Biznology Blog: September 2008

« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »

September 30, 2008

Four Podcasts on Internet Marketing

For those of you that don't know, Bill Hunt and I have a new edition of our book coming out. I'll talk more about it later this week when I have a chance to discuss the changes in depth. For today, I'd like to share four podcasts that we recorded that copywriting guru Heather Lloyd-Martin moderated, including one with David Meerman Scott, author of the bestselling The New Rules of Marketing and PR and the co-author of the new Tuned In.. The first podcast is on search marketing basics, the second on changes since the first edition, the third on social media marketing, and the last on Web site search. Check out the details after the break.

In the first podcast, Heather helps Bill and I to explain the basics of search marketing, so that folks who haven't taken the search marketing plunge can get an idea of the things they'll need to do to be successful.

Heather takes Bill and I through a deeper set of questions in part 2, where we explore the changes in search marketing since the first edition of our book came out in 2005. We discuss the rise of hybrid paid search auctions, the adoption of sitemaps, and other big changes.

Part 3 features David Meerman Scott talking with Bill and me, as Heather walks us all through the details of social media marketing. David was kind enough to write the Foreword for the Second Edition, and we have a new chapter in our book on social media marketing. Who better than David to discuss it with? Social media is exciting all by itself, but we think it's even more interesting when used in combination with search marketing.

The last podcast, also moderated by Heather, is about another new chapter in our second edition, this one on Web site search. Bill and I felt that there are so many similarities in how to do search marketing and how to improve Web site search that we wanted to help our readers use the skills for one to succeed at both.

I hope that you get something out of these podcasts—Bill and I certainly enjoyed making them.

Posted by MikeMoran at 1:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 26, 2008

What Kind of Search Marketing Partner Do You Want?

by Frank Reed

Search marketing is a mystery to many. Part voodoo, part black magic and chock full of snake oil salesmen. It's the marketing world's version of a black hole. Business owners don't want to get too close to it for fear of being sucked in, never to be heard of again. (Tip: Getting sucked into a black hole can ruin your whole day.) While search marketing is now a requirement for effective marketing in the new economy, it is fraught with more shapes and sizes of practitioners than even I care to admit. Today we will take a look at a few profiles of search marketing providers that exist, as well as some tidbits to help you navigate these treacherous waters so you safely land on the shore of a search solution that best fits your business needs. While this list is not exhaustive, I do think it hits the high points. If I offend any search marketers out there, please remember that I too am one of you. I would love to hear your feedback (or defense).

Profile #1 - The Full Service Agency

This can take the form of a division of a large advertising agency or a large search marketing agency who says they are an online marketing agency. Either way you will hear a pitch about full service this and that. "We can 'handle' ALL of your marketing needs here under one roof. Why deal with multiple vendors blah, blah, blah." Usually this type of firm incorporates a lower case letter "i" in either their names or their offerings. They are not cheap and depending on who you work with they may not actually perform the work they recommend. Usually reserved for the Global 2500 types, the price tag will be high and it will be done on their terms.

Summary: Jack of all trades, master of none?

Profile #2 - The Search Marketing Agency

There's no law stopping you from calling anything a "search marketing agency." The "agency" that you hire may be a one-man band or small pack of search marketers (who travel in numbers for impressiveness). Skill level and knowledge of the industry is all over the map here and there has never been a better case for "caveat emptor" in business than working with a search marketing "agency."

There are very good small agencies out there, but take care to ensure your small agency is not merely a "broker." Often small shops simply outsource your work to other small providers. Prices will be all over the map, with services being defined differently from different providers. Even worse, the services are undefined, giving carte blanche to the provider to do as he wishes. Shame on you Mr. Business Owner, if you let this happen. Pricing will amount to a monthly retainer for services which might be too rigid in scope for any real success.

Summary: Do your homework. Ask a ton of questions about exactly what is being done for your fees and how it will benefit you. Get at least four different quotes before you buy.

Profile #3 - The Used Search Salesman

My personal favorite, this is the slick sales approach that promises you everything (We GUARANTEE first page) with a high-pressure close on the deal. Oftentimes, these folks will claim some proprietary system that makes them different, such as a network of linked blogs, or a slick software application. (I even had one guy tell me that Google came and trained his company on how to get number 1 rankings).

After shaking hands with such a salesman, check to see if you have all five fingers left. There are endless stories about search marketing scammers, so be on your guard. If there is an "end of month" discount or some other sales gimmick to make you take action, beware. If you do say "yes," you might have committed to a deal of six months or more, and are then passed off to a delivery team that knows nothing about the salesperson's promises. Pricing varies greatly but usually falls in the "$$$ per month for a defined number of months" category.

Summary: If you feel like you are being "sold" during the process of choosing your provider, then there are probably large gaps between the sales promises and the delivery of services.

Profile #4 - The Search Consultant

As with anything else, there are bad search consultants out there. I personally am moving to this model though, and here's why: The consultant is not constrained by service delivery procedures designed to get the most out a delivery team.

Instead, because the services are truly customized to fit your business' specific needs within its search goals, there is higher probability of success. Consultants can either deliver the service themselves or can deliver a strategy then provide options for you to look at for execution.

Consultants benefit those with in-house talent because they complement and supplement rather than compete with existing resources. Lastly, a good search consultant will work with integrity because there is no one to blame if something goes wrong or doesn't work.

While not cheap (average about $250 per hour), the consultant is someone you can use on an as-needed basis and needs to continually prove his or her worth in order to be allowed to work with you. Like I said, there are bad ones out there, so do your homework, but give a consultant a tryout of sorts before you commit anything of significance.

Summary: This seems to be the delivery method that benefits the end user the best and provides the flexibility that is an absolute essential in search marketing.

Well, that's a lot to chew on. I look forward to some feedback because I am sure there are experiences on both sides of the ledger (search marketing providers and buyers) that can benefit us all.

Posted by FrankReed at 8:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 25, 2008

Inside Web Marketing

I thoroughly enjoyed my time today at the Digital Marketing Symposium, held in Times Square in New York City by Richmond Events. You can check out the slides for my workshop, "Converting Online Visitors to Customers" and my closing keynote speech, "How the Web Changes the Old Marketing Rules," but I also wanted to share with you the most insightful thing I heard today. The morning keynote speaker, John Moore (veteran of Starbucks and Whole Foods), told us, "Only confident brands should use social media marketing." He explained that if you doubt that you're so special, or you worry about what your customers really think, stay away from social media and instead invest your money in whatever will give you that confidence first. That's good advice for anyone.

