Sponsorship Pricing Basics

I work for a broadcast station that takes a lot of pride in creating original content and selling sponsorships rather than a more traditional advertising platform.  I prefer blazing a new path versus taking the established one... however, this does create questions in regards to how to price these opportunities.  I wish there were an easy answer -- a magic wand I could wave -- that would make the right number appear out of thin air, but I'm afraid it's just not that simple. 

That said, it's not rocket science, either, and there are some definite rights and wrongs.

Getting sponsorship pricing wrong

First off, don't try to add up the value of each of the benefits, as sponsorship really is a case of the whole being worth more than the sum of the parts. You're not selling benefits, you're selling marketing opportunity, and a comprehensive opportunity is going to provide a valuable platform for sponsors -- much more valuable than the sum of the benefits a la carte.

Trying to price as some derivative of the potential equivalent media value of the logo exposure is also not going to work. Equivalent media valuation was debunked almost 20 years ago and only the industry's dinosaurs put any stock in that as a measurement tool. Given its lack of credibility, basing your pricing on media equivalencies is building a house on very shaky foundations.

Finally, if you're looking for some kind of formula, you can stop now. There is no formula for pricing. Anyone who says there is a formula is trying to sell you their formula.

Getting sponsorship pricing right

There is no formula, but there is a methodology, and here are the basics...

First, calculate your baseline fee. This is NOT what you'd charge for a sponsorship, but the keep-your-backside-out-of-a-sling number -- the number that keeps you from selling too low for it to be worth it. This is the number for everyone who has ever sold a sponsorship for less than it cost to deliver, or not enough more that it was worth the headaches -- and we've all been there.

The starting figure I like to work with is:

3 x (cost to deliver benefits + cost of sale + cost of servicing) = baseline fee

I generally also do the red zone fee, which is the fee at which you may be getting into the not-worth-it territory:

2 x (cost to deliver benefits + cost of sale + cost of servicing) = red zone fee

Note: For both of these, the "cost of servicing" is your budget for adding value to the relationship -- providing extra benefits, sponsor training or networking, or other extras. Best practice is to budget at least 10% of the gross value of the sponsorship -- including any in-kind – for servicing. For this exercise, put your starting cost of servicing at 10% of the cost to deliver benefits plus the cost of sale, as it will grow appropriately as you multiply your baseline fee. If required, you can make minor adjustments later.

Then you apply market influencers to your baseline fee. These include:

• What the market will bear -- You need to do some research, use your network, and if you are inexperienced, get feedback from trusted colleagues outside of your organisation.
• Lead time before the event -- Short lead time doesn't give the sponsor long enough to implement the leverage plan that will turn the opportunity you're selling into the results they need.
• Other activities in the marketplace that may be sucking up sponsorship money (i.e., Olympics, World Cup).
• Uniqueness of what you offer and its position in the marketplace.
• Issues or trends that make what you do more or less appealing -- for instance, if there has been a string of scandals in a particular league, the price you can charge for a team sponsorship may be lowered as a result of the perceived risk.
• Economic situation and trend.

You will also be able to charge more if you provide creative leverage ideas to the sponsor and if you are creative with the benefits you provide. Sell only logos on things, tickets to things, hospitality, and some kind of official designation and you commoditise yourself -- reducing the amount you can charge.

There is more to it than that, but you've got the basics. 

10 Local Digital Media Trends For 2014

If 2013 was the year that native advertising commanded much of the dialogue around digital media, 2014’s mantra looks like it will be mobile. By mid-2013, most local broadcasters had already reported that more than 50% of their overall digital traffic was coming through mobile, and newspapers aren’t tracking too far behind. With that in mind, here are 10 trends for local digital media we see developing around technology, disruption and revenue for 2014.

