Adrian Trenholm

Choosing the most effective white paper title

I know at least one of the regular readers here is planning a white paper, so this research data on white paper title effectiveness from Marketing Sherpa is timely. Follow the link now, because the article will be subscription only after 16 October. The research looks at some of the 3.5 million white papers downloaded from CNET Networks B2B sites over the past 24 months, in a bid to find which titles were the most popular, in particular with highly qualified prospects, as opposed to those who are just window shopping.

Key research findings - your white paper will be downloaded by more interested prospects if you:

1. Keep your white paper title short and simple: Long titles, puns, jargon and brand names turn prospects off, whereas a scannable, relevant title will generate a lot of downloads from interested prospects. “Hook, Line and Sinker: Phishing attacks going professional” is a no no. “Phishing and the Threat to Corporate Networks” works well.

2. Break long titles up: If you must use a long title then use a colon to break it up, like this: “Hosted CRM vs. In-House: Which Direction Should Your Company Take?”

3. Use the present participle: Which means offer ing action steps eg “Eliminat ing ,” “Identify ing ,” “Prevent ing ,” and so on

4. Check your search keyword statistics: Once you have identified what your prospects are searching for, include those keywords in your white paper title. The difference might seem subtle, but the impact could be big. For example, white papers with “spyware” in the title were 77% more likely to be downloaded than white papers titled “anti-spyware,” because prospects typically search using the name of the problem they hope to solve, rather than name of the solution.

Lots of common sense here, but worth a read nonetheless.

Add comment October 6th, 2005

More anti-portfolio

AdPulp picked up my previous post about Bessemer Venture Partner’s anti-portfolio , via Johnnie Moore .

It’s hard to imagine someone in advertising being this real. Can you imagine an ad agency showcasing their anti-portfolio? “Hey, look at all the truly stupid ads we’ve made!”

In the comments, I suggested a few anti-portfolio approaches for ad agencies.

1. “Pitches we didn’t win.” Showcase the ideas which clients didn’t like, so potential clients can compare the “failed” ad agency with the one that was appointed.

2. “Back to the drawing board.” Take a successful campaign, then show the truly awful ideas which were rejected in favour of the winner. Educates potential clients about the creative process.

3. “Ads which won awards but which didn’t shift any products.” Do them as case studies - educate the potential client that awards don’t always mean sales. Highlight what the agency and client learned from the failed campaign and how both do things differently - and better - now.

4. “2nd time lucky.” Cases studies of failed campaigns which the agency then tweaked or did over. Shows flexibility and responsiveness.

Meanwhile Johnnie sheds some light on how those truly stupid and often boring ads may have been created (Clairol’s Ever had a multiple organic experience? springs to mind here):

It’s my hunch that boring marketing is the result of boring meetings. I think strangulated internal conversations can only give rise to strangulated conversations with the marketplace. As time passes, I am less interested in discussing marketing strategies with people, and more concerned with what is happening to conversations in the moment. Let the strategy, such as it is, emerge from the engaging conversations… and let’s not expect it to work the other way around.

Take a look at what we’re being sold in most TV ads, with all the slippery argument by analogy. It’s very hard to believe a group of people got really pumped up by the idea of foisting this stuff on an unsuspecting world. And these days, if you dodge the lively conversation inside the business, someone on the outside is going to start it for you…

Conversely, I think it had to be a joyful, laughter-filled conversation which gave rise to Bessemer’s anti-portfolio . And that’s exactly the kind of conversation we “outsiders” are having at 173 Drury Lane .

Add comment August 17th, 2005

The anti-portfolio

Do you ever wonder about the firms that venture capitalist turn down? Not the firms that fail (the VC was right), but the ones that do spectacularly well? I can’t say I thought much about it until I saw Bessemer Venture Partner’s anti-portfolio , a list of some of the most spectacular missed opportunities since Decca turned down The Beatles . Hell, they turned down Google!

A college friend [of Bessemer’s David Cowan] rented her garage to Sergey and Larry for their first year. In 1999 and 2000 she tried to introduce Cowan to “these two really smart Stanford students writing a search engine.” Students? A new search engine? In the most important moment ever for Bessemer’s anti-portfolio, Cowan asked her, “How can I get out of this house without going anywhere near your garage?”

Pointing out one’s own flaws would probably cause a traditional marketer’s head to explode, but for me this is the most powerful piece of B2B marketing I have seen in ages. Setting aside the buzz words like “transparency” and “authenticity,” what is so great about the anti-portfolio?

1. It’s a compelling read, it taps into the traffic accident watcher in all of us, but it works for Bessemer not against them, because

2. You can’t help but click through to Bessemer’s real portfolio . If these guys can turn down Google, who will they back? It turns out they made the right decision about Gartner , Staples , Skype ; the list goes on. Not so shabby, right?

3. Self-deprecating humour - I get the sense that the guys at Bessemer would be fun to work with; confident, but not arrogant

4. It forces you to look at the VC business in a new light. I will never think about VC again without wondering “who did they turn down?”

5. I trust these guys. I won’t think “what are Bessemer hiding?” But I probably will wonder now about all their competitors (see 4.)

We all make mistakes. It’s what you do with your mistakes that counts.

Via Jeff Clavier and PhotoMatt

2 comments August 14th, 2005

Marketing Sherpa’s Top Ten Blogs

Marketing Sherpa has announced its top ten marketing blogs .

How many of these are in your feed reader? And what are your top ten blogs?

Add comment June 20th, 2005

Backbone business blog survey

Backbone Media have set up a really interesting . You can view the preliminary results on . The number of respondents who saw community and reputation building benefits is very high:

Build a community

36% Substantial Positive
41% Measured Success
13% Seems to Be Helping
11% No Apparent Change
0% It’s Hurting

Thought leadership

36% Substantial Positive
40% Measured Success
17% Seems to Be Helping
3% No Apparent Change
3% It’s Hurting

Elsewhere, it looks like blogging won’t have such a strong impact on sales (although tell that to Hugh and Tom ), but it certainly doesn’t hurt.

Increasing sales

14% Substantial Positive
22% Measured Success
31% Seems to Be Helping
29% No Apparent Change
3% It’s Hurting

The numbers involved are a bit small for the results to be definitive (60+ respondents so far), but we can all help there - . The survey is now closed.

Via John Cass at PR Communications .

Add comment June 17th, 2005