The present findings are also subject to several limitations which should be addressed in future research. First, the prototypicality of the competitor was operationalized, and empirically confirmed in our manipulation checks, as the market leader or as an otherwise prominent brand. As a result, the majority of the brands used in the study were high-share, popular brands (for example, Bic and Lipton in Study 1, and Canon and IBM in Study 2), but they were not necessarily the best-quality brands in the extension category. Therefore, the superiority claims of our advertisements may have been plausible arguments in the context of the ads provided, especially since the brands that were extended were of high quality and had accumulated considerable brand equity which could be leveraged in brand extensions. Our findings may not hold true for comparisons with the best-quality brands in the extension category. In those circumstances, a superiority claim of a brand extension may not be plausible and may not be successful in associating the new brand with the successful brand in the extension category.
Second, the comparison claim in the ads was a superiority claim rather than a parity claim. As mentioned earlier, similar effects have been obtained in prior research on comparative advertising for superiority and parity claims (Dröge and Darmon 1987; Gorn and Weinberg 1984; Walker, Swasy, and Rethans 1985); therefore it seemed unnecessary to include both types of claims in our studies. In some cases, (e.g., in the case of a comparison with the best brand in the extension category) a parity claim may be more believable and therefore more desirable than a superiority claim. Future research should test whether our results also hold for parity claims or under what conditions parity and superiority claims are most successful for brand extensions.
Another limitation concerns the operationalization of perceived fit in our studies. Perceived fit--i.e., the similarity between the brand and the extension--may be determined in various ways, aside from the global, overall similarity judgment that was used in the present research. Tauber (1988), after scrutinizing a sample of 276 brand extensions, distinguished several dimensions of fit. Park, Milberg, and Lawson (1991) drew an important distinction between concept and attribute fit and found that the most favorable brand-extension evaluations occurred in cases of high brand concept consistency and high product-feature similarity. Moreover, Herr, Farquhar, and Fazio (1996) have recently demonstrated the need to examine the fit between the parent and the extension categories with greater sophistication. Specifically, the notion of fit consists of not only strength but direction as well--the latter which was not addressed in this study. As the extent brand's dominance in the parent category has been shown to influence cognition and affect towards the extension category, futureresearch should examine the viability of comparative and noncomparative positioning that accounts for different types and directions of fit between the brand and the extension.
Finally, future research should examine more closely the cognitive processes involved in consumers’ judgments of brand extensions in the context of comparative brands. In addition to the outcome measures as in the present studies, cognitive-response measures as well as experimental manipulations should be employed to provide further evidence for the cognitive mechanisms underlying extension-evaluations such as a reduction in the perceived distance between the brand and the extension in the case of comparative advertising.
Rabu, 28 November 2007
STUDY 2: ATTRIBUTE TYPICALITY AND BRAND EXTENSIONS
The attribute-selection decision concerns the choice of one or several product attributes that should be highlighted to consumers. One important issue in this respect is whether the selection of certain types of featured attributes may enhance or hinder the effects induced by comparative and noncomparative advertising formats. For example, could the selection of certain attributes alter the cross-over interaction effect that we observed under high and low fit conditions for the noncomparative format and the comparative ad format with a prototypical competitor?
Based on research by Rosch and Mervis (1975) and Loken and Ward (1987), attributes may be viewed along a continuum of typicality, and for experimental purposes, be classified as either typical or atypical. In Study 1, the featured attributes were all typical attributes; therefore, we could not address the role of how different types of attributes may affect brand evaluations in a comparative or noncomparative context.
How could attribute typicality affect brand evaluations in a comparative and noncomparative context? In a study by Pechmann and Ratneshwar (1991), a comparative ad format with atypical product attributes did not result in any stronger association with the comparison brand, whereas, a comparative ad format with typical attributes did. Pechmann and Ratneshwar explained this finding with reference to the construct of incongruency with the existing product category schema. Since an atypical attribute is typically not associated with the comparison brands, the incongruency will induce consumers to rely more on the attribute information rather than on simple heuristics (e.g., "If the advertiser compared these brands, they must be comparable").
Indeed, in line with this interpretation, schema-incongruent objects have been found to evoke greater cognitive effort than congruent ones (Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989; Fiske and Pavelchak 1986). The underlying theory is that stimuli which match the product category schema will be processed heuristically in line with the existing schema. When there is a mismatch with the existing category schema, a more effortful cognitive processing called "piecemeal processing" takes place in an effort to resolve the incongruity (Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989).
In the context of brand extensions, when shown ads of brand extensions with typical attributes, the presence of typical attributes is consistent with consumers’ expectations. As a result, consumers should engage in heuristic processing. Therefore, for typical attributes, we should be able to replicate the interaction of Study 1, namely that: H3: Under conditions of high (low) perceived fit, brand extensions with typical attributes will be perceived more positively if presented in a noncomparative (comparative) format than a comparative (noncomparative) format.
When presented with atypical attributes, on the other hand, consumers should engage in piecemeal processing. In noncomparative advertising, there is a discrepancy between the atypical attributes that the new product has and consumers’ normal expectations concerning the features of the product category. Moreover, consumers lack a cue that would facilitate a justification (e.g., "the company wants to provide a differential advantage in the category") via piecemeal processing of the atypical attribute and its context. In contrast, in the case of a comparative ad with a prototypical competitor, consumers may infer that the company wants to focus on the differentiating features of the brand in comparison to its competitor and they are provided with an explicit cue (such as a competitor in the ad) to trigger such an inference. As a result, we expect that consumers evaluate a brand with atypical attributes more positively in a comparative than a noncomparative context. The same argument should apply to both high fit and low fit situations. Therefore, we predict: H4: Under conditions of both high and low perceived fit, brand extensions with atypical attributes will be perceived more positively if presented in a comparative format than a noncomparative format.
Based on research by Rosch and Mervis (1975) and Loken and Ward (1987), attributes may be viewed along a continuum of typicality, and for experimental purposes, be classified as either typical or atypical. In Study 1, the featured attributes were all typical attributes; therefore, we could not address the role of how different types of attributes may affect brand evaluations in a comparative or noncomparative context.
How could attribute typicality affect brand evaluations in a comparative and noncomparative context? In a study by Pechmann and Ratneshwar (1991), a comparative ad format with atypical product attributes did not result in any stronger association with the comparison brand, whereas, a comparative ad format with typical attributes did. Pechmann and Ratneshwar explained this finding with reference to the construct of incongruency with the existing product category schema. Since an atypical attribute is typically not associated with the comparison brands, the incongruency will induce consumers to rely more on the attribute information rather than on simple heuristics (e.g., "If the advertiser compared these brands, they must be comparable").