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:57 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 24, 2008

Are Your Customers Invisible?

Do you act like your Internet customers covered themselves with vanishing cream? I mean, you suspect they are out there, but you don't really treat them the same as you treat flesh-and-blood customers that walk into your store? If so, you really ought to read my new post on Small Business Answers, "Are Your Customers Invisible?"

Posted by MikeMoran at 9:11 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 23, 2008

Business at Web Speed

I spent an enjoyable two days in Orlando speaking at TMW's TRANSFORUM 2008, a conference for the transportation services industry, which I knew little about previously. They were interested in learning more about Internet marketing, but I especially enjoyed a session where I talked about how other aspects of business, beyond Internet marketing, could also benefit from a "Do It Wrong Quickly" approach. If you have the right feedback loop, and you can experiment quickly and cheaply, you can apply the same approach to many aspects of business. Learn more by checking out my slides for "Business at Web Speed."

Posted by MikeMoran at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 22, 2008

Search Keywords: Have a Demographic and a Smile

by Eva Lyford

Does your Web site marketing speak to customers where they live? Can your customers or prospects connect with the content based on where they're from--or is your content too generic and trying to talk to the whole nation at once (or too specific to your home office)? Most sites might vary content based on the visitor's past transactions or clickstream. But if you don't have that to work with, starting with geographically based targeting may provide an edge over the competition.

I grew up within a few miles of the Illinois-Wisconsin border, in a rural community where the highlight of a summer's day for a kid could be a trip to the corner store for a soda. A few years later, I was at Cornell University and stopped in a store to get a soda. They said they had none when I asked, so I left, puzzled by the fact that they had a Coca-Cola sign but I couldn't get a drink. I did figure out later that if I asked for a "soda" in Ithaca, folks thought I wanted an ice-cream float; to get a carbonated beverage, I had to ask for a "pop." I doubt the bean counters in Atlanta ever noticed the hit to the general ledger, but I noticed how important dialect and context could be for business transactions.

Targeting geographically requires that you be able to tell from where your traffic originates. Geographic location can be derived from IP address via geo-targeting, with certain limitations. Sometimes the IP address location might not reflect the user's actual physical presence, but instead shows the location of their ISP's server. That might still be pretty darned close, or might reflect an affiliation that is still relevant for targeting. ISP geographic associations might be fairly broad and certain IP addresses might not have known geographic associations. Even with these limits though, the geographic targeting is useful, certainly enough so that you could serve dynamically variable content to your site visitors.

Tie that geographically-specific content to Google Adwords, which enables targeting on a variety of geo-specific criteria for even more lift to your conversions. That way, you can market your "soda" in one market and drive that to the soda-specific page and market the "pop" in another, driving to a pop-specific page. There are hundreds of examples of this--for example, baseball hats are called ball caps in Tennessee; and "ball caps" returns a pool of hits only 38% of the size of the "baseball caps" pool. That's a much smaller segment in which your product or service can rise to the top.

Perhaps some more subtlety is called for in your product than would be needed for mere beverages or can happen just by using regional dialects; can your product or service be positioned differently based on personalities? In Richard Florida's book, Who's Your City?, he outlines in one chapter the results from The Place and Happiness Survey that show how personality types cluster in certain geographic areas, as shown in the following map. So one could market to the areas based on that personality profile. Note that these Big Five personality traits should be understood in the academic psychologist's context from whence they came (again, you have to understand people based on their place).

The ethanol marketers seem to be starting along this path. In the speed-oriented town of Indianapolis, ethanol's long association in racing is touted. Head out of town, though, and the midwestern heartlanders are appealed to based on the benefits of ethanol production to communities based on farming. Exit the midland flyover country, and the marketing skews towards the environmental protection benefits and energy independence anticipated from ethanol use.

So what does this mean for you? Let's go back to beverage basics. I like the wacky flavors of Jones Soda and their unique, quirky marketing focused on beverage individualism. "Soda" is my term of choice for this, so I don't have any mental incongruence searching for Jones soda. But what if I'm from upstate New York, trying to find out where I can get that funky Green Apple Pop that I had on a business trip out West. If I Google "Jones pop", I see "Jones Soda" results. Am I looking for an ice-cream float? No, so I skip it, perhaps. (Now, in reality most Americans are much more aware of the soda/pop/coke synonym than was that soda-jerk I met years ago.)

But if your product or service goes by different names in different markets, check it out and see if you can customize some pages or ads towards that distinctively geographic name. Can you position your faucet as a spigot? Your gym shoe as a sneaker? How about selling your bag as a poke or sack? Try it, then measure the conversion rates and let the numbers tell the story - the tools are there with geolocation and local advertising to target the customer and lead them to a customized landing page.

Posted by EvaLyford at 3:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2008

Are You a Fantasy Business Player?

by Frank Reed

It's that time of the year. Fantasy football is just really getting traction with those of us who like to spend too much time doing those things. Each week you change your lineup and jockey for position to pick up some of the best bargains that no one identified yet. You constantly examine the competition to see where there are strengths, weakness, threats, and opportunities. You occasionally talk some trash to stir up the league and make sure that you are viewed as the lead dog in the "dog eat dog" world of fantasy football competition. You look at those teams ahead of you and wonder just how they go there. You are totally immersed in finding a way to get to the top of the heap so you can be the victor. Sounds intense right? If only you looked at your business or job the same way.

How often do you change your lineup with your business? Whether you are a business owner or an employee, there are areas that can always be spruced up a bit. Sometimes it's a change that can give your business that shot in the arm that is needed to get over a hump or to get through a slow period. While it might seem silly to equate fantasy football with business, they are fundamentally the same with respect to change. Every week brings a new set of circumstances, like market forces in business or injuries in football, which completely change the competitive landscape and require quick action for success moving forward. If you fail to adapt to the changing competitive environment each week, you can be passed up and forgotten. How often are you changing, and what is the cost for just staying the course?

