The last few episodes focused on SMS. This episode we are going to snap back into the FB Messenger world in a big way. Today we'll talk about new features that Facebook released, and we'll get into a big permission update included in the Messenger platform 2.3 release. But before we get into that, as always if you have feedback, questions or comments, the best way to get in touch is to send a Message to the podcast FB Page - Open Facebook Messenger....
Back to Messenger Platform 2.3
First off, I love what the FB team is doing here. The innovation is incredibly fast and this is really the first time that I've gotten to know a development platform so well. It's hard to keep up with all the new releases. Let's look at what's new
First up -Quick Replies with contact information. A lot of the campaigns that I build for organizations start with data acquisition. Typically how that goes is the user starts the conversation and the Page sends a Message that asks the user to respond with their email address typically. The user responds with their email and then the next message happens.
We see really high response rates. Once the conversation starts, we generally expect to see 50% or higher conversion rate for email collection. It's actually much harder to start the conversation than it is to collect an email address.
With this new feature, Facebook is juicing this use case. So a bot can send a message that asks the user to reply with their email. Facebook will then show a user a button, with thier email address entered. All the user needs to do is push that button and their email will be messaged into the page. So instead of the user typing their email, Facebook auto-fills for a one-click experience. Facebook will also do this with the user's phone number - so they will show the user a button where they can click and send in their number.
It's pretty cool and it really validates a use case that I've been focusing on for a long time. But there might be a downside.
First of all, when you ask the user to send in their email address, the results are good. Almost always 50% or higher. Notably, asking the user for their phone number performs much worse. I believe that we saw about 24% conversion rate when we asked the user for their phone number so that we could text them. It's still really good, and the cost per phone number was amazing, but just a big dip compared to email.
I guess the point I'm making is that I don't know if typing the email or phone is friction that actually slows people down, or if they just don't want to give the info. It will take some testing to see if there's a difference, so it's really about launching these quick replies and seeing how well they convert.
There is a bigger question though, is how good is this Facebook data? People signed up for Facebook years ago, and Facebook basically keeps you logged in forever. So the question is whether people still use the email or phone that they gave to Facebook when they signed up or if they have moved on. The reason this is a concern is that I've heard that data that Facebook shares in lead ads, doesn't perform that well.
A lead ad is a type of Facebook Ad where FB autofills the email, name and phone number in a webform. It's the same data that Facebook is autofilling here. The lead ads convert well, so clickers convert into emails, but I'm not sure if those emails perform up to par. Or to think about it another way, asking the user to type in their is effort, and that might actually prove to be a good signal that the user actually wants to give their email address - and make those typed in emails worth more. I've heard both very good and very bad things about the Lead Ad data - so again, we just need to test. Either way, this data autofill is a cool feature.
The next feature in 2.3 release is Customization for the Customer Chat Plugin. I usually call this the web chat plugin - it seems to have a lot of different names. This was a pretty cool feature release in the Fall. Anyone with a Facebook Page and a FB Messenger App can install some code on their website, and on the bottom right of a webpage, the Messenger icon appears. It shows a greeting, like "Click here to chat" and when a visitor clicks it opens a little messaging window and starts a conversation via messenger that is showing on the webpage. Previously, to start a conversation with a FB Page, the user needed to go to the FB Page, or open Messenger and talk to the Page that way. Now it's possible to start a conversation from the website - but still have the conversation in Messenger.
Why is that cool? Well, this idea of live chat on the site has been a big trend. There are companies that do just that. The problem with traditional live chat (now that FB Messenger is here) is that traditional live chat lives in the browser. So a user can be in the chat while they're on the page, but if they leave the page, the chat - the connection also ends. With FB Messenger, once they start the chat, the website has connected to them on Messenger. So even when the visitor closes the page, they still have Messenger on their phone. The website can respond the next day and the user will get that message.
All of this changes the dynamic of how live website webchat can work. When you have live chat, it needs to be staffed. If a visitor chats, doesn't get a response and leaves they are gone for good. With Messenger, a connection has been established with the person, not just their page session. It's possible to respond instantly with some automation and the Page can follow up directly in the future.
Anyways, this plugin was released in November, and we're just starting to see it appear on websites. With the new release it's possible to customize the greeting that the user sees. I believe the default is something like, "Click here to chat", but now the page can say anything they'd like to frame the conversation.
