is now a myth.

Managers sign up for blogs, articles etc. to stay informed. So they learn about new ideas and solutions long before they enter a purchase phase. "Shall we investigate further" decisions are taken by the whole management team on a perpetual basis, not linked to a buying decision.

There isn't one person responsible any more either. If you put forward an idea, within an hour people will have googled it and have an informed opinion.

So your marketing must always be working at an enticement/problem identification level and across all management disciplines.

[Msbuller]

Very interesting post. Fastcompany.com writes about a similar issue of quality vs quantity with FB likes at http://www.fastcompany.com/1794092/for-brands-on-facebook-fan-quality-trumps-quantity.
Although I don't have any examples of frequency gone awry, I think that whenever someone over-commits to content and then produces poor quality (or no) content, it doesn't just hurt their efforts, but it hurts all content marketers in that it teaches potential readers to tune out to not just bad content, but all content.

[Catherine Lockey]

I agree Ardeth. We've all heard the chronic content proponents preach the post a day theory. They've even gone so far as to say, "Just repurpose it - same subject, different words." I know I'm not alone when I say real writers are artists and their true desire is to captivate. Content for the sake of content? How disgusting.

[SEO Agency]

Timing is everything and a bag of chips. Planning out a marketing campaign it is CRUCIAL to know this and maximize your efficiency without drawing negative attention. Like clock management in football...a seemingly simple skill that can make or break.