« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 29, 2006

SEO: Too simple to make a long-term career?

This may come as a shock to some of you, but according to a thread over at v7n, SEO is just a hobby and not something you can have a sustainable future doing since there are so few jobs in the field.

Heh. Excuse me while I pick myself up off the ground.

One member even goes far enough as to call SEO "too simple", another says it's still not a legitimate profession, and a third implies that SEOs can only make their money by cold calling. Cold calling? Hurry, someone get these people to an SES convention. Certainly at Bruce Clay, we've never had to make a cold call to get a sale.

It's both amusing and disheartening to hear people (and Web development people, no less) talk about an industry I've grown to care about in such a defeatist manner. I realize that SEO is still a relatively young industry, but surely we're past the point where outsiders picture us sitting at home in front of our computers (likely in our pajamas) calling innocent businesses trying to trick them into shelling over $5,000 for a number one Google ranking.

But perhaps not. It appears from the thread that one member has based his entire impression of the SEO industry on one negative experience where an SEO firm charged him $3,000, guaranteed him top rankings, and then failed to deliver any real value. While I'm sorry for his loss and disappointment, that's the price you pay for aligning yourself with a company that guarantees top placement. Be thankful you didn't lose more. Any reputable SEO firm will tell you, in SEO, there are no guarantees. That's part of what makes the industry so exciting.

I'll admit it was shocking to hear members profess that Internet marketing has no future. For a split second I was concerned. Should I be looking for another job? Darn, I had just gotten comfortable here. Perhaps I should get out while I'm still young?

But then I realized that these people are wrong.

Interest in SEO and Internet marketing is going nowhere but up. And with good reason, with more companies investing in SEO, the game is getting harder (and more fun). Every search engine update has the potential to change the rules completely. And that's what makes this job fun: relearning what you thought you already knew.

I invite anyone who says SEO is "too simple" to come and spend a few days with us. You'll learn that it is anything but. There's nothing simple about learning the ways of the engine, how to perfect methodologies and learning what works and what doesn't. It's a puzzle and it's certainly not for the faint of heart.

V7N Senior Member Marketing Guy says the reason SEO isn't stable is because companies recruit recent college grads so they can train them and pay them lower wages. While this may or may not have been true in years past, it's definitely not the case today. SEO has grown by leaps and bounds over the past ten years.

If you've read this month's SEO Newsletter, you caught Susan's article about the emerging importance of training. Part of the reason training has become so important is because the industry is coming increasingly more sophisticated. It's getting harder to achieve the kind of rankings clients used to take for granted. But I like that. It means we have to work harder, be more creative, and design better sites. SEO isn't going to fizzle out, it's going to blur into all aspects of business.

As I watch the mess of Bruce Clay, Inc. employees buzzing around the office on a Friday afternoon, I see that this industry is in no fear of falling away. SEO is not a dying art form, it's a methodology that will soon be worked into the marketing strategy of every viable company. We're not doing magic; we're offering a real service.

Special thanks to the folks at SEW for including this thread in their SearchDay post today. I needed the chuckle, and so did the rest of the office.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/29/06 at 5:03 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in SEO, Search Engine Optimization

Friday Recap

It's Friday Recap time again. Let's see if we can make this one a little more lighthearted. I don't want to depress Susan again like I did last week.

Over at Daggle, Danny Sullivan shows us why Teddy Roosevelt would have been a Web 2.0 expert. Apparently the former president had a fascination for dropping excess letters. Here are some of the "simplified spellings" Roosevelt was said to be in favor of:

clipt rather than clipped
dript rather than dripped
fixt rather than fixed
ript rather than ripped
winkt rather than winked

That Rosvlt really was ahead of his time.

Also from Danny, we learn that like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, [please shield the children] Citibank's S. Larson is not real. And if he was, he would likely be more than 300 years old.

Lifehacker suggests users set their most often used passwords as helpful reminders. That means instead of using the name of your childhood pet as your GMail password (RIP Floppy), try using "gotothegym" or "eatmoreveggies" instead. This is supposed to remind you to actually do these things, or I guess, at least make you feel guilty when you don't. Personally, I feel like my parents have instilled me with enough guilt, thank you.