Indeed, in line with this interpretation, schema-incongruent objects have been found to evoke greater cognitive effort than congruent ones (Mandler 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989; Fiske and Pavelchak 1986). The underlying theory is that stimuli which match the product category schema will be processed heuristically in line with the existing schema. When there is a mismatch with the existing category schema, a more effortful cognitive processing called "piecemeal processing" takes place in an effort to resolve the incongruity (Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989).
In the context of brand extensions, when shown ads of brand extensions with typical attributes, the presence of typical attributes is consistent with consumers’ expectations. As a result, consumers should engage in heuristic processing. Therefore, for typical attributes, we should be able to replicate the interaction of Study 1, namely that: H3: Under conditions of high (low) perceived fit, brand extensions with typical attributes will be perceived more positively if presented in a noncomparative (comparative) format than a comparative (noncomparative) format.
When presented with atypical attributes, on the other hand, consumers should engage in piecemeal processing. In noncomparative advertising, there is a discrepancy between the atypical attributes that the new product has and consumers’ normal expectations concerning the features of the product category. Moreover, consumers lack a cue that would facilitate a justification (e.g., "the company wants to provide a differential advantage in the category") via piecemeal processing of the atypical attribute and its context. In contrast, in the case of a comparative ad with a prototypical competitor, consumers may infer that the company wants to focus on the differentiating features of the brand in comparison to its competitor and they are provided with an explicit cue (such as a competitor in the ad) to trigger such an inference. As a result, we expect that consumers evaluate a brand with atypical attributes more positively in a comparative than a noncomparative context. The same argument should apply to both high fit and low fit situations. Therefore, we predict: H4: Under conditions of both high and low perceived fit, brand extensions with atypical attributes will be perceived more positively if presented in a comparative format than a noncomparative format.
STUDY 1: COMPETITIVE TARGETS AND BRAND EXTENSIONS
Should a firm position a brand with established equity directly against the prototypical competitive brand in the new category, against a nonprototypical competitor, or not use a comparative approach? Prior research on comparative (vs. noncomparative) advertising is useful for addressing this question. As the name implies, a comparative advertisement draws an explicit comparison between the advertised brand and one or more competing brands, whereas a noncomparative one does not include a competitor in the ad (Barry and Tremblay 1975).
Until recently, research on comparative vs. noncomparative advertising has been inconclusive with respect to the question of which type of advertising is most effective: on the one hand, compared to noncomparative advertising, the comparative approach has been perceived as being more offensive (Wilson 1976), more impersonal (Goodwin and Etgar 1980), less friendly and pleasant (Wilson and Muderrisoglu 1979), more aggressive and intense (Mazis 1976; Wilson and Muderrisoglu 1979), and less believable (Levine 1976; Murphy and Amundsen 1981; Prasad 1976; Shimp and Dyer 1978; Swinyard 1981; Wilson 1976). On the other hand, comparative advertising has been shown to reduce the psychological distance between the advertised brand (usually a new or a small-share brand) with the comparison brand (usually a prototypical brand) for both superiority and parity claims (Dröge and Darmon 1987; Gorn and Weinberg 1984; Pechmann and Ratneshwar 1991; Pechmann and Stewart 1990; Shimp and Dyer 1978; Walker, Swasy, and Rethans 1985). A recent meta-analysis by Grewal et al. (1997) offers several moderators (i.e., relative market positions of the sponsor and target brands, message content) as possible reasons underlying the conflicting findings--which will be elaborated in the subsequent discussion.
To determine the effect of the type of advertising in the case of brand extensions, a crucial factor to consider seems to be the perceived fit between the brand and the extension. As mentioned earlier, previous research has provided ample evidence that the higher the perceptual fit between the original brand and the extension, the greater is the affect transfer from the original brand to the extension (Aaker and Keller 1990; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991; Boush et al. 1987). As a result, consumers may prefer a noncomparative approach and judge an extension to be of higher quality when the fit between the brand and the extension is high because the extension is already closely related to the brand and there seems to be no need to reduce the distance between the brand and the competition. This prediction is consistent with Grewal et al. (1997)'s finding: when the sponsor brand is informative in itself, noncomparative (vs. comparative) format is deemed more effective. In other words, the extension has little to gain by associating itself with a competitive brand but it may be hurt by the negative associations that consumers have about comparative advertising. We therefore predict that, if the fit is high, the extension will be evaluated more positively if a noncomparative format than a comparative format is used.
This argument should particularly apply when a nonprototypical competitor is the target of comparison. Walker, Swasy, and Rethans (1985) showed that comparing (vs. not comparing) a new brand to nonprototypical brands results in a lower perceived similarity between the two. For example, when a new entry to the beer market was compared to nonprototypical brands in the beer category such as Heineken, Michelob, and Löwenbräu, the result was an increase in perceptual disparity between the former and the latter. The beneficial effect of perceived fit should therefore be reduced significantly in cases in which a comparison with a nonprototypical target is made.
Under conditions of low fit, on the other hand, a comparative format should be beneficial for a brand extension because the comparative format reduces the distance resulting from the poor fit between the brand and the product category. This reasoning, however, should apply only to a comparison with a prototypical competitor because the prototypical competitor is the best representative exemplar of the new product category. A nonprototypical competitor, on the other hand, is not a good example of the new product category and therefore should not be able to decrease the distance resulting from the poor perceived fit between the brand and the new product category. This prediction is consistent with Grewal et al. finding on the moderating role of relative market positions: "the comparison brand's market position significantly moderates the relationship between ad format and intention to purchase the sponsored brand." That is, when the sponsor brand is new and the target brand is the market leader, comparative format is more effective than the noncomparative ad; however, no such effect is observed when the target brand is not a market leader but an established small-share brand. In sum, we hypothesize for the brand extension context that:
H1: Effectiveness of comparative advertising will be moderated by the level of perceived fit between the parent brand and the extension. In the context of high (low) fit, the perception of the brand extension will be more favorable for a noncomparative (comparative) format vs. comparative (noncomparative) format.
H2: In a comparative format, targeting the brand extension against a prototypical (vs. nonprototypical) competitor will result in a more positive perception of the extension regardless of the level of perceived fit between the parent brand and the extension.
Until recently, research on comparative vs. noncomparative advertising has been inconclusive with respect to the question of which type of advertising is most effective: on the one hand, compared to noncomparative advertising, the comparative approach has been perceived as being more offensive (Wilson 1976), more impersonal (Goodwin and Etgar 1980), less friendly and pleasant (Wilson and Muderrisoglu 1979), more aggressive and intense (Mazis 1976; Wilson and Muderrisoglu 1979), and less believable (Levine 1976; Murphy and Amundsen 1981; Prasad 1976; Shimp and Dyer 1978; Swinyard 1981; Wilson 1976). On the other hand, comparative advertising has been shown to reduce the psychological distance between the advertised brand (usually a new or a small-share brand) with the comparison brand (usually a prototypical brand) for both superiority and parity claims (Dröge and Darmon 1987; Gorn and Weinberg 1984; Pechmann and Ratneshwar 1991; Pechmann and Stewart 1990; Shimp and Dyer 1978; Walker, Swasy, and Rethans 1985). A recent meta-analysis by Grewal et al. (1997) offers several moderators (i.e., relative market positions of the sponsor and target brands, message content) as possible reasons underlying the conflicting findings--which will be elaborated in the subsequent discussion.