The results I've seen from the web chat plugin have been so so, but it's all going to depend on how much traffic the site has.
The BIG BIG announcement with this platform release(and I wouldn't call it a feature) is a policy change and a break notice. The break notice means that it's really important. This change will break existing apps or bots. This change requires a lot of background so hang tight. And if this is confusing, please message in any questions.
The way to set up a Messenger interaction, or bot, is through a Facebook App. So the brand has a Facebook Page of course - that's where the user is sending their message. There will be a platform or system that manages the automation - like a 3rd party bot builder. And then there is a Facebook app that connects to both the Facebook Page and the bot builder platform.
Before launch, in the FB App we need to submit for approval from Facebook. There are two types of approval. The First is called Pages_messaging approval - this is the name FB uses. With this approval, Facebook is checking that the automation works. So they will test it, they send a message in and make sure they get a message back. Once approved the Page can launch their interaction, but only immediate messaging is allowed. When a user messages in, the page can respond.
There is a second type of approval called pages_subscription_messaging. Again, these are Facebook terms. Subscription approval is exaclty like it sounds. This approval is needed to send broadcast messages that happen outside of the scenario where the user has just messaged in.
Let's add a little more detail. The first approval, pages_messaging gives the bot a 24 hour window to message the user after the user sends a message in. The bot can send any message it likes in that window - specifically there can be marketing or promotional messages. With the second approval, pages_subscription, the Page can send a message outside of the 24 hour window. The critical criteria is that Facebook explicitly does not allow broadcast messages to be marketing or promotional messages. In fact they only allow a few use cases - news alerts, productivity and personal tracking.
Alright, hopefully you're following so far.
Now, when the Messenger Platform launched, a bunch of companies popped up that all called themselves the easiest way to build a Facebook bot. If the promise to the user is super fast setup, you can't really ask the user to submit and wait for Facebook approval. So these companies would build a single Facebook App, get it approved for both the instant messages and subscription and then they would use this single app and approval to allow multiple customers to all use the same app and send both instant and broadcast messages.
The big change that Facebook announced is that messaging approvals will now happen at the page level - not the app level. So every page that wants to send messages needs approval and a single app cannot work for multiple pages. From the language, it appears that every FB Page that launched on Messenger, but did not get their own approval, will need to submit the page for approval and need to get it to keep running. It's kind of a big deal - I do individual apps and approvals for each client and it's definitely a process.
Why did Facebook do this? Here is my guess.
The first approval for instant messaging is pretty easy and straightforward. The second approval for subscriptions and broadcasts is much trickier. Facebook only allows a few use cases and specifically not marketing or promotional messages. The reason FB doesn't allow for marketing or promotional broadcasts, is because they have a new ad called sponsored messages. If a Page wants to send a marketing broadcast, they pay Facebook to send a Sponsored Message.
Real quick aside, a sponsored message is an ad where Facebook will basically send a message only to people that have previously messaged into the FB Page. So basically, once someone messages in to the FB Page, that channel is now open to communicate with the user. If it's a non-promotional use case, then the messaging can be free. If it's a promotional use case, then the Page pays Facebook.
Currently we have these bot builder platforms that include the subscription messaging for customers by default. These customers never got approved and most of these customers don't fully understand that marketing messages aren't allowed. Some bot builder platforms actually promoting marketing broadcasts which is a clear violation. Facebook seemed to let it go, and my guess is that the Sponsored Message product wasn't ready for prime time. But now sponsored messages have arrived and Facebook is starting to enforce their broadcast policy.
This will be a big reckoning for pages that think they've built a marketing automation list on Messenger and the rug is totally going to get pulled out from under them. It will most likely be a big hit to FAcebook's numbers as well. But I think it's a situation where they've grown the space for 2.5 years, and now they are going to test monotizing.
Either way, there are a lot of developers in the FB forums that have been complaining about pages that are cheating - sending marketing broadcasts. So it's good that Facebook is enforcing their rules and leveling the playing field. We'll see how this all goes.
That's the big news. Thanks for listening.
Today's show is another response to questions that I found this week. This time the questions came from a list serve that I subscribe to, and the focus was about how non-profits can use text messaging for fundraising. I responded on the list serve and was kind of surprised that I hadn't already done a podcast on this.
