Gating, or requiring a prospect to fill out a form before receiving valuable content, is touted as a way for the company to control the journey. Once the company knows who the prospect is, they can interact with the prospect more meaningfully. The company can’t do that if the content is downloaded by unknown prospects.
There’s only one problem with gating:
Gating introduces friction.
And even if you avoid long fill-in forms for your gating activity, it’s still a hurdle that your prospects have to cross. And they may not want to do it.
Let me give you an example: Assume you want to know all about Bredemarket.
So I provide a 20 page brochure entitled “All About Bredemarket.” But before you can download that brochure, you have to provide your name, email address, and anticipated purchase date.
Meanwhile, my fierce competitor offers a 20 page brochure entitled “The Truth About Bredemarket.” But my competitor is unfortunately intelligennt and offers the brochure to anyone who wants it, without requiring a scrap of information.
If you’re a prospect and don’t know what you want to do, which of these two brochures will you acquire first?
The one that’s easiest to get, which is my fierce competitor’s brochure.
In this case, this means that my competitor will shape the message about Bredemarket, not me. And I don’t think my competitor will praise me as the best product marketing consultant.
A biometric expert (I’m not the only one) was challenged to find a picture of a particular cartoon character in a particular setting, but was worried about copyright infringement.
I suggested that the expert substitute some other character in place of the copyrighted cartoon character.
I can’t share the particular example above, but the picture in this post illustrates the point. You subconsciously know which characters are being referenced, but the substitute characters (pre-copyright days) take care of the copyright issue.
As long as the rest of the image doesn’t infringe on copyright either. MLB may visit me, even if “the fruit company” doesn’t.
Admittedly a lot of content, especially for a non-working day. (One was scheduled.) But if your technology firm lacks marketing content, I know a guy – https://bredemarket.com/mark/
If you ignore what Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye et al said about the validity of 12 fingerprint minutiae points in their 2013 study (cited in phys.org), their conclusions about cell phone locations deserve consideration.
“By analyzing 15 months of cell phone mobility data from 1.5 million people, researchers have found that only four spatio-temporal points (an individual’s approximate whereabouts at the approximate time when they’re using their cell phone) are all that’s needed to uniquely identify 95% of the individuals.”
Why?
“[T]he researchers’ data shows that just four spatio-temporal points are needed to uniquely identify the mobility trace of an individual. In other words, it’s not likely that someone else will be in the same locations as you are at four different times of day.”
And once you perform multi-factor authentication by combining geolocation with another factor, such as an address or a social media post, privacy disappears.
I had heard that Corona’s Monster Beverage had purchased Thrifty Ice Cream as part of the Rite Aid bankruptcy proceedings, but wanted to confirm this. And the news was partially correct.
Not Monster Beverage, but a separate corporate entity known as Hilrod Holdings.
“Hilrod Holdings is linked to Hilton Schlosberg and Rodney Sacks, who until recently were co-CEOs at the energy drink company Monster Beverage Corporation. Sacks stepped down from his position as co-CEO in mid-June.”
Monster Beverage is primarily known for Monster Energy drinks, and used to be the original owner of Hansen’s non-energy drink (sold to Coca-Cola who then axed it).
Sacks, 75, is now Chairman at Monster, so both Schlosberg and Sacks are still connected with Monster while simultaneously running Hilrod. Not that ice cream directly competes with energy drinks, but the Hilrod hobby could raise some eyebrows.