A debate has raged for years as to whether you should place your juiciest content behind registration pages that visitors must fill out before seeing the good stuff. Some proponents argue that collecting that registration information is an ideal way to boost your marketing mailing lists. Others say that it ruins your search marketing and is nasty to your visitors. Who's right?
You know the kinds of pages that I am talking about: “Click here for our latest white paper on the three simple steps that totally eliminate global warming, except first give us your name, your email address, and your underwear size.” These so-called "forced" registration pages are all over the Web, and for good reason. They work.
Whenever you take content that people want, and hold them up for their personal information before you show it to them, some of them will comply. So, if your goal is to add names to your mailing list, forced registration pages will do that. In that sense, they work.
But is adding to your mailing list your real goal? You might want to ask yourself a couple of questions:
Is the information you receive accurate? If you force people to provide an email address, they will, but it might be billg@microsoft.com, rather than their own real information.
Are these people qualified leads? As you fatten your mailing list, the question is what you can now do with those email addresses. You can contact these people, but because you forced the information from them, you can’t tell whether they are interested in buying your product or just doing what’s required to get the information they want.
For some marketers, adding names to the mailing list fits right in with their other marketing activities; it's measurable, and it's the way to go. They argue that they know exactly how much each new email address is worth, so whatever they can do to collect more is the right tactic.
But others might paraphrase Ronald Reagan, asking that we tear down these walled gardens. They have their reasons, too:
Better searchability. Google can't find what it doesn't see, and it can't enter any email addresses into your Website, so all those exciting pages are hidden from search engines. Removing forced registration can boost your search performance.
More links. Few sites will link to a page that immediately demands private information, so your best content will end up with the fewest links. Opening up the content will cause more visitors to find links to that content and will boost your search rankings, too.
More pass-alongs. Readers won't send your content to others, either using social bookmarks or email, because they'll not want to subject their friends to your intrusive form. Tearing down the wall makes your content a more likely pass-along.
Better customer relations. Some argue that anything you do to coerce your customer is a bad start to a relationship that needs to be voluntary, and is just a nasty way to do business. They prefer to attract rather than force, and believe that approach sets a tone for creating customer advocates.
So, where do you stand: fatter mailing lists or better visibility? It sounds like a religious argument, but it doesn't have to be. Test it. Try opening up one of your precious case studies for a few months and place a button on the screen that lets people voluntarily give you their address to be contacted after reading the document. Then check to see if those voluntary leads get you more sales than the old coerced ones did.
Every time one of my clients has tested it, they've discovered that taking down the forced registration page is best. But don't take my word for it. Test it yourself.
If your email list is so potent that you convert more customers than the extra visibility buys you, then that might be the right technique for you. But the great thing about the Internet is that you can test anything, rather than merely argue its pros and cons. Test your registration pages and see what makes sense for your business.
— Mike Moran, author of Do It Wrong Quickly, is a speaker and consultant on Internet marketing.
Your reply to my annoyed rant about forced registration is thoughtful, thank you. In response:
>>Ejly replied that he usually reacts to such mandates by posting throwaway
>>information, including an e-mail address that he nevers intends to use again.
Actually, I (being a she) said that I use an address that is disposable, not that I actually toss it. I use it for 4-6 weeks then discard it. Without that, I'd get too much spam.
>>In so doing, what have the Ejlys of cyberspace accomplished.
I have a mechanism for seeing whether membership is valuable to me before I "spend" my personal data with the site.
>>It seems at best, they have gained temporary access to a site that apparently was
>>of some fleeting interest to them, but to which they will never return, unless they
>>plan to store numerous fake e-mails, user Id's and passwords to return on a
>>future date.
At best, I have a mechanism to filter out useless sites/communities as @Gaja mentions having experience with. If the site is worthwhile, I update my profile with "real" info and continue to engage.
>>It certainly seems reasonable that any organization, whether public or private,
>>that chooses to develop a website to attract people with similar needs and
>>interests has the right to require basic information of potential members.
Ok. Then why not use open id or facebook connect? Otherwise, recognize that you're losing a connetion opportunity with the people who might be most interesting to you - people who value their own information enough to protect it.
>>Ejly's argument that first one should have the opportunity to freely use the site
>>prior to registration seems unfoundedd, for generally the homepage provides an
>>overview of the organization's goals, activities and benefits prior to one having
>>to register.
Please reference @Gaja's experience with Fortify; home pages lie. Some egregiously so, some by simple fact of not being up-to-date. I should hope sincerely that any corporation running a community-participation-based forum is giving more value to its members therein than they would get from reading the home page brochure-ware.