To determine the effect of the type of advertising in the case of brand extensions, a crucial factor to consider seems to be the perceived fit between the brand and the extension. As mentioned earlier, previous research has provided ample evidence that the higher the perceptual fit between the original brand and the extension, the greater is the affect transfer from the original brand to the extension (Aaker and Keller 1990; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991; Boush et al. 1987). As a result, consumers may prefer a noncomparative approach and judge an extension to be of higher quality when the fit between the brand and the extension is high because the extension is already closely related to the brand and there seems to be no need to reduce the distance between the brand and the competition. This prediction is consistent with Grewal et al. (1997)'s finding: when the sponsor brand is informative in itself, noncomparative (vs. comparative) format is deemed more effective. In other words, the extension has little to gain by associating itself with a competitive brand but it may be hurt by the negative associations that consumers have about comparative advertising. We therefore predict that, if the fit is high, the extension will be evaluated more positively if a noncomparative format than a comparative format is used.
This argument should particularly apply when a nonprototypical competitor is the target of comparison. Walker, Swasy, and Rethans (1985) showed that comparing (vs. not comparing) a new brand to nonprototypical brands results in a lower perceived similarity between the two. For example, when a new entry to the beer market was compared to nonprototypical brands in the beer category such as Heineken, Michelob, and Löwenbräu, the result was an increase in perceptual disparity between the former and the latter. The beneficial effect of perceived fit should therefore be reduced significantly in cases in which a comparison with a nonprototypical target is made.
Under conditions of low fit, on the other hand, a comparative format should be beneficial for a brand extension because the comparative format reduces the distance resulting from the poor fit between the brand and the product category. This reasoning, however, should apply only to a comparison with a prototypical competitor because the prototypical competitor is the best representative exemplar of the new product category. A nonprototypical competitor, on the other hand, is not a good example of the new product category and therefore should not be able to decrease the distance resulting from the poor perceived fit between the brand and the new product category. This prediction is consistent with Grewal et al. finding on the moderating role of relative market positions: "the comparison brand's market position significantly moderates the relationship between ad format and intention to purchase the sponsored brand." That is, when the sponsor brand is new and the target brand is the market leader, comparative format is more effective than the noncomparative ad; however, no such effect is observed when the target brand is not a market leader but an established small-share brand. In sum, we hypothesize for the brand extension context that:
H1: Effectiveness of comparative advertising will be moderated by the level of perceived fit between the parent brand and the extension. In the context of high (low) fit, the perception of the brand extension will be more favorable for a noncomparative (comparative) format vs. comparative (noncomparative) format.
H2: In a comparative format, targeting the brand extension against a prototypical (vs. nonprototypical) competitor will result in a more positive perception of the extension regardless of the level of perceived fit between the parent brand and the extension.
THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A COMPETITIVE SITUATION
Brand-extension strategy in a competitive environment is comprised of two crucial strategic decisions: (1) against which competitive brand to position the new product, and (2) how to position the new product. The first decision--which we will call the competitive-target decision--requires an understanding of the competitive structure and an analysis of the opportunities and threats associated with selecting a certain position (Hauser and Shugan 1983; Hotelling 1929). The second issue--which we will call the attribute-selection decision--concerns the selection of product attributes or benefits that provide a differential advantage for the new product compared to the competitive offerings (Hauser and Simmie 1981; Lane 1980). Since most brand extensions are new entries of established brands into established product categories, both strategic decisions may be conceptualized by analyzing pertinent extension-category dynamics. The competitive-target decision may thus be viewed by distinguishing two types of competitive targets (Carpenter and Nakamoto 1989): those brands that, in the eyes of consumers, serve as the prototypes in the extension category (usually the market leader or a brand with a substantial market share) and those that do not serve as the prototype for the product category (e.g., followers or niche players). The decision of focusing on a prototypical or nonprototypical target may be implemented, for example, in a comparative advertising campaign by displaying the new brand against the prototype of the category or against a nonprototypical brand. In addition to these two strategic options, the firm may decide not to position the brand explicitly against any competitor. In implementing this strategy, the firm may advertise the brand and its benefits on its own grounds rather than in a comparative fashion. The attribute-selection decision may be conceptualized in an analogous manner. Similar to competitive targets, product attributes also vary in their degree of typicality to the product category. Some product attributes are closely associated with the product category and thus prototypical of a given product category; others may be seen as relatively atypical.
Determinants of attribute typicality include the familiarity or frequency of association of the attribute with the category and how essential the attribute is for the category (Barsalou 1985; Hampton and Gardiner 1983; Loken and Ward 1990; Schwanenflugel and Ray 1986). For example, the attribute "fruit flavor" seems to be a more prototypical attribute of yogurt than "vitamin A content." Conceptually, the attribute-selection decision thus concerns the issue of whether or not a typical (e.g., fruit flavor) or atypical (e.g., vitamin A content) product attribute should be selected and advertised when the firm introduces a brand extension. In the remainder of this paper, we discuss how the selection of a competitive target and the selection of product attributes affects brand-extension evaluations in the form of product-quality perceptions. We will use the construct of category familiarity--or "perceived fit"--between the old and new category, which has been shown to be a crucial determinant of product-quality perceptions in numerous studies (Aaker and Keller 1990; Boush and Loken 1991; Keller and Aaker 1992) as an additional theoretical construct to derive hypotheses about the effects of a certain competitive target (prototypical, nonprototypical, or no explicit target) and of certain attributes (typical or atypical) on perceived product quality. Predictions will be tested in two experiments with real brands and hypothetical brand extensions.
Determinants of attribute typicality include the familiarity or frequency of association of the attribute with the category and how essential the attribute is for the category (Barsalou 1985; Hampton and Gardiner 1983; Loken and Ward 1990; Schwanenflugel and Ray 1986). For example, the attribute "fruit flavor" seems to be a more prototypical attribute of yogurt than "vitamin A content." Conceptually, the attribute-selection decision thus concerns the issue of whether or not a typical (e.g., fruit flavor) or atypical (e.g., vitamin A content) product attribute should be selected and advertised when the firm introduces a brand extension. In the remainder of this paper, we discuss how the selection of a competitive target and the selection of product attributes affects brand-extension evaluations in the form of product-quality perceptions. We will use the construct of category familiarity--or "perceived fit"--between the old and new category, which has been shown to be a crucial determinant of product-quality perceptions in numerous studies (Aaker and Keller 1990; Boush and Loken 1991; Keller and Aaker 1992) as an additional theoretical construct to derive hypotheses about the effects of a certain competitive target (prototypical, nonprototypical, or no explicit target) and of certain attributes (typical or atypical) on perceived product quality. Predictions will be tested in two experiments with real brands and hypothetical brand extensions.