DMeurope had a really good find this week with their article Blurb launches blog-book-service. For a mere $30, bloggers can convert their rantings intelligent musings into hardcover books. The service is free to play around with and content can be organized either by date or topic. That's totally fun.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you didn't turn your computer on for a few days? Or whether the moon would suddenly drop out of the sky if you refused to look at your email for days on end? I know, it's a scary thought, but Scoop at SEO Scoop was brave enough to attempt it. After his "forced absence", Scoop found that no matter how much things change, nothing really changes. Deep stuff, man.

Good Morning Silicon Valley made us all feel a little more dumber this week with their link to this 3rd grade geography test. Can you placed 48 of the 50 (Hawaii and Alaska are left out) on a map of the United States? I sure couldn't. Those middle states are plenty tricky.

Over at InsideGoogle, Nathan Weinberg found that the new version of Google Reader comes complete with a fun Easter egg that directs users to the End of the Internet. Pretty cool.

If you're looking for some more fun stuff, SEO cartoons seem to be all the rage these days. My personal favorites are located at bLaugh.com (today's is especially giggle-worthy), but Stuntdubl points users to two more sources for SEO cartoon fun.

Something handy for all you New Yorkers – a map from Gawker that identifies those odd smells permeating through the NY subway system. After perusing the map, I've decided I'd rather NOT know what some of those smells are. There's safety in the not knowing.

My favorite news piece of the week comes from Britain's Telegraph and recounts what happens when you leave a 3-year-old to his own devices on eBay. Obviously, he logs into your account (when will you people learn to stop storing your passwords!) and buys himself a car on the Internet – and not just any car, a Barbie pink car. Oh, yes. This kid is in for a rough adolescence.

Phil Lenssen created a fun Related Images Tool. The tool works similar to Google Sets where you type in a series of words and Google will show images related to the words you typed in. It's fun to play with, though a little buggy. Check out the first image on line two for my "cat, dog" query. It's related, only not.

Exciting for grammar nerds, the Chicago Manual of Style is officially online. Success! Now you grammar-inept readers have no excuse for making a mess of your words. [Good grammar costs nothing! --Susan]

Now, I realize that this has nothing to do with Internet marketing (though I could fudge a correlation if I really had to), but BoingBoing gives us even more proof that Americans are completely disgusting. I mean, seriously. Who would eat that?

Lastly, a personal message to our friend Matt Cutts: Next time you take screenshots of your feeds (which we very much enjoyed, thank you), please expand your black hat folder. We're dying to know who's in there. Pretty please?

See, now that was lighthearted and fun, right? You can stop crying now, Susan. [I will if they all promise to go read the September SEO newsletter. --Susan]

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/29/06 at 1:29 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Fun Stuff, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

September 28, 2006

Headlines

If you had 60 minutes with a Google engineer...

What would you ask him? SER reports on an interesting thread over at WMW where a member is claiming he was given a one hour meeting with a Google engineer to discuss anything regarding organic search. Before the meeting occurred, forum members gave their suggestions on what to ask (mostly questions regarding Google's supplemental index), and when the meeting concluded the member came back to report what he learned.

"He had tips for getting reindexed: Fix everything and start using google sitemaps. Sites that used a lot of spam or are from known spammers will not be reindexed.

About the sandbox... its related to links, older domains have benefit from having more links. The main goal should be getting links with good link description from relevant sites. (so what else is new...)"

That's what he took away from his one hour meeting? Sadly, the engineer also claimed not to know who GoogleGuy was. Oh well, we’ll just have to corner Matt at the next conference again.

Google Won't Make Brazil Deadline

Despite Google promising to fully cooperate, the AP now reports that Google will NOT be meeting the deadline to hand over information on specific Orkut users to Brazilian authorities. Google Brazil had until today to hand over information need to identify certain individuals accused of using social networking site Orkut for child pornography.

You have to wonder what situations like these are doing to Google's image abroad. I know in the United States we all look at Google through rose-colored glasses, but what does everyone else see? I'd love to know how the typical Chinese user views Google. Or how about in Belgium? Brazil? Elsewhere? Are all these public court debacles affecting their image or is Google love a world-wide notion? Can anyone offer some insight? Do other countries see Google as a bully who steals content and profits from child pornography?

Local Search on the Rise

Just in time for SES Local, the new comScore numbers (via SEW) show that local search is on the rise, with more than 60 percent of Internet users conducting a local search in July – a 43 percent increase since July 2005. Interestingly, Google and Yahoo! are almost tied for the total number of local searches conducted, with 29.8 percent and 29.2 percent respectively.

The results were very telling:

47% visited a local merchant after searching
41% made contact offline
37% made contact online

Those stats hold the key for why local search is so powerful -- people who search locally are on a mission. They're looking for something specific that they need now. If they find you, they will make contact.

Marissa Mayer: Meeting Maven

BusinessWeek is running an article entitled How to Run a Meeting Like Google where Marissa Mayer gives readers her tips for how to keep a meeting on schedule. Does anyone else find this slightly offensive? Would BW run an article like this about Larry or Sergey? It's like Cosmo for techies.

Fun Find

Former Financial Times reporter Tom Foremski recounts the journey he took when he quit his job to become a journalist blogger.

"I had no idea that something as simple as blogging could be so interesting and lead me to so many insights and discoveries."

You and me both, Tom.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/28/06 at 4:02 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Google, SEO, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

Internationally Speaking

There's a clear shortage in resources designed to educate sites on how to rank well in other countries, but today we came across two excellent ones.

First, a forum thread that discusses the importance of links when trying to rank well in a certain country, and then an impressive U.K.-based keyword research tool that lets users search by country AND category.

International Ranking Factors

Barry Schwartz pointed us to a great Cre8asite thread that talks about the importance of obtaining geo-specific links and how that may affect rankings. Though it's not rocket science, it is worth noting that in order to rank well in the international SERP, you should have plenty of backlinks from sites in that country.

For example, as Phaithful notes to an SEO newbie, if you're running a site that has a lot of backlinks from ".co.uk" sites, you will rank better in the Canadian SERP because the engines see your site as being very useful to Canadians. This is true even if your site isn't hosted there or if you never intended to acquire ".co.uk" links.

Barry notes some other factors important to international rankings, such as using a country-specific top level domain, hosting your site in that country, and using country-specific attributes (address, phone number, etc.) on your site.

Thanks for the info, guys.

International Keyword Research

On a related note, tucked away in my High Rankings newsletter was a link to a new UK-specific keyword database from KeywordDiscovery. I've been playing around with it a little bit and it's very interesting for anyone looking for some general keyword terms. The tool allows you to find keywords for an extraordinary number of countries and categories. It's perfect for finding out what people in France search for when it comes to government or health. Or what words Brits are most likely to enter when searching for news and media? This is a really great research tool.

The free Demo version only allows you to view the top ten for each country, but with a subscription you can view up to 1,000 results per category. Very cool, and very timely with our UK site officially up and running. Check them out when you get a chance.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/28/06 at 2:29 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Search Engine Optimization

Microsoft makes impressive leap into the Media biz

What's the best way to jump into the media business and make yourself a formidable threat to your opponents?

Step 1: Align yourself with a powerful social networking site
Step 2: Launch your own multi-platform media advertising strategy
Step 3: Partner with a respected news agency to explore ways of developing other digital services and attract new eyeballs.

So far, Microsoft looks to be making the perfect attack, as it prepares to tackle the media business by land, air and sea.

Last month Microsoft announced it’s pairing with Facebook, which will allow them to act as the exclusive seller and manager of all Facebook's display ads and provide the site with sponsored text link ads. If Microsoft was looking to enter the media arena, this was a good first step. And it seems that's exactly what Microsoft was planning to do.

Earlier this week, Microsoft announced its official launch into the media realm, offering up a unified advertising strategy nicknamed Digital Advertising Solutions. With the new offerings, Microsoft will offer ad space on several of its most widely used platforms, including MSN, Windows Live, Xbox and future Windows Mobile and IPTC ad properties.

What's powerful about this offering is how widespread and targeted the advertising options are. Since Xbox appeals to very specific demographics, advertisers can create highly targeted, niche-based ads to address their individual needs. And because the Windows Live audience may differ widely from the Windows Mobile audience, advertisers can select which platform is most compatible with their audience and only target them. This kind of advertising strategy will be an enormous hit with advertisers looking to save money and increase conversions.

It's especially powerful when you consider that the combined reach of these platforms is estimated at 465 million users. And that doesn't even include individuals using MSN Messenger. Watch out, Google and Yahoo, here comes Microsoft.

All of that was pretty impressive on its own, but then today I hear that Microsoft struck a non-exclusive deal with the BBC to explore plans for "next-generation web 2.0 and ways to share online content in the future". Hmm. More chances for advertising and to provide exclusive content to users? Microsoft seems to be getting all its ducks in a row – targeting newspaper sites, social networking arenas, and a multitude of media outlets. Where else is there for them to go?

I admit it, I'm impressed.

Impressed because, if done correctly, Microsoft has a real chance to offer a great value to its advertisers and make Google and Yahoo! very uncomfortable. Where Microsoft tops Google and Yahoo! is in its video games and mobile platforms. By leveraging these two assets, particularly Xbox, Microsoft has a real chance to gain ground.

I'm also very interested to see where this BBC deal goes. Bill Gates said Microsoft was looking to allow "people to enjoy digital content anytime, anywhere on any device". I can't help but wonder if this deal is related to this Mix 06 video where the BBC's Director of New Media and Technology Ashley Highland talks to Bill Gates about using the Internet to make content accessible to everyone. Check out the demo midway through, it could be very telling.

We'll have to see how successfully Microsoft is able to leverage its new ventures, but the potential is there. This could develop into a very powerful pairing for a company with a lot of ground to make up.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/28/06 at 2:24 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Microsoft

September 27, 2006

Search Headlines

Did Fox News just buy YouTube?

We're not sure yet if this is fact or fiction, but Digg is reporting (in a somewhat sketchy post) that Fox News Corp just shelled out $580 million to acquire YouTube. Could it be true? If so, this is very big news, however, we're still looking for another source to confirm it. Meanwhile, cynical Susan is crying big fat lie.

John Battelle interviews Matt Cutts

John Battelle and partner-in-crime Melanie Colburn spent the past month email-interviewing Matt Cutts. The result is a very good read. For me, the most interesting part of the interview came as Matt discussed the role human intervention plays in the Google algorithm.

"When savvy people think about Google, they think about algorithms, and algorithms are an important part of Google. But algorithms aren't magic; they don't leap fully-formed from computers like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus. Algorithms are written by people. People have to decide the starting points and inputs to algorithms. And quite often, those inputs are based on human contributions in some way."

It's important to remember that just because Google doesn't manipulate search results or the stories appearing in Google News, the algorithm was designed by a human, which means some bias has been entered into the equation. No algorithm is 100 percent objective, both with its content and sources.

SEW was more interested in Matt's comments concerning W3C and using the meta nofollow tag. You may be too.

Evil Matt Cutts!

Speaking of Matt, this is kind of hilarious. SEO Home (via SEW) located the slightly evil mirror version of Matt Cutts blog. The crazy behind the blog rewords Matt's entries to make them spout evil instead of holy Matt goodness.

Remember Matt's post about verifying Googlebot? Well evilMatt tells you how to verify Googlebot and then eat it and cook it. Hmm, I think evilMatt needs a hug. Look how he attacks my poor Ask:

"Speaking of Ask Jeeves, we kicked their asses so bad Jeeves ran away and left just Ask. Now they want you to “try” their new approach to search engines? HA! We could buy your little company with my Christmas bonus."

Okay, fine, that was funny.

Yahoo linked to click fraud. Again.

BusinessWeek's recent click fraud article garnered a lot of attention last week, but what few touched on was that it once again linked Yahoo! to the controversial issue. Part of the article focused on a company called MostChoice.com, who says Yahoo! charged them more than $10,000 last year in fraudulent clicks coming from Oemji.com.

"Ninety percent of the clicks came from such places as Mongolia, Vietnam, and Honduras, where MostChoice does no business. Only eight clicks, less than 0.3%, turned into sales, compared with 30% or more from clicks on ads on Yahoo's own Web site."

Very not good. It looks like more click fraud trouble is headed Yahoo!'s way, but we'll have to wait and see where this one goes.

Fun Finds

Kathy Sierra shows users how to make powerful sites easier to use without neutering them. An excellent read.

Google Video lets viewers watch the premiere episode of House of Carters for free. Oh, please. Stop pretending you don't know who Nick Carter is.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/27/06 at 4:25 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

Incisive Media Sold to Apax

Last week news started to break very slowly that Incisive Media had been acquired by Apax Partners for $375 million dollars. It seemed like potentially very important news, but yet, very few outlets covered it, why? Well, for one, because no one really knows what it means.

Barry Schwartz says as far as he knows, everyone will stay the same.

"As far as I know, things will remain the same - including Danny going on his own. From my understanding the same people are going to be working on a day to day basis at Incisive and SES and SEW - so again, I am not sure what this means - outside of a new company owning it."

Given all that, it's hard to say or predict what impact this will have on SEW, SES or search-minded folk, if any at all. Typically, when a company goes private, as is the case here, there's very little change in its day-to-day activities. The top level people get a little more money and the hope is that the company will be able to better grow better now that it's out of the public realm. And until we know more than that, or how this may affect other areas, there's not much to report on.

What the acquisition does do, however, is give signs as to what Incisive Media was thinking when (presumably) they didn't fight to keep Danny.

SES Social Coordinator and Pubcon Director Joe Morin was among the first to give any insight into Incisive's potential mindset:

"Now with Incisive Media itself having been on the auction block with a subsequent sale to Apax Partners, its beginning to make more sense and their overall rationale in not retaining Danny's services. Why negotiate to disperse additional equity percentages when you are on the verge of cashing out?"

You have to wonder what effect that had on their negotiations with Danny and if Danny's departure had any affect on the Incisive/ Apax deal. Is SEW and SES worth as much without Danny Sullivan? Arguably not, but does Apax realize that? Or maybe Apax does realize Danny's power and is now in the position to give him an incentive to stay? Right now it's nothing but speculation.

Under the terms of the deal Incisive will make more than $20 million, go private and become part of Apax. More than 30 percent of Incisive's commission, however, will go to starting Apax Summer, a private company that will continue the work of Incisive and act as its financial backbone (or at least that's how I understand it). When it comes to hard details, that's really all anyone knows.

Danny penned his comments over at Daggle.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/27/06 at 2:40 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in SEO Tips & Tricks

Should Google's policy be opt-in?

On the heels of the Belgian court decision, Google has decided to clarify its philosophy on content (though Google told Danny Sullivan the two were unrelated). The general idea behind the post is that Google applies fair-use to what it includes in its index. Google clarifies:

"Because we don't own this content, over the years we've come up with three primary principles to ensure that we respect content owners and protect their rights:

* we respect copyright;
* we let owners choose whether we index their content in our products;
* we try to bring benefit back to content owners by partnering with them."

I think it's important to note that Google has no plans to be a content producer. That's not their role. All they're doing is organizing the information already out there. If you don't want your content indexed, all you have to do is opt out. It really is that simple.

When Google indexes content via Google News, they're not displaying that article in its entirely on the Google site. They give users a headline, a snippet and perhaps a thumbnail. If the user wants to read more, they're directed back to the original site. In this scenario, everyone wins. Google, the publisher and the user.

Does Google make money off this system? Yes (indirectly through AdSense and AdWords because there is no advertising on Google News), but so do the publishers. Often pride gets in the way when publishers realize that Google is making more advertising revenue off their content then they, the content producer, are. But as John Battelle notes in his blog, you can't fault Google for having larger profit margins. Google is a bigger beast than most content providers, and in return, they make more money through their advertising. That's just how the system was created.

Google has always ran an opt-out system, but with all the recent legal trouble, some people are asking if Google should change its opt-out policy to opt-in? Should they?

No.

That would be ridiculous.

A spirited commenter over at John Battelle's blog likens Google's opt-out policy to the opening scene in Hitchhiker's Guide where Arthur Dent finds out that his house is slated to be demolished. The analogy is rather lengthy so go read it and come back.

Good? Okay, in case you cheated, the gist of the comment is that Arthur Dent wakes up to find out his house is being demolished after he had received no notice. Only he had, sort of. The plans for the demolishing had been "on display" in a dark, stair-less basement for nine months. It was up to Arthur to know it was there.

While I see the commenter's point, there's one big difference between this scene and what Google actually does. Google's not hiding their intentions in a dark basement only findable through torchlight. Content publishers know about Google News. If you don't want Google to index your content, say it in your robots.txt file.

Google's system has to be opt-out. It would be impossible for Google to contact every book publisher in the world to let them know they are about to launch a service called Google Book Search and ask if they want to be a part of it. However, if you're a responsible book publisher, you're probably keeping an eye out for services that compete or complement your own. If you hear rumblings that Google is about to launch such a service, make sure your content is guarded by your robots.txt file. Better yet, be proactive. Anything that you don't want indexed, ever, should be guarded. That's why the robot.txt is there.

Whether or not the post effects any immediate change, I think it was important that Google lay out their policy the way they did. From today on out it will serve as their guidepost whenever an individual or company threatens to file suit against them for content stealing. It may also help soothe fears of rustled content providers now on the defensive.

Whether or not it was done in response to Belgium (I can't believe it wasn't....), having this framework available on the Google blog for all eternity will no doubt help them in their next court case regarding the issue. And yes, there will a next one.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/27/06 at 12:03 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google

September 26, 2006

If Belgium had sued Microsoft, would anyone have cared?

There's an interesting post from the Guardian Unlimited today that compares Google's Belgium situation with Microsoft's struggle with the EU. Author Jack Schofield, who calls Google's recent troubles "a very silly saga" (I agree), states:

"Europeans are used to getting a laugh out of American court cases where someone sues Mega Corp Inc for $13.7 billion because they stubbed their big toe (though we also know they don't get it).We've already got the EC threatening Microsoft with a deranged level of fines -- €2,000,000 a day, or maybe €3,000,000 -- presumably based on the idea that it has too much money and, since it's Microsoft, nobody will care whether it's just or not. Well, if it works against Microsoft, why not try it on Google, too?"

That last line hit me because the ruling against Google does almost seem like a punishment. What did Google really do to merit a threatened fine of $640,000 a day, plus the added humiliation of having to post the entire verdict on its site? Allow publishers to gain traffic and revenue through its search engine? It almost seems unreasonable.

Or maybe it just seems unreasonable because this is Google. If it was Microsoft, the company we love to hate, would we be so up in arms about it? Were people this outraged when Microsoft was hit with a $357 million fine in July? I remember reading the story, but I don't remember anyone feeling as appalled as they do by the Google/ Belgium ruling. (Or the story getting half as much coverage.) Why? Because $357 million is nothing to Microsoft, so who cares? Microsoft is evil and deserves what they get, right?

Wrong, but that does seem to be the mentality. Even today when it's revealed that the United States government tried to pressure the EC regarding Microsoft's fine, who's talking about it? Just a handful of outlets. The U.S. government tries to strong arm the EC into being "nicer" to Microsoft and people aren't interested in that?

Was Google targeted by the courts for being Google? If not, why was it Google that Belgian publishers chose to attack? Why not continuing hitting Microsoft (too much press?) or pick a new target in Yahoo!? All three engines are guilty of the same offense, why not sue all three? Was Belgium making a statement with Google or were they just picking on the biggest fish in the pond?

We love to like Google – and with good reason. Google deserves our appreciation