What Sort of Social Media Services Should An Online Marketer Offer Clients?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Here are the services an online marketing company can (or should) offer clients:
- Blogging: Providing blog content, including content that has a "real" voice and is calculated to drive traffic/comments/interaction. Metrics to measure the effectiveness of this include # of comments, traffic, link-tos, and Technorati ratings.
- Blogger Outreach: This involves first creating contact lists carefully targeted to the client in question – and having the ability to identify the influential bloggers within a particular niche. Then the bloggers are contacted regarding the client story in question. This is similar to traditional PR, but involves a far more personal hand, and the ability to network and create relationships online. Traditional press releases do not work in this outreach – they must be short, friendly letters. Metrics for this include hits and link-backs to your site.
- Forum Outreach: Similar to blogger outreach. Part of this is identifying in advance what forums might be useful to the client and developing a relationship with them BEFORE making the "pitch" on the site (or else you are labeled a spammer).
- Social Networking Sites: The creating/maintenance of MySpace and/or Facebook accounts for the client, including the creation of Groups, Friending, sending out bulletins, etc. In addition to Facebook & MySpace there are many other social networking sites to focus on, both broad-based (like Bebo) or specialized (depending on client’s needs). Part of offering this service is the ability to tell clients what specific sites will be best for them demographically, and keeping up with trends. Metrics for this would be page hits, increase of hits on referenced URL, number of "friends" and comments.
- Podcast & YouTube: Some clients will be particularly suited for these forms of viral marketing. Marketers should offer very basic services in making simple podcasts & videos with the goal of going "viral" within the social networks. There is also a social networking component to these podcast and YouTube communities that have to be maintained and "worked." Metrics for this would be hits, # of downloads, link-tos from other sites, and increase of hits on referenced URL.
- Social Bookmarking: Interfacing between client blogger and bookmarker to shape content most likely to be bookmarked. Metrics include # of "Diggs" or "stumbles" a bookmarked story gets, and corresponding hit spike on referenced URL.
Within all of this is the need to provide the client a list of metrics to demonstrate that the social networking is creating a result. Companies are more likely, even in the case of budget cuts to their overall online marketing plan, to keep a budget for social networking because it is relatively inexpensive – but because the technology is so new, they want to see tangible results. It will be necessary, then, for a shop to create their own methodology and protocol for collecting data for metrics and presenting them in a convenient and comprehensive manner for the client.Labels: blogger, buzz, Facebook, Myspace, new media, social media, social networking, Stumbleupon, video, Web 2.0, Youtube
Quality SEO
Thursday, February 14, 2008
In addition to what my colleague, Adam Edwards, writes below on the ROI of SEO, I would like to present an example that illustrates that it is not just important to invest in SEO, but to invest in quality SEO.
GoCompare.com, a UK site that allows users to compare car insurance rates, used to rank number one on Google for the coveted term: "car insurance". What this translated to was that 17.49% of people searching on that term would visit the site. As you can imagine, this amounts to a huge number of people as "car insurance" is a very popular search term.
Not surprisingly, this term was responsible for most of the traffic to GoCompare.com. Even more so than its actual name spaced out: "Go Compare".
At the end of the week of January 28th, GoCompare.com lost its coveted number one ranking because Google uncovered dubious inbound linking to the site. Apparently, GoCompare.com had invested a bit too much in the pay-per-blog "methodology", which provides links to a site (which helps with optimization) for a fee.
So, how did GoCompare.com rank after it was found out? From number one, it plummeted to the obscurity of the seventh Google search page. Needless to say, the results were detrimental.
Just 2.31% of people searching on "car insurance" went to the site the following week. This equaled to an 87% decrease in traffic! The part that probably hurt the most was the gains made by GoCompare.com's competitors, the search traffic for which increased as much as 77% in the aftermath.
Google rightly decided to hone in on the practice of paying for inbound links as it falsely portrays a sense of authority. Your site is not ranking highly on a term because you offer quality data on the particular topic, but because you paid some key blogs and other sites to link to you.
So beware! Many SEO firms that claim to shoot your site right to the top of your most important search terms are probably using these unethical practices, to which Google is catching up.
Quality SEO, just like anything else that's worthwhile, takes time. At Connors, for instance, we build your site content out so that it is SEO friendly and worthy of a searcher's attention.
Our technique does not just ensure success in the relative near future, but also for years to come. Please refer to Adam's eloquent metaphor below to get a better idea of this important difference.Labels: Connors Communications, optimization, seo, Web 2.0
Social Media and Super Tuesday
Friday, February 08, 2008
The writers have been on strike for so long, that I think we have given up on the idea of scripted programming altogether. Perhaps, during a more uneventful time period, the strike would have more dire consequences. It's a good thing we have this election to keep us on the edge of our seats and thoroughly entertained.
Just as I was scanning for news on how social media impacted Super Tuesday results, I stumbled upon the news that Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race. Out of curiosity, I wondered who had the exclusive. After scrolling back to the 30th page (yes, thirtieth, as in three - zero) of Google News results, I gather that ABC was one of the first to post the news to the site of its local San Francisco affiliate just 4 hours earlier.
So, where was I? Oh yes. Did social media have an impact on the biggest primary day?
A nice place to begin answering that question is on a blog called the Marketing Pilgrim. On Super Tuesday morning, the Pilgrim made a bold claim that the winners were already decided based on online fanfare. Its prediction: John McCain and Barak Obama would win on Super Tuesday.
The prediction was largely based on positive and negative search results on the candidates. Apparently, Obama and McCain had the most positive results.
What really happened? Yes, McCain did win, but what about the democrats?