Are you constantly looking at the competition and seeing how you shape up when you perform the ol' SWOT analysis? Many business folks get so myopic that they forget to survey the land, so to speak. Many think that if you have found a groove or a niche that it will always be there. That's the business equivalent of taking your eye off the ball. You get so confident that you will score that you forget to do the basics. Then the competition comes up and cleans your clock. Ask any quarterback how much fun it is to be blindsided. No one likes it. Well, when you have not paid close enough attention to the competition in your business, you end up on the injured reserve list. It's when you are on the sidelines that the competition will take it to you.

Are you telling people about how good you are? There is a difference between talking trash and just getting some attention. While it's often a thin line between the two, many business folks don't even try to ride it and it just leaves room for someone else to get mind share. Let's face it, in our society of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" you have to make some noise whether you like it or not. Oftentimes, just the shear act of "stirring things up" (e.g., blogging and other social media...hint, hint) can get you recognition even if you are not the best. I am not advocating being a dolt and going out and screaming about how good you are. If you decide to tell folks, you better be able to back it up. Don't be the last place team that thinks it should be in first but has had some bad breaks. If you're good, you should talk about it a bit but do it so you don't look like Terrell Owens.

Are you analyzing the competition to see exactly what they are doing right? If someone is ahead of you then you should be working real hard to see where they succeed and you stumble. This has to be done week in and week out just like being in a fantasy football league. If you just sit back and say "Oh well, it's not my week" or even worse "My team is OK as is and will bounce back next week" then you are essentially throwing in the towel.

As I look back on these different points I see how it applies in my business of search marketing. I better pay attention to what keywords I am playing and if they are performing for me or my client. I better be looking at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that my clients face on each playing field (such as the search engine result pages for each individual keyword phrase). I better make sure that my client is telling the searchers the benefits of working with them. I better be looking at how those who are ahead of my client in the search results, identifying why they are there and what I need to emulate or change on my client's behalf.

That's how to be a fantasy business player. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for my next game. See ya!

Posted by FrankReed at 4:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 18, 2008

Ratings and Reviews Advice from the Leader

I've written before about the power of consumer ratings and reviews, and even discussed the growing practice of B2B ratings and reviews (complete with a B2B reviews survey), but this is the first chance I've had to interview Brant Barton, one of the co-founders of ratings and review leader, Bazaarvoice. If you're not familiar with Bazaarvoice, you should fix that—the company provides one-stop shopping for everything you need to add ratings and reviews on your site: software that collects and displays the content as well as human editors that quash obscene or otherwise inappropriate posts. Brant, Bazaarvoice's VP of Business Development, calls Bazaarvoice "the leading global provider of outsourced social commerce technology, services, analytics, and expertise." I hope you enjoy the interview.

Me: How did you get started at Bazaarvoice? What did you do previously and how did you get to where you are now?

BB: I co-founded Bazaarvoice with Brett Hurt, who is the founder of Coremetrics, a leader in the Web analytics industry and IBM strategic partner. Prior to Bazaarvoice, I led a team of web analytics experts, trainers, and support analysts at Coremetrics. My group serviced over 400 online brands and was responsible for driving customer success with the Coremetrics Web analytics solution. Through that experience, I developed deep expertise in Web analytics and optimization as well as online marketing best practices. Our focus on measurable ROI at Bazaarvoice most definitely stems from the Web analytics backgrounds of Brett, myself, and other core members of our team.

Me: Ratings and reviews seem to be a proven way of raising sales on any Web site. What are your favorite studies that prove this?

BB: Over the last three years, Bazaarvoice has contributed more to the body of industry knowledge on this topic than any other company through multiple customer case studies and research. Three years ago, there was virtually no analyst coverage of "social commerce" or solutions like ratings and reviews. Today, the topic is on everyone's radar, and as a result, there is a bounty of research that highlights the impact of ratings and reviews on conversion rates, average order values, product return rates, customer service costs, and customer lifetime value and loyalty. For anyone seeking an independent opinion on the topic, I would suggest the Shop.org State of Retailing Online study, conducted annually by Forrester Research. A few years ago, this study found that just 26% of the 137 top retailers surveyed offered customer ratings and reviews, but among those that did offer the feature, 96% rated them effective at driving conversion. JupiterResearch also found that ratings and reviews is the second most important site feature behind search, which is a well known sales and conversion driver. For additional data, take a look at the Industry Stats page at Bazaarvoice.com.

Me: I've noticed far more B2C companies using ratings and reviews than B2B companies. Case studies have such a long history in B2B sales that something similar with more credibility, such as customer reviews, would seem like a no-brainer, yet are relatively rare. Do you have any theories on this?

BB: It's true that B2C leads B2B in adoption of ratings and reviews and many other social and user-facing technologies. B2B purchases are primarily functional, recurring, and time- and price-sensitive, so B2B buyers are often more focused on availability, pricing, secure transactions, and other "practical" issues than B2C shoppers, who may place more importance on finding sites that they find visually appealing, easy to navigate, and informative. Case studies are without a doubt our most effective sales and marketing tool, so we launch every customer on our platform with the goal of generating a success story that will attract new customers from diverse industries. I believe strongly that ratings and reviews will become a mission critical feature for B2B web sites, but there's definitely a different adoption curve for B2B versus B2C so those case studies are taking more time. That said, we are now working with IBM on their Blue Business platform initiative, and I have high hopes that this becomes the industry's marquee B2B case study for ratings and reviews! You can read more about this on our company blog, Bazaarblog.

Me: Companies are often concerned about negative reviews appearing on their site. How do you persuade them this is nothing to worry about?

BB: Negative reviews are still a concern for some companies, but the level of concern has notably diminished over the last two years as ratings and reviews have become more widely adopted across the industry and more research is available on the frequency and content of negative user-generated content about brands and products. That said, content moderation is one of the most valuable and strategic services we provide to our customers. Our moderation team's first priority is to screen reviews for profanity, insensitive comments, competitor references, and other terms and phrases that offer little value to the consumers reading reviews. Second, we flag reviews that contain information that we believe will be of interest to our customers. For example, a consumer might highlight a previously unknown product defect and possibly propose a solution. We surface this kind of information to our customers, allowing them to take action by contacting the consumer for more detail, relaying the feedback to the supplier, changing a planned buy of that product, etc. The bottom line is that all products aren't perfect, so some negativity is to be expected, but our research shows that reviews are overwhelmingly positive. In fact, the average rating of products across our entire network of customers is 4.3 out of 5. That's incredibly positive, so the concern about negative reviews is quite small. However, it's important for companies to realize the power of a valid and constructive negative review, which builds consumer trust in your brand and gives them the confidence to do business with you.