1. Mobile ad units will improve and better engage users. There are too many smart people working on this problem in too many different rooms not to see some kind of breakthrough on newer, more engaging ad units in 2014. Look for more intuitive, native models to break the banner mold, and watch the case studies closely.
2. There will be more content differentiation by device. Users are scratching a different itch when they access local content on desktop versus tablet, let alone smartphones. Newsrooms will increasingly need to integrate different headlines, body text and video pieces depending on where the content is being routed, which begets prediction No. 3 …
3. Content management systems will be under increasing pressure to improve their back-end tools for differentiation. CMSs are already evolving rapidly now that their clients have become savvier. Those same clients are going to demand that differentiation doesn’t put a drag on their workflow. Dashboards will improve to streamline that workflow. (And look for some more consolidation in the CMS space too as the industry continues its accelerating game of musical chairs.)
4. Video and content sharing networks will proliferate among and within local media companies. This process is already underway, led by players such as Digital First Media andSchurz Communications Inc., among others. Look for the deals to ramp up in 2014 as pressures rise to bring content generating costs down. The question is: Where will this leave the Associated Press?
5. Newspapers will start producing more polished online video (and more of it). The learning curve is nearing its end. There are too many vendors eager to jump in to help professionalize even the smallest papers’ nascent video efforts to have any excuse for amateur content. In 2014, video will become a more reflexive part of workflow for more journalists, and that will show in the work they more regularly produce.Now will it make enough money to justify the effort?
6. Everyone will be a publisher in 2014. Having changed its algorithms to emphasize original content, Google has put increased pressure on anyone with a website to update content more regularly. For brands and businesses, that is creating a steady need that someone is going to fill. Will it be on staff writers? Local search? Agencies? There’s a play for local media here if it can pivot into this business quickly.
7. Google Now will show us the early power of big data. The hyper-individualized experience offered by Google Now gives us a compelling window into the future of digital information consumption. Media companies need to study this experience closely, as it may prognosticate the next major usage shifts in digital.
8. Twitter News is coming. Vivian Schiller left NBC to build something at Twitter, but what? Will she serve as a kind of grand lobbyist/liaison to the news industry or lay the foundation for an entirely new and disruptive news service? In any event, local media that have come to rely on Twitter as a vital tool for newsgathering and breaking news ought to be on alert. The platform is too big to dismiss, and it’s fidgety with ambition.
9. The journalist as brand phenomenon will increase and localize. Sullivan, Swisher and Mossberg, Silver, Stelter, now maybe even Klein. Branding oneself effectively can (mostly) pay off, so look for more local journalists to leverage their personal brands into independent plays.
10. Digital marketing services have hit critical mass, and the space will now start to contract. This ship has sailed, and it’s carrying a lot of local media on board along with a big crowd from the Internet yellow pages space. Not everyone is going to execute on this well, and some companies haven’t given themselves enough runway to succeed (a pretty long one is necessary). For those not yet on board, and even those who are, it’s time to find yet another new revenue stream to get revved up about.

Sales Tip: Influence, Don't Just Inform

One of the biggest hindrances to selling success is being informative rather than persuasive. Information overwhelms us. Your role as a salesperson is to make the available information actionable for your buyers. To do that, you'll need to use all 'Five Prongs of Persuasion':

1. Word Choice: Positive, specific, precise words.
2. Rhetoric: Powerful phrasing and graceful grammar that pack a powerful punch on a buyer's memory.
3. Emotion: Feelings of pleasure, fear, safety, discomfort, pride, acceptance, rejection or prestige.
4. Logic: Reasoning and conclusions drawn from facts, information, opinions or ideas.
5. Trustworthiness: Trust in the principles, values and integrity of an individual or organization.

To persuade, you need to know and use the best words, to establish your own and your organization's credibility, and to identify the best strategies with each buyer -- whether that be primarily an appeal to emotion or an appeal to logic or a combination of both.

7 Common (and Dangerous) Misconceptions About SEO

Hey gang, I found this excellent article by Meghan Keaney Anderson...great info, enjoy! ~Curt

7 Common (and Dangerous) Misconceptions About SEO

With regular algorithm updates and new factors influencing search all the time, search engine optimization is a bit of a moving target these days. Add in the level of nuance that tends to surround search rank and you've created a perfect storm for misunderstanding and misattribution.

Does factor X directly affect rank or merely influence it? What are the differences among Google+, Google's +1s, and Google Authorship when it comes to search? How important are keywords and where do I put them now? I'll stop there before my head starts to hurt. These are some of the biggest areas of confusion I've come across (and experienced myself) in learning about SEO.

