Working in the vast field of Internet Marketing got me thinking about odd statistics that make sense, but PROVE failure. We can all agree that on an average you are considered a D student/ unsuccessful if you are only correct 60% of the time. That being true does anyone else find it odd that in Direct Marketing you can be a success with a 1% conversion, or capture? I mean…you failed 99 out of 100 times but that campaign will be considered a success. If you found a way to get to 3-4% percent it’s considered an anomaly. I’m not sure if I’m confused by this or just more intrigued. I’ve never been one to set myself up for failure, but working in Direct Marketing, and Internet Marketing (which throws the same success rate at an Email campaign) I see this on a daily basis and it’s just very interesting that people get excited about something that could be considered a failure. I understand that marketing and in the business world, percentages are looked at differently. I’m just wondering who was the one that said, “In class, 90% is true success, but in marketing…well 4% is amazing”. I’d like to meet that guy.
I also find it interesting when I hear people mention the 80/20 rule. My understanding of this is that people assume that 20% of their clients/ employees generate 80% of their business and vise versa. I guess the 80% of your clients/ staff HAVE to be around to motivate the 20% that actually do stuff, otherwise why are they around? I see the connection, if you fire that 80% then you won’t fit into the widely accepted 80/20 rule making you an anomaly. Here’s your exception…Say you have a company of 2 people? Ok…I’m digging there but I just don’t understand the 80/20 totally, and maybe it’s because I’ve always worked hard and I’ve seen the 80%’ers in my companies and can’t stand seeing them get paid the same for not doing anything. As a side note, I suggest that if you look at yourself and make sure you aren’t one of the 80% generating only 20% of the revenue because in these times…you might be out of a job.
Yet another interesting numbers tie in…If I told you I could do something well one out of every three times I tried, you’d probably say I was bad at what I was doing because that’s a 33% success rate. Now what if I told you I was a baseball player? This is when I’d laugh at your opinion while I polished my plaque hanging in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Since Ted Williams not one single baseball player has had success 4/10 times they see the plate. We’ve been close, Chipper Jones the most recent when he won the batting title at a .370 clip…this makes him the best failure of last years baseball season. What is going on?
I think all this does is prove that we definitely employ the opinions of the majority. Which, in turn would make us a Democratic society…but still odd. People say numbers don’t lie, but when we are able to change what the numbers mean, doesn’t that mean that we are making the numbers lie? “You have just entered the Twilight Zone”. Sorry, just thought about those words and I lost focus for a second. But back to topic…I’d like to see what you think about these statistical anomalies? Why is it ok to accept a 1% conversion as alright in direct marketing but really nothing else, is it because someone said “the best we’ll do is get 4 out of every 100 people to take action with this, EVER.”, because I think that if what you are doing is targeted and is actual value you can reach higher percentages. If you are selling something to someone that you KNOW can ease their pain and increase their pleasure, why is 1-4% ok?
That’s all…just thought I’d air that out as some food for thought while you celebrate your Cinco De Mayo…and do yourself a favor and stay away from that swine flu stuff…I’ve heard nasty things.