Me: Sometimes, I see legal teams worried about the liability associated with allowing anyone to post content to a Web site. How do you allay their fears?

BB: There's simply no fool-proof method of ensuring that all user-submitted content is 100% truthful, factually correct, etc. As expected, most companies address this concern through disclaimers and language in their Web site terms and conditions. The best "insurance policy," however, is a moderation process that allows fine-grained review and control of content. Our content moderation team screens all user-submitted content for language that could pose a liability concern. When we come across something that concerns us or violates a moderation business rule requested by our client, we flag the content and escalate it to the client for review. In our history, we've seen only a handful of cases that raised the liability red flag and these were easily addressed by our client. At the end of the day, companies that want to tap into the power and benefits of social commerce and authentic customer word of mouth must be willing to accept a modicum of risk. We have 250 customers that would testify that the benefits are worth it!

Me: In your opinion, what's the biggest impediment to B2B customers implementing ratings and reviews?

BB: B2B buyers have different objectives than B2C buyers. Whereas B2C purchases are often discretionary and are often made to satisfy a purely personal objective (i.e., I need a new wardrobe for spring), B2B purchases are typically functional and are made to satisfy an organizational need. I believe that the ratings and reviews technique is equally applicable and helpful to both types of buyers. For B2B buyers, the ability to see what other corporate buyers think of a product reduces the risk of a purchase, which is a valuable benefit for companies large and small. The biggest challenge I see with B2B is getting buyers engaged to share their opinions on products. In the work context, a B2B buyer may have very limited time to write a review. With B2C buyers, writing reviews can actually become a pastime! Fortunately, we have solutions for the engagement challenge. Our Community Management team has worked closely with our customers over the last three years to test and refine best practices for driving customer engagement to generate high volumes of user-submitted content, from ratings and reviews to product-focused questions and answers. These practices include automated post-purchase emails, contests, and promotions that provide economic incentives for submitting content. I believe that nearly all of these best practices are applicable to B2B, so the challenge is really to get B2B organizations mobilized to implement those practices. The great news is that ratings and reviews and other social media tools have the potential for dramatically more impact for B2B businesses than B2C businesses, given their power to radically increase trust between companies and their suppliers and the sheer amount of B2B spending.

Me: Do you see the Internet emerging as a force that punishes bad behavior in corporations (and rewards good behavior), much like the media and government have served as those forces in the past? Can ratings and reviews be part of such a force?

BB: Absolutely. We're smack in the middle of a massive reckoning, thanks to the Internet and technologies that make the reputation of a company, its products, and its brand a conversation among consumers, partners, employees, etc. There's no doubt that user-generated content about brands, products, services, and the companies behind them is a democratizing, equalizing force. Put simply, your brand is whatever the masses say it is, not what you say it is. The Internet gives the masses a collective voice but also enables each individual to have a personal voice to relate unique, specific experiences, good and bad. This is extremely threatening to some companies, but I think the companies that are worried are the ones that should be worried. If you deliver great products and great service to your customers, if you are 100% committed to living up to the promises made by your brand (and branding), then I don't think there's much to truly worry about. But a half-hearted commitment to customer satisfaction and product/service quality won't cut it. This is great news for consumers, and I'm personally very proud that Bazaarvoice is playing such a fundamental role in the emergence of the customer opinion as a governing force in the marketplace.

Me: What do you see coming in the future for ratings and reviews and Bazaarvoice?

BB: Bazaarvoice is growing along multiple dimensions. We initially focused our business on the huge opportunity in Retail but are now working with leading brands across multiple verticals, including Financial Services, Insurance, Healthcare, Travel, Media, Consumer Packaged Goods, and others. Last, we're rapidly expanding internationally, with a growing presence and customer list in the UK, Continental Europe, and now Asia Pacific. The future is bright and full of opportunity for Bazaarvoice. Regarding product strategy, we remain focused on delivering leading edge social commerce solutions that delight the consumers that use them and that deliver measurable value to the companies that offer them!

Me: Thanks, Brant, for sharing your answers with my readers.

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 17, 2008

More E-mail Marketing Wisdom from Simms Jenkins

In the chaos around my father-in-law the last few weeks, I suddenly realized today that I never posted links to the rest of the podcast that I did with Simms Jenkins on e-mail marketing. So, check out the opportunities and challenges of Email marketing (in Part 2) and the companies that have mastered winning email marketing techniques (in Part 3). They are worth your time—Simms knows his stuff. If the podcasts whet your appetite for more, check out his great book on e-mail marketing, too.

Posted by MikeMoran at 4:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 16, 2008

Copywriting for the Busy

Sometimes it feels like we don't have time to do anything, but in copywriting, sometimes the shorter, the better. I think we drone on in our copy when we don't know exactly what to say to persuade the customer. Check out my new post at Search Engine Guide about what a hitchhiking hippie can teach us about copywriting in "Copywriting for the Busy."

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 15, 2008

Timing Your Web 2.0 Marketing

by Aaron Kim

What role do timing and duration play in your Web 2.0 strategy? Marketing experts have long emphasized the importance of media selection and scheduling decisions, but seeing how traditional companies have been exploiting the Internet over the last few years shows that there are still lessons to be learned in that arena.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it doesn't always pay off when it comes to your online marketing strategy. All the hype around Web 2.0 and User Generated Content a couple of years ago initially led to some embarrassing attempts of letting regular folks to create ads. The Chevy Tahoe Apprentice challenge in 2006 is probably the most prominent example of how to not do it: even after GM wiped out ChevyApprentice.com, a search in YouTube for "Chevy Tahoe" brings plenty of ads that should have never been created in the first place, a sobering reminder that having an exit strategy established up front is a must in your Internet experiments. Eventually marketing teams got it right, and the success of the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl competition in early 2007 led to several others companies to jump onto the UGC bandwagon, with varying, but mostly diminishing, levels of returns.