Below, you'll find some clarification regarding these sometimes confusing aspects of SEO that could help make it easier for you to optimize your marketing efforts for search moving forward.

Misconception #1: SEO is all about keywords and links.

Keywords and links certainly play a role in SEO, but they aren't the only factors. Everything from the mobile optimization of your site to the social virality of your content also influences your search rank.

With the release of Hummingbird, Google is getting much better at understanding full queries in addition to just single keywords, which means placing your keywords at the very front of your title may not be as important.

Reflecting the way that people have begun to search, Google is starting to recognize search queries in the context of the sentences around them --  even factoring location into some search queries. 

In a video released this summer, Google's Matt Cutts noted that he thinks marketers spend too much energy on link building. Inbound links certainly help pages rank well, but it is better to focus on creating the sort of content that gets shared than finding places to plant links. More and more people are finding content through social media, so optimizing your content for social shares is also important. 

Bottom Line: Search is becoming more complex with more factors influencing rankings. The good news is this complexity adds nuance and an understanding of the context of the person searching. Write for people first, search engines second.

Misconception #2: Bing doesn't really matter. 

According to comScore’s October search engine rankings, Bing received 18.1% of searches in the U.S. in April 2013. It's a figure that has doubled since 2009. While Bing may not be ready to overtake Google as the most widely used search engine, there's plenty this data should make you think about.

Bing's Relationship With Facebook

In early 2013, Facebook introduced Graph Search and its partnership with Bing. Graph search enables people to search for places and things within their social reach -- for example, "Restaurants in Key West liked by my friends." But it can't handle every search. For those it can't, it defaults to a Bing search. 

Bing's Relationship With Yahoo

In 2012, Bing became the engine which powers all Yahoo searches. Since the same comScore report puts Yahoo search traffic at 11.1% of the market, combining Yahoo and Bing, you're now talking nearly 30% of searches. 

New Opportunities With Bing

Bing's algorithm is a little less complex than Google's and prioritizes slightly different things, so if you're in a competitive space and have had trouble with Google, Bing might present some new opportunities to you.

Keyword Data From Bing

As noted above, this year, Google began encrypting all keyword data from its users' searches, cutting marketers short when it comes to keyword insights. Bing, on the other hand, still provides marketers with keyword data. While that doesn't change your prospective customers' search behavior, there is more opportunity for you to learn from the keywords that have brought in Bing searchers. 

Bottom Line: Optimizing for Google should probably still be your main approach, but Bing is on the move. Strategic partnerships with Facebook and Yahoo, make the search engine an interesting force for some marketers. 

Misconception #3: 'Keyword (not provided)' means the end of SEO.

Google's move to encrypt all keywords would be the worst thing ever if SEO were entirely about keywords. Thankfully, it's not.

Instead of focusing on the keywords that brought visitors to your site, focus on the content. For instance, it's best to go to your analytics and see which pages on your site had the highest portion of visitors from organic search (regardless of the keywords). What is the focus of those pages?  

You can even go to Google and type in a few of the phrases you want to be found for. How do you currently rank for them? Focus your next quarter on creating useful relevant content fort those phrases, then compare your ranking to the original benchmark. Were you able to move the needle?

Also, talk and listen to customers about what they were seeking when they found you, and focus on getting your content spread across social channels.

Search Engine Watch has even more options in this informative post: Google '(Not Provided)' Keywords: 10 Ways to Get Organic Search Data.

Bottom Line: It's an inconvenience that Google encrypted its keyword data, but it's not the end of days. SEO is about creating relevant and spreadable content, so focus on that. 

Misconception #4: I can get a good inbound link by linking to my site from the comments.

This one has mostly been put to rest, but I thought I'd include it for good measure.

Inbound links to your website are like votes of confidence for your content and have a positive impact on your page's ranking, but inbound links should be earned. Leaving links behind in the comments section of a blog isn't going to help you in that area. Most blogs have "no follow" instructions built into their comments section to avoid spam. Just as it sounds, "no follow" instructs the search engine crawlers to ignore any links within the comments. 