One interesting thing about podcasts is that it's really hard to know who is listening. We get stats on how many people download, but it's not possible to know who you listeners are. If you're not a non-profit, keep listening. If you are interested in Messaging, there is a lot to learn from the non-profit space. This might not be typical - or stereotypical - nonprofits usually aren't thought of as being on the vanguard of technology. But I would posit that NPOs are really leading the charge when it comes to messaging, especially text messaging.
Think about it - in 2008 Obama announced his VP pick via SMS. That was a national news story and almost a decade ago. A year and a half after that, the Haiti earthquake happened and mobile donations exploded on the scene. The Red Cross raised 36 million dollars from Americans texting Haiti to 90999 and giving $5 donations on their phone bill.
So as messaging and bots came back into vogue in 2016 when FB Messenger announced the messenger platform, it wasn't really a breakthrough. A lot of organizations were already doing SMS campaigns.
But before we get too far into the conversation, a little promotion. If this is the first time you're listening to The Chat Bubble Podcast, please subscribe on itunes or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have a question or feedback, the best way to get in touch is to message us on Facebook. To do that open Facebook Messenger, search for The Chat Bubble and then send in a Message. Of course, thanks for listening everyone.
Why are non-profits advanced?
Back to non-profits. I'm pretty convinced that NPOs are pretty far ahead of the game compared to commercial businesses. There are a lot of companies doing SMS, certainly more than there are NPOs, but I haven't seen the same type of innovation from business. I'm not sure why exactly, but I actually have a new theory. Previously I had 2 ideas as to why non-profits seemed to be out in front of corporations.
1. It's pretty simple, I thought it was vendor-driven. Being in that space, I knew a number of vendors doing innovative campaigns. When I saw and heard about some of the SMS vendors working with for profits, I wasn't that impressed. I doubt this is still the case, but it was a few years ago.
2. The second theory was the nature of non-profit communications. When the non-profit finds a new supporter, they aren't focused on the short term donation, it's nice of course, but the organization is also thinking about this person donating 50 thousand dollars in their will. The idea of ongoing CRM and building a relationship is incredibly important. I worked with many for-profit companies where we would build a big list, and then just stop communicating with people once the conversation was over. This mindset is changing a bit, but this change isn't wide spread. I spend thousands of dollars on my car and never hear from the manufacturer or the dealer for that matter.
I think this second idea sticks a bit, but the big reason that nonprofits have had better results with SMS is user driven. Messaging is a personal channel. It's a little scary for a consumer to trust a company on the user's personal channel, but a non-profit that focuses on a cause the person cares about. Yes, they'll connect on that personal channel. If you love dogs, you're willing to give the Humane Society your phone number. No matter how much you love hot dogs, you don't want Oscar Meyer texting you.
That's the theory at least.
Anyway back to the question about how non-profits can drive fundraising via SMS. We're going to list a few options. One point to think about with all of these options is - where does the transaction happen. If you work at a non-profit, think about that and think about if where the transaction happens is important to you.
1. Mobile Donations -- Our first option for non-profit fundraising is a Mobile Donation. This is sometimes called mobile giving or text to donate, but the idea here is that the donation goes on the users phone bill. That's what distinguishes mobile donations. When I mentioned the Red Cross raising money for Haiti, this is what they did.
The advantage is that it's easy and fast to drive small donations from individuals. With mobile donations the organization can collect $5, $10 or $25 dollar donations. They set up the campaign and select a keyword. The user texts in the keyword and recieves an immediate response asking them to confirm the donation. The user replies yes and then the charge is added to the phone bill. That's all the user needs to do - except pay their phone bill obviously.
The downside of mobile donations is that the carriers are collecting money and remitting it all to the non-profit, but the carrier doesn't give the customer data to the non-profit. Most of the time, this is a problem for the non-profit - the donors data is just as important as the donation - especially a small donation like 5 or 10 dollars.
So mobile donations are mostly used in disaster type situations. If something is front page news, like a hurricane for instance, there might be a lot of people willing to chip in. The non profit might be in major fundraising mode, but these people that want to help are not the typical donor for the organization. They are donating because the news or celebrity tells them to do so. The non-profit probably doesn't even want this donor in their CRM becuase they are so unlikely to donate again or want updates from the organization.