Another case in point was the creation of online places for your customer base to hang around and discuss subjects that take a front seat in their lives. HSBC's Your Point of View was launched in October 2005 and generated a lot of buzz for quite some time. However, three years later, it has lost its freshness and novelty, giving the casual observer the impression of a failed experiment, when it could have been considered one of the most successful stories of a traditional company building a site based on the architecture of participation. Vancity's "community powered" Change Everything, launched in September 2006, suffered from a similar problem, but had a longer shelf life, and people still contribute with comments to this day. One of the major differences between the two services that may explain the varying longevity of two similar offerings is that the Vancity experiment established itself as a social networking site, while the HSBC one stayed away from forming an online community and keeping user profiles. Change Everything is currently announcing a complete revamp of the service, so I'm curious to see what's coming next.

What's clear in the examples above is that timing and duration play a crucial role in the success of your online initiatives. This might sound obvious, but it's often ignored in many of the initiatives we see online. Being too early might prevent you from understanding the dynamics of a new approach, but being too late can just position your company as a me-too player. The sweet spot, of course, is hard to determine, but recognizing these patterns can help you to sniff the right moment. Or you might be better prepared to fail gracefully from the get-go, not as an after-thought.

Influenced by a conversation I had with my colleague Bernie Michalik, I started thinking about three metaphors that highlight the importance of duration in your online strategy. Some initiatives work very well when applied exactly once, as it was the case with the Doritos Super Bowl commercial. Like telling a joke, the second time around people get bored and disengaged.

Other initiatives work better when mimicking a circus pattern: you come, raise your tent, run your dog-and-pony show, and then leave after a week or a month. One or two years from now, you can do it again, but staying there on a continuous basis would never work. This is how RBC approached its Next Great Innovator site. In the first edition, back in 2006, they defined up-front that it would be a time-boxed experiment, so that when they were done a few months after, retiring the site was perceived as the conclusion of a successful experiment. Every year since they keep coming back with new features, but still positioning it as a time-limited event.

The IBM jams are another good example of how the circus pattern can be efficiently used to your advantage (full disclosure: I work for IBM). Besides helping clients to deliver jams, we eat our own dog food and use them as one of the tools in our innovation strategy. If you are wondering what the jam looks like, the next round begins on Sunday, October 5th at 6 pm EDT, and participation is open to IBM clients.

Over the last few years, many marketers have started using microsites to drive marketing campaigns, as opposed to relying on the main corporate site. One of the advantages here is that microsites can be changed—and retired, if necessary—more easily than the company's main Web site.

Finally, some of your initiatives might actually work well as a place that's always open for business, pretty much like a never ending daytime soap opera. This typically works well for services that drive a steady number of clients, or whose audience is recycled on a yearly basis, like college students or pre-teens. Procter & Gamble's Connect + Develop site is a good example of that, as the site serves an audience that has a continuous relationship with them. I often see initiatives that would operate better following the joke or circus patterns defaulting to the soap opera mode. Despite their initial huge success, they become victims of not selecting the appropriate duration for their endeavor.

When devising your next online initiative make sure you think about which of those patterns best fits your offering. Timing and duration might end up being the key determinants in how that incredible new site you conceived will be perceived a few years down the road.

Posted by AaronKim at 12:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 12, 2008

Search Marketers and Web Designers Unite...Please!

by Frank Reed

I can't tell you the number of times I have wanted to anonymously call a Web designer who designed the site of a prospect or client of mine just to let them know that we search marketers do exist. What do I mean by that? Well, if you design a site that looks great that is only half...wait, just one-third of the battle. If you are a little ticked by that comment then you are a Web designer, but if you are nodding your head in agreement then you are a search marketer. If your site looks pretty in the internet forest but no one can stop by to see it does it really exist?

Last week my post on search marketer and Web designer teamwork lamented the need for complete separation of designers and search marketers. I still stand by that statement steadfastly. Jack of all trades and master of none is not the philosophy that creates success for clients regarding their overall web presence. My company's foray into Web design is some good ol' fashioned, first person, eyewitness testament to that fact. But, it is a Web "presence" after all. A Web site doesn't just stand alone (although it can get very lonely if your search marketing or marketing in general stinks). Also, search marketing is not guaranteed to work either (although many would lead you to believe that it can be...caveat emptor). What can work, though, is a true partnership. In design and search the phrase "You complete me" can mean the difference between success and failure for both client and agency alike.

I say this because I have lived it. I tried to start a design side of my business recently because it made perfect logical sense to have the design "in house" and let it lead to the core competency of my company: search marketing. Theory is really neat but it's the stuff that should be saved for useless B-School case studies. The real world has little tolerance for theory. It craves results and positive ROI and happy customers etc. Well, I guess I have followed Mike Moran's advice and we did it wrong quickly. While I have happy customers on the design side, it did not come without a price. I will spare you the details because I want to get on to the point here. The net is that we do not do Web design any longer.

So yes, I failed. Not miserably or spectacularly but it was a failure nonetheless. Rather than sit back and cry in my milk (I'm not a beer drinker) I stepped out on a limb and extended an olive branch to the other side of the aisle. I reached out to designers. The thing is though it became apparent that it had to be the right kind of partners in order for a union between design and search marketing firms to work.

First, you have to find a company of like mind which for us meant that everyone needed to check their egos at the door. You see, there is no exact right or wrong way that these relationships will take root. In order to have success, however, there is a need for like mindedness. In order for that to happen neither side of the fence can have it their way all the time. Fortunately, I have started what looks like a potential mutually beneficial partnership with a design company. They had an immediate need that we helped them fulfill and we did it without needing to take any credit other than the good of the client. I believe this is the kind of business philosophy that is rewarded in ways that I can't measure and I am cool with that. It has already resulted in a request to propose solutions for two other deals. Well struck!