Despite their reported dead heat, there are stark implication made by the states that were won by Clinton and Obama. A nice summary by blogger Krutic can be read here on Blog Critics Magazine.
I suppose if you count the states, Obama won. When looking closely at the states he won, however, a different picture comes into focus. Out of the 13 he won, only 3 - Connecticut, Illinois, and Delaware - tend to vote democratic and would truly count for him in a general election.
Clinton, on the other hand, won the democratic strongholds of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and California. These are all monster states in terms of population, which equal to delegates, which equal to winning the nomination.
But back to the question at hand: Did social media make a difference?
I think it is safe to say that social media has made a huge impact for Barak Obama's campaign. I would even make the claim that without his enthusiastic youth following, he would have been driven to anonymity months ago.
The more appropriate question might be: Can the youth truly decide this primary? In essence, will the difference social media is making count?
Jeffrey Feldman wrote an interesting article for The Huffington Post on this very topic. In it, he explains that while there is an exorbitant amount of attention being paid to Obama and his movement, the fact is that on Super Tuesday "the 18-24 age group typically made up only 7%-8% of the overall vote, while the 65 and over age group typically made up 20%-22% of the vote." And guess what, "Obama did not carry the 65 and older vote in a single state." Not even in his home turf of Illinois, where the senior vote was split 50/50 between him and Clinton.
With the current facts in mind, it's important to note that the race is far from over. Clinton is about 100 delegates ahead of Obama and all fingers point to this primary going to the democratic convention in May.
The basic fact that young people don't vote, yet are very opinionated online remains. So, for now at least, we might have to take Facebook polls and the like with a grain of salt. Perhaps a true testament to social media will only be seen decades from now, when the young are not so young anymore.Labels: 2008 elections, Internet, social media, social networking, super tuesday, Web 2.0
Future Trending: The Mobility Of Content And The Need To Track Its Impact
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The blog Buzz Marketing For Technology pointed out a trend for the future of online marketing: the distribution of content and the need to formulate methods for tracking the impact of that content (in terms of views, keywords, and general efficacy in achieving its objectives).
For example, in tradition Web 2.0 marketing techniques, one has a blog or website and content is generated for that particular venue. Then the impact of each post/article is tracked in terms of how many hits it generated, how viral it is, how many consumer referrals were made as a result of it, what keywords were used to find it, etc.
But, the trend is now more and more about distributing that content to other sites – whether it be communal blogs, syndicated content, content carried by widgets that can be installed on other people’s blogs or social networking pages, etc.
This trend seems to me to be part of larger one in business in which the focus is less and less about one's "homebase" -- whether it be a blog or a company headquarters -- and more about mobility. The mobile office: more people conduct their workday partially in their pajamas or dashing down Main Street. The mobile company: companies outsource their help to places halfway across the globe. Even the mobile rock and roll band: individual members of the band will record their sections individually from different areas in the world.
Back to the example of online marketing and analytics. In the (not too distant) future, content will need to be mobile in order to compete and reach its intended audiences, and there has to be something in place to measure the effectiveness of the content in those multiple locations.
Hence, the need for firms who can develop the measuring systems and methods of data tracking to keep abreast of the many streams of content and analyze their effectiveness.
And in this equation let us not forget the seemingly countless streams of social networking tools: Facebook pages, Twitters, social bookmarking, etc. Taking this into consideration, plus the rather “conversational” nature of many blog exchanges, I would recommend a management system that combines both necessary algorithms and spreadsheets plus a personal, organic understanding of Web 2.0 and natural SEO.Labels: conversational marketing, Marketing, search, seo, social media, social networking, Web 2.0
Good old fashioned football
Friday, February 01, 2008
This Sunday, many Americans will put their Blackberries, computers, cell phones and iPods aside to enjoy some good old fashioned football. Despite all of our technological leaps throughout the years, it seems that football has yet to be perfected beyond the invention of the television.
Sure, TVs have gotten bigger, and high definition allows us the pleasure of seeing every drop of sweat. Also, while my knowledge of football is about as good as my handle of the Chinese language, I understand that the way in which the game is shot has gotten some very sophisticated upgrades.
Still, this Superbowl Sunday will be enjoyed just like the ones in many years past. There will be lots of beer drinking, fried foods with various preservative-filled dips, not to mention, lots of screaming and hollering.
It might seem trivial to point out, but it is interesting.
Rationale would suggest that by 2008, there should be some sort of interactive component to the game through a site or a social network. Perhaps even a joint venture with a video game in which you can manipulate the players in some sort of virtual simulation.
After all, we can't just sit and watch regular television anymore. As a whole, we are drawn to shows that allow some form of participation; whether it be voting for our favorite singer or talking to producers in an online forum.
According to comScore, the only online interaction people seem to want to devote for the big game is to check stats and replay the ads. And that's only before and after the game! Less than 1/3 of those polled to go online at all on Superbowl Sunday promised to do so during the actual sacred hours of play.
Even though I don't care much for football, it's kind of nice to know that Superbowl Sunday is still best savored in its natural state.Labels: football, social media, superbowl, Web 2.0
Diggers digging their own hole?
Monday, January 28, 2008
With social news networks like Digg around for some time now, the interesting realities of human behavior on these types of sites are being revealed.
Last week, Founder Kevin Rose announced that a new algorithm would take control over Digg, changing the way stories make their way to becoming popular on the network.
Leaving complexities aside, the basic idea is that from now on, the diversity of people digging stories will be taken into consideration in deeming which articles are catapulted to the top of Digg and which are buried in its depths.
For prominent Diggers, this change might mean a sudden fall from grace. Apparently, there is a group of them that has invested such an avid participation in the site, that they, in principal, control it.