Basically, mobile donations work when the organization would rather have a small donation, rather than the donor and their information.
We're going to move on to the next approach for an organization, text to pledge.
2. Text to Pledge - This is a term of art. Basically, it means that the organization builds an autoresponse conversation that collects contact information and donation amount or "pledge" amount. The supporter is then followed up with to complete the transaction. Usually this followup is via email, a link in a text or even a phone call.
This idea originated because mobile donations (added on the phone bill) became a big trend after the Haiti earthquake. But setting up text donations was a process and it's fairly inflexible - there are low donation amounts and no data. A few companies started promoting this idea of text to pledge and it fit well for some organizations. Most of the time it's more of a service than a product - so the text to pledge vendor might be running the event or staff the people that are calling on the phone.
I mentioned that text to pledge is a term of art. The idea of collecting data over SMS and driving action is kindof what every organization is doing. Text to Pledge means speeding up the interaction and trying to squeeze everything into a single day or single campaign. When I was selling SMS software, our pitch wasn't opposed to text to pledge, but we viewed SMS as a long term channel for the organization - not just something that powers an event.
Text to Pledge is a short term campaign, focused on a little data collection and driving a transaction.
3. Integrated Transaction - The next fundraising approach doesn't really have a name. It's been called quick donate or fast donate. I'm calling it an integrated transaction -- not super-catchy. What this means is that an action in the text message triggers the credit card transaction. This is pretty powerful. Text messages have high open rates and high response rates. If someone signs up for the SMS list, they are generally a big fan, not just checking it out. If these people can be sent a message and complete a donation with only a few clicks, that's a big deal.
This is exactly what we talked about with Lloyd Cotler who managed SMS on the Hillary Clinton Campaign. You can check out that past episode - it's from November 25 of 2017. This integrated transaction is pretty advanced and only a few organizations have been able to pull this off. The results are generally great, so hopefully any technical issues can be worked out and more organizations can take this approach.
In order for this integrated transaction to work, a few pieces need to be in place. First the organization needs a system that can save a credit card and attach it to the user. This generally won't happen in the text message platform, but some non profit CRMs/donation platforms allow this. Once it's possible for this credit card to be saved then the SMS platform just pings the CRM system and tells it to drive a transaction. There are probably a million particular details, but this is the gist.
When done correctly this is a home run. We already have the user data, the transaction can be fast, and the donor can choose any amount to donate. I guess the one hang up is that it's not great for first time donors. The supporter would have needed to give their cc previously in order to have that saved. This type of transaction is also a shift in timeline - compared to text to donate or text to plege. With those options, the entire messaging interaction is focused on the donation. Literally, the call to action says, Text In To Donate. This integrated Transaction works with an ongoing relationship. we've been building a list and communicating regularly and this donation ask, is just one ask throughou the relationship.
The other interesting thing - in my work on FB Messenger, this integrated donation is a little smoother. It's not being done yet, although it's quiet possible.
4. Campaigning - The last approach to fundraising doesn't really have a name. I'm just going to call it text message campaigning. In my opinion this is obviously the way that makes the most sense. When an organization launches a website, it's not just a page to make a donation. There's campaign information, petitions, about us, contact us and then also pages to donate. Same with an email campaign. No one would join the email list if the pitch was - sign up for our email list and we'll ask you to donate over and over again. Email and the web are channels. The organization needs to connect with users, share information and of course every once in a while, ask for donations.
It's the same with a text message list. The organization needs to build their mobile list and start with interesting and engaging commmunications and then mix in donation asks. You would never build a one page website and then tell people to go there to donate. Telling people to text in to donate would be analogous to that one page website. Sure, when there's an emergency and it's all about fundraising, maybe the donation form goes on the home page - but that's rare.
What works for most organizations is to build a mobile SMS list, and keep the people on that list active. The same way they'd build an email list and keep it active. When there is a fundraising campaign the organization will send out an email ask, and at that time, they should also send a text to the mobile list. Even if the user doesn't donate, by clicking the link in the text, the SMS will make the supporter more likely to donate online. In the past I've done a study and found that and a supporter that receives a text and an email is 3 times more likely to donate, compared to someone that receives an email and no text message. Most of those donors just aren't donating on the phone.
