Share on

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter

Rand Fishkin discusses the importance of “non-attributable” marketing and why companies should take more risks and allow themselves the freedom to fail.

Rand Fishkin is the co-founder and CEO of SparkToro, a software company that specializes in audience research for targeted marketing. Previously, Rand was the co-founder and CEO of Moz, where he started SEOmoz as a blog that turned into a consulting company, then a software business. Over his seven years as CEO, Rand grew the company to 130+ employees, $30M+ in revenue, and brought website traffic to 30M+ visitors/year. 

He’s also dedicated his professional life to helping people do better marketing through his writing, videos, speaking, and his latest book, Lost and Founder.

AB Tasty’s VP Marketing Marylin Montoya spoke with Rand Fishkin about the culture of experimentation and fear of failure when it comes to marketing channels and investments. Rand also shares some of his recommendations on how to get your brand in front of the right audience. 

Here are some key takeaways from their conversation.

Taking a more risk-based approach

Rand believes there’s too much focus on large markets that people often overlook the enormous potential of smaller markets to go down the more typical venture path. In that sense, founders become biased towards huge, totally addressable markets.

“They don’t consider: here’s this tiny group of people. Maybe there are only three or 4000 people or companies who really need this product, but if I make it for them, they’re going to love it. I think that there’s a tremendous amount of opportunity there. If folks would get out of their head that you have to look for a big market,” Rand says.

People avoid such opportunities because of the regulatory challenges, restrictions, and other barriers to entry that often come with them but for Rand, these underserved markets are worth the risk because competition is scarce. There’s a real potential to build something truly special for those willing to overcome the challenges that come with it, Rand argues. 

There are a lot of underserved niches and many business opportunities out there in the tech world, if companies would shift away from the “growth at all cost” mentality. 

“The thing about being profitable is once you’re there, no one can take the business from you. You can just keep iterating and finding that market, finding new customers, finding new opportunities. But if you are constantly trying to chase growth unprofitably and get to the metrics needed for your next round, you know all that goes out the window,” Rand says.

Freedom to fail

Similarly, Rand states that there’s a huge competitive advantage in committing resources toward marketing channels where attribution is hard or impossible because no one else is investing in these kinds of channels. That’s where Rand believes companies should allocate their resources.

“If you take the worst 10 or 20%, worst performing 10 or 20% of your ads budget, your performance budget, and you shift that over to hard-to-measure, experimental, serendipitous, long-term brand investment types of channels, you are going to see extraordinary results.”

However, the problem is getting buy-in from more senior stakeholders within a company because of these “hard-to-attribute” and “hard-to-measure” channels. In other words, they refuse to invest in channels where they can’t prove an attribute – a change of conversion rate or sales – or return on investment. Thus, any channels that are poor at providing proof of attribution get underinvested. Rand strongly believes that it’s still possible to get clicks on an organic listing of your website and get conversions even if a brand doesn’t spend anything on ads. 

“I think brand and PR and content and social and search and all these other organic things are a huge part of it. But ads are where those companies can charge because the CEO, CMO, CFO haven’t figured out that believing in hard-to-measure channels and hard-to-attribute channels and putting some of your budget towards experimental stuff is the right way to do things,” Rand argues.

According to Rand, these are exactly the kinds of channels where more resources need to be allocated as they generate a higher return on investment than any ad a company might spend on the more typical and bigger name platforms. 

“Your job is to go find the places your audience pays attention to and figure out what your brand could do to be present in those places and recommended by the people who own those channels.”

According to Rand, there is a learning curve in finding the message that resonates with this audience and the content that drives their interest as well as the platforms where you can connect with them and this will all depend on who your audience is.

Experiment with AI

For Rand, the AI boom is more realistic and interesting than previous big tech trends. He especially sees its biggest advantage in solving big problems within organizations that can be best solved with large language model generative AI. 

However, it’s important not to insert AI in a business or create problems just for the sake of using it or to apply it to the wrong places.

“If you find that stuff fascinating and you want to experiment with it and learn more about it, that’s great. I think that’s an awesome thing to do. Just don’t don’t go trying to create problems just to solve this, to use it.” 

