Chances are, the keyword “2011 Chevy Malibu Dealership Locations” has a lower cost per conversion for Chevrolet than “cars for sale,” but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be running on both. We recognize that the most efficient thing isn’t the best in the majority of cases, as long as you have the resources available. When it comes to money, we recognize that the optimal is related to, but not synonymous with, the most efficient distribution.
But what about time? This is the other resource that we have to manage. There is practically speaking an infinite amount of work to do on any search marketing campaign, because in addition to running it, you have to study it, understand it, and optimize it continuously. There is always more that can be done, so in some ways time is more of a limiting factor than budget, as there is no 100% Share of Knowledge. As the services we offer always outstrip increases in man-power, we turn to time saving efficiencies to do the same work on more campaigns with fewer relative man hours.
Bulk sheets, Excel formulae, macros, campaign management software, APIs: we always want to find ways to do the same work faster, and with great success. The problem is, we seem to be losing sight of the greatest tool in any workforce’s toolbox: elbow grease. Now, right before I go tell some kids to get off my lawn and walk to the store through two feet of snow, let me go on record as loving technology and what it does for us. However, most great things were accomplished not through efficiency, but huge amounts of hard work.
The point of diminishing returns is big part of what we do, and what everyone does. We know that efficiency and spend intersect, and that there we find our optimal point. When the unit of volume is time rather than dollars however, I would argue that we have been looking at the graph wrong. We still use the point of diminishing returns to evaluate how we spend our time, in a world where tasks are frequently triaged in order of urgency and necessity. Something that could help us increase efficiency in our cost per conversion by 3% isn’t done if it is a slow, laborious process that increases the number of man hours needed by 10 hours. We look at it from a “PoDR” standpoint and determine that it isn’t worth it.
What if the idea is flawed? Dollars are an external limitation placed on us by the people who pay us. Time is a resource that we control, and last I checked, we don’t get paid by the hour, so the two don’t intersect. The company gets paid a set fee to provide a minimum number of man hours and services. Salaried workers get paid to provide the best product or service they can, and while there is a limit to how much a company can make its people work, there isn’t a limit to how much we as individuals can work. Target can make a piece of furniture far more efficiently than my great-grandfather could, but that set of hand-joined wood drawers has lasted, and will continue to last, far longer than any massed-produced piece of particle board flotsam on the market today.
Obsession with efficiency can lead to an inferior product, even if the first degree return on investment is higher. Adding man hours to an account by increasing personnel costs money, but adding man hours by working harder, and working longer, is free. In that situation, there is no point of diminishing returns because the lines don’t cross.
You can’t be compelled to go above and beyond, but why wouldn't you?
No comments:
Post a Comment