BRAND EXTENSIONS IN A COMPETITIVE CONTEXT: EFFECTS OF COMPETITIVE TARGETS AND PRODUCT ATTRIBUTE TYPICALITY ON PERCEIVED QUALITY
In today’s fiercely competitive marketplace, brand extensions have become a standard strategy for new product introductions. Brand extensions have proliferated over the past decade, escalating to an all-time high, with estimates ranging from 81% to 95%, by the beginning of this decade (The Wall Street Journal January 1992). The rationale behind endowing a new product with a well-known brand name is to provide consumers--and the trade--with a sense of familiarity and security by leveraging positive brand characteristics in a new product category. In this respect, brand-extension research has shown that the positive affect of a brand may be transferred to the extension (Boush et al. 1987). Moreover, affect transfer is most likely to occur when the brand’s old and the new categories are perceived to be similar (Aaker 1990; Aaker and Keller 1990; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991). Finally, brand-specific associations are another important factor to consider; they may dominate the effects of brand affect and category similarity, especially when consumers are knowledgeable about the brand (Broniarczyk and Alba 1994). When investigating primarily brand characteristics such as brand affect and associations, as well as the role of category similarity, previous research has not paid sufficient attention to the competitive context of brand extensions. Indeed, brand extensions have been treated as if they occurred in a competitive vacuum. Yet, competitive pressures are among the key challenges and opportunities facing brand management today (Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert 1994). Understanding the essential features of the competitive context is therefore critical for developing a complete theoretical account of brand extensions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brand extensions have proliferated over the past decade, and the rationale behind endowing a new product with a well-known brand name is to provide consumers--and the trade--with a sense of familiarity and security by leveraging positive brand characteristics in a new product category. Although brand extensions have become a standard strategy for new product introductions in today’s fiercely competitive marketplace, the extant literature has examined brand extensions as if they occur in a competitive vacuum. This study attempts to fill this void by examining brand extensions in a competitive context. Specifically, brand-extension strategy in a competitive context includes two key decisions: (1) whether the brand should be compared against the prototypical brand of the extension category, against a nonprototypical brand, or whether a comparison should be avoided; and (2) whether typical attributes of the extension category or atypical ones should be highlighted. In two experiments, we use comparative and noncomparative ads as vehicles in exploring the two key decisions of brand extension strategy in a competitive context. Our findings suggest that, if there is a high fit between the established image of a brand and the extension category, a brand extension with attributes that are perceived to be typical in the extension category is judged to be of higher quality when consumers evaluate the brand extension on its own grounds rather than in comparison with brands in the extension category. In contrast, when the brand does not fit easily with the extension category, the brand with typical attributes is judged to be of higher quality if the brand is positioned explicitly against the prototypical brand of the extension category. Finally, in cases in which the brand’s attributes in the extension category are atypical (i.e., the brand possesses attributes that differentiate it from other brands in the extension category), positioning the brand against the category prototype is generally preferable to the noncomparative format. Overall, low-fit brand extensions were generally judged to be of lower quality than high-fit brand extensions, and neither the ad format nor the type of attribute could overcome the negative effects of low fit.
Selasa, 27 November 2007
Tips Bisnis Online
Inilah beberapa tips bisnis online yang bisa anda terapkan di usaha anda. Tips ini sangat cocok bagi usaha menengah / kecil yang jeli dan mau berpikir cepat agar bisnisnya berkembang. Sebelum melakukan promosi online, tentunya anda sudah memiliki sebuah website pribadi / perusahaan yang nantinya sebagai alat utama dalam berdagang.
Search Engine
Daftarkan situs web anda di mesin penc ari terkenal seperti yahoo, google, altavista, msn dsb. Mesin pencari sangat penting untuk membantu anda berkembang, banyak orang bertumpu pada search engine untuk mencari sesuatu. Untuk web submission, anda bisa lakukan secara manual atu memakai software submission.
Promosi Iklan
Promosikan situs anda di berbagai jasa iklan baris gratis, pasang dan tempatkan iklan anda sesuai kategory dan jenisnya. Ikuti peraturan dan jangan salah dalam memasang iklan.
Link Swap
Lakukan pertukaran link dengan website lain yang memiliki kesamaan visi dengan situs web anda.
Banner Exchange
Lakukan pertukaran banner dengan web lain
Mailing List
Kelola sebuah mailing list dengan baik, update berita, informasi kepada seluruh anggota dan bikin mailing list hidup.
Ezine & E- book
Anda bisa mengelola ezine dan membuat e-book untuk calon pembeli anda yang bisa langsung di download, atau anda bisa membuat ezine anda sebagai tempat promosi bersama.
Affiliasi & ViralMarketing
Anda juga bisa membuat situs anda cepat menyebar dengan menambahkan program ini kedalam usaha anda.
Forums
Anda bisa membuat forum diskusi bersama pengunjung yang online, bisa chating langsung dan menjalin komunikasi proaktif disaat anda online
Message Board & Guest Book
Sertakan fasilitas tambahan ini di website anda dengan terus meng update, memfilter setiap pesan masuk. Saat ini banyak yang menyalah gunakan fasilitas ini dengan mengisi pesan bisnis senada, bukan komentar, kritik atau saran kepada anda.
Sponsor W eb
Jika anda biar kelihatan cepat besar dan berkembang, cari website yang identik dengan web anda untuk diajak sebagai sponsor web. Dengan mengajak sebagai sponsor web, posisi anda akan sedikit terangkat dan lebih cepat dikenal publik.
Email Marketing
Hampir pasti setipa pemasar internet selalu menggunakan cara ini untuk berpromosi, padahal belum tentu berhasil secara maksimal. Banyaknya software email marketing yng dijual seperti software pencari email, pengirim email dipasaran, mengakibatkan banyak juga kita menerima SPAM email dari pengguna software tersebut. Lebih baik anda melakukan email marketing kepada mereka yang sudah anda kenal, teman dan rekan bisnis yang mer eka juga s udah mengenal alamat email anda.