Second, and last for this post, is the absolute essential ingredient of patience. It has already been proven (at least in my case) that the designers know design and the search marketers know search. Having said that, in the initial stages of these partnerships there will be screw-ups. If they are the kind that are rooted in ignorance then that is just fine because the right way can be learned. If they are the kind, however, that will break trust between partners then it may be time to continue shopping. One way for this to occur is when finger pointing amongst the agencies takes place. Own up to your mistakes and your partnership will flourish. If these two disciplines are eventually fully integrated in a way where growth is allowed then you have something special for the client: results.

Oh, and for you folks looking for a one-stop shop for these things? If you come across one who claims something, just make them back it up. You shouldn't care HOW the work gets implemented on your site (other than it being ethical). It should not be a deal breaker if a design firm and search marketing firm are partnering on your behalf. Take it as a positive signal. Remember, rarely are these two disciplines housed under the same roof and excel equally. Sad but true. What should make your antennae go up are too many points of contact and too little communication. That's a good sign that not all is well in Dodge City, so to speak.

So there is hope for Web designers and search marketers. We all just need to get along actually. You do what you do well and I'll do what I do well. The client is the winner and so are we when we take care of our respective sides of the fence knowing that two heads can truly be better than one when it comes to Web design and search marketing.

Posted by FrankReed at 3:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 11, 2008

Losing the Web Standards War? Tools, Not Rules

I talk to many large companies that struggle with Internet marketing. They know that they must get everyone to do things the right way. They've written their corporate standards that describe the corporate look-and-feel and all the required HTML tags. They have a procedure for how an employee can start a blog. They've written down rules for everything, but the rules are ignored. What should they do?

The problem isn't your rules—they're probably just fine and very reasonable. Perhaps they are even well-written. The problem is human nature.

Some people just don't care about your rules. Their attitude is "catch me if you can." You'll have to set up some corporate policing function to send them to Dilbert jail without parole. Until then, they'll do the least work possible.

But most people are not so callous. They might not know about your rules. They asked a few people how to perform their task and got incomplete advice from folks trying to simplify the task with just the minimum steps. Your rules didn't make the cut.

Other folks know about your rules but are just too busy to follow them. They might even follow them sometimes, but when crunch time hits, they jettison anything they can to make the deadline.

So, given that people are sometimes lazy, ignorant, and busy, what can you do? My answer is to focus on tools rather than rules. (And, no, that doesn't mean to bash them with a hammer until they comply.)

For every situation where you have a rule—a standard, a policy, a process, a procedure, a checklist, or just about anything that requires compliance—see if you can substitute a tool instead. Here are some examples of perfectly good rules that could be replaced by tools:

• Make sure you have appropriate search keywords in the title and the body of each page. Instead of making this one more item on your copy writer's long checklist, can you set up your content management system so that it prompts writers for the right keywords? And checks to be sure those keywords are in the right places?
• Follow the look-and-feel standards so all Web pages have the same visual design. Could you instead provide a standard style sheet that ensures that pages resemble each other?
• Any employee wishing to start a blog must follow the corporate blog initiation policy. Instead, could you provide a set of Web pages on your intranet that incorporate the policy? The employee could fill out a template that sets up the blog and requests manager approval. Perhaps your tool can even offer an online training course that certifies that they know how to blog in an appropriate way.

What each of these techniques have in common is that they make following the rules easier than ignoring them. If you take care to ensure that following the rules is always the path of least resistance, then you'll suddenly find that lazy people have time to do it, because it is less work. Ignorant people will be told about the right tool because it's a simpler explanation then laying out each step. Busy people will use the tool, because it takes less time than doing the job from scratch.

Even though we all complain about the red tape and bureaucracy we deal with every day in our jobs, when we are put in charge we nevertheless tend to make still more rules. The reason we do so is that it seems easier for us (see a pattern here?) than creating tools. But it's a false economy, because you end up not solving the problem, or you must spend lots of money to police people and get them redo the job once caught.

In the long run, tools that embody standards are cheaper for everyone and far more effective than any set of rules, no matter how well-executed or well-meaning. Do you run your Web site as a police state where most contributors bend the law? If so, perhaps it's time you took a different approach.

Posted by MikeMoran at 9:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 10, 2008

Every Company is Normal Until You Get to Know Them

Today is my first big client meeting as the high-fallutin' Chief Strategist at Converseon. The meeting is with a big company that they've worked with for years and hope to do even more with in the future. Like any big company, it takes time for them to make decisions—IBM was always that way when I worked for them. And lots of smaller companies like to sit around and complain about how slow and disorganized large companies seem to be. But I think the real problem is one of expectations. We all expect that big companies know what they are doing—I mean, that's how they got so big, right? But the truth is that they are stumbling along just like everyone else.

There's a great book called Everyone is Normal Until You Get to Know Them, and we need to think the same way about companies. From the outside, those name-brand companies seem like they must be efficient and smart (and in many ways they are), but they have problems just like everyone else. Look at any company long enough and closely enough and you'll see all sorts of weird things they do.

Remember, no big company ever got to be where they are by doing things the way they do them now. (That's an old saying I just made up.)

From my time at IBM, I realized that there are many advantages from being big, but many disadvantages, too. For example, it can take a very long time to get everyone mobilized around a change, but once you get over the hump, you have huge leverage to make things happen. I remember that it took almost six months to even get started with search marketing at ibm.com, but a year into the project it was worth tens of millions in added revenue.

I think that people in small companies enjoy hearing that big companies are clueless. I mean, all companies are clueless sometimes, but we pass along the stories of big company dopiness because it's more entertaining. And the fact that people will make fun of their mistakes is one of the things that makes it braver for people at big companies to try the big experiment. I tell people to Do It Wrong Quickly, but at big companies, many people are afraid to ever make a mistake, because people will talk about it.

So, if you are working in a big company, or with a big company, give them a break. Don't expect that they will have it together just because they are big. Big companies have just as much trouble to adjust to Internet marketing as small ones do. In fact. the adjustment is harder for big companies because their past success gives them so much more to lose.

We all need to take the brave step of moving past the past. If you work for a big company, it's a bigger step and a step more fraught with risk than for smaller companies. And how come nothing is ever fraught with anything good, anyway? Maybe this whole Internet marketing thing needs to be considered a "fraught exercise." Every action is fraught with danger, but the only way to success is to try as many of those actions as possible. Keep trying and some things will start to work. Even in a big company.