This means that the “popular” stories we read are really not popular by true definition. Rather, the Diggers in this specific and relatively small group are the ones who deem articles to be “popular.”
Obviously, news of the changed algorithm caused an uproar among these Diggers. After all, no one likes to be stripped of their power, no matter how mediocre it might be.
Fortunately, Digg founders did not ignore their devoted fans despite their dictatorship-style tactics. Rather than admonishing them for turning Digg into their own personal platform, Kevin Rose and his fellow Digg leaders talked things out with some of these high profile Diggers, who were charging them with abandonment.
This scenario is an interesting two-sided coin. On the one side, these dedicated Diggers are the pulse of Digg. On the flipside, though, those who visit on a less frequent basis might feel - and some apparently do (see comments) - that Digg is a pointless endeavor. This sentiment discourages recurrent use of the program, stripping it of hits, which equal value.
It seems that morale has won this round. However, in time, I predict that we will see more of these types of situations. The basic elements of human behavior are inherent no matter if we are interacting in the real or in a virtual world. In a social group, there will always be those who take charge, while the majority remains largely apathetic.Labels: digg, Internet, social media, Web 2.0
The SEO Firm & New York
Friday, January 18, 2008
Madison Avenue is the home of advertising agencies and PR has often times found itself at the heart of New York City. But SEO has yet to be pinned to one specific geographic location.
Having been in the SEO business for about 10 years, we seem to be dominating the SEO space here in the Flatiron neighborhood of Manhattan. Perhaps our chic locale will start a trend.
In our increasingly interconnected world, however, we might soon find location to not be as relevant as it once was. After all, we are doing business with companies outside of our little neighborhood. We are even branching out internationally.
Being competitive and offering truly unique services is thus the top priority for companies dealing with the online space. In a recent ClickZ article, Mike Grehan warns SEO-ers that we need to step up our game in 2008. Years before, when search was more rudimentary, SEO was pretty straight forward. Streamline a company’s website and they are on solid ground for months.
With the evolution of our search habits, SEO is just not that simple anymore. We have to get beyond the basics and truly add creativity to our practice.
It’s a good thing that Connors recognized this years ago. We have always banked on the long tail concept, knowing that the majority of hits to a site originate from people searching on material that is only remotely related to it.
For example, let’s say you type “French restaurant NYC” into Google. You then see a French cookbook in the midst of your search results. You click on the book and, since you are craving French food, you buy it. So, even though you were not aiming to buy a French cookbook, you did anyway. It might go against the grain of your common sense, but that often happens with human behavior.Labels: 2008, Google, New York City, search, seo, Web 2.0
And they’re off
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
With the primaries well on their way, we are beginning to see the real impact social media is having on the voter turnouts as well as the actual votes cast. For reference sake, I will note that on Facebook, Obama has an overwhelming lead with 61% of participants of the US Politics feature supporting him. Clinton has just 18%, and Edwards comes in 3rd with 10%.
On the Republican side, surprisingly, Ron Paul is the front runner with 37%. The support for the other candidates is split fairly evenly. In order, Huckabee is 2nd with 19%, Romney 3rd with 14% and McCain 4th with 11%.
Facebook doesn’t break down these figures further, for example, indicating the median age of supporters. However, it can be safely assumed that the majority of these folks are in their 20s and 30s and, thus, represent a voice younger than that captured by the polls conducted by CNN and other traditional news organizations.
With that said, the argument can be made that social media is having a relatively big impact for Democrats. In Iowa last week, where Obama was victorious, young people came out in record numbers. According to Time, “[t]urnout among the youngest slice of the electorate more than doubled from 2004.”
The same was true in New Hampshire yesterday. In a press release today about the state’s voter turnout, the presence of youth - deemed as adults under 30 - increased 25% from 2004, from just 18% to 43%.
An article from MTV.com about Clinton’s win in NH broke down the numbers. In Iowa, just 10% of Democrats aged 17-24 voted for her, while 57% voted for Obama. In New Hampshire, 22% of 18-24 year olds supported Clinton, but an astounding 60% rallied for Obama.
So how did Clinton manage to win in New Hampshire? While young voters are taking the most active role in history in the primaries, so is the rest of the population! In that same article, strong support from women, 46% to be exact, was cited as the reason for her win in NH. Apparently, women in Iowa don’t care much for other women.
Perhaps what’s even more telling about the success of social media in these elections is CBS’ announced plans this week to partner with Digg on coverage pertaining to the campaigns. It’s a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours kind of deal. CBSNew.com will feature stories rated highly on Digg on their site and Digg will feature articles from CBSNews.com.
It’s nice to know that when all is said and done in November, our country is already well on its way to creating real change. Through the integration of social media, apathy is quickly becoming very passé.Labels: 2008 elections, digg, Facebook, new media, politics, social media, Web 2.0
Connors in the New Year
Friday, December 21, 2007
It’s hard to believe that Christmas is just days away and that 2008 is looming around the corner. The decade, which we have yet to name, is almost over!
It’s early still to reflect on the first ten years of the 21st century, but I think it is safe to say that we have come a very long way since the days of Y2K. In fact, in that short time, we have overcome the first web revolution and found ourselves basking in the glory of the second.
Some people laugh at the phrase Web 2.0, but it’s not just a gimmick. For example, yesterday there was news from the San Francisco Chronicle about a study recently conducted by Pew Internet & American Life Project on the propensity of teens to engage in online content creation and sharing.
The study found that “almost two-thirds of online teens have created something online.” The article then goes into the specifics of the data, the most impressive of which is the rise in the percentage of blogging teens. In 2004, the number was just 19%, where as now, almost 30% of teenagers blog in some shape or form.