Menggunakan softaware email sangatlah cepat sekali menyebar informasi anda, apalagi anda menggunakan mass email softaware. Ribuan orang akan serentak menerima email anda tersebut, tanpa mereka meminta anda terlebih dahulu. Fantastis kelihatan nya, tetapi sadar atau tidak anda ? hal ini juga bisa akan membunuh usaha / bisnis anda tersebut. Orang yang menerima email anda tersebut bisa memiliki 2 presepsi :
Yang pertama : Oke dan tidak masalah
Yang kedua : anda akan dianggap spam ! mer eka tidak tahu siapa anda, mereka tiba - tiba menerima begitu saja informasi yng tidak mereka harapkan. Nah, kalau sudah begini....bisnis andapun akan tercoreng dan usaha anda untuk berpromosi juga sia - sia. Apalagi email promosi anda hanyalah ber isi web affiliate dari sebuah bisnis [ bukan domain web milik anda sendiri ], makanya tidak salah kalau seorang webmaster / pemilik website / affiliasi yang tegas - tegas melarang membernya melakukan SPAM. Jika ini terjadi, pasti webmaster tersebut akan men delete account anda.
Setiap webmaster pasti ingin domain & bisnisnya berjalan dengan wajar, karena mer eka meng investasikan dana, tenaga dan keahlian mendesain website replicate semata - mata untuk membernya. Jadi, kesimpulannya adalah berhati - hatilah dalam berpromosi lewat email.
Search Engine
Daftarkan situs web anda di mesin penc ari terkenal seperti yahoo, google, altavista, msn dsb. Mesin pencari sangat penting untuk membantu anda berkembang, banyak orang bertumpu pada search engine untuk mencari sesuatu. Untuk web submission, anda bisa lakukan secara manual atu memakai software submission.
Promosi Iklan
Promosikan situs anda di berbagai jasa iklan baris gratis, pasang dan tempatkan iklan anda sesuai kategory dan jenisnya. Ikuti peraturan dan jangan salah dalam memasang iklan.
Link Swap
Lakukan pertukaran link dengan website lain yang memiliki kesamaan visi dengan situs web anda.
Banner Exchange
Lakukan pertukaran banner dengan web lain
Mailing List
Kelola sebuah mailing list dengan baik, update berita, informasi kepada seluruh anggota dan bikin mailing list hidup.
Ezine & E- book
Anda bisa mengelola ezine dan membuat e-book untuk calon pembeli anda yang bisa langsung di download, atau anda bisa membuat ezine anda sebagai tempat promosi bersama.
Affiliasi & ViralMarketing
Anda juga bisa membuat situs anda cepat menyebar dengan menambahkan program ini kedalam usaha anda.
Forums
Anda bisa membuat forum diskusi bersama pengunjung yang online, bisa chating langsung dan menjalin komunikasi proaktif disaat anda online
Message Board & Guest Book
Sertakan fasilitas tambahan ini di website anda dengan terus meng update, memfilter setiap pesan masuk. Saat ini banyak yang menyalah gunakan fasilitas ini dengan mengisi pesan bisnis senada, bukan komentar, kritik atau saran kepada anda.
Sponsor W eb
Jika anda biar kelihatan cepat besar dan berkembang, cari website yang identik dengan web anda untuk diajak sebagai sponsor web. Dengan mengajak sebagai sponsor web, posisi anda akan sedikit terangkat dan lebih cepat dikenal publik.
Email Marketing
Hampir pasti setipa pemasar internet selalu menggunakan cara ini untuk berpromosi, padahal belum tentu berhasil secara maksimal. Banyaknya software email marketing yng dijual seperti software pencari email, pengirim email dipasaran, mengakibatkan banyak juga kita menerima SPAM email dari pengguna software tersebut. Lebih baik anda melakukan email marketing kepada mereka yang sudah anda kenal, teman dan rekan bisnis yang mer eka juga s udah mengenal alamat email anda.
Menggunakan softaware email sangatlah cepat sekali menyebar informasi anda, apalagi anda menggunakan mass email softaware. Ribuan orang akan serentak menerima email anda tersebut, tanpa mereka meminta anda terlebih dahulu. Fantastis kelihatan nya, tetapi sadar atau tidak anda ? hal ini juga bisa akan membunuh usaha / bisnis anda tersebut. Orang yang menerima email anda tersebut bisa memiliki 2 presepsi :
Yang pertama : Oke dan tidak masalah
Yang kedua : anda akan dianggap spam ! mer eka tidak tahu siapa anda, mereka tiba - tiba menerima begitu saja informasi yng tidak mereka harapkan. Nah, kalau sudah begini....bisnis andapun akan tercoreng dan usaha anda untuk berpromosi juga sia - sia. Apalagi email promosi anda hanyalah ber isi web affiliate dari sebuah bisnis [ bukan domain web milik anda sendiri ], makanya tidak salah kalau seorang webmaster / pemilik website / affiliasi yang tegas - tegas melarang membernya melakukan SPAM. Jika ini terjadi, pasti webmaster tersebut akan men delete account anda.
Setiap webmaster pasti ingin domain & bisnisnya berjalan dengan wajar, karena mer eka meng investasikan dana, tenaga dan keahlian mendesain website replicate semata - mata untuk membernya. Jadi, kesimpulannya adalah berhati - hatilah dalam berpromosi lewat email.
Menawarkan Bisnis Dollar
Anda tentu tahu Google adsense, program dari bapak tua Google yang mencoba menawarkan bisnis dollar kepada anda para webmaster atau blogger. Cara kerjanya sederhana, hanya dengan menampilkan iklan dari Google yang ditempatkan di halaman website atau blog anda, dan Anda akan dibayar untuk tiap klik yang terjadi. Membingungkan? tentu saja tidak. Simple-nya begini, Anda punya website atau blog apapun itu, dan anda punya pengunjung yang datang ke website atau blog anda tentunya, kemudian anda menawarkan diri kepada Google untuk menampilkan iklan-iklannya (iklan yang didaftarkan di Google.com) di halaman tertentu website atau blog anda. Iklan yang muncul (bukan iklan yang anda minta) adalah iklan yang secara otomatis dimunculkan oleh Google di web anda, acak sesuai dengan tema situs anda. Misal situs anda tentang komputer, atau software, tentu saja iklan yang keluar adalah iklan tentang software dan atau komputer.
Bagaimana penghasilan dari adsense ini?
Sebenarnya secara teori memang tidak terbatas. Waw, hebat.. Tunggu dulu, karena yang menentukan berhasilnya program ini adalah traffic, content, dan akhirnya siapa saja yang bakal memasang iklan di website atau blog anda. Semakin banyak iklan diklik oleh pengunjung dari web anda, maka semakin banyak pula profit yang bisa anda dapatkan. Dan setelah dollar terkumpul sejumlah 100 $, cek akan dikirimkan ke alamat Anda. Apakah sebulan kira-kira website Anda bisa mencapai jumlah tersebut ???
lalu bagaimana Google bisa memahami isi web anda?