So again, it all comes down to building a list, nurturing that list and giving people a good reason to support the organization.
New Channels -- I mentioned it a little, approaches that we already listed, but there's also an additional option where an organization can use Messenger and take advanatage of Facebook donate or a saved credit card that FB might be holding. I expect this will be possible, but w just need to see if this comes to fruition.
To sum up, there are really a lot of approaches when it comes to fundraising via messaging. The big questions that an organization needs to ask are - 1) How are we going to get people to message in. Same as if you built a website, you would need to decide, "How will we get people to the site." The other question is about the transaction. What type of amounts make sense, and would you like the donation coming through a credit card or to try something more advanced. And like everything in life, there aren't too many shortcuts. What really works is to connect with supporters, engage and nurture the list and make strong asks that are connected to issues that the list cares about.
Hope this was a helpful overview. I'd love questions or feedback....
This is a pretty niche podcast and when I started it I thought that maybe there is a thousand people in the world that might be interested in this stuff. That audience would grow, but I've never really cared about the number of downloads - I've cared more about engagement from the people listening. This engagement has been pretty incredible and it's really rewarding. So for everyone that has messaged in or emailed thank you.
On today's show I'm going to give my opinion on a few questions that a listener had. Along these lines.... if you're listening and want me to talk about something, let me know. Message in.
A few questions came from Lauren. First
- What is messaging used more most frequently and how does that differ across platforms (SMS, Facebook, What's App etc)?
There are a million answers here because messaging is a comunication channel. Generally, the messaging use case would be something that the organization is already doing via email, phone call or mail and for any number of reasons it makes sense to add messaging or use messaging instead of the other channel. The major use cases are
1. Transactional - 2FA, text to confirm a purchase or redemption, or a bank texting about transfer or deposit. These are pretty boring, but super useful. These cases will mostly rely on SMS because the company has your phone number and they can just send out a text.
2. A close cousin to transactional messages are reminder messages. An example is that my dentist reminds me about an appointment. Maybe this is a little more interesting than the transactional stuff, but still pretty simple. Traditionally these reminders have sent via SMS, but this is an area where FAcebook Messenger might be trying to encroach. They might have an advantage over SMS too because with FB Messenger you can send buttons such as - confirm/change appointment etc. Where with text message the reminder would say, respond CHANGE or CONFIRM - which is a little clunky.
3. There is customer service use cases where customers are messaging in questions and complaints and then the company is responding to the person or providing answers. This is either live messaging or this is the space where people are mostly talking about bots. A bot would be an automation that receives the message from the user, figures out what the person is saying and then replies with an answer. I'm not really bullish on bots, and the customer service use case isn't my favorite. This customer service is a use case that's possible on both SMS and Facebook Messenger. Facebook Messenger is new, but it might have the advantage with customer service.
If I buy a new Bose stereo and I'm having trouble with it, maybe I want to message in for some help. I don't necessarily know how to send a text to Bose. Sure there might be a card in the box that tells me how, but on Facebook Messenger I can just search for Bose and be fairly confident that I'll find them. If this messaging-customer-service use case becomes a real thing, I think Facebook Messenger will win because all of the companies already have a prescence there.
4. The use case that I like most on messaging channels is the idea of messaging as a marketing channel. In the desktop era the main marketing channels have been email and webpages. As we move into the mobile era, I think that messaging can do a lot of the things that pages and email did in the desktop era. Under this idea of marketing, we really have 3 use cases - Acquisition, Engagement and Activation.
Acquisition means that we can drive someone into a conversation and then collect data in that conversation. In the desktop era we would tell someone to go to www.com and fill out a webform to give the company their email address. With messaging, instead of promoting the link to the page, we could drive someone to a conversation and the conversation would ask for the data - rather than a webform asking for the data. These marketing use cases work on both SMS and Facebook, but interestingly acquisition works a little differently on each channel.
We're going to go deeper on acquisition in a question coming up.
Still in the Marketing category, the next use case is Engagement. Since messaging is so personal it works very well to respond to a subscriber one on one. I think of this engagement idea as an offshoot from the acquisition piece. So one on one conversation driving to a marketing oucome - not answering customer service questions. I have a lot of ideas about scaling this one on one engagement - but that is probably something to discuss at another time.
Finally in this marketing category, the last use case is Activation. That's a fancy way of saying since people are messaging in in the acquisition process rather than going to a webpage - we have a tremendous advantage if we send them broadcast messages back. You just can't do that with a webpage - when the person leaves, they are gone. If someone messages in, they may be subscribing to receive future messages.
This gets a little tricky with the different channels. With SMS you need to be sure to have opt in language that explains to the user that they are opting in. Each text message costs money, so most organizations only send messages that are important - this is a great natural limit so consumers aren't getting spammed with texts all day.
With Facebook Messenger there are different aspects to the broadcast based on what type of message the Page is sending. A page can send News Alerts (and a few other types of messages) at no cost. But if the FB Page wants to send a marketing or promotional message, then Facebook charges. It's a new type of Ad called a sponsored message.
OK, so under that category of marketing, we have these 3 use cases - Acquisition, Engagement and Activation.
As far as the other channels, right now it's only SMS and FB. Whatsapp and iMessage are rumored to be releasing APIs, but I don't think that either is public yet. So I'm deep, deep into this stuff and it's enough work to keep up with FB Messenger Platform.
OK, that's a long answer - I hope it helps. On to the next question.
- What is the new "hot" thing on each platform?
We'll keep this very short. SMS hasn't had anything new on it for decades. BUT that's all changing, the carriers are rolling out RCS. I don't know the specs, but essentially the idea is that SMS will become more like a messaging app. It will handle pictures better and it will be able to send cards and buttons. This is not a sure thing, though. It's taken the carriers - verizon, ATT etc so long to innovate on SMS, that there are now other factors to deal with. The biggest being Apple. The beauty of SMS is that it's on every phone, but with RCS it's unlcear if Apple will support RCS on the iphone. Why would they? They already have iMessage. If RCS isn't on the iphone, then it's pretty much toast.
Facebook Messenger is releasing new features all the time. The most interesting new feature might be the webchat plugin. Any website can install Facebook Messenger. It will popup on the bottom right of the webpage, just like a live chat software. When a user starts a conversation, it's happening over Messenger. There are a lot of interesting aspects, but the biggest is that once the user starts the Messenger conversation they are now connected on a channel outside of the browser. So the brand can follow up the next day and they'll still reach the user. With the old live chat software, when the user closes the browser they are gone.
The reason this is a big deal is that the webchat plugin is a way for brands to tiptoe into Messenger.
- Where do you think each platform is going in terms of major use cases?
Just starting out. Looking to learn how Brands are building the messenger contact lists?
We began the conversation about this when we were talking about the acquisition use case. Remember, to build a list, the user first needs to message in or opt in.
SMS is great for acquisition from the real world or media. The way to start a text conversation is to tell someone to take out their phone and text the word JOIN to 12345. Companies can give this call to action on the radio, tv, print promotion or from a live event. A lot of organizations will ask a user to give their phone number via webform to join the mobile list too - but in that case the webform is doing the acquisition, not the SMS. What you cannot do with SMS is link into a conversation.
Facebook Messenger is great for linking directly to the conversation. So if pepsi links someone to a Messenger conversation, when the user clicks that link it will open Facebook Messenger and load pepsi as the recipient for that user. Pepsi can also add tracking into the URL so they know where the user came from and then can even start a different conversation based on the source of the user. Facebook Ads can also route the user to Messenger. So one of the main use cases is to take Facebook ads and route those clickers into Messenger rather than the mobile landing page to collect email, phone address etc.
I would like to understand how Brands create broader messaging campaigns that universally deploy across multiple platforms. Which include Messenger, Skype etc?
This one is tough. Each channel - Messenger, Skype, SMS has it's own capabilities. Facebook for instance has certain types of menus, carousels and share options. It's possible to send the user a message and when they click it will post something on their Facebook Feed. While Skype and SMS don't have the concept of a feed. If a brand is building a campaign that is cross-messaging channel, they would need to strip out any unique features. So the campaign would basically just send out text messages on every channel. It would force the campaign to be boring.
In my opinion, it's better to dig in to one or maybe two channels. There isn't much disadvantage. SMS reaches everyone and FB Messenger reaches almost everyone. So things aren't super fragmented in that sense.
There are services out there. One I can think of called Smooch, that can help you build something to connect to multiple channels.