And it’s not just a phenomenon reserved for the younger generation. We are all coming to rely on the Internet at an exceedingly growing rate. If you’re skeptical, just look at what’s happening to print publications. We’re clearly no longer getting information in the ways that we grew accustomed.
It is for all these reasons that in the new year, Connors will no longer be doing PR in the same old way. We have been split between traditional PR and SEO for years, but taking society’s changing ways into consideration, it is becoming more and more clear that the traditional PR road is no longer paved in gold. The road online, however, is looking very bright.
Our president, Connie Connors, recently spoke to Enid Burns of ClickZ about our changing direction. In the resulting article, Connie points out that the communication channels no longer equate to “one-to-many.” Rather, “many-to-many” is the formula that dominates, creating a “sphere of influence.” Meaning that, with the help of the Internet, we are all now playing a more active role in each other’s lives.Labels: Connie Connors, Connors Communications, Internet, new media, Public Relations, seo, Web 2.0
Circular Entertainment
Friday, December 07, 2007
Just when we thought we had it all figured out, Nokia released the results of a study it conducted on how we will entertain ourselves in the future. The prediction is grim, folks. Apparently, in the future, being a couch potato is very passé. Instead of basking in the euphoria that is sitting mindlessly in front of the television, just 5 short years from now, we will be engaging and actually creating our entertainment 25% of the time.
This phenomenon is being dubbed “circular entertainment.” Nokia gives the example of someone capturing footage with her cell phone, then sending it to a friend, who would add a soundtrack in the way of an mp3 file. This friend would then pass it to another, who would contribute yet another creative component.
Is this really how we will unwind in the future? Just thinking about it makes me tired, not to mention bored!
Tim Leberecht from CNET also blogged on this subject, cleverly pointing out that we should “take surveys sponsored by big brands with a grain of salt.” After all, it’s no coincidence Nokia uses the example of a mobile phone. Wouldn’t they just love it if we relied on our phones for more than just phone calls!
Well Nokia, I have news for you. Sadly, I rarely find myself wishing I had a video camera handy. My daily trip in and out of New York City is just not that exciting. Not to mention that I, along with about everyone I know, still absolutely prefers passive forms of entertainment to anything that requires more than a mouse click of effort.
But perhaps if we put aside Nokia’s ulterior motives with the cell phone example, we will see some truth in their prediction. As Leberecht pointed out, circular entertainment already exists in the form of social networking and reporters allowing comments to be made to their articles. Just this morning, a good portion of Good Morning America was devoted to reading viewer emails and responding to them. Isn’t this the embodiment of coming full circle?
It’s not much of a leap to “predict” that in 5 years, this phenomenon will only get more sophisticated and ingrained in our culture. Although, I am still a firm believer - or maybe just wishful thinker – that good old fashioned passive entertainment will still dominate our lives in the future.
Then again, if this writers’ strike goes on much longer, we will all have to get a little more creative…Labels: entertainment, media, new media, telecom, Web 2.0
Social Networking & Decision ’08 Take 2
Friday, November 30, 2007
This week, the Republican version of the YouTube debate aired on CNN. Compared to the Democratic debate, which aired several months ago, the conservative bunch did seem a bit more uncomfortable, which made it all the more interesting to watch.
If you recall, when the Democratic debate aired, there were rumors that the Republicans would not participate. I believe Mitt Romney said explicitly that he did not want to disgrace the sacredness that is political debate by allowing YouTube to lead it. Looks like technology won this round, and it is in the running for the next.
On Monday, news of Facebook and ABC’s partnership emerged, signaling another revolutionary step in our approach to elections and garnering news. ABC developed an application for Facebook called “US Politics,” which users can add to their profile. The application presents news on the election, and allows Facebookers to voice their opinions on certain topics, participate in polls and, most importantly, communicate directly with reporters!
How? The ABC reporters, whose articles are fed through the application, have Facebook profiles. As a Facebook user, you are invited to send them private questions and comments on their articles. Within this exchange, you can feel free to pose questions and issues that they can then raise with the candidates or investigate on their own.
Sure. This may not seem so profound to us, as in our profession, we engage the media on a regular basis. But the rest of the public does not. Actually, it is not far fetched to say that the majority of people are not even aware of how news comes about. Think about it…. How often have you been asked something as nonsensical as, “Can’t you just write a story and get it published?”
And while the ABC/Facebook partnership will be focusing on the presidential race, its success will determine how reporters interact with the general public in the future. Pretty soon, we might all find ourselves in the driver’s seat.Labels: media, new media, politics, Public Relations, Web 2.0, Youtube
More Ad Money Going Online
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Online advertising is a growing business. According to a report by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, “U.S. Internet advertising revenue rose 25 percent in the third quarter to about $5.2 billion,” signaling a new record for the industry.
Why the jump? Gavin O’Malley from Online Media Daily explored the topic in an article posted on Tuesday. In it, he quoted Nick Brien, worldwide CEO of Universal McCann, as saying, “ ‘If this happens for another year, significant clients will want to walk,” because all of them are “just waiting to increase their online spending to 50% or 60% [of their total budgets]’"
McCann’s clients are not the only companies dissatisfied with traditional avenues for advertising. In fact, many are “discontent due to increasing viewer fragmentation, disruptive technologies, and the resulting decrease in ROI.”
The truth of the matter is that each year, more and more people find themselves increasing the time they spend online. This shift is only natural.