Dalam program adsense ini, Google akan melihat isi website atau blog anda jika dengan bahasa yang ada di list-nya. Dan berita agak tidak menyenangkannya, bahasa indonesia tercinta belum masuk dalam bahasa resmi program Google ini. Jadi, kalau content website atau blog anda lebih banak menggunakan bahasa inggris, maka Google akan dengan mudah mengartikan maksud isi situs anda. Usaha yang cukup sederhana untuk menarik minat Google adalah dengan banyak menampilkan tulisan atau artikel berkaitan isi situs anda dalam bahasa inggris.
Bagaimana penghasilan dari adsense ini?
Sebenarnya secara teori memang tidak terbatas. Waw, hebat.. Tunggu dulu, karena yang menentukan berhasilnya program ini adalah traffic, content, dan akhirnya siapa saja yang bakal memasang iklan di website atau blog anda. Semakin banyak iklan diklik oleh pengunjung dari web anda, maka semakin banyak pula profit yang bisa anda dapatkan. Dan setelah dollar terkumpul sejumlah 100 $, cek akan dikirimkan ke alamat Anda. Apakah sebulan kira-kira website Anda bisa mencapai jumlah tersebut ???
lalu bagaimana Google bisa memahami isi web anda?
Dalam program adsense ini, Google akan melihat isi website atau blog anda jika dengan bahasa yang ada di list-nya. Dan berita agak tidak menyenangkannya, bahasa indonesia tercinta belum masuk dalam bahasa resmi program Google ini. Jadi, kalau content website atau blog anda lebih banak menggunakan bahasa inggris, maka Google akan dengan mudah mengartikan maksud isi situs anda. Usaha yang cukup sederhana untuk menarik minat Google adalah dengan banyak menampilkan tulisan atau artikel berkaitan isi situs anda dalam bahasa inggris.
APA ITU ADSENSE
Secara singkat, AdSense adalah layanan iklan yg dimiliki oleh Google, dimana para pemilik situs dapat memasang iklan tersebut di situs2 mereka dan mendapatkan penghasilan tambahan. Iklan yg muncul bermacam-macam jenisnya, bisa berupa teks, gambar, bahkan video; namun yg pasti, semuanya menggunakan sistem kontekstual (contextual), dimana iklan tersebut akan relevan atau sesuai dengan isi halaman dimana iklan tersebut dipasang.
Seluruh iklan disimpan di server milik Google sendiri, sehingga kita tidak perlu menyediakan ruang khusus di server kita untuk AdSense, ataupun mengupload file-file tertentu. Cukup dengan menyisipkan kode JavaScript yg diberikan pada halaman situs kita saja kita sudah dapat menikmati hadirnya iklan AdSense di situs kita.
Bagaimana Kita Mendapatkan Uang?
Seperti disebutkan di atas, dengan memasangkan iklan AdSense di situs mereka, pemilik situs memperoleh kesempatan untuk mendapatkan penghasilan tambahan. Bagaimana caranya?
Tidak sulit. Yg perlu Anda, sebagai pemilik situs atau blog, lakukan adalah menunggu (dan berdoa) agar ada pengunjung yg meng-klik iklan2 tersebut. Ya, cukup dengan meng-klik saja, otomatis Anda, sebagai publisher AdSense, akan mendapatkan sejumlah uang yg nilai bagiannya diperhitungkan dari besarnya bid yg telah ditentukan oleh si pemasang iklan (advertisers). Meskipun ada faktor2 lain yg mempengaruhi, secara umum, bagian yg diperoleh publisher adalah 20% dari nilai bid.
Setelah Anda mendaftarkan diri di Google AdSense dan diterima (Cara pendaftaran ada di bagian akhir tulisan ini), Anda akan mendapatkan akses ke Member Area Google AdSense. Di situ, selain tersedia tool untuk mengenerate kode iklan yg dibutuhkan, juga terdapat halaman Report yg mencantumkan perolehan pendapatan Anda beserta jumlah klik yg didapatkan, jumlah tampilan iklan, dan info2 penting lainnya.
Bagaimana Pembayarannya?
Pembayaran akan dilakukan 30 hari setelah total pendapatan Anda dalam satu bulan mencapai minimal $100. Jadi apabila bulan Februari ini Anda memperoleh $100, maka penghasilan Anda tersebut akan dikirimkan pada akhir bulan Maret. Untuk Indonesia, pembayaran akan dikirimkan dalam bentuk cek dan Anda dapat memilih untuk menggunakan jasa pos ataupun DHL (Express Delivery) dalam proses pengiriman tersebut.
Jika menggunakan jasa pos, waktu pengiriman biasanya paling cepat adalah 20-25 hari (tergantung lokasi Anda). Sedangkan, jika menggunakan DHL, cek sudah akan Anda terima dalam waktu 2-3 hari kerja. Jangan lupa, Anda biaya sebesar $24 jika Anda memilih menggunakan sistem Express Delivery, dimana biaya tersebut otomatis akan dipotong dari penghasilan kita.
Bagaimana Potensi Penghasilannya?
Tidak terbatas! Banyak publisher AdSense yg telah memperoleh ribuan bahkan puluhan ribu dollar per bulannya. Di Indonesia sendiri, publisher AdSense dengan penghasilan ribuan dollar per bulan sudah bukan hal yg aneh lagi. Tertarik mencoba?
Seluruh iklan disimpan di server milik Google sendiri, sehingga kita tidak perlu menyediakan ruang khusus di server kita untuk AdSense, ataupun mengupload file-file tertentu. Cukup dengan menyisipkan kode JavaScript yg diberikan pada halaman situs kita saja kita sudah dapat menikmati hadirnya iklan AdSense di situs kita.
Bagaimana Kita Mendapatkan Uang?
Seperti disebutkan di atas, dengan memasangkan iklan AdSense di situs mereka, pemilik situs memperoleh kesempatan untuk mendapatkan penghasilan tambahan. Bagaimana caranya?
Tidak sulit. Yg perlu Anda, sebagai pemilik situs atau blog, lakukan adalah menunggu (dan berdoa) agar ada pengunjung yg meng-klik iklan2 tersebut. Ya, cukup dengan meng-klik saja, otomatis Anda, sebagai publisher AdSense, akan mendapatkan sejumlah uang yg nilai bagiannya diperhitungkan dari besarnya bid yg telah ditentukan oleh si pemasang iklan (advertisers). Meskipun ada faktor2 lain yg mempengaruhi, secara umum, bagian yg diperoleh publisher adalah 20% dari nilai bid.