If "freely" exposing your content is not an option, than only expose some of it. Have some forums closed off for validated members as a premium service.
The question herein 1) what is the objective of setting up the community 2) how does forced registration support or work against that objective 3) how is that measurable? For more about community development, my favorite resource is Feverbee, and perhaps that's something you or other readers would enjoy checking out.
Mike - I love your writing and the way you address substantive topics, keep it up.
None of this should be construed as legal advice. I am not a member of the Bar or a Member of the Law Society.
Registration. What we need to remember is that often times a registration requirement on a web-site creates a legally-binding business contract with the legal person/corporation. One may want to be careful to look over the registration page, because more often than not there will be a Terms and Condition attached which you are obligated to agree to if you wish to have access to said web-site and its products/services/information.
While it is easy enough to create a random e-mail address with a fake name, one may need to keep in mind that the Terms and Conditions of a web-site may specifically outline that you are obligated to enter in real information otherwise it could be construed as fraudulant behavior (it is doubtful all sites would pursue such things in court but you never know!).
In addition you should understand that after you register for a site and leave it, you have just created a contract that was not terminated. Unless you e-mail the site or write a letter (sometimes even registered lettermail may be required) to remove the information it will remain. The site and the company that runs it is not necessarily under obligation to remove the information unless you properly demand them to do so or unless they are bound by certain statutory laws or codes within their state/province or country's jurisdiction to do so.
Contracts require consent and full disclosure, and they can be terminated at any time. So after you register for a site you may want to contact the site and end the contract and get that data pruned. Otherwise the data will be sitting there and it could possibly be sold legitimately or not (stolen).
“Consent makes Law * A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.” 1710 (BL.LAW DICT.8th ED.)
Crazy story, Gaja. Yes, it remind me of listening to a timeshare pitch for the steak knives. I think what we all need to remember is that the Internet can be misused if you go about things with the wrong attitude.
Adding to my Forced Registration annoyance, I have asked one of my developer to download a eval version of Fortify to compare against another competitor. Upon entering all the registration information at their website we got a message that a rep will call us back. Ofcourse we got a call from Sales Rep who said the "Free Trial" in their website was a error, they can work with us on providing a PoC or we have to purchase their software, there is no real free trial availble. This sounded right from a page of bermuda based shady business. Fortify is a leading software in their vertical, they did not have to go this cheap, but sure enough they did and I will be a vocal opponent next time when I hear their name presented in a group setting...
If you've got information that you want to use, then you will be prone to using the "fill in your info to download" mentality. The reality is that I've come to find that most of the whitepapers behind those screens are just dressed up sales pitches. That doesn'nt mean I don'd do it, it's just that the quality and the hassle rarely seem worth it.
On the other hand. If you are trying to build community, through the use of forums, file sharing, comments (like on this site) etc. registration really needs to be a requisite because of the simple fact that the tools that support these activities require user differentiation.
So, if you're just marketing..I would say make it available. You don't put brochures out and ask people fill out an elaborate form to take one (do you?).
But, if you're trying to build a community then put up a gate so that people who are granted the privilige of interacting and being a part of that community are validated and controllable.
Thanks for wading into this discussion with a contrary point of viw to what most people are saying. My take is that every Web site owner, as you correctly point out, has a right to force registration. It's their content and they can do as they please.
My question is whether it is a useful strategy. My question is whether forced registration actually produces the results that the Web site owner desires. If they desire long lists of e-mail addresses, some of them fake, while annoying many of the people who come to the site, they can definitely accomplish that with forced registration.
But if they want to get qualified leads, then they might want to adopt an approach where they allow people to give them their information at the point that they want to be contacted, rather that at digital gunpoint.
Again, I have no issue with the site owners having the right to do this, just with whether it is effective or not. My personal opinion is that it's not something that I would do because I don't want to annoy people, but I don't want to impose my personal opinion to trample the site owner's right.
My bigger question is whether we can elevate this from a religios argument about what is right and what is wrong to a testable question where we try to see what works and what doesn't. My suspicion is that most of these site owners exercising their rights of forced registration haven't does any testing to prove it is more effective than having an open site. For those that have tested it, I am fine with the choice that they have made, even though it might not be mine.
