A guide to avoiding pitfalls in event operations!

When holding an event, it is often the case that the event fails or does not achieve the expected results. Instead of being dejected, it is better to summarize the factors that led to the failure of the event and strive for success in the next one. This article summarizes some common factors and shares them with you so that you can avoid making the same mistakes again.

Before getting into the topic, let’s talk about an interesting phenomenon:

When Taobao was just emerging, as soon as merchants launched welfare activities online, everyone spread the word and the products were basically sold out in seconds;

Nowadays, live streaming sales by top anchors can reach hundreds of millions of yuan in sales in minutes;

But when we organize activities ourselves, either success is accidental and cannot be replicated, or the activities are deserted and unsatisfactory.

Some people would say that it is the bonus of the times, the blessing of platform traffic, and the underlying logic is still low price. In fact, when e-commerce first emerged, users had extremely limited purchasing channels (and item prices fluctuated greatly), but the convenience and low prices of purchasing on Taobao quickly captured the minds of users, prompted users to make quick decisions, and formed word-of-mouth communication.

Still taking the above example, from the perspective of a single user link, whether a user will make a purchase roughly follows this path relationship:

In layman's terms, users know about the activity, and after quickly understanding and weighing the options, they make decisions. Therefore, each step of the path will have an impact on the purchasing behavior of a single user.

For example, the merchant's activities are not effectively communicated to users (reach); in the eyes of users, the rules of the activity are unclear, which directly affects user cognition; after forming cognition, it is not strongly relevant to me, or it is too difficult (low cost/benefit ratio, mismatched demand), leading to direct abandonment (decision-making), etc. These are all reasons for the low conversion rate of activities.

If, as an event operator, you just copy others' advice and then conclude that it is a failure due to insufficient resources, insufficient rewards, and insufficient manpower to execute the event, it is actually a bigger failure.

I roughly sorted out the conversion factors and divided them into the following categories:

1. Factors affecting reach

• Distribution channels : the matching degree between channel users and the target audience of the activity, user analysis;
• Release time : different channels, when is the peak period for mainstream users to receive information, and user habits;
• Delivery form : This channel, the user's concentrated preference for the form of receiving information (for example, they don't like to read pictures and texts), and user habits.

For example, many micro-businesses like to post to their friends in the morning, with more pictures and fewer words, which is actually in line with the habits of the micro-business audience. (mainly third- and fourth-tier users); and in front of the high-spending gaming big R user group, small welfare activities are unlikely to have an effect.

2. Factors affecting cognition

• Activity rules: Too complicated, which may cause users to fail to fully understand how to participate and group differences;
• Activity type : Common activities with little profit but many pitfalls. I have been pitted many times before and the negative emotions are high.
• Design and packaging : Different user types have different visual and emotional needs. For example, for the upper-level, high-order users, you cannot use crude, big, and empty packaging; for users who like to get free stuff, you should go straight to the benefits and highlight the key points instead of making it too fancy.

3. Driving and decision-making factors

1. Trade-off Decisions

1) Demand matching

The higher the matching degree, the easier it is to attract users' attention. For example, for welfare-oriented (or communication-oriented) activities, it may be more appropriate to give daily necessities to housewives; for game players, it may be more appropriate to give rare game props and rare peripherals; of course, appropriate RMB will be more appropriate.

2) Cost/Benefit Ratio

The lower the cost/benefit ratio, the lower the resistance to user participation. We have seen that most activities have detailed guidance processes, which actually reduces the cost of user participation. (The key is to optimize the participation path. If you can do it in one step, don’t take three steps.)

Also, when customer service is making follow-up inquiries, they are accustomed to mentioning that they only need to bother the user for 1 minute, which is also to reduce the user's execution cost. These are some of the little tips we use when planning events.

Many years ago, when I was working in the fertilizer business at a state-owned enterprise in Hunan, I agreed very much with a statement: your goods should not only be sold to dealers, but you also have to help them sell the goods (how to sell them to farmers), which is actually reducing the purchase costs of dealers; if you think more deeply than others, theoretically you will achieve better results.

The cost here not only refers to the user execution cost, but also includes the initial cognitive cost; and the execution cost of the same behavior will also vary among different user groups. For example, the time of the rich is very valuable, while those who think it is a waste of time may not participate at all. On the contrary, the time cost for the student group will be lower.

2. Emotional decision making

Emotional decisions are mainly made based on rapid cognition. For example, if users have experienced this activity and had a bad experience, if the merchant does this kind of activity again, it is likely that users will be very disgusted and will give up directly in the early stages. In the past, high-quality activities, while actively participating, can easily form word of mouth;

This requires event planners to pay close attention to industry trends, actively learn and accumulate, and become familiar with current mainstream gameplay. At the same time, we should also be good at summarizing historical experience and not easily pass the buck without knowing the reason.

The above is just the basic logic for analysis based on the user participation path, and the basic requirements for qualification.

But it does not mean that it can reach or exceed expectations, or even become a hit (advanced).

A hit event is inseparable from viral fission (propagation and active diffusion).

To be honest, no one can guarantee how much fission can be produced. This thing does require luck. But as an event planner, the fission mechanism still needs to be considered and advanced.

The most common way of fission is profit-driven, that is, users help the event organizer to attract volume and at the same time match better personal interests. The following issues need to be noted:

1) Focus on personal interests

Once the conditions are met, it must be given.

I have done similar fission activities myself many times. In terms of the effect, the form of inviting people will be rewarded, which is far better than inviting people to participate in sharing the rewards together. Inviting people to participate in the lottery is the least recommended. The low winning rate not only hurts the user's sense of frustration when participating, but also damages the user's image and status in the minds of the users who were invited. It is common for users to criticize them.

2) Stepped design

Invite 1 person, invite 3 people, invite 5 people, invite 10 people, each step is linked together, and the reward gradient is transparent. On the one hand, it reduces the initial participation cost of users. By inviting two more people, they can get the next level of rewards, while at the same time satisfying human greed.

If the prize has a large audience and high demand. It is easier to form exponential fission. That is, user A pulls BCD..., B pulls A1B1C1D1, C1 pulls A2B2...

It should be noted that the activity is aimed at the initial batch of users and should be able to attract users with similar interests at a low cost. This is an issue that event planners must consider when facing the C-end. For example, our server group recruitment activities were based on the fact that most game players have their own gang groups.

That is, you cannot just send the task to him, but you must consider the user's cost issue further, and even create conditions for the user to reduce their costs.

3) Join together to unlock higher rewards

Among all the users participating in an event, there is bound to be a group with higher interest demands. A reasonable mechanism to stimulate local users to form groups is also an effective means of fission.

4) User Experience

This actually holds true everywhere.

In terms of fission interaction, it is mainly reflected in the efficiency of the entire link, whether it is users banding together or pulling people to fission, from user participation to the realization of benefits, the shorter the link time, the better the experience and reputation, and the easier it is to have concentrated and exponential outbreaks.

Of course, the above logic is not necessarily correct.

Still need more practice, set up points in advance where links are connected, and get the data. And data-driven. Even if we fail to create a hit event, it can at least bring us valuable experience: identify qualitative problems and make reasonable adjustments.

Instead of slowly becoming the blame-shifter that even you hate.

Finally, I agree with the following statement:

Every penny you earn is the realization of your understanding of the world, and every penny you lose is due to your flawed understanding of the world.

Author: Blue Cat

Source: Attack of the Blue Cat