Setelah Anda mendaftarkan diri di Google AdSense dan diterima (Cara pendaftaran ada di bagian akhir tulisan ini), Anda akan mendapatkan akses ke Member Area Google AdSense. Di situ, selain tersedia tool untuk mengenerate kode iklan yg dibutuhkan, juga terdapat halaman Report yg mencantumkan perolehan pendapatan Anda beserta jumlah klik yg didapatkan, jumlah tampilan iklan, dan info2 penting lainnya.
Bagaimana Pembayarannya?
Pembayaran akan dilakukan 30 hari setelah total pendapatan Anda dalam satu bulan mencapai minimal $100. Jadi apabila bulan Februari ini Anda memperoleh $100, maka penghasilan Anda tersebut akan dikirimkan pada akhir bulan Maret. Untuk Indonesia, pembayaran akan dikirimkan dalam bentuk cek dan Anda dapat memilih untuk menggunakan jasa pos ataupun DHL (Express Delivery) dalam proses pengiriman tersebut.
Jika menggunakan jasa pos, waktu pengiriman biasanya paling cepat adalah 20-25 hari (tergantung lokasi Anda). Sedangkan, jika menggunakan DHL, cek sudah akan Anda terima dalam waktu 2-3 hari kerja. Jangan lupa, Anda biaya sebesar $24 jika Anda memilih menggunakan sistem Express Delivery, dimana biaya tersebut otomatis akan dipotong dari penghasilan kita.
Bagaimana Potensi Penghasilannya?
Tidak terbatas! Banyak publisher AdSense yg telah memperoleh ribuan bahkan puluhan ribu dollar per bulannya. Di Indonesia sendiri, publisher AdSense dengan penghasilan ribuan dollar per bulan sudah bukan hal yg aneh lagi. Tertarik mencoba?
Sabtu, 24 November 2007
Baik buruk persepsi Google adsense
Banyak pihak yang menggebor-gemborkan betapa besarnya keuntungan $ yang bisa anda raup dari bisnis ini, bagaimana kebenarannya? apakah ini benar-benar kenyataan? Banyak webmaster yang dapat menghasilkan ratusan bahkan ribuan dollar AS perbulannya dari bisnis Adsense, di luar sana, yaitu orang-orang yang sehari-harinya pake bhs inggris, bukan di negara kita tercinta githu...
Kebanyakan, cerita-cerita yang menggiurkan tersebut lebih dipentingkan untuk meningkatkan penjualan produk bisnis mereka tanpa memaparkan sejujurnya realita yang ada. Bukan dari apa yang mereka dapat dan alami. Anda bisa menyimak beberapa pengakuan dan pengungkapan secara blak-blakan Google Adsense tersebut di link-link di bawah tulisan ini.
Lalu, apakah masih mungkin kita dapet banyak uang dari bisnis Adsense ini??
Coba saja, dan sangat mungkin. Tetapi saya katakan kepada anda, jangan terlalu berharap dengan mengerahkan segala upaya hanya konsen pada "ingin meraih keuntungan yang sebanyak-banyaknya dengan program adsense".. lebih baik optimalisasi content website bisnis Anda dengan materi yang relevan dan bermanfaat dengan apa yang anda tekankan pada web atau blog anda. Jangan berpikir terlalu jauh untuk mendapatkan dollar sebanyak-banyaknya dari program bisnis ini, tetapi jadikan ini adalah tantangan bagi anda untuk menyajikan yang bermanfaat bagi orang lain yang berkunjung ke situs bisnis atau blog anda.
Jika Anda termasuk orang yg masuk ke bisnis AdSense karena mengganggap AdSense adalah cara mudah untuk mendapatkan uang di internet, maka dengan berat hati saya harus mengatakan kalo anda salah!. Dimana-mana cari uang itu butuh kerja keras dan kerja cerdas. Betul kan?
Mitos ini tak lebih dari sekedar propaganda yg dilancarkan oleh orang yg berusaha untuk meraih keuntungan dari para pemula ato orang awam. Dengan menjual e-book misalnya. Ato memberikan pelatihan tidak gratis dng biaya iuran bulanan yg tidak murah. Ato juga menjual software ato template yg membuat Anda seolah bisa ongkang kaki di depan komputer dan melihat uang masuk dengan sendirinya. Jangan terjebak propaganda bahwa Anda bisa kaya hanya dengan bersantai-santai ria.
Kenyataannya?
Sedikit sekali publisher baru (istilah bagi webmaster yg memasang iklan AdSense di situsnya) yg bisa terus survive dan menghasilkan pendapatan yg signifikan dan sebanding (bahkan lebih) dng usaha yg dilakukannya. Sama seperti hasil survey mengenai wirausaha (bisnis konvensional). Dari sekian banyak usahawan baru, hanya 20% saja yg bisa bertahan melewati tahun pertama. Persentase ini akan semakin menyusut di setiap tahunnya, dan bukan tidak mungkin di tahun ke-lima nanti hanya tersisa 1-2 usahawan sukses dari angkatan tersebut.
Kebanyakan, cerita-cerita yang menggiurkan tersebut lebih dipentingkan untuk meningkatkan penjualan produk bisnis mereka tanpa memaparkan sejujurnya realita yang ada. Bukan dari apa yang mereka dapat dan alami. Anda bisa menyimak beberapa pengakuan dan pengungkapan secara blak-blakan Google Adsense tersebut di link-link di bawah tulisan ini.
Lalu, apakah masih mungkin kita dapet banyak uang dari bisnis Adsense ini??
Coba saja, dan sangat mungkin. Tetapi saya katakan kepada anda, jangan terlalu berharap dengan mengerahkan segala upaya hanya konsen pada "ingin meraih keuntungan yang sebanyak-banyaknya dengan program adsense".. lebih baik optimalisasi content website bisnis Anda dengan materi yang relevan dan bermanfaat dengan apa yang anda tekankan pada web atau blog anda. Jangan berpikir terlalu jauh untuk mendapatkan dollar sebanyak-banyaknya dari program bisnis ini, tetapi jadikan ini adalah tantangan bagi anda untuk menyajikan yang bermanfaat bagi orang lain yang berkunjung ke situs bisnis atau blog anda.
Jika Anda termasuk orang yg masuk ke bisnis AdSense karena mengganggap AdSense adalah cara mudah untuk mendapatkan uang di internet, maka dengan berat hati saya harus mengatakan kalo anda salah!. Dimana-mana cari uang itu butuh kerja keras dan kerja cerdas. Betul kan?
Mitos ini tak lebih dari sekedar propaganda yg dilancarkan oleh orang yg berusaha untuk meraih keuntungan dari para pemula ato orang awam. Dengan menjual e-book misalnya. Ato memberikan pelatihan tidak gratis dng biaya iuran bulanan yg tidak murah. Ato juga menjual software ato template yg membuat Anda seolah bisa ongkang kaki di depan komputer dan melihat uang masuk dengan sendirinya. Jangan terjebak propaganda bahwa Anda bisa kaya hanya dengan bersantai-santai ria.