It's certainly not bad to occasionally link to relevant content in the comments you leave. In fact, if it's an insightful comment, it may get you some good traffic -- it's just not likely to increase your search rank directly. And be careful not to overdo it. "Having a large portion of those backlinks coming from blog comments, it can raise red flags with Google," explains Search Engine Watch. 

Bottom Line: Leave links in comments when they make sense or allow readers to learn more about your comment. Don't expect them to help with SEO.

Misconception #5: Subheaders are important for on-page SEO.

I found a number of differing opinions on this, so it might be one to keep an eye on, but by and large, SEO consensus seems to be that for ranking on Google, subheaders H2 through H6 don't actually carry much weight. They do have value in terms of accessibility, user experience, and reinforcing semantics, or meaning, of the content on the page, but they don't add much for SEO. The main header tag, or H1, does have some SEO value, but even that seems limited, according to the experts. Pitstop Media has a really in-depth post on H1 headings, if you want to dive in. 

Bottom Line: Use subheaders to improve your site's accessibility and HTML semantics. Put keywords in your subheaders if they help convey the message of the content underneath, but avoid keyword stuffing.

Misconception #6: Google +1s directly affect search.

Every two years, the search pros at Moz run a scientific correlation study to examine what webpage qualities are associated with high ranks on Google. In its most recent study, the company highlighted an interesting conclusion. What it found, Moz's Cyrus Shepard explains, was this: 

"After Page Authority, a URL's number of Google +1s is more highly correlated with search rankings than any other factor. In fact, the correlation of Google +1s beat out other well known metrics including linking root domains, Facebook shares, and even keyword usage." 

Once released, the interpretation of these findings got a little warped into a belief that +1s on Google were directly leading to higher search ranks -- a classic correlation-causation debate, but it caused a bit of a kerfuffle.

With one-click retweets and the common act of paraphrasing online, some began to interpret this discovery as a sign that that Google was actively giving more search credit to pages that had earned Google +1s. Google's Matt Cutts even joined in to state clearly that Google +1s donot directly lead to a higher search rankings, saying:

"If you make compelling content, people will link to it, like it, share it on Facebook, +1 it, etc. But that doesn't mean that Google is using those signals in our ranking. Rather than chasing +1s of content, your time is much better spent making great content."

So why does matter? After working through some of the debate, Shepard added some thoughts to his original posts which focused more on Google+ as a platform rather than the act of voting on a post through +1s. He explained:

"It's clear that Google doesn't use the raw number of +1s directly in its search algorithm, but Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms."

For example, Shepard noted, content on Google+ gets crawled almost immediately and, unlike Facebook or LinkedIn, Google+ posts are treated as blog posts with unique URLs and title tags.

Bottom Line: Posting to Google+ as a platform has search value, while clicking the +1 button on posts just correlates to good content. 

Misconception #7: Google Authorship drives higher rankings.

The answer to this one is no -- at least not yet. Establishing Google Authorship involves adding Rel=Author tags to your content and linking your Google+ page back to your blog.

Authorship helps Google attribute a collection of content to its author, which doesn't add to that content's rank, but DOES make your content stand out on the search engine result page by adding an image to your search result.

In the example below, you can see I'm not the first result for the search, but because of authorship, my result includes the picture.

In a really well-written post over on our Insiders blog, Gray MacKenzie summarizes the value of this well:

"Your goal isn’t high rankings for the purpose of high rankings -- you want to rank well so that you drive more quality traffic to your site. One important metric for growing your search traffic is your clickthrough rate (CTR). How many people who see your page in Google results actually click through to your site? Google Authorship puts a face and a name to the search engine results, helping to build trust, communicate relevance, establish credibility, and improve CTR -- in some cases by upwards of 150%."

Bottom Line: Authorship doesn't increase rank (for now), but it does grab searchers' attention and increase clickthrough rate, so you should absolutely still do it.

To attach an image to your search results, use this helpful tutorial from MacKenzie. (Note: If you're a HubSpot customer using the COS blog, the Rel=Author tag is already built into your author profiles, so you only need to do the first part and add your author profile in HubSpot.)