He believes the best use case for AI is for more tedious jobs that would be otherwise too time-consuming as opposed to using it for more tactical or strategic marketing advice. Nonetheless, he does believe that there are a lot of interesting and useful solutions and products being built with AI that will solve many problems.

What else can you learn from our conversation with Rand Fishkin?

• The importance of brand and long-term brand investments
• Why it’s hard to get leadership to shift away from common ad platforms
• How social networks have become “closed networks”
• Why attention needs to shift to your audience and how they can become “recommenders” of your product

About Rand Fishkin

Rand Fishkin is the co-founder and CEO of SparkToro, makers of fine audience research software to make audience research accessible to everyone. He’s also the founder and former CEO of Moz and also co-founded Inbound.org alongside Dharmesh Shah, which was sold to Hubspot in 2014. Rand has become a frequent worldwide keynote speaker over the years on marketing and entrepreneurship with a mission to help people do better marketing. 

About 1,000 Experiments Club

The 1,000 Experiments Club is an AB Tasty-produced podcast hosted by John Hughes, Head of Marketing at AB Tasty. Join John as he sits down with the experts in the world of experimentation to uncover their insights on what it takes to build and run successful experimentation programs.

Share on

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter

Share on

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter

When it comes to CRO, or Conversion Rate Optimization, it would be natural to assume that conversion is all that matters. At least, we can argue that conversion rate is at the heart of most experiments. However, the ultimate goal is to raise revenue, so why does the CRO world put so much emphasis on conversion rates?

In this article, we’ll shed some light on the reason why conversion rate is important and why it’s not just conversions that should be considered.

Why is conversion rate so important?

Let’s start off with the three technical reasons why CRO places such importance on conversion rates:

1. Conversion is a generic term. It covers the fact that an e-commerce visitor becomes a customer by buying something, or simply the fact that this visitor went farther than just the homepage, or clicks on a product page, or adds this product to the cart. In that sense, it’s the Swiss Army Knife of CRO.
2. Conversion statistics are far easier than other KPI statistics, and they’re the simplest from a maths point of view. In terms of measurement, it’s pretty straightforward: success or failure.
   This means off-the-shelf code or simple spreadsheet formulas can compute statistics indices for decision, like the chance to win or confidence intervals about the expected gain. This is not that easy for other metrics as we will see later with Average Order Value (AOV).
3. Conversion analysis is also the simplest when it comes to decision-making. There’s (almost) no scenario where raising the number of conversions is a bad thing. Therefore, deciding whether or not to put a variation in production is an easy task when you know that the conversion rate will rise. The same can’t be said about the “multiple conversions” metric where, unlike the conversion rate metric that counts one conversion per visitor even if this visitor made 2 purchases, every conversion counts and so is often more complex to analyze. For example, the number of product pages seen by an e-commerce visitor is harder to interpret. A variation increasing this number could have several meanings: the catalog can be seen as more engaging or it could mean that visitors are struggling to find what they’re looking for. 

Due to the aforementioned reasons, the conversion rate is the starting point of all CRO journeys. However, conversion rate on its own is not enough. It’s also important to pay attention to other factors other than conversions to optimize revenue. 

Beyond conversion rate

Before we delve into a more complex analysis, we’ll take a look at some simpler metrics. This includes ones that are not directly linked to transactions such as “add to cart” or “viewed at least one product page”.

If it’s statistically assured to win, then it’s a good choice to put the variation into production, with one exception. If the variation is very costly, then you will need to dig deeper to ensure that the gains will cover the costs. This can occur, for example, if the variation holds a product recommender system that comes with its cost. 

The bounce rate is also simple and straightforward in that the aim is to keep the figure down unlike the conversion rate. In this case, the only thing to be aware of is that you want to lower the bounce rate unlike the conversion rate. But the main idea is the same: if you change your homepage image and you see the bounce rate statistically drop, then it’s a good idea to put it in production.

We will now move onto a more complex metric, the transaction rate, which is directly linked to the revenue. 

Let’s start with a scenario where the transaction rate goes up. You assume that you will get more transactions with the same traffic, so the only way it could be a bad thing is that you earn less in the end. This means your average cart value (AOV) has plummeted. The basic revenue formula shows it explicitly: 

Total revenue = traffic * transaction rate * AOV 

Since we consider traffic as an external factor, then the only way to have a higher total revenue is to have an increase in both transaction rate and AOV or have at least one of them increase while the other remains stable. This means we also need to check the AOV evolution, which is much more complicated. 