Kenyataannya?
Sedikit sekali publisher baru (istilah bagi webmaster yg memasang iklan AdSense di situsnya) yg bisa terus survive dan menghasilkan pendapatan yg signifikan dan sebanding (bahkan lebih) dng usaha yg dilakukannya. Sama seperti hasil survey mengenai wirausaha (bisnis konvensional). Dari sekian banyak usahawan baru, hanya 20% saja yg bisa bertahan melewati tahun pertama. Persentase ini akan semakin menyusut di setiap tahunnya, dan bukan tidak mungkin di tahun ke-lima nanti hanya tersisa 1-2 usahawan sukses dari angkatan tersebut.
“7 Alasan Utama Mempromosikan Suatu Bisnis Melalui Internet”
Walaupun Alam sudah memiliki bisnis ‘offline’ sendiri,
mempromosikan bisnis Alam melalui internet tetap PENTING.
Karena hal ini yang akan membuat Alam selangkah lebih maju
daripada kompetitor. Bahkan juga bisa melipatgandakan
keuntungan Alam. Mengapa begitu?
Karena internet memiliki kelebihan-kelebihan berikut ini:
1. Siap Sedia 24 Jam
Tidak seperti praktek bisnis offline lainnya yang layanannya
tergantung pada hari kerja dan jam kerja, web site Alam
selalu siap sedia 24 jam serta bisa diakses oleh pelanggan
dari mana saja dan kapan saja.
2. Menjangkau Pangsa Pasar Yang Tertarget
Melalui promosi online, Alam bisa secara efektif memasarkan
bisnis berdasarkan pangsa pasar yang ditargetkan. Baik dari
segi area, minat, kebutuhan pelanggan, bahasa, dan lain-lain.
3. Mengangkat Citra Bisnis Alam
Dengan memiliki sebuah web site, citra (image) bisnis Alam
bisa terangkat. Walau bisnis Alam tidak besar, tetapi
melalui kehadiran secara online, citra bisnis Alam akan
terangkat dibandingkan kompetitor lain dan bisa bersaing
dengan perusahaan besar.
4. Biaya Pemasaran Yang Lebih Efektif Dan Efisien
Karena pemasaran melalui internet sangat tertarget dan biaya
relatif lebih rendah dibanding pemasaran offline, sehingga
biaya yang dikeluarkan untuk pemasarannya juga lebih
efektif dan efisien.
5. 'Memposisikan' Bisnis Alam Di Masa Depan!
Semakin hari, semakin banyak bisnis yang hadir secara online.
Demikian juga kompetitor Alam. Kalau tidak sekarang,
kelak pun mereka akan menghadirkan bisnisnya melalui internet.
Karena itu, kehadiran situs bisnis Alam di internet,
setidaknya telah menolong memposisikan bisnis Alam
di masa depan.
6. Mempermudah Alam Dalam Membangun Hubungan Baik
Dengan Pelanggan.
Karena internet adalah media yang interaktif, Alam dengan
mudah menjalin komunikasi dan menjaga hubungan baik dengan
pelanggan. Baik itu melalui newsletter, ‘kotak saran’,
survey/polling, forum,dll. Kelebihan macam-macam ‘perangkat’
ini, Anda bisa melayani banyak pelanggan dalam satu waktu.
Lebih hemat waktu, tenaga dan biaya, bukan ?! :-)
7. Sistem Otomatisasi Yang Responsif
Melalui sistem otomatisasi, web site Alam bisa memberikan
respon dengan cepat jika datang ‘pesanan’ atau permintaan
informasi bisnis Alam yang lebih lengkap dari pelanggan.
Di jaman yang serba instan ini, kecepatan layanan adalah
kemutlakan, bukan?! :-)
mempromosikan bisnis Alam melalui internet tetap PENTING.
Karena hal ini yang akan membuat Alam selangkah lebih maju
daripada kompetitor. Bahkan juga bisa melipatgandakan
keuntungan Alam. Mengapa begitu?
Karena internet memiliki kelebihan-kelebihan berikut ini:
1. Siap Sedia 24 Jam
Tidak seperti praktek bisnis offline lainnya yang layanannya
tergantung pada hari kerja dan jam kerja, web site Alam
selalu siap sedia 24 jam serta bisa diakses oleh pelanggan
dari mana saja dan kapan saja.
2. Menjangkau Pangsa Pasar Yang Tertarget
Melalui promosi online, Alam bisa secara efektif memasarkan
bisnis berdasarkan pangsa pasar yang ditargetkan. Baik dari
segi area, minat, kebutuhan pelanggan, bahasa, dan lain-lain.
3. Mengangkat Citra Bisnis Alam
Dengan memiliki sebuah web site, citra (image) bisnis Alam
bisa terangkat. Walau bisnis Alam tidak besar, tetapi
melalui kehadiran secara online, citra bisnis Alam akan
terangkat dibandingkan kompetitor lain dan bisa bersaing
dengan perusahaan besar.
4. Biaya Pemasaran Yang Lebih Efektif Dan Efisien
Karena pemasaran melalui internet sangat tertarget dan biaya
relatif lebih rendah dibanding pemasaran offline, sehingga
biaya yang dikeluarkan untuk pemasarannya juga lebih
efektif dan efisien.
5. 'Memposisikan' Bisnis Alam Di Masa Depan!
Semakin hari, semakin banyak bisnis yang hadir secara online.
Demikian juga kompetitor Alam. Kalau tidak sekarang,
kelak pun mereka akan menghadirkan bisnisnya melalui internet.
Karena itu, kehadiran situs bisnis Alam di internet,
setidaknya telah menolong memposisikan bisnis Alam
di masa depan.
6. Mempermudah Alam Dalam Membangun Hubungan Baik
Dengan Pelanggan.
Karena internet adalah media yang interaktif, Alam dengan
mudah menjalin komunikasi dan menjaga hubungan baik dengan
pelanggan. Baik itu melalui newsletter, ‘kotak saran’,
survey/polling, forum,dll. Kelebihan macam-macam ‘perangkat’
ini, Anda bisa melayani banyak pelanggan dalam satu waktu.
Lebih hemat waktu, tenaga dan biaya, bukan ?! :-)
7. Sistem Otomatisasi Yang Responsif
Melalui sistem otomatisasi, web site Alam bisa memberikan
respon dengan cepat jika datang ‘pesanan’ atau permintaan
informasi bisnis Alam yang lebih lengkap dari pelanggan.
Di jaman yang serba instan ini, kecepatan layanan adalah
kemutlakan, bukan?! :-)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