However, marketing execs might soon reach a different frustration with the fact that ads online do not seem to stick in the same way as TV or radio spots. Josh Quittner and Jessi Hempel of Fortune asked readers on Tuesday to name 3 memorable ads they saw online. I couldn’t do it and chances are, neither can you.
Their article went to point out that Google is one of the few companies that has succeeded in creating a thriving ad platform online. Facebook is trying to follow suit, but only time will tell whether their interesting idea of users sharing ads with one another will work.
The bottom line for us is that all things related to marketing (if not all things in general) are expanding their footprint online. Yet, it’s not as simple as regurgitating traditional media campaigns online. The Internet is a different medium, after all, and it demands a little ingenuity.Labels: advertising, Adwords, new media, Web 2.0
A Brief History of the Huffington Post
Friday, November 02, 2007
This past Monday, an interesting article by Fortune's Richard Siklos was published on CNNMoney about The Huffington Post. It caught my eye because we usually don't think of these Web 2.0 media outlets as businesses, but The Huffington Post turns out to be a high prized commodity for its founder Arriana Huffington.
Siklos' lengthy piece takes us to the very beginnings, when the Post was simply an idea, and a rocky one at best. "When the site first went live, the heavy betting was that it would quickly become a footnote in the sad annals of online ventures by celebrities -- anyone remember RodmanTV.com?"
I don't, but I guess that's the point.
The Huffington Post not only survived, but thrived in an environment that was not yet inundated with news social networks. In those days, Arriana started things off by hiring editors who would sift through the day's news and link to articles that they deemed interesting or worthy of a read. Original content was also provided by self-recruited team of volunteer bloggers.
These bloggers are perhaps the thing that sets the Huffington Post apart from most other sites of its kind. Arriana ran and still runs in celebrity circles. When she began her venture, she wanted to make sure to take advantage of her connections by asking some of these folks to write for her site. After all, whether we like to admit it or not, we all take interest in what celebrities think. She got a bunch of eager names in the beginning and now, most of her friends and acquaintances who are asked to contribute to The Huffington Post are honored.
The site now attracts over 90 million readers a month, which is approximately the amount of traffic the Philadelphia Inquirer site gets. Granted, the Huffington Post aims to reach a national audience, so the numbers are not staggering, but still significant enough.
The lesson learned here is that while there are no shortage of bloggers out there who serve a niche interest, even the ones that are trying to please the masses are having notable success. Labels: blog, new media, Public Relations, Web 2.0
More than just PR
Friday, October 26, 2007
It seems that the marketing giants like Interpublic and WPP Group are coming to terms with our Web 2.0 world. Just this week, Interpublic announced a partnership with word-of-mouth marketing company, BzzAgent. WPP Group has also partnered with them in the past. BzzAgent is a social networking medium comprised of marketers and an assembly of volunteers who try out products and/or programs in turn for their honest feedback. After feedback is given, BzzAgent marketers interact with their volunteers, poking and prodding at their experiences. Common sense suggests that if an experience was negative, BzzAgents would attempt to rectify the problems and have the volunteers change their minds. It's not so much an innovative idea as it is a natural progression of marketing research possible on the Web. Just ten years ago, this type of company simply wouldn't make it. It wouldn't be practical to get people's feedback via phone or snail mail and then redistribute it to the masses. But in this day and age, it makes perfect sense. After all, BzzAgent deems that 80% of people believe word-of-mouth over advertising. Of course, now-a-days, word of mouth doesn't just happen face to face. Most of it takes place online, and it is essential for all companies to be involved in those conversations. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Web 2.0
The Growing Internet
Friday, October 12, 2007
Yesterday, a bylined article on the topic of our soon-to-be antiquated Internet infrastructure was published on CNET by Michael Keenan from UC San Diego. In it, Keenan stressed the significance of the fact that in the near future, the Web will no longer hold the demand that we are putting on it.
Michael explained that when the Internet was created, its size and use was undermined, but the limitations of the structure were not truly felt until recently. After all, it was not that long ago that we used the World Wide Web for just email. Now-a-days, we use it for pretty much everything. In Keenan's words, "[t]he Internet has gone from a complement to everyday living to a principal platform for business and personal activities."
While his article went down the path of discussing the sad state of broadband in the U.S., which, by the way, is in 15th place worldwide, behind countries like South Korea, I would like to go back to this notion of the Internet's importance in our role as influencers. I think this idea is hard for some to grasp because those Internet-free days or days of it being "a complement" are not too far gone. Yet, it is undeniable, we don't just use it to stay in touch with family and friends, but for essentially any information that we need. At which restaurant to eat; how to get there; and what to do afterwards. We decide all these things and more from the information we get online.
This is why it is crucial to have an optimized website. Meaning, your site needs to come up in search results that are initiated by words that are associated with your business. What am I talking about? For kicks, try typing "pr firm" into Google. In the first 2 pages of Google results, you will find 3 or 4 actual PR firms, one of them is Connors Communications. Is it such a leap to say that many businesses begin their search for a PR firm just this way?
In another article in MediaPost, Anand Subramanian writes about the concept of "The Long Tail" and its importance to advertising. He references eMarketer's 2006 report that found that "Internet users spent 61% of their time online outside of the top 20 domains, which includes most major social networking sites and web portals."
For advertising, it means that media buyers need to spend money outside of the top 20, and for public relations professionals, it means that we have to channel these niche markets with as much vigor, if not more, than those top 20.
But don't panic! This should come as a relief. Of those top 20, perhaps half are actual news sites like The New York Times and Google News. We all know the challenge in getting placements in this type of media. What these results indicate is that by compiling a list of relevant and attainable blogs and niche news sites, our PR campaigns can be even more effective than hitting the New York Times once or twice. Labels: Internet, new media, optimization, Public Relations, search, The Long Tail, Web 2.0
Blogging, Inc?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Douglas A. McIntyre from Wall St. 24/7 suggested in an article earlier this week that big media companies might start buying popular blogs. The reason for it being that the blogs of some newspapers and other news sites have not captured the same volume of attention as blogs like the Huffington Post and TechCrunch.
Rather than trying to compete, it would make sense for big media companies to just eat these blogs up. After all, relatively speaking, they wouldn't cost very much and would be fairly easy to maintain. AOL is already ahead of the game on this one with its purchase of Weblogsinc, which includes Engadget.
I suppose it's not really a novel concept for a big company to swallow up a small, popular fish, but will writers of these blogs be interested to sell? For many, I assume, it will be a personal decision. Do I want to maintain my own business and my complete creative freedom or do I want to hand the reigns over and feel secure in the financial footing of a media giant?
Regardless of what the likes of Michael Arrington might decide, if these purchases were to become rampant, our role in attracting the attention of the influencers would once again begin to narrow.
Another thought worth contemplating is how the public would react. Is it the independent nature of these blogs that we value or do we just like the writing style and quick turnaround these have over the traditional media channels?
This concept certainly raises a lot of questions and it will be interesting to see how this aspect of Web 2.0 unfolds. Labels: blog, media, new media, Public Relations, Web 2.0
More on this Web 2.0 Thing…
Friday, September 28, 2007
Staying on the topic of the significance the Internet plays in our role as marketers, I came across this article the other day from Mediapost. In it, Karl Greenberg sums up some of the opinions industry veterans expressed during the National Advertising Review Council's NAD Annual Conference on this issue. The title, "Web 2.0: A Minefield Marketers Must Cross," is telling, to say the least. One of the panelists, Mark Serrianne, CEO of brand consultancy Northlich, is quoted throughout the piece, explaining that the challenge now for companies is control. Meaning, there is so much information available through the Web that it is impossible to have a hand in every blog, site, or what have you to create your ideal message. So instead of trying to beat an infinite race, why not join in the running? By participating in the wealth of information through a blog or some other such voice, a company and/or brand has at least a chance of being heard and understood just in the way that it intends. But to say that is, of course, an understatement. Because if the voice you create is interesting enough or even mildly entertaining, your company or brand has the power to become an influencer. The beauty of the Internet is that it is a truly global platform. Its audience is in the billions, so even if you tap just a tiny fraction of it, you have already won. And accomplishing this is much easier than infiltrating the iron clad gates of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, in which an article might still be prized, but its fame (especially these days) is short lived. So let us reiterate again that a solid footing online should be part of any company's foundation. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Web 2.0
It's Free!
Friday, September 21, 2007
To no one’s surprise, the New York Times announced Monday that its TimesSelect service will now be available to all readers for free. It took them two years to realize that even though they were generating money with people signing up for the service, they were losing tons of advertising money by not having the content available for free. So how is it that now, thanks to the Internet, companies are able to make more money by offering things for free than by having people pay for them? The answer is simple: search. People visiting the NY Times website would be frustrated that they couldn’t access the TimesSelect material. But these folks only made up a small percentage of the advertising money that was being lost. The overwhelming amount was coming from those who were searching for specific topics and were being routed to material from this paid section. So, let’s say I wanted to learn more about France (which happens to be where I just went for my Honeymoon). I would Google “France” and towards the top of the 1st results page, I would find a great article from the New York Times. Because I know the Times to be a reputable source, I would be eager to see what it had to say about France. However, when I would try to open the article, I would find that I didn’t have access because I was not a paid subscriber. You can only imagine the millions of people who had the same dilemma. Simple as it may seem, there is a very important PR lesson to be learned here. People are no longer putting their faith into their trusted news services. Now-a-days, the collective majority Googles whatever it is they want to know about. Sure we might still be more likely to go to the Times than to some random blog, but (as we PR people well know), the Times does not and will not write about most things. What it means for us is that the days of traditional media being the gatekeepers to influencing the public are slowly fading. That role is now shifting to the Internet. With this change, we must pay more attention to not only the press we get online, but the kind of persona our clients have online. What is their voice? Do they even have a voice? Because as I was Googling France, I didn’t find very many helpful websites ending in .fr that were in English, which I am sure isn’t terribly helpful to the French tourist industry. Yet, literally and metaphorically, France is on the map. But for those companies that aren’t, having a solid presence on the Web is starting to make all the difference. Labels: Google, media, new media, Public Relations, seo, Web 2.0
Decision '08 and Web 2.0
Friday, August 31, 2007
Next year's election is certainly driving old and new media to become more creative. First, we had the CNN/YouTube debate and now the online divisions of the Washington Post and CBS are teaming up to create a unique kind of coverage. The two media moguls plan to announce the news on Tuesday. Both websites will feature material from the other media. The Washington Post site will have political clips from CBS affiliates and the CBS site will feature political commentary from The Washington Post. In addition, visitors will be able to interact with reporters by commenting and asking questions in a live exchange. This last bit has yet to be detailed, so who knows what it really entails. Sure it's nothing super groundbreaking, but it is an interesting step, considering how fiercely territorial media companies are with their material. If successful, it could signal the first of many big media convergences online. It should be noted, though, that this seemingly unorthodox approach has been in the making. Research firm, the Bivings Group, reported that 92% of the 100 largest US newspaper websites are offering video, which is a 31% increase over last year. Some of the sites pull the video from the AP or local news stations, while some make their own original content. So it is a natural step for these two big players to team up to try to stomp out the growing competition. Labels: new media, politics, video, Web 2.0
Blogging in China
Friday, August 24, 2007
The evolution of Web 2.0 is interesting to track in the West, but it is sometimes even more fascinating to learn about how countries like China, which does not support free speech, fine-tune advancements to align with their censorship. During the past couple of days, stories have surfaced on blogging in China. Obviously, the anonymity available to bloggers is a threat to communist societies and so the Chinese government has "recommended" that bloggers not only refrain from posting "bad" material, but also register under their legal names with providers of blogging technology. Among these providers are companies like Yahoo and Microsoft, who have agreed to the stipulations. Of course, these "recommendations" are nothing short of laws, and are probably enough to deter most bloggers from posting ill thoughts on their government. But this censorship is nothing new. The information exchange on the Internet in China is not only limited through blog content, but also through blocking specific sites. For example, if you type "Tiananmen Square" into Google in China, you will not see any links associated with the 1989 protests. Instead, you will find tourist information and neutral historical references. Though this is outrageous from our American perspective, this technological feat is impressive. After all, in terms of population, China is the largest country in the world and the second largest, after the U.S., for Internet users. Some condemn Google and the like for cooperating with Chinese officials to accomplish this task. However, one has to consider what it would mean if Google would refuse. Would it lead the Chinese government to reconsider its policies? Perhaps. But most likely, it would lead them to find other companies willing to perform the task, making for poorer access to all the unrestricted information online. Labels: blog, Google, Internet, Web 2.0
Is Wall Street Heading for Main Street?