On the surface, it looks simple: take the sum of all transactions and divide that by the number of transactions and you have the AOV. While the formula seems basic, the data isn’t. In this case, it’s not just either success or failure; it’s different values that can widely vary.

Below is a histogram of transaction values from a retail ecommerce website. The horizontal axis represents values (in €), the vertical axis is the proportion of transactions with this value. Here we can see that most values are spread between 0 and €200, with a peak at ~€50. 

The right part of this curve shows a “long/fat tail”. Now let’s try to see how the difference within this kind of data is hard to spot. See the same graph below but with higher values, from €400 to €1000. You will also notice another histogram (in orange) of the same values but offset by €10.

We see that the €10 offset which corresponds to a 10-unit shift to the right is hard to distinguish. And since it corresponds to the highest values this part has a huge influence when averaging samples. Due to the shape of this transaction value distribution, any measure of the average value is somewhat blurred, which makes it very difficult to have clear statistical indices. For this reason, changes in AOV need to be very drastic or measured over a huge dataset to be statistically asserted,  making it difficult to use in CRO.

Another important feature is hidden even further on the right of the horizontal axis. Here’s another zoom on the same graph, with the horizontal axis ranging from €1000 to €4500. This time only one curve is shown.

From the previous graph, we could have easily assumed that €1000 was the end, but it’s not. Even with a most common transaction value at €50, there are still some transactions above €1000, and even some over €3000. We call these extreme values. 

As a result, whether these high values exist or not makes a big difference. Since these values exist but with some scarcity, they will not be evenly spread across a variation, which can artificially create difference when computing AOV. By artificially, we mean the difference comes from a small number of visitors and so doesn’t really count as “statistically significant”. Also, keep in mind that customer behavior will not be the same when buying for €50 as when making a purchase of more than €3000.

There’s not much to do about this except know it exists. One good thing though is to separate B2B and B2C visitors if you can, since B2C transaction values are statistically bigger and less frequent. Setting them apart will limit these problems.

What does this mean for AOV?

There are three important things  to keep in mind when it comes to AOV:

1. Don’t trust the basic AOV calculation; the difference you are seeing probably does not exist, and is quite often not even in the same observed direction! It’s only displayed to give an order of magnitude to interpret changes in conversion rates but shouldn’t be used to state a difference between variations’ AOV. That’s why we use a specific test, the Mann-Whitney U test, that’s adapted for this kind of data.
2. You should only believe the statistical index on AOV, which is only valid to assess the direction of the difference between AOV, not its size. For example, you notice a +€5 AOV difference and the statistical index is 95%; this only means that you can be 95% sure that you will have an AOV gain, but not that it will be €5.
3. Since transaction data is far more wild than conversion data, it will need stronger differences or bigger datasets to reach statistical significance. But since there are always fewer transactions than visitors, reaching significance on the conversion rate doesn’t imply being significant on AOV.

This means that a decision on a variation that has a conversion rate gain can still be complex because we rarely have a clear answer about the variation effect on the AOV.

This is yet another reason to have a clear experimentation protocol including an explicit hypothesis. 

For example, if the test is about showing an alternate product page layout based on the hypothesis that visitors have trouble reading the product page, then the AOV should not be impacted. Afterwards, if the conversion rate rises, we can validate the winner if the AOV has no strong statistical downward trend. However, if the changes are in the product recommender system, which might have an impact on the AOV, then one should be more strict on measuring a statistical innocuity on the AOV before calling a winner. For example, the recommender might bias visitors toward cheaper products, boosting sales numbers but not the overall revenue.

The real driving force behind CRO

We’ve seen that the conversion rate is at the base of CRO practice because of its simplicity and versatility compared to all other KPIs. Nonetheless, this simplicity must not be taken for granted. It sometimes hides more complexity that needs to be understood in order to make profitable business decisions, which is why it’s a good idea to have expert resources during your CRO journey. 

That’s why at AB Tasty, our philosophy is not only about providing top-notch software but also Customer Success accompaniment.

Share on

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter