« May 2006 | SEO Blog | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

Friday Recap

Did you hear Google launched Google Checkout? You did? Really? Because it didn't get any coverage.

Okay, so it was hard to miss, but if you haven't read anyone else's coverage because you're so loyal that you were waiting for us to blog about it (and by the way, you're awesome), Google Checkout is a streamlined payment system tightly integrated into AdWords. Not a PayPal killer, sorry.

Chris Sherman explains those with a Google account can sign into their account on a retailer's web site and click once to complete the checkout process using the credit card number stored within their Google account. No more repetitive, detailed forms with shipping and payment information. Sort of like how Amazon works. It's great, until some hacks into your Google account.

What's scary is that 24 hours before Checkout was released, without even trying it or seeing what it was about, more than 45 percent of users said they would switch from PayPal to GBuy, according to a Digital Point poll. People are sometimes slightly crazy in the head.

Ask removed its "legacy filters" we reported on last week to enable pedophiles to search users to find information on "sensitive topics". Way to succumb to peer pressure, guys. I know, I know, censorship is a bad thing.

Yahoo! launched a beta of its new mobile mail service this week. The most notable change? Your mail is now searchable. Cool.

Kudos to MSN for sending msndude back into the forums to address a disgruntled user's complaint. In a recent WMW thread, a webmaster accused MSN Search of "disregarding sites with too much AdSense on their pages." Where every other engine would have ignored the ranting, msndude took the time to respond and even asked the member to send him the URL in question to determine if it was MSN's bug, and if it was, it could be fixed immediately. What a guy.

Robert Scoble is moving to Half Moon Bay and has provided users with a view of his very pretty Washington home. Fine, maybe it's not so much for users as it is for prospective buyers, but a girl can dream, can't she? I want his kitchen. And that backyard. Mmm, trees.

This is pretty awesome. Coolz0r (I'm really wishing I knew "Coolz0r's" real name...) alerts us to some classic movies that have "fallen out of copyright", meaning you can watch them for free courtesy of Google Video. Titles include Night of the Living Dead, Gunsmoke Ranch, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Phantom.

Phil Lenssen let us in on the secret to Google Book Search. Human fingers. Yes, Google scans each and every page by hand. But be careful, it looks like too much exposure to the Google scanner causes some sort of hand mutation. Eww to weird pixelated fingers.

I'm not sure how they plan to do it, but Andy Beal says China wants to "strangle blogs and search engines". Forget that blogs are growing at unheard of rates, and people would likely die without daily their Google intake, China says the duo spread "illegal and unhealthy information" and they want them "under control". Note to self: Don't move to China. Ever.

For those worried, Matt Cutts is alive, well and making appearances over at Google Blogoscoped. Matt chimed in to help clear up some confusion over the on again/ off again Google Account Authentication Proxy page. Some users hypothesized the page had been pulled after it had been reported missing by multiple sources, but Matt says it was likely they were just accessing older data centers. It's nice to have Matt back.

Andy Beal alerted us to some blog prostitution going on. Don't look so shocked. PayPerPost.com (I'm not linking, sorry) just launched and gives advertisers a way to find bloggers they can pay to write and endorse products for them. Even better, it doesn't require them to provide any type of disclosure. Eeeexcellent.

Also excellent is the site's homepage: He wants to create buzz. She wants to make money. [cue suggestive music.]

It would be funny if the whole thing wasn't just a bad, bad, horrible idea. Bloggers have a hard enough time maintaining any sort of un-hyped credibility. Planting that seed of doubt is no good.

Disclosure: Neither I, nor Bruce Clay, Inc., was paid to endorse PayPerPost.com or any of the other companies, individuals, or mutated fingers mentioned in this entry. But only because no one offered. Otherwise, we totally would have done it.

Kidding! Enjoy your July 4th weekend. Be safe and we'll see you on Wednesday.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/30/06 at 4:32 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Ask, Fun Stuff, Google, Live Search, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines, Yahoo

Yahoo! Settles Click Fraud Lawsuit

Advertisers who found Google's $90 million click fraud settlement insulting may or may not want to read through the terms of Yahoo!'s new settlement deal.

A Los Angeles judge approved a preliminary settlement Wednesday that has Yahoo! paying out $4.95 million to cover advertisers' legal expenses and extending its click fraud review period from sixty days to two and a half months. And that's it. They haven't agreed to refund any of the advertisers' money, give them credit for confirmed fraud or make any amends in any way. They just promised to look over complaints on an individual basis.

The suit was first brought by the Checkmate Strategic Group in June 2005 and this settlement could release Yahoo! from any liability in the Lane's Gift's & Collectibles, LLC case.

In addition to the cash refunds, Yahoo! says they will:

• Appoint a Traffic Quality Advocate to address advertisers' concerns about click fraud and traffic quality issues.
• Host a panel of individual advertisers once a year to review its systems, meet with the clickthrough protection team and provide feedback.
• Work with reputable third parties to create an industry-wide definition of click fraud, a comprehensive list of identified bots.
• Commit technical and human resources to build a Traffic Quality Resource Center to provide advertisers with information regarding traffic quality issues, best practices guides and additional access to analytics tools.

The smaller Yahoo! settlement differs from Google's in both size and scope. Where Google is offering users $60 million worth of advertising credit, Yahoo! is offering a potentially limitless cash refund to all advertisers they feel suffered as a result of click fraud. Of course, that's the slightly unsettling part: it's up to Yahoo! to determine who has and has not been affected. No conflict of interest there.

But Yahoo! isn't worried. The engine's reps say their click fraud system has already identified and not billed advertisers for billions of clicks. They're confident the payout won't be too arduous thanks to all the "safeguards [they] already have in place".

The settlement fills me with a healthy dose of skepticism. I know, you're shocked, but with Yahoo! determining who does and does not see a cash refund, what incentive do they have to really dig and investigate advertisers' claims? And their certainty of a reasonable payout makes me even more nervous. Shouldn't they wait for the claims to come in before making statements like that?

Yahoo! lawyer Reggie Davis told reporters it was in Yahoo!'s best interest to keep advertisers happy and that "whatever credits [were] owed [would] be 100 percent forthcoming". Then, John Slate, Yahoo!'s Senior Director of Product Development, told the same bunch of reporters Yahoo! has always "prefer[ed] to err on the side of its advertisers".

Fine, then why isn't a third party ruling over these claims? Why is Yahoo! acting as judge and jury?

I guess that's not entirely fair. MarketingVox reports all claims submitted to Yahoo! will be "subject to review by a retired federal judge who will oversee the refund process". My next question: who is Judge Taylor and what, if any, is his connection to Yahoo? I'm not planting conspiracy theories, but I think its vital information.

Maybe advertisers will get to learn about Judge Taylor when their lawyers meet with Yahoo's clickthrough protection team. Yahoo! has extended an invitation to the plaintiff's attorneys and experts to meet with its team to help familiarize them with the controls Yahoo! has in place to prevent click fraud.

I'll be interested to hear advertisers' response to this settlement over the coming days. Can they really be happy with Yahoo! only having to promise to review their claims? Wasn't it Yahoo!'s inadequate response that triggered the class-action lawsuit in the first place? Or is Yahoo!'s promise for a more vigilant future enough to satiate them? This seems like another non-decision if you ask me.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/30/06 at 8:58 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click, Yahoo

June 29, 2006

Knowing the Why

It took me a day or two, but I finally made my way over to the Cre8asite forums to see what all the talk about the recent Persuasion Architecture and the Art of Agreement for Website Success thread was about. If you haven't found your way over there yet, I would definitely encourage it.

The conversation starts with a review of the new Eisenberg brothers' book (you know Bryan & Jeffrey, right? Fine, I didn't know who they were, but my spell check seems to...), but eventually transforms into an insightful debate about your site's ability/ responsibility to influence and convert users.

Kim, insightful as always, got the conversation flowing by picking out something most marketers are likely to forget.

"What struck me most, as I'm reading, is the reminder that people come to our web sites because they have volunteered to do so. Even if you did something to drive them there, they still came of their own free will. They have agreed to see what you do. Now what?"

It's an important concept to remember. No one forced your customer's hand and made them visit your site. They took a leap faith that your site could give them the information/ product/ service they were looking for.

But now what? What are you going to do with them? Is your site really relevant to their needs? Or are they already eyeing the Back button? What is the purpose of your site? Is it to sell or to help your customer buy?

One forum member argued sites needs to do two things. First, they need to get out of their own way and sell to the consumer who already knows what he wants, and secondly, they need to educate and motivate consumers who are still in that pivotal decision process.

Honestly, I don't know many sites that would be able to do both efficiently. I think you need to figure out who your customer is (the buyer or the researcher), determine why they chose you (or why they didn't choose a competitor), and target your site to them.

A good way to do this is to create a persona (have you met Jane?) to help you form a more complete picture of your customer's needs and behaviors. Who are they? Are they detail-oriented? Do they want to know how your product works before they try it or does your brand carry more weight? How comfortable are they on the Web? How complex can your site be?

Once you know who you're targeting you'll have a better idea of who you're selling to. One small tweak can make a huge difference.

Another interesting topic sparked by the thread dealt with knowing the satisfaction level of your customer. Sure, they made a purchase, but were they happy about it? Will they be back or did they resent the process?

As one forum member pointed out, answering that question is harder than it looks.

"Even if we had the money to have a focus group study, we know those are 10% truth, 90% well indented lies. People say one thing and then the eyelabs show they do another."

So how do you find out what people really think?

I think the only way you can find out if customers are really happy with your site is to look at your return rate. There's no form, rating system or questionnaire in existence that will give you an unbiased result. Why? Because content people don't fill out comment cards. Angry people and suck-ups do.

Kim's thread encourages marketers to look beyond the instant gratification of today's conversion. Successful marketers study habits, not just results.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/29/06 at 9:49 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Analytics, Design, Search Engine Optimization

June 27, 2006

Trouble for Microsoft?

The head of the European Union said she will decide by the end of next month whether or not to impose a fine of $2.5 million a day fine against Microsoft for "fail[ing] to fully implement the EU's 2004 antitrust decision", according to the BBC News.

Two years ago the Commission ruled Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in the market and ordered them to provide competitors with "complete and accurate" information regarding its Windows OS to aide rivals in building comparable systems.

If imposed, the fine would be retroactive to Dec. 15, 2005, the deadline originally set for Microsoft to comply. This means if the Commission goes along with the $2.5 million a day fine, by July 18th --- the date Microsoft is supposed to submit the final installment – the current fine will be nearly as much as the $497 million fine originally imposed in 2004.

According to the EU, Microsoft has been too slow to act, hiding behind the claim that the ruling would force them to sacrifice trade secrets. Microsoft officials disagree, saying they have been nothing but diligent with handing over information.

Horacio Gutierrez, Associate General Counsel of Microsoft:

"Microsoft has complied fully with every instruction given by the commission. Any fine would be unjustified and unnecessary.''

I'm tempted to agree, but either way I don't think it will come to fines. The EU has gone more than five months without imposing them and I think if it got real close Microsoft would be able to swoop in and make everything right.

Or at least I kind of hope they could. Surely, there are about 497 million other ways Microsoft would rather use $497 million dollars than give it to the EU. Some of them probably don't even have anything to do with catching up to Google or Yahoo!.

The impending deadline has caused bloggers, insiders and know-it-alls (like there's a difference) to do a lot of talking. So far I've heard everything from people claiming the EU is using Microsoft to scare other companies into building their own reserves against antitrust judgments, that Microsoft is still the epicenter of evil, and the more ridiculous notion that Microsoft should just "take their ball and go home", effectively alienating all of Europe.

I can't help but think people are going about this wrong.

Everyone wants to create the next Windows. Yahoo! wants to be the next Google. Google wants to be the next Yahoo. Instead of forcing Microsoft to give competitors a complete how-to-guide for building their successor, why not force them to put their resources into designing something better than Windows (no offense, Bill). Why be the next Google when you can be something entirely different and incrementally better?

There's too much copycat-ing going on already. Someone needs to step up and do something new. Like the wise voice of the cornfield said, if you build it, they will come.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/27/06 at 2:46 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Microsoft

June 26, 2006

Weekend Update

So much news in just two little days:

ClickZ reports that MSN adCenter is running an ad in the New York Times that promises site owners a 57 percent higher conversion rate than Google and a 48 percent higher conversion rate than Yahoo. The ad pictures a little girl and her dollhouse and reads, "She found your furniture ad on Google".

Is the point that even though a five-year-old can find your ad doesn't mean they'll convert? Without seeing it, I'm somewhat confused by the juxtaposition. I may have to go buy myself a copy of the Times later.

JenSense shows us why you should be careful what you wish for. While some sites may be having a difficult time getting their pages indexed, three friendly Yahoo! Search Marketing spiders visited one of Jen's blog entries 83,000 times over a 24 hour period, soaking up 3 GB bandwidth on a single page. Hopefully the bot isn't as friendly to smaller sites that would be unable to handle such a jump, because you know, that could be a problem.

After Google's very public problem with sub subdomains, a friend of SEO Scoop spent two hours creating a bot to dig out spammy sites to see if Adam and his team had really fixed the problem. What did he find?

"Approximately 10,902,060 pages of spam spread across 157 domains, each with a minimum of 5,000 pages indexed in Google. The “vast majority” of these domains are less than 2 months old, with some as recent as 4 days... 75 of the domains have greater than 55,000 pages indexed, which was about the number of pages that the original domain was said to have. 26 of them had 3-5 times that number of pages."

Yowsa. It'll be interesting to hear MiniMatt's response to this one. Hopefully it's not, "we are aware of the problem and are fixing it right now".

An eye-tracking study conducted by the Nielsen Norman Group found that users have "banner blindness" and tend to ignore bright, flashing banner ads and are more apt to look at text advertising. Southern California is also expected to have a warm summer.

The Catawba County School has been granted a temporary injunction against Google alleging conversion and trespassing after a Google spider "hacked" into a restricted area, "grabbed information they shouldn't have"(including students' Social Security Numbers and test scores) and "posted it on the Interweb". Huh? In what world can a spider enter in a username and password? This sounds like The Spider of Doom all over again. I say someone either left something open or posted a link where they shouldn't have. You can't blame Google.

One of John Battelle's readers discovered Google isn't returning results for "amazon.com". Weird. A bug? Or "a bug"? Or perhaps it's because when you type in amazon.com in your address bar it redirects you to an alternative URL. Either way, an interesting find.

Now, normally when I come across nuggets like this I giggle to myself and tuck it away for Friday, but this is just too fun. Barry found a dress up Matt Cutts Web site where users get to have their way with one of our favorite Googlers. I think you'll agree the superhero outfit is definitely the best. If only there were matching glasses...

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/26/06 at 4:52 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Google, Search Engine Optimization, Yahoo

June 23, 2006

Friday Recap

The folks at Hammer Of Truth have outed Ask as having "a blatantly stupid filtering engine" (geez...) because it blocks even innocuous searches that deal with children and sex (like sex of child or talking to your children about sex). Any query that contains the words "child" and "sex" or "kids" and "sex" brings up a message from Ask directing users to its TOS instead of actual results.

Is Ask's engine a little too strict? Probably. Censoring words of any kind is a slippery slope, and not allowing users to search for educational information on sensitive topics will just send them to a different engine.

However, I do kind of like that searching for certain terms (sex [with no mention of children], rape, abuse, etc.) brings up education resources instead of the explicit content likely to be found on other engines. In fact, if a user searches for the term "sex", Ask allows you to Narrow or Expand You Search for topics like "child sex education", "where do babies come from", "sex education for teens" and others. The information is out there, it's all in the wording.

Coincidently, the Long Island politician who brought a suit against Google for profiting from child pornography has dropped his case after Google offered to sit down and resolve the issue with him. That's good to hear.

Michael Arrington gives us a sneak preview of what Digg will look like Monday morning. The new and improved Digg site will include six new topic categories, allow users to see items their friends "dugg", and will feature just enough Ajax that users won't have to refresh when switching between headlines and new stories. Sounds good. Jason Calacanis should have waited before re-releasing Netscape. He may have learned something.

Nart Villeneuve discovered that Tom Online, Skype's Chinese client, automatically installs censorware on users' computers without telling them and uses it to filter conversations. Once a user downloads Tom-Skype, an executable file called ContentFilter.exe is also placed on their computer. The program then installs a "keyfile" into their system designed to censor whatever words Tom Online employees plug into it. This keyfile cannot be erased even if a user tries to uninstall the Tom-Skype software. Nart has screenshots over on her blog. Some seriously scary stuff, or as I like to call it, SSSS.

The Google AdSense blog now answers users' questions in the form of short videos. Clever, I say. Now if they could just get their Google rep to seem a little less bored and a lot more like she's not reading her answers off a teleprompter. It's kind of ruining the warm and fuzzy feel.

Google Video is running a new feature called Free Today, which allows users to watch select premium videos for free as Google tests its new content sponsorship program. For a limited time, users can watch videos that would normally cost them between $.99 and $14.99 for free in return for watching an ad at the end. I like this for one reason: Felix!

Friday, June 30th is being harked as the day the spam will end. Why? Because that's when Matt Cutts will reportedly be back from his extended vacation. In case you're interested in tracking Matt by the hour, Thomas Bindl created the Matt Cutts' Vacation Countdownbeta. Cuttlets do tend to get a little crazy, don't they?

[In true Cuttlet spirit, I remind you there are only five days to get me this before my birthday on Wednesday. Your cooperation in this matter is much appreciated. Thank you.]

An article in Pacific Epoch claims Google expects to have over 1,000 employees in Google China by 2007. Guess they're not pulling out, huh. We expect the rest of the world to be working for Google by 2009.

Phil Lenssen put his art skills to work this week with his If Websites Were Remote Controls post. I'm especially fond of the MySpace remote, but I don't think the Google one is accurate. Would Google really ever feature an "off" button? Not likely.

One of the greatest things about children's books is there is always a good lesson inside. In order to prepare your young ones for the digital age, Matthew Baldwin gave us his cautionary tale, Files Are Not For Sharing. Don't let your kids hear about this on the streets. If you talk, they'll listen.

Or in case you're just looking for a baby, Barry Schwartz found some cheap ones being sold on eBay. Get 'em while they're hot!

If you haven't had a good cry lately (admit it, sometimes it helps), you may want to head over to Kim Krause's blog and read Why Are Baseball Pants Inside the Freezer? If that doesn't get you all choked up, pull the plug, man, you're already dead inside.

Kim's forum is also running a fun thread entitled You Know You've Been In SEO Too Long When. The more giggle-worthy responses include:

• Someone found something and you ask "on which data center?"
• You actually use SERP in a conversation.
• When your first action on the website of a business partner is "view source".
• You find yourself attempting to highlight text "just to make sure it isn't an image".
• "Big Daddy" means anything to you but the band, movie or expression.
• You can tell Larry and Sergey apart.
• You read through a magazine and are unable to find an article, and you begin looking for ctrl + f keys in the magazine

If you ask me, someone needs to figure out how to implement that last one. It would also be especially helpful while grocery shopping. I'm just throwing it out there.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/23/06 at 3:09 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL, Ask, Branding, Design, Fun Stuff, Google, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

June 22, 2006

The State of the Engines

The engines haven't been getting too much love. And if you've spent any time reading tech news, you know why: it's been a buggy, "where did my site go" couple of weeks. Even Barry Schwartz blogged he had no fallback engines and was always left wanting more. What's going on?

Google

They are the biggest name in search, and big fame brings big responsibility. Of course, it also means each one of your blunders will be picked out, analyzed and then used to bash you over the head with. And that's the kind of week (month?) Google's been having.

Early this week a DigitalPoint thread showed a single spammer was able to get five billion recently created pages indexed and ranked using cloaking, content scraping, traffic boosting, excessive sub domains and other tactics. A how-to guide for wannabe spammers was then posted.

Jumping into action, MiniMatt aka Adam Lasnik issued a statement saying Google was aware of the problem and was "fixing it now". The offending pages were quickly de-listed, but users will still enraged, especially the folks at SEO Scoop.

Right after came rumors that Google pages had been hacked and were hosting malicious Trojan code, which Google denied. Then, a Threadwatch member pointed out a query for queer forum returned Craigslist listings 97 percent of the time and a search on wedding forum returned them 50 percent of the time. Clearly proof Google never fixed the sub sub domain problems reported earlier (like they told us) and offending sites were simply manually removed. And of course, now there's the Google Answers "censorship" issue.

Yahoo!

Even Yahoo's big New York brain couldn't help them escape the attention that comes with being sued for trademark infringement, even if it did give us some amusing images.

While Yahoo! was trying to put out that fire, a myriad of users began complaining it was too easy to spam your way to the top of Yahoo!'s SERP using blog comments. One member noted when he checked the backlinks for a well-ranked, seemingly spammy site they had "thousands of links from guestbook's and blog comments". To be fair, Yahoo!'s not the only one receiving criticism on this front.

Yahoo! also proved Google isn't the only one experiencing sub sub domain issues.

MSN

It's hard to have confidence in an engine that can't seem to keep its employees on board. First Scoble quit, then Gates and now Martin Taylor, the Vice President of Windows Live & MSN Marketing is leaving under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Fishy.

Even without the inner turmoil, users still don't feel they can trust MSN Search because its heavy reliance on page titles for rankings makes it too easy to spam. In fact, yesterday's comScore numbers showed MSN is losing search ground, falling 2.4 percent from last year.

In response to MSN's lackluster performance, Barry Schwartz said: "MSN, well, that is MSN." Touché, Barry.

Ask.com

We're big cheerleaders of Ask, but even with the great tools we admit they're too slow to update their index. All the sponsorships in the world won't help if you can't convince users you have something to offer, and right now that's what Ask needs to do. If they want to move up from their number four spot, they need to show users their engine is just as good (if not better) than Google's, Yahoo's and MSN's. Right now, Ask isn't even on most people's radar, and that's a shame.

So where does that leave us, the user? Well, unless you're ready to scrap the major engines and either start your own we need to set some ground rules for peaceful coexistence. Here's what I suggest:

To the engines: Most user frustration comes from not knowing what's going on. Users don't know why their sites are disappearing from the index, they don't know why spammy sites are ranking higher than theirs and they're feeling left out of the loop. Keeping them informed will help keep them loyal and stop them from sending you death threats eyeing other engines.

And many of you have been doing a great job with this lately. With Matt Cutts still on extended vacation (don't worry, he'll be back in 7 days, 20 hours, a bunch of seconds), MiniMatt aka Adam Lasnik has stepped up and has been seen fielding questions and clearing up rumors over at John Battelle's blog and Digg.

Microsoft has also been using the grassroots approach and encouraging user participation. Hopefully we'll start to see more, and not less, of this in the future.

Next, when you say you're going to do something, we need you to do it or at least admit you haven't. No more just making it look like you did it. Why? Because issuing a "hand editing job" instead of solving the real problem will only come back to hurt you. For example, when users discovered Craigslist listings overpopulating Google's SERP, it was clear Google had not resolved the sub sub domain issue like they had assured us. Users felt misled, and no one likes being lied to.

To the users: Exhibit a little bit of patience. Google seems to be experiencing some kinks, there is talk Yahoo! is going through an update, MSN is in inner turmoil and Ask is a little slow to shoot these days.

But don't give up. Have faith that your favorite search engine will bounce back. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

Remember, they're also doing good things. Google has made some tweaks and fixes to AdWords (among other things), Yahoo! is working to improve its index and fight poverty, MSN launched AdLab tools for marketers and Ask is helping people find treasure and gaining market share. If you're criticizing them, also make sure you're giving them their props.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/22/06 at 4:09 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Ask, Google, Microsoft, Search Engines, Yahoo

June 20, 2006

Giving the engines their props

The search engines have received a lot of flak lately, and we admit we're just as guilty as the next guy for handing it out. But it's not all bad news coming out of the search headquarters and sometimes the engines deserve their kudos too. Here ya go guys.

Microsoft and Google are working with the Center for Democracy & Technology to create a national consumer privacy law that would inform search engines and their users of exactly what data the government can and cannot subpoena. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to know just how many government organizations are reading my email.

Tech companies like Hewlett Packard, Intel, eBay, Oracle, Symantec and others have already signed on to support a "flexible but legal framework" designed to protect users.

Personally, I think it's a great idea. A baseline privacy law is a necessary first step to re-build consumer trust in the Internet and will help protect all of us online. Users need to know which sites collect what information and who they are required to hand it over to. Giving consumers "reasonable access" to such information helps keep the government's demands in check and makes sure the information is not misused.

Plus, it's always nice to know what you're getting yourself into before you act. Especially with the pending June 28th release of GBuy.

On a different note, Barry Schwartz points to a WMW thread where a MSN representative asks forum members to define quality and authoritative sites and gets their opinion on MSN Search as a whole.

Though we're guilty of sometimes giving MSN a hard time, you have to commend them for consulting users about their personal search experience. I like that MSN is taking the grassroots approach to improving its algorithm and enjoyed reading msndude's interaction with members.

The thread is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it gives webmasters a clue as to what MSN deems important today and how that might differ from what users' find important. Based on the questions MSN is asking, it also gives them a small glimpse into where MSN may go with their algorithm, and that's very interesting.

Where we often criticize some of the other engines for not addressing user complaints, MSN seems to be taking them seriously. Msndude says:

"[The} complaint that we "lost all/most of the quality/authority sites" is common enough that I think it's important to really understand it. That's all I'm trying to do here."

I like that a lot. And I think users responded to the task well, giving msndude some harsh truths. One member explained he felt MSN placed too much importance on page titles (something they've likely heard before...), and that though they may place "some pertinent sites in the top ten", they don't always deliver the "most pertinent and most informational results possible". Some honest observations there.

It will be interesting to see how the grassroots approach works for MSN and whether or not changes will be implemented. If anything, the now seven page thread shows search engines that users have no trouble giving their opinion. All they have to do is ask.

Good job, guys.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/20/06 at 4:44 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Google, Microsoft, Search Engines

June 19, 2006

"We should have used Ask.com!"

I admit it. I watched the entire two hour series of premiere NBC's new "adventure/ mystery reality TV show" Sunday night just because Ask told me to. And I'll probably watch again next week, though perhaps on mute this time. Listening to the mulleted Wild Hanlons hurt me.

If you didn't catch it, Ask is the "official search engine" of the new reality show Treasure Hunters, which is pretty much a rip off of The Amazing Race with a timely Da Vinci Code/ piratey treasure theme twist.

Each three-person team (there are nine left after last night) must "scramble across the globe" to figure out clues in pursuit of "historical artifacts" that will lead them to a mysterious "coveted grand prize". I know, it sounds ridiculous. And really, it is. But then there's Ask!

The contestants use Ask.com to help them decipher the codes and riddles along the way. Last night they learned about US presidents, Mt. Rushmore and Mt. Theodore Roosevelt. They even got to sport Ask.com T-shirts with the number 96 on the back and yell things like, "We should have used Ask.com!" I admit it, I was jealous.

Curious as to what the 96 on the back of the shirts referred to?

Well, you're gonna have to check out Ask's blog entry next week to find out (or go here, shhh). Yes, the boys of Ask have incorporated their blog as a nice little marketing tool for the show. Excellent.

Ask is also running a "play-at-home" type game for viewers using simple trivia questions they can solve by using Ask.com. I didn't attempt the play-at-home game, but Evan Roberts of Marketing Shift did and sadly didn't seem too impressed.

Last night's trivia question: What did Thomas Edison nickname his kids?

According to Evan, Google had the correct answer (Dot and Dash) at number one, while Ask had it at eight. He would have preferred Ask doctor the results so the correct answer showed up higher on Ask's SERP. I'm not sure I'd condone manipulating the results, but I see where he's going.

If you're going to highlight your search engine, make sure you're showing users how easy it is to use and how accurate the results are. If they have to dig for answers, you're probably losing them, as well as the money you spent for the sponsorship.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the trivia question highlight Ask's Smart Answer feature or their Famous People Search. Unfortunately, this week it didn't. But that's the great thing about reality TV, there's always another episode waiting in the wings. I'll be watching. Now if only I could get my hands on one of those Ask T-shirts. Hmm...

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/19/06 at 3:26 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Ask, Branding

Cloaking by any other name

One of the most frustrating things about newspaper sites is you can't always read the content. The search engines will tell you its there, they'll give you a snippet right there on the SERP, but if you click to read the article you can't. Why? Because it's subscription-based content and you don't have a subscription to the New York Times. Foiled! Now you're bummed and it's back to the SERP you go.

The whole process is annoying and it's frustrating, but is it cloaking? And if it is cloaking, should the New York Times and other such sites be banned for it? That was the subject of Thursday's SearchDay article and it's stirred up quite a bit of buzz in the forums, however, no one has been able to come up with a definitive answer.

Most search engines define cloaking as showing the spiders different content than what the user sees. And if that's the definition you're working from, you have to admit it fits.

Danny Sullivan says he believes the New York Times is guilty of cloaking, but not guilty of spamming. Sort of like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. To Danny, it's special treatment – users are directed to a landing page that tells them they need to pay to see what Google spidered. According to him, it's classic bait and switch.

While I understand Danny's viewpoint, I don't necessarily agree.

I don't think it's cloaking. I think it's more IP delivery (though perhaps a new name is needed). Similar to when you go to Google.com, and because you're logged in (i.e. registered) you're taken to your personalized homepage, not Google.com. If you have a subscription to the Times, and you click on that link, you'll see the article. If you don't, you won't. It's not bait and switch; it's a log-in. And like all V.I.P.s, the search engines just so happen to hold a free lifetime membership card. Don't hate, it's just one of the perks of being a search engine spider.

I think part of the definition of cloaking is that users never see the page the search engine sees. That doesn't fit what's taking place here. Users have the option of seeing exactly what the engines do. If they want it, it's there. They just have to get out a credit card.

Secondly, before you can cry cloaking I think intent needs to be taken into consideration. I don't think anyone believes the Times is trying to distort rankings or mislead users. They're not trying to hide content; they're trying to display it. They want users to know it's there. They want them to be interested. Unfortunately for us, they also want us to subscribe to read it.

Like most users, I don't want to subscribe to read content. I want to read it archived issues of the Times for free, and if I can't, I'd like to know that before I click the link and leave the SERP. And I think that's where the real problem lies for users.

They don't like feeling tricked. They don't like thinking they're about to see something and then feel like it's been taken away from them. Why can't the engines label subscription-based content as being subscription-based? Google and Yahoo! both do it in their news engines, why can't they do it in the main index? I think it's an act of good faith that would go a long way with most users.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/19/06 at 3:24 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization

June 16, 2006

Friday Recap

It's been a tough week for Microsoft fans. First their beloved Scoble announced he was ending his reign as Microsoft's technical evangelist to join Valley-based startup PodTech.net. Then, yesterday Bill Gates announced his own impending departure from Microsoft as he begins the two year process of transferring his Chief Software Architect duties to Ray Ozzie. Who will the Window fanatics rally behind now? Ballmer? Doubtful. Most insiders have Ballmer bowing out in two to five years.

As a testament to the power of blogging, Scoble's exit received considerably more coverage and sparked far more emotion than Gates. The numbers tell the story. While we'll miss hearing about Microsoft through Scoble's honest eyes, we wish him the best over at PodTech. Poor, Chris Coulter. What on earth will he do now?

Reporters Without Borders found Yahoo! to be the worst offender in censorship tests among the search engines, even beating out local Chinese engine Baidu. The results are interesting but the "test's" methodology is somewhat suspect. They only queried six terms and only looked at the top ten results. I'd be interested in seeing this test with an expanded list of test terms and results.

Google will buy the more than 978,000 square feet of land that the Googleplex stands on, according to a filing released by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Google will pay $319 million for the property, as well as $315,000 a month for a ground lease fees. Yowsa.

MySpace has a plan: To keep users firmly planted and increase revenue, the social networking site will auction off its search space to a major search operator. Google, Yahoo! and MSN are all expected to put in bids for the job, and MySpace will (presumably) pick the engine who gives them the best offer. A rather nice position indeed.

Economist.com had a great article yesterday comparing Google, Yahoo!, MSN and our Ask. When Ask's Jim Lanzone was asked how his engine would topple Google's increasing inertia, he responded he would use "search aikido" to use their momentum against them. I love Ask.

Phil Lenssen created a list of Google OneBox results he'd like to see including OneBoxes for social profiles, Google Answers, Chat With A Googler, Instant Recipes and others. It amuses me how demanding people have gotten with OneBoxes. We've grown from wanting sites chock-full of relevant information to just wanting a #!*$ answer.

While I vastly enjoy Phil's finds, his rather long list of Google employee's Orkut pages concerns me. Seriously, he lists twenty of them. Twenty!

Business Week wrote a profile on Google's Marissa Mayer, complete with a full timeline of Marissa's day, and showed me why I will never be a vice president at Google – I require more than five hours of sleep to function and look pretty. And while I'm slightly jealous that Marissa gets to sleep in until 8am (!!), it comforts me to know she only lasts 45 minutes at the gym. I could totally take her.

When you're looking for a bit of nostalgia, we would encourage you to check out the histogram of the Search Engine Relationship Chart®. Remember when Overture was the King of Paid Search? Or when the Search Engine Relationship Chart® looked like a game of Twister gone wrong, instead of the precision-based diagram it is today? Where else can you visually track the Web's growth and many changes? Nowhere, I say.

Are you having trouble clearly reading this? IS THIS BETTER? If so, you may want to trek over to Big.com and try out their big font search engine. Searchers can select between a big, bigger and biggest font size. It's the search equivalent to those big buttoned phones you're likely to find in your great aunt's Brooklyn apartment. Or was that just mine?

Feel like talking to yourself but afraid your coworkers will stare? Try the Anagram Chat that mimics back what you type in true anagram form. I asked it how it was doing today and it said something mean about Yahoo. Heh. (If you don't know what an anagram is: First, shame on you. Second, go here.)

Also interesting, clever Vincent Ferrari recorded what happened when he tried to cancel his AOL service. What ensued is amazing. Or horrifying. I'm not sure which. AOL says they have since fired their horrendous customer service rep. That doesn't mean they're not employing a million more like him.

Oh, and congratulations to Nathan Weinberg who got married on Wednesday. Sending you lots of love from the Bruce Clay, Inc. gang!

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/16/06 at 4:33 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL, Ask, Google, Microsoft, Search Engines, Yahoo

June 15, 2006

MSN Has a Sense of Humor

MSN received a lot of praise and raised eyebrows from the blogosphere this morning when news broke they were looking for people to "hand craft" search results. In fact, Phil Lenssen reacted with a gleeful "Oh my", Barry Schwartz was "amazed" and Danny Sullivan added an emphatic "Hallelujah".

A mysterious job posting was found on the MSN Search jobs page for a Hand Crafted results position. The description read in part:

"You will receive a user query, use all the available search engines to quickly scour the web for results, pick the top 10 results for this query, and send it on to the user. Successful handcrafters can typically find top 10 results for a real-time user’s query in less than 3.8 seconds... If you are an expert at using at least 3 different search engines, well versed with American English/colloquial usage, and can type at > 149 words/minute as measured by the Simia-Lico method – come join us and delight users real-time!"

Unfortunately, MSN was kidding. See, they do have a sense of humor. You'd have to in order to work for MSN. Joke! (Sort of.)

I'm not sure what the biggest tip-off was: that applicants had to type at least 149 (!!) words per minute, they had to be familiar with "the Simia-Lico method" (which doesn't actually exist) or that "hand-crafters" would have 3.8 seconds to scour multiple search engines and deliver results (both because it's impossible and users would never wait that long). Any way you read it, it made no sense.

Despite it seeming completely unfeasible, the posting was very clearly linked off the real MSN page which made it seem legitimate. Or at least legitimate enough that Danny Sullivan wrote a long commentary about MSN and the impact of hand crafted results.

The best was Phil Lenssen who said he could "almost see" the meeting at Microsoft that must have taken place to create such a position. It involves a man admitting MSN "sucks" and the only way to improve it was to steal results from real search engines, like Google and Yahoo. Comedy, and yet, so true.
Well played, MSN. Well played.

If MSN is accepting comments: Personally, I wouldn't mind some hand-crafted search results, as long as they were relevant and unbiased. Who cares if you'd have to wait an entire 3.8 seconds? I could deal with that. Otherwise, stop toying with us.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/15/06 at 5:02 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Microsoft

Things That Make You Go Hmm...

Jason Calacanis thinks copying is a "risk-taking bold step" for AOL -- The self-proclaimed renegade announced AOL will re-brand Netscape.com into "a collection of links to news articles, submitted by users and expanded upon by a staff of bloggers". You know, like Digg.

Actually, it's more than just a Digg clone. It also borrows features from del.icio.us (tags), Yahoo News (ranks stories), Google News (RSS feeds) and Slashdot (human editors). Wow. They sure get around.

The copycat site has thirty different categories ranging from religion, technology, politics, music, and an oddly named Do No Evil category. While I thought it odd AOL had created a Google category, the Do No Evil section is actually for articles dealing with "heroes and villains". I admit this confused me even further until I realized they meant articles about real heroes (activists, military, law enforcement etc.) and villains, and not Superman and the like.

Similar to Slashdot, Netscape has brought together a staff of eight full-time bloggers to do fact checking and provide additional reporting to stories tagged by users. Each category also has a paid anchor (editor) who controls their category's top spot and hosts 24/7 chat sessions.

Calacanis hopes the new community-driven news portal will revitalize the Netscape site, which has seen a 25 percent drop in traffic in the past year. Let's hope copying is in this season.

---

Yahoo! suffers common sense breakdown -- Yahoo! is being sued by the Colorado-based dating service lovecity.com for trademark infringement after allegedly bidding on the terms 'lovecity', 'www.lovecity' and 'lovecity.com' in Google AdWords to help promote Yahoo! Personals.

Seriously? That sounds completely absurd to me. Is Yahoo! that... well, never mind. Unfortunately, I was unable to replicate the search, but I did find some interesting results when searching for 'Yahoo! lovecity'. Weird stuff.

---

Google tries to distract the DOJ -- Google has combined its Government search with its personalized homepage feature to create a U.S. Government Search that makes it easier to find government information and "keep up to date on government news".

The advanced search is targeted towards U.S. government employees and contractor organizations, but may also be of interest to regular users. Searchers will be able to easily access government and commercial news sources, including the White House, Department of Defense, The Washington Post, and Google News. Ooo, daily Department of Defense briefings!

While, I don't see myself using this on a day-to-day (or weekly) basis, it did help me to answer the one pending tax question I had. Of course, now that it's answered I have no use for this.

---

eBay doesn't like you –Starting Monday, sellers in selected categories will be able to add a free "Skype Me" button to their listings so potential buyers can contact them with endless relevant questions. The feature will be available in fourteen high-dollar and complex categories, such as real estate, cars and trucks, silver coins and beds.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't want to talk to buyers. That's why I'm selling my 1969 el Camino on eBay in the first place. Well, that and because I'm bad at lying in person. I think frequent buyers will like this feature a lot more than sellers. Unfortunately, it's the sellers who control whether it appears or not.

The new Skype Me button represents eBay invoking "the power of three", consisting of eBay (No. 1 in ecommerce), PayPal (No. 1 in online payments) and Skype (No. 1 in voice communications). Hmm, I wonder if there are Captain Planet-esque rings involved.

One last thing: Bill Gates has just announced he will be making the "transition out" of his role as Microsoft's Chief Software architect and will hand over the position to CTO Ray Ozzie in two years time. Gates will stay with Microsoft through the next two years. First Scoble, and now Gates?

Say it with me. Hmm...

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/15/06 at 3:45 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL, Branding, Design, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo

June 14, 2006

Helping Marketers Go Local

Having trouble navigating through the local search system? We recommend you take a look through Matt McGee's Local Search Marketing Guide, which shows marketers how to start shifting their advertising dollars from traditional organic and yellow page techniques to local search. The Guide offers a great comprehensive look at local search and has caused many marketers and SEOs to sit up and take notice.

Matt's Guide breaks down local search by engine (Google, Yahoo!, MSN) or by other local provider (CitySearch, InfoUSA and MerchantCircle), and visually shows users how to pilot through each service, pointing to its location and detailing how it works and how they can best market it.

The screenshots Matt uses are great for users interested in seeing what change will have what effect and where. It's a virtual Local Search for Dummies.

Now, if you're like most sites, you haven't seen a dramatic impact coming from local search just yet, but its coming. As users become more familiar with its presence and Google expands its Local OneBox listings on its SERP, local search is primed for a strong takeoff.

Why is local search so important? Because it's highly targeted and its searchers are uniquely motivated. Users don't search locally without a reason. They're looking for a plumber in their hometown because they have a problem they need fixed today. The odds are in your favor that if they find you, they'll contact you. However, if your company's name isn't listed, you'll miss out and a local competitor will claim your conversion.

Local search is especially useful for smaller companies without a Web presence. For a nominal fee, many of the local search providers will host basic Web sites for small businesses, allowing them to display contact information and appear in local searches.

If you're having trouble with local search, we also recommend this article from the January edition of the SEO Newsletter.

(via SEOmoz)

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/14/06 at 2:49 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click

Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft look North

As the search engines grow up and require more room, all eyes are pointed north. Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft are all reported to be constructing new data centers near the Oregon/ Washington border to better handle your constant demand for a faster, stronger Internet.

For Google, last week's New York Times article unmasked yet another Google secret. The NYT used some crafty detective work (or just their eyes) to uncover Google's super secret center of mass computing that is currently offline and being constructed in Oregon.

I can't imagine it was hard to find for anyone actually looking. I mean, how would you hide a data center the size of two football fields with two four-story cooling plants in rural Oregon? I'm just saying, it sticks out.

Of course, even though its existence is now very public, Google remains tightlipped about the complex locally referred to as Project 02 (Did we miss Project 01?). In fact, the NYT reports local officials were forced to sign confidentially agreements with Google that prohibited them from speaking about Project 02.

According to one resident: "No one says the 'G' word. It's a little bit like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in Harry Potter."

You have to love the people of Oregon.

But Google's not the only one growing and expanding. Microsoft and Yahoo are in the process of building big data centers 130 miles north of Google's in Washington. The three powerhouses have been forced to build out their computer capabilities in order to keep up with users' need for immediate results and bandwidth-eating features like video.

Why is the Oregon/ Washington border so popular, you ask? Because that's where the region's largest supply of fiber optic cables are located. Plus, electricity is cheaper, the nearby river provides plenty of water for cooling, there's ample room to grow and it's the perfect backdrop for a made-for-TV movie about a tight-lipped search engine on its way to world domination. No, really.

Honestly, the most fascinating part of the NYT article was the mention that Google uses Velcro to hold its processors in place to allow for easy swapping. Hold on! The heart of this trillion dollar company is being held together with the same material a first grader uses to 'tie' his shoes? Seriously? I guess it's better, and less messy, than duct tape.

In other relocation news: Yahoo! Search Marketing has outgrown its current location in Pasadena and will be making the twenty mile or so hike to Burbank to achieve a more "campus-like" feel. Hmm, maybe they should move on up to Mountain View. I hear there's plenty of campus-like feeling going on over there.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/14/06 at 2:47 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Microsoft, Rumors, Search Engines, Yahoo

June 13, 2006

Where's the line?

Someone asked me last week if Google was evil. Without thinking I responded, "No, [insert name of prominent search engine] is evil". I even rattled off a few reasons as to why this other engine was evil and Google was not. I felt pretty confident about my answer. In fact, I still do. I don't believe that Google is evil, but the last few launches and rumored-to-be-in-the-works announcements got me thinking.

How did Google gain my trust? And is it possible I trust them just a little too much?

We started hearing rumblings of something called Interactive TV late last week. See if you can wrap your head around this. Google Research has developed a prototype where by using your home computer's internal microphone, Google can listen to the ambient noise in a room, figure out what you're watching, and then present you ads on your computer to match the content.

What? Does that creep you out like it does me? Why would I want Google in my living room? Listening to not only what I'm watching, but presumably, also my conversations. Do they need to hear me sweet talking my kitten out of the dishwasher every night? What happens when the DOJ starts going after Google for user's conversations? And even besides all the Big Brother implications, why would I want to be presented with even more commercial advertisements. Just because technology is available, does that make it right?

What about Google's Synch Firefox Toolbar? The deal here is you download this useful Firefox extension and Google will let you 'synch' all your computers. This includes creating one common set of history files, cookies, bookmarks and recording all passwords. Have users really become so lazy and disoriented that they need Google to remember all of their passwords for them? I understand it can be difficult sometimes, but why not just imprint identity barcodes on our foreheads and opt-in to have Google scan them? It all seems a bit extreme.

And maybe that's it. It all seems so extreme and so unnecessary. In reference to GBuy, a service that will give Google unprecedented knowledge about what you buy and who you're buying it from, John Battelle blogged he wasn't sure users were ready to trust Google with their payments. I disagree. I think the average user will be more than happy to hand over even more personal information to Google. I think most people would give Google their original birth certificate if they asked for it and it meant never having to remember anything on their own ever again.

Google is not evil, but there's a middle ground between being evil and being altruistic. I would never give Microsoft or Yahoo! the amount of information that I give Google.

I trust Google, laugh off Yahoo! and fear Microsoft Why? Because I grew up hearing about Microsoft's anti-trust trouble, I still associate Yahoo! with Geocities and Google was the trendier, always free engine of choice. They established themselves as the superior search and then began systematically working their way into my life. They gave me a better image search, news search, Christmas gift finder (Froogle), and more recently email, a blog, calendar, word processor and a spreadsheet. Google's my buddy.

But they are my buddy who watches my surfing behavior, reads my email and keeps track of everything I search for. And that's something users should keep in mind before they hand over all of their unique information to their buddy Google. Before you invite them into your home, remember Google is a business.

Granted, if it wasn't Google reading my email, it would be someone else. But the point is it's not. Google is the keeper of my everything. They told me they do no evil and I believed them. The Dark Side is all around me and Google keeps me safe and warm in the light. It's perhaps the most genius branding strategy of all time.

This is earth shattering I know, but it is possible they will release something you should pass on. If Interactive TV ever becomes a reality, perhaps you shouldn't rush over to be part of the test group. If there's a Let Google Raise Your Baby beta, perhaps you want to hold on to your drooling infant. At least until he's old enough to backtalk.

As a user, what information are you really willing to make public? How willing are you to invite Google the Business into your home. And more importantly, why are you willing?

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/13/06 at 4:32 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Google

How's your word of mouth?

Large and midsized companies aren't doing enough to leverage word of mouth (WOM) marketing when compared to their smaller firm counterparts, despite realizing its importance. A new JupiterResearch study says only 33 percent of large and midsized companies monitor their WOM, as opposed to 66 percent of small companies. Knowing how effective WOM advertising can be, personally I think both of those numbers should be higher.

What are you doing to create WOM marketing for your company? And what measures have you set in place to monitor your results?

You may or may not be aware of this, but the FIFA World Cup is going on. It's sort of the Super Bowl of soccer, and despite the somewhat lackluster showing from the United States team (is it our fault Italy is next?), most everyone seems to have soccer fever. Even the search engines are on board, giving users immediate OneBox results and schedule information. (And of course Google has specialized logos for the thirty-two or so teams competing.) Do they care about the World Cup? Of course, not. They're trying to convert that closet soccer enthusiast searcher into a lifetime Google/Yahoo!/Ask user.

While the engines are doing a great job, the company utilizing word of mouth the best is Coke. What are they doing? Like the United States will need to do to overtake Italy, they're attacking the field at all angles to create conversation with their consumers.

Obviously, Coke is running a heavy promotional campaign. There are TV spots, banners at the game and an endless supply of Coke hats and water bottles. That's all to be expected and it's not what's generating buzz. The most powerful thing they're doing right now comes from their weallspeakfootball.com blogging network. Currently the network encompasses more than 30 bloggers from 15 different countries, including some of the best known European bloggers. It's becoming the MySpace of the World Cup, and you can bet this is a campaign soccer fans will remember long after the World Cup ends on July 9th.

The success of Coke's blogging network is based on one thing: it grabs users at what Pete Blackshaw calls 'the ex-spot' or the moment of experience where consumers are best positioned to talk (more like, gush) about something. Coke is getting soccer fan-users excited about sharing a common experience (the World Cup) and then piggybacking off that excitement to make them excited about Coke. It's genius and it's working.

Coke has taught marketers an important lesson. To capitalize off word of mouth you have to hit your company's specific ex-spot. If you're running a Web site, create something that will get users excited (an interesting article, a promotion, etc.) and then make it brain dead easy for them to refer that offer to a friend. No complicated forms or log-ins necessary. Just get them excited and then present them an outlet to share that excitement.

If you have a brick and mortar store, your customer's ex-spot is right at the end of that checkout counter. Get them there, still reeling from their purchase, and give them a way to share the feeling with others. They'll be happy to do it.

We now live in a user-generated content world. Savvy consumers no longer care about what you have to say about your product. They want to know and tell others what they think. Give them that opportunity and allow your company to capitalize off the positive buzz. Hit customers while they are in the "brand groove" and you'll quickly learn why positive word of mouth can be the most powerful form of advertising at your disposal.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/13/06 at 12:37 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding

June 12, 2006

eBay, Google Release Competing 'Non Competing' Services

eBay and Google passive aggressively announced 'non competing' new launches this weekend that seem to tread not-so-lightly on one others territory. eBay announced next week's test release of its contextual advertising program, while Google announced a June 28th release date for online payment system (aka PayPal killer) GBuy.

Two questions: Are we really supposed to believe these items are non competing? And how will these launches affect the Google/eBay equilibrium?

eBay's new contextual advertising program nicknamed AdContext (way to be original, by the way) will launch next week and allow merchants to advertise their services and listings via AdContext affiliates. Unlike its competitors, eBay's AdContext system will only link to running eBay auctions (not to generic advertising networks) and will use a CPA payment model, meaning publishers will only receive a commission if the click from their site leads to a conversion.

Meanwhile, Forbes is predicting Google's much-hyped GBuy system will launch June 28th to handle transactions between merchants and buyers, eradicating any need for Google Base enthusiasts to use PayPal. Google will even list participating sellers as "trusted GBuy merchants" right on their SERP. Way to peer pressure sellers into joining your team, Google.

What's interesting about both releases is that Google and eBay are both trying to play it off like these releases will have no affect on one another, when really, they're attempting to cut one another off at the knees.

Think about it. Despite eBay's spokesman Hani Durzy's spoutings that AdContext is designed to be 'complementary' to Google's AdSense, what it's really designed to do is cut Google out of the equation. It seems to me this is eBay's attempt at increasing their profit margins and cutting out the middle man who accounts for 12 percent its traffic. Has an older, wiser eBay grown tired of paying Google and Yahoo to host ads for them?

And GBuy? I don't think there's any way to mask this is a direct attack on PayPal. Not that there's anything wrong with creating competitor services. It's healthy – for them, for consumers, for everyone -- but why not own up to it?

And what's with the "trusted GBuy merchant" marker on the SERP? Google says this is designed to 'encourage customers to view the merchant as safe' but I think that's a bit of spin. If you saw two identical listings for the same product, but one of the sellers was "trusted" by Google and the other was not, which would you click on? Smooth move.

Despite the dueling services, everyone knows it is in Google and eBay's best interest to remain friends. Google gets a large chunk of its advertising from eBay and eBay gets valuable traffic from Google. The two have coexisted in relative harmony for quite some time now, even with the implementation of Google Base. Both need to be aware whose toes they're really stepping on because neither can afford to lose what the other brings to the table.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how the dynamic changes as both begin to dig deeper and deeper into each other's territory and eBay further develops its partnership with Yahoo!.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/12/06 at 2:22 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Pay Per Click, Search Engines

June 9, 2006

Friday Recap!

Okay, it's Friday Recap time again. Prepare yourself. There's even a cartoon midway down today. Ooooo, pictures!

After a lot of talk, the House of Representative passed the Pro-Telco bill last night by a 321 to 101 margin, and rejected the Net Neutrality amendment that Google and many others hoped would go with it. Now it's off to the Senate.

Supporters of the amendment predicted the vote's outcome would 'represent a turning point in the history of the Internet'. That's probably accurate, though slightly dramatic. I guess we'll see. This issue is nowhere near resolved.

Kim Krause provides some additional commentary over on her blog in a post entitled Imagine There's No Internet. Go read it. But come back.

Nathan reports Windows Vista beta 2 is now available. But before you go running over, make sure you have 11.23 gigabytes free for the download. Leave it to Microsoft to create a product most people don't have room to use. Good job, guys.

Snoops are finding weird Google references turning up all over this week. Phil Lenssen points to a Change Authorized Websites link found on the Google Account homepage. Hmm, could this be some sort of ID verification system? Or Google Passport perhaps? "Lighthouse"? Then again, maybe it's some sort of PayPal-esque feature where sellers can withdraw money for the things users buy on Google Base. I really have no idea.

What is Google M Scrapbook? An old name for Google Notebook? Or something entirely different? Let the speculation begin.

And did you happen to catch "Ron Google" at the MTV Movie Awards last night? Sadly, I did. Poor Yahoo!, they just can't get a break.

Not sure if paid search is for you? Forbes released new numbers this morning showing sponsored clicks were up for all the five of the major engines, despite click-through rates suffering slight drops. The survey also reported that Google has claimed 61 percent of the global market share, with Yahoo! making up 20 percent. Wow, that's like, all of it.

There was a lot of talk about journalism this week after Mark Cuban wrote an oversimplified post about Why Journalism Matters (I'm not linking to him, sorry) and the need to entice readers with a 'payoff'. You know, besides the learned information. Tell me again why I should listen to anything Mark Cuban says? Because he bought a basketball team and funded the rebirth of IceRocket? Maybe he just should concentrate on helping the Mavs beat the Heat. Sorry Antoine, I love you, but I detest Shaq more.

Crime is up and little old ladies are being left to cross the street alone. Do you know why? Because there aren't any more superheroe's! And do you know why there aren't any superheroe's? Because they are all hiding in fear of being outed by Google. It's not right, people. It's just not right.

Barry points us to some fun SEO comics a member posted on the SER forums. We liked them so much we're going to show you one right now. That's right; the Bruce Clay, Inc. blog now includes pictures. Huzzah!

Hee!

Do you know why hackers shouldn't be allowed to marry one another? Because they do ridiculous things like write their wedding vows based on the number sequencing of Pi and Phi. There's even a comma where the decimal point should be. Who are these people and how do we make sure they don't have mathematically-neurotic children?

Speaking of children, CNET went undercover this week to find that babies love dialing 666-6666. Just more proof that babies are evil.

Are sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing not enough for you? Feel like you need more senses? Wired News let us in on a man who had a magnet implanted into his finger. Others who have had it done (there are others??) report being able to tell when a wire is live, when they're going through a magnet security-scanner, or when their laptops' hard drives are spinning up. That's great and all, but what happens when they stand a little too close to the refrigerator. What a nightmare.

More news that doesn't matter: Slashdot tells us college students prefer their iPods over beer. That's the basis of a new ad campaign right there. It'd be so much better than the Mac/ PC ads.

Lastly, thanks to Jeremy for sharing the diet plan that helped him lost 50lbs over the past year. This week Jeremy taught us how to set goals and judge calories, how to eat less, use Jeremy's diet spreadsheet, identify the 'three habits', and how small changes can make a big impact over time. I'm proud to say I have adopted the calorie spreadsheet and am anxiously awaiting the dropping of 50lbs in time for my 2007 wedding. Thanks, Jeremy. You're the best!

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/ 9/06 at 3:55 PM | TrackBack (1)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization

June 8, 2006

Net Neutrality: What is it and why should I care?

This is important.

As Congress gears up to start deliberations on the proposed bill that threatens to end net neutrality once and for all,
users are being bombarded with rumblings of Congressional hearings and a growing list of letters from search figureheads calling for them to act NOW. But what does it all mean? And should you, as a user of the Internet, even care?

What is network neutrality? In its simplest terms, net neutrality is about regulating the underlying infrastructure that the Internet runs on. It's about treating all types of Internet traffic the same and moving all content at the same speed over the network. Essentially, it's about keeping the Internet free.

Up until last year, the government regulated the Internet. Then, the FCC gave in to the telephone companies demands and eliminated network neutrality. They abolished the rules that kept telephone companies from discriminating against content providers and outraged search engines and free speech proponents everywhere.

It is now time for Congress to decide if they will reinstate net neutrality or allow the telephone companies to keep on regulating.

The telephone companies (collectively referred to as telcos) believe they should be the ones to regulate the Internet, as they are the ones who spent the billions of dollars creating the infrastructure the Internet runs on.. They want to end net neutrality and create a two-tier Internet system where Web sites would be charged at different levels depending on how fast they want their content delivered.

The telecommunications industry claims they need the additional revenue to pay for the fiber-optic upgrades that are necessary to handle the weight of the new broadband, video-rich Internet system.

The telcos are virtually the only group who feels this way. Maybe it's because users already pay for their broadband access; or because should net neutrality be abolished, the telephone companies stand to make an excess of $2 billion a year. Either way, they stand alone.

Net neutrality advocates, like Microsoft, Google and a host of free speech proponents, have (rather dramatically) come forward claiming a two-tiered system would be 'the death of the Internet' and encourage four main things:

• Promote Rampant Discrimination: Neutrality advocates fear telcos could eventually 'price out' the Internet so only the most affluent users could take advantage of its true scope. They also fear telcos will use these tiered pricing options to unjustly regulate which users get to see which content, or what content is even shown at all.
• Higher Costs: Small businesses and individual content providers will be unable to provide the same level services as large corporations.


• Reduced Investment: – Investors will have little reason to support new, Internet-based content and services if there is no guarantee they can even get on the net. Innovation will plummet.


• Compromised Global Competitiveness: - The US will lose its lead on the Internet as innovation moves to more fertile, open markets overseas.

As the date of the vote looms nearer, more and more brass is coming out. Yesterday's Google's Senior Counsel came out urging users to ban together to oppose the bill. Today, Google CEO Eric Schmidt issued his statement, laying out a three step program that asks users to call their local Congressman, sign online petitions from ItsOurNet and SaveTheInternet.com and sign-up for a new Google Policy Alert list.

Microsoft's Robert Scoble also reached out to users on his blog today, and we hear eBay is trying to rally its troops as well.

How does this affect you as a user? It turns your Internet into a two lane highway, with a fast lane that, once site owners pass the buck, you'll have to pay to use and a slow lane you never wanted. The Internet was designed to be an equalizer, giving all users the same information. Ending net neutrality changes that. If you don't want to see your Internet turned into pay-to-play system, we encourage you to follow Eric Schmidt's advice and call your local Congressman.

Congress is said to make a decision regarding the matter in the next 36 hours.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/ 8/06 at 5:18 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization

Getting In Through The Side Door

Seth Godin asked an important question on his blog yesterday. In fact, it struck me enough that I have yet to close that browser window, and at this point I could probably recite it from memory. His question?

When I type your brand or your name into YouTube (or Technorati or Flickr), what do I find?

Do you even know? The question struck me on two levels because it asks two different questions. First, what are you doing to promote the brand of you? And secondly, how proactive are you about tracking company buzz, positive and negative?

Let's be honest. High search engine rankings are hard to come by and can be compromised with one major change to the algorithm. My mother always told me when the front door is locked, try going around the side. I imagine she was just trying to discourage my habit of busting in windows, but she was right. The side door is hip, generally unlocked and can be a much easier way of getting in the house.

Vertical and specialized searches help keep that side door ajar and give you another in. For example, is your company logo uploaded on Flickr? If I type in your company will I see shots from product launches, speaking engagements or screenshots of features? How about if I use Google's Image search? If a picture is worth a thousand words, don't you think you should tell your customers something about yourself?

Kim Roach wrote a great article for Search Engine Guide that highlighted all those other ways to get into Google. One of our favorites is Google Base, a place where companies can upload product listings that Google then hosts and makes searchable. Kim says your 'product' could be anything from an optimized press release, to an actual product for sale, to articles about your company. It's a great way to reach a whole new audience or just reaffirm your position with your existing one.

What about your blog? Does it show up in Google Blog Search? How about in Technorati? Have others in your industry commented on the things you've been talking about? Have you even looked? If you haven't, what are you waiting for?

Other Google side doors: Google Local, Google News, Google Video and Google Co-op. Of course, Yahoo! has similar services.

The great thing about these areas is how widely available they are. None of them are in hiding; instead they're popping up everywhere. But it's up to you to take advantage of them. And you can start today.

Upload and tag an image on Flickr or newly released Yahoo Photos. Tag your blog entries on del.icio.us or Technorati. Upload a video to YouTube or Yahoo! Video. Now is the time to reinvent a stagnant branding campaign.

And once you do these things, stay on top of them. Track your buzz. There are a number ways to do this. One of my favorite features of new blog search Sphere is it allows users to view a company's blog profile. The profile lists the last three links in to your blog so you can easily visit them and keep track of your buzz. Find out who is linking to you. What are they saying? What about the other people commenting on their blog?

One of the fastest ways to hear about what others are saying about you is to subscribe to various RSS feeds. Knowing what people are saying seconds after they say it will allow you to put out fires (if necessary) before they have time to grow and help direct conversation.

The point is there are multitudes of different ways to get into Google and the other engines without fighting the crowds at the front door. Why not take advantage of them? My mother was right. Slipping through the side door really is a much better alternative than busting in the living room window. Thanks Mom.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/ 8/06 at 2:37 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Design, Google, Search Engine Optimization, Yahoo