Mike evans presents an excellent overview of the pros and cons re: companies and organizations that require those seeking the full use of a website to first be required to register and, in so doing, provide personal information. Ejly replied that he usually reacts to such mandates by posting throwaway information, including an e-mail address that he nevers intends to use again. In so doing, what have the Ejlys of cyberspace accomplished. It seems at best, they have gained temporary access to a site that apparently was of some fleeting interest to them, but to which they will never return, unless they plan to store numerous fake e-mails, user Id's and passwords to return on a future date. It certainly seems reasonable that any organization, whether public or private, that chooses to develop a website to attract people with similar needs and interests has the right to require basic information of potential members. Ejly's argument that first one should have the opportunity to freely use the site prior to registration seems unfoundedd, for generally the homepage provides an overview of the organization's goals, activities and benefits prior to one having to register.
I am disgusted by forced data collection, everywhere. Whether a whitepaper or 'community registration' it seems intrusive. Requesting detailed info in order to join a community also puts the cart before the horse - why not have that community demonstrate some value first by allowing me to participate and then after I've engaged, asking for the info?
My coping mechanism is to use an email address which is disposable when I'm forced to register. In fact, that's what I just did at internetevolution.com to register and be able to post and leave this comment.
Thanks, Gaja, for the kind words and for the insight into McKinsey doing things a better way. I am a big believer in not annoying your customers. For some reason, there are still companies out there that think we won't be annoyed by their behavior or that we just have to buy from them despite our annoyance. Those days are ending.
Another great post Mike. I am a victim of 'Forced Registration' white papers and getting sales calls from people that try to sell me products/services. I tell them that I downloaded the white paper just for personal research purpose. At one point I used to select my role/designations as "janitor/security guard/jobless" etc., still get spamed by emails and phone calls. Now I just resorted to provide bogus information like noemails@void.com. I am going to try bugmenot provided by another poster below. sounds like a great idea.
On the other hand, may be a useful model is like McKinsey Quarterly/HBR that has facebook page and post their reports as facebook/twitter status updates and engage people to collaborate right there and obviously they are getting wealth of information in people's responses. I think it is a great way to get the word out and I am sure prospective clients will reach out.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
My granny always told me to stop and smell the roses before you are pushing them up. But we Internet marketing pundits don’t like to stop for anything. We throw opinions out the minute something happens, when sometimes it’s best to look at the bigger picture. Now that we are a few weeks removed from the announcement of Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Buzz, can we put all these opinions in perspective and learn the bigger lesson?
You might have heard about the concept of augmented reality -- a way of adding a technological overlay to real life. Even if the name is new to you, you've probably seen it in action, perhaps when you saw the superimposed first-down lines during the Super Bowl telecast. I first noticed augmented reality used in marketing when I saw different messages at different times on the same billboard behind home plate during a baseball game, only realizing later that the billboard messages were generated only for the TV audience by a computer, which made it appear that the ads were located on a fence at the stadium.
Recently, I wrote about the need to identify our Internet marketing personalities to help adapt to the fact that we’re always stuck trying something new in this business.
When you were a kid, you might have had an imaginary friend, or you might have known someone who did. It's the kind of thing that is a natural part of child development.
If we’ve learned nothing else about Internet marketing, it’s that the easiest way to make a splash is with something free. Business after business on the Web has come out with something free to build mindshare in the hopes that it will lead to market share.
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
The big news at the Web 2.0 Summit was that Twitter partnered with Google and Bing, enabling the search engines to show Tweets in search results. This couldn't possibly be less interesting.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
Google's 'It Girl' talks about using personalized search to make sense of the mass of information on the Web – and how sometimes Google can appear to be semantically smarter than it really is.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
Now that Bing has struck a deal with Twitter, its search service will have to process a tsunami of Tweets, many of which are worthless junk. Stefan Weitz, director with Bing Search, explains to Michael Singer how his service will make sense of the Twitter mayhem to provide relevant results to end users and enterprises.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
Bing, Microsoft’s search service, has struck a deal with Twitter. Here Stefan Weitz, director with Bing Search, talks through how the deal will work from a technical perspective, and what’s in it for users.
There's a public-policy war on copyright that nobody is winning, and inconsistencies in viewpoint and interpretation seem to be multiplying. We need to step back and think our policies over again, or we risk having a strategy that fails everyone.
Ultraviolet is an industry-wide attempt to standardize video content delivery across multiple platforms. Apart from the fact that it’s based in the cloud, relies on the DRM system, and isn’t backed by Apple… it sounds great!
The FCC's Sixth Broadband Report has a hidden secret. But here’s a hint: The regulatory body plans to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service.
Once defined by epic journeys, planning, and maps, the phrase "on the road" takes on new meaning in a digital age, where we can make all our decisions using our connected devices en route.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