Posted by MikeMoran at 2:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 9, 2008

Do We Really Understand Personas?

Personas are all the rage and we love to talk about them, cool Internet marketers that we are. But when my family tried to arrange live-in health care for my ailing father-in-law, I found out how little-used personas are in some pockets of the Web. Perhaps big honking Web sites developed by fancy consultants have been persona'd to death by now, but the Mom and Pop dot com is still posting pictures of employees with canned copy that makes your hair hurt. The home health care industry, at least in suburban New York City, has a long way to go before their Web sites could help me with my problem. Check out my new post on Small Business Answers, "Do We Really Understand Personas?"

Posted by MikeMoran at 3:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 8, 2008

How Does Google Outperform Expectations?

by Josh Greenfield

In 2007, Google's search business, which is predominantly comprised of the common text ad, produced $10.6 billion dollars in revenue. That's $10.6 billion dollars for essentially selling one 25-character title, two 35-character lines of body copy and one vanity URL of the customer's choosing. That's an amazing return for such a simple and easy-to-deliver service. Still, Google struggles with what seems to be their single remaining obstacle: investor expectations.

Analysts (and Google itself) expect outrageous margins and consistent innovation home runs. Fair enough for a company that has consistently achieved in this arena, but (aside from quality score) I can't help but wondering why Google has kept innovation and product diversity away from the core of their business, the text ad.

For arguments sake, let's say the average cost-per-click (CPC) in 2007 was $2. If that was the actual number, there was in the neighborhood of five billion paid clicks. If Google could make an extra 10% premium on even half those clicks, they would clear an extra billion dollars. How could they get people to pay 10% more? Suppose Google offered the option to write a third line of body copy for that 10% premium?

To begin with, search marketers would have increased potential for persuasion. Let's be honest, even the best copywriter can't make miracles happen with 70 characters. As a search marketer, I would absolutely pay a 10% premium on my click to get an additional 35 characters. An additional line of copy gives marketers the ability to convey a more complete message. It also increases their relative share of voice on the page. A higher share of voice and more complete messaging should then result in higher clickthrough and conversion rates.

A better user experience would likely result as well. As a Google user, an extra 35 characters on a search ad would make me more informed about what I was clicking on. Natural search results get about four times the number of characters and, if they're well-written, infinitely more informative. It's no wonder that they get more than three times the number of clicks.

The biggest improvement would likely be to Google's bottom line. Obviously, all of these numbers are estimates, but when you start to play with the math and take into account higher clickthrough rates and different cost premiums, you end up with a ton of money every time. Implementing this simple innovation could line Google's already deep pockets with another billion or two dollars a year, and make those expectant shareholders happy again.

If you're reading this and think I'm crazy for suggesting a fix to something that ain't yet broke, ask a Microsoft shareholder how well that attitude is working out.

Posted by JoshGreenfield at 10:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 5, 2008

Can Web Designers and Search Experts Work Together?

by Frank Reed

Web sites are complicated, and they need lots of different skills to make them work. Every Web site needs a designer and a search marketing expert, but how do they work together? Sometimes it seems that the two don't know enough about each other to make it work.

I gave one of my Internet Marketing 101 presentations this week to a group of small business folks in Morrisville, NC at the Chamber of Commerce. Morrisville is a "small" town that is nestled between one of the most desirable towns to live in according to Money magazine (Cary, NC) and the Research Triangle Park which has a strong reputation for being home to many technology start-ups. Surprisingly, there are about 900 businesses of all shapes and sizes in the Morrisville area and their proximity to a high tech hot spot like the Research Triangle would lead you to believe that tech-savvy folks would be the norm. Well, tech-savvy and Internet marketing don't always play together and often times are complete strangers.

During this presentation, I had a lot of folks who were nodding their heads appearing to show a basic understanding about search engine optimization and paid search marketing. Blogging, on the other hand, is the equivalent of taking a rocket ship to Saturn for most small business folks. It sounds real cool but it's more fantasy than anything else.

The thing that I observe every time I make these presentations is the amount of erroneous information that flies around what search marketing is and how to do it. This "basic" understanding that many have is only defined by what their idea of what "experts" have told them.

Oftentimes it's web designers that are telling them what they need to do etc. Now all web designers please turn away while I unpack this. Most of the time, web designers are very well intentioned with their advice. But here's the catch. I don't pretend to be a designer and I should not give Web design advice based on my knowledge of how it really is done. My level of expertise is equivalent to saying that I am not a Web designer but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. You get my point.

Well, having said that, I have a recommendation to Web designers. Leave the search marketing talk to the folks on this side of the ledger. I am now a firm believer that these two disciplines are so "specialized" that it's very rare to find someone who knows and delivers both extremely well. The "advice" that I heard handed out as if it was "the word" by designers, was at times basic and at other times completely wrong (note to everyone, flash and the search engines DO NOT play well together and will not for the foreseeable future ).

Honestly, because SMB's rarely have the time to do in depth research. It follows that these folks have to rely on their circle of experts for guidance and if that circle does not include people who specialize in either design or internet marketing but rather are a "generalist" there is a very good chance that the information they get on design, internet marketing or, even worse, both will be limited. Oh and by the way, regardless of where you are in this deal, submitting your site to search engines IS NOT search engine optimization. In fact, if you continually resubmit pages to Google you run the risk of getting them a bit upset.

First stop for all small business search marketer s should be Google's Webmaster Guidelines. From there, you will at least know the basics from the real source and you can then measure what you hear to some degree.

Here's my best advice to all of the small business folks out there: When all else fails (or seems overwhelming) do what Google says. At least you will know the basics from the one place where most of your success in search marketing will come from. As I tell people all the time, it's a Google world and we're all allowed to play in it.

So Web designers who are reading this, let me have it. Show me how you are the exception to what I believe is the rule. And to you search marketers, what are the most common design issues that you have to undo in order to actually do search marketing? SMBs desperately need good advice that can be trusted. If you do both and you do them well, then this is your chance to show off. I look forward to hearing from ALL of you.