Friday, August 03, 2007
The Wall Street Journal being acquired by Rupert Murdoch is raising interesting questions about the future of the paper's integrity and its structure. Will all of its articles adopt a sudden a FOX News slant to the right and will its rebirth give life to sports and culture sections?
On the first note, Time reporter Edward Gomez is not convinced that the paper had much integrity to begin with. In an opinion piece published on the San Francisco Chronicle website he proclaims that "it's media outlets like the WSJ that, over the years, have championed exactly the kind of more, more, more, bigger, bigger, bigger, corporate greed and unrestrained consolidation of ownership that Murdoch's latest buy represents." Hmmm… perhaps they are just getting a taste of their own medicine?
Of course there are also the theories that Murdoch, with his very hands-on management style, will steer the paper away from its core financial focus to a more mass appeal. This would pin the Wall Street Journal directly against the New York Times, which is multifaceted with sections devoted to culture, style and theatre. Other compelling points were brought to light by Ad Age's Nat Ives in his video commentary on the deal, in which he discusses the change in perception the public might have of the media because of the merger.
He says that Murdoch's purchase might "further the realization among Americans that media is a business." Though this fact may seem obvious to PR people and our colleagues in the marketing world, few people outside of this field actually understand the nature of the media. Specifically, that being fair and unbiased is an aspiration, but often not a reality. It's no secret that in small trade publications, advertising drives editorial content. What are the big ones driven by? This answer is certainly more complex, but part of it involves the views of their tycoon owners like Rupert Murdoch. Labels: media, Web 2.0
Web 2.0 in Full Bloom
Friday, July 27, 2007
This past Monday, history was made as CNN hosted the first ever presidential debate with questions posed by ordinary people via YouTube. The consensus on the debate's success was unanimous, leaving YouTubers along with the rest of us marveling at the prospect of us, the people, finally having direct conversations with our leaders. Declan McCullagh of CNET reflected, The video questions posed in Monday's Democratic debate were more personal and more direct than the circumlocutions that political journalists tend to prefer, which I admit may not be a compliment to our profession. Don't worry, Declan. Journalists still have an important role, but now we also have a voice. The complaint that our current technology is grossly underused in the realm of communicating meaningfully with our government has been around for years. Some might even say that low voter turnout amongst the younger generations reflects this disconnect. How refreshing to see that steps are being taken to reconnect. As I write this, however, I find news that a GOP version of the debate, slated for Sept. 17th, might not happen as Republican candidates are feeling squeamish. "The presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," said Rep. presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, referring to a question on global warming posed at the last debate by an animated snowman. I suppose this backlash is to be expected. Old habits die hard. But I am fairly confident that this is not the last debate of its kind. Web 2.0 is permeating into every crevice of our society, and this latest infiltration essentially cements the relevance of social networking. On another note, this Tuesday, the results of an analysis conducted by Neilson/NetRatings for the Newspaper Association of America came out indicating that online newspaper readership is up 7.7% from last year. So while print is on the decline, it seems that we still crave reliable news from familiar sources. When piecing together these two tidbits, we begin to foresee what lies ahead. Social networking creates new communication channels through which new influencers emerge. Yet, news from established authoritative voices for the masses remains significant. Labels: new media, Web 2.0, Youtube
The Popularity of a Website
Friday, July 13, 2007
This week, Neilson/NetRatings announced that website hits will no longer count towards the popularity of a website. Instead, the amount of time spent on a site, termed “Total Minutes” and “Total Sessions”, will be analyzed to determine rank. Why the switch? Many sites now use technologies like online video and programming languages like Ajax, which require a visitor to spend more time on a site in order for their visit to count. Neilson is of course not the first to recognize time as a factor. Hitwise and comScore have long been measuring it along with page views and others. comScore spokesperson, Andrew Lipsman, explained, We have a host of metrics, and you can theoretically rank on any one of them. It’s just important to examine the space that you’re looking at and maybe determine what the most appropriate metric to use would be. That makes sense, and I am not the only one who seems to agree. Online advertising experts quoted in Louis Hau’s Forbes article voiced their concern about Neilson’s bold move citing that while more than just page views are relevant for Web 2.0, it is not to say that the measurement is all together irrelevant. Hau goes on to address the growth of the online advertising space (up 28% from last year), but reminds us that it is still just 6% of the entire industry. Not surprisingly, our eyes on the Internet are more easily monitored than for any other medium and it might take years to sort through all the available data and figure out what metrics are truly valid. In the midst of all this talk about advertising, PR is inadvertently part of the dialogue. We also need to know the popularity of a site, just as we need to know the circulation of a print publication. A distinct science for this is still clearly in the making. In the meantime, we are advancing in our knowledge of reaching an audience online. In our world, we would argue that page views, for example, still hold a lot of merit as reading a blog or a 500 word article can take no time at all. Labels: advertising, Internet, Marketing, pr, Public Relations, Web 2.0
An Explosion of Faces
Friday, July 06, 2007
After allowing any type of email to be used for an account last Fall, Facebook was able to truly capitalize on the success of its industry. This week, news from comScore indicated an 89% growth in unique visits to the site from May 2006 to May 2007. The numbers get more interesting when examining the age range of the visitors, the majority of which falls outside of the 18-24 range. Underage teenage traffic rose by 149% and the 25-34 range by 181%. The most surprising is the jump for those older, which was tallied at 98%. So what does this mean? For starters, it’s fair to say that this phenomenon is no longer a trend. With the late adopters getting on board, social networks are being sown into the fabric of communications. Love it or hate it, if you’re not on the boat, you run the risk of losing touch. On the marketing side, it is still fuzzy how we can use Facebook. For example, promoting on MySpace is a no brainer with tons of its pages devoted to movies, characters and celebrities. Facebook, though, does not allow you to view a profile in the same way and all the poking and messaging makes it more difficult to draw people into a profile that is not for an actual long lost friend. The opportunity, I am sure, will present itself eventually and when it does, it can hold more potential due to the vast age range of people signing up for Facebook. Labels: Marketing, Myspace, Public Relations, Web 2.0
Windows Vs. The Web (and Linux, OSX, Java and Apollo Too)
Monday, April 09, 2007
One of my online heroes, Paul Graham, is getting a lot of attention this week by predicting the death of Microsoft. It was a grandstanding headline, and Paul does reposition the story to making Microsoft simply less dangerous, the way IBM is less dangerous today than it was up to and through the 80's. He says Google is the one to look out for.
And right on cue, BusinessWeek's story is about Google-noia. And Google releases their own 1-800-GOOG-411 service, as if to state "yeah, we're testing the Starship Enterprise voice recognition user interface, predicted by Google engineer, Craig Silverman at Search Engine Strategies of years past (before he was predicting smart yeast). In addition to an advertising-offset delivery platform (the Google phone or GooglePod), voice recognition is what makes Google truly ubiquitous.
But instead of a Google rant, I think I want to linger on the death of the desktop question for a moment. Of course, Microsoft is not dead. I had earlier made this article about Sun's vision of the network being the computer finally arriving. But the point is repeatedly made around the Internet that until Web software works as well as desktop software, the desktop is still king. But then Adobe came out with Apollo. And it's no longer a matter of capability. It's a matter of consolidating an anti-Microsoft camp with sufficient momentum to make a difference.
And as an XP user at the office, and Vista AND OSX user at home, and occasional tester of Linux distributions on VMWare, I've got a pretty good perspective on OSes. Not to mention I was a Mac user since Drexel University was the first school ever to require computers, and have been an Amiga user since 1987. I KNOW what a cool platform feels like.
And the Web ain't it... yet.
Software running in an API closely coupled with the capabilities of the hardware is always the coolest feeling software. And so far in my experience, software written in languages like C++ are by far the snappiest and most fun to use. That's what PhotoShop was, and Amiga software like Deluxe Paint. Java, even with the Swing UI, doesn't even come close. That's that feeling you get in LimeWire and Azureus, where things just don't feel right. That's why Adobe's demo of PhotoShop running on Apollo was such a big deal. Web-based AJAX apps like Yahoo Mail run a distant third.
And it's the Geoffrey Moore technology adoption curve that dictates that until things become significantly better, and acquire enough un-fragmented users in the early mainstream, the desktop as we know it has A LOT of like left in it.
It would take something VERY disruptive to change that.
Like Nick Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative brought to the masses.
Or a tablet PC delivered to everyone's door by Google.
Or Cable companies adopting a REAL program platform for their set top boxes.
It would have to be deployed in a massive way, disrupting all the financial incentives to keep things working the way they are. Making the move off the desktop will have to be easier AND cheaper than a home PC upgrade.
Because despite the obvious dominance of the Web, people love their home PCs. And they hardly know the difference between running a Web app and a desktop app anymore. Desktop Widgets and Gadgets are further blurring the line. And PCs are still just vastly cheaper than Macs. And as a daily user of OSX and Vista, OSX really isn't as much better as all the Mac people say. It's downright flakey when it comes to multi-tasking. Us old Amiga folks know what real multi-tasking is, and today's PC is it. Macs just sort of stick.
So think about what happens when Microsoft makes all the same clever decisions as Google, to release their own uber-cheap advertising-subsidized ubiquitous voice-recognition tablet PC that connects on-the-fly to keyboards and printers, offers coupons, and lets you rent software for whatever ails you, protecting your documents for a lifetime and beyond, using Web Services.
Microsoft is still on much more equal footing that some people think. While yes, PCs are starting to feel a bit like your Grannie's PC, like Paul Graham says, all those baby boomers are about to become Grannies.Labels: Adobe Apollo, Google, Java, Linux, Microsoft, OSX, Paul Graham, Sun, Web 2.0
 |