Posted by FrankReed at 4:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 4, 2008

The Biggest Threat to Google

What do you think is the biggest threat to Google? Yeah, I know, nothing seems to be threatening them a whole lot at the moment, but they probably worry about something over at the Googleplex. You might think that they are concerned about Yahoo! or some other new search engine supplanting them at the top, but I don't think so. I tell you what I think keeps Larry and Sergey up at night in my Internet Evolution article called "The Biggest Threat to Google."

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Mama Don't Take My Google Chrome Away!

Just a few years ago, browsers were boring. Well, make that "browser was boring" because essentially Internet Explorer was the only browser. But now Safari, Firefox, and, today, Google Chrome are inspiring fervent users who wil change browsers when you rip their favorite out of their cold, dead hands. What does that mean to Web site owners and developers? More work, that's what. Read all about it in my post on Small Business Answers called "Mama Don't Take My Google Chrome Away."

Posted by MikeMoran at 2:20 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 2, 2008

Do Internet Bandwidth Caps Affect Internet Marketing?

The big story last week surrounded Comcast's imposition of a limit on the amount of data that its subscribers can transfer across the Internet each month. Comcast's bandwidth cap is set at 250 gigabytes each month, which is far higher than the three gigabytes that the average Internet user downloads and uploads each month. So there won't be any effect on Internet marketing, right? Not so fast. The end of all-you-can-eat pricing has subtle effects that we shouldn't overlook. Don't focus on Comcast's practical limit—you need to watch what other player are doing, and more importantly, how a cap of any kind might affect consumer behavior.

While Comcast's 250 GB cap seems ample, it's not the only cap talk around. While Comcast is the only notable ISP to set a system-wide cap, Time-Warner is running an experiment in Beaumont, Texas that allows only 5 GB a month at the low $30 a month rate, charging $55 to get as much as 40 GB a month. In addition, AT&T calls a bandwidth cap "inevitable."

Let's look more closely on what the caps mean. Comcast's cap has little practical effect on anyone's Internet usage. Unless you are downloading dozens of HD movies, you won't get anywhere near the cap, but Time-Warner's cap is very different. Now, it's only a test, so we must wait and see what Time-Warner and AT&T (and other ISPs) eventually roll out system-wide, but a 5 GB cap could affect many heavy users. A 40 GB cap would affect few users today, but might affect many down the road.

Here's why: Surfing Web pages and sending e-mail uses precious little bandwidth. Even uploading and downloading images doesn't spike the bandwidth meter. But once you start looking at video, all best are off. If you begin using your Internet connection to download standard definition movies, at 1.5 GB a pop, or high-definition movies at 6-8 GB each, you can run out of capped bandwidth in a hurry. In addition, other services, such as Internet storage that is used for backing up your computer can chew up bandwidth if consumers are making full image copies of their 200GB hard drives a few times a month. Are you a heavy Slingbox user? Perhaps you won't be if it bangs into your bandwidth cap.

So, we'll see what the ISPs do, but a Time-Warner-style cap will have big impact now, while a Comcast-like cap will not have much impact on usage today. It seems that any kind of cap will likely slow adoption of new bandwidth-intensive services.

But we need to think beyond the practical impact of a cap to the more subtle behavior changes that it might cause. Few people will take the time to become savvy about how much data 250 GB is. Instead, I expect consumer behavior to polarize around two easy-to-understand models: all-you-can-eat or a la carte. Consumers have learned to use the Internet as an all-you-can-eat service. They've learned to use television the same way. But they don't acquire consumer electronics the same way. They don't download songs to their iPods the same way. Why? Because most things in life are not all-you-can-eat. You pay based on how much you use.

Don't you think that Internet usage would be far different if we paid for how much we used? Well, you don't have to guess, because our cell phones already tell us the answer. Web usage is far lower on mobile devices, which is no surpise, because wireless phone providers in most countries charge for what is used. This is gradually starting to change, but consumers have been taught to be careful how much they use, so they use very little.

If consumers begin to get the idea that their computer-based Internet usage is capped by their ISP, they can easily change their behavior to their other model—watch how much you use. What is unlikely is that they'll take the time to understand how big their cap is and to monitor their usage each month. Cell phones are again instructive. Most people are careful about how much they use their cell phones even though they rarely exceed the minutes in their monthly plans. In fact, most people will try to buy more monthly minutes than they will really need, so that they won't exceed them. Because it's too complicated to monitor, they'd prefer to make the complicated decision of how many minutes to buy once, so they can think about their everday cell phone usage as all-you-can-eat (and therefore not think about it at all).

I believe that people gravitate toward all-you-can-eat models when affordable, while minimizing usage when all-you-can-eat is unaffordable. So, how people perceive these Internet bandwidth caps are critical to deciding whether they will affect Internet marketing. If people believe that they'll never reach the cap (which might be true for a while with Comcast's) or they believe that they can afford to pay for whatever tier of service is all they can eat, then the caps will have no effect on Internet marketing at all. If, however, people believe that their usage is really affected, they might start prioritizing how they want to use their bandwidth.

Obviously, priorities will include anything we do now and exclude anything we don't. So, if you're not downloading movies today, you won't start. If you don't currently back up your computer into the cloud, you aren't about to make the switch. But if people start actually hitting the caps (highly possible in the Time-Warner test), they might be forced to prioritize many more Internet tasks.

The biggest effect on Internet marketing might be with YouTube. As many Internet marketers are thinking about how to get their video messages to "go viral," what would happen if watching videos is the first casualty of bandwidth caps? It's clear to me that watching video is one of the least-entrenched online behaviors at the moment, and it is bandwidth intensive. Regardless of whether it's reasonable or not, those folks on that $30 a month Time-Warner plan in Beaumont might hit those caps a few times and suddenly decide that they need a simple rule that ensures they don't end up hitting their cap again. "No videos" seems like a simple rule that would be guaranteed to work.

Just at the point where we were all hoping that wireless providers would be relaxing their caps so that the average cell phone user might start using the mobile Web, now the specter of caps on computer Internet bandwidth makes us wonder whether video's time has not yet come. Watch the stories over the next few months to see what the impact of bandwidth caps might be on Internet marketing.




If you receive this newsletter once per month but are left wanting more, you could be reading these rants every day. Sign up for the daily Biznology blog as an RSS feed or by e-mail and other options.

Posted by MikeMoran at 8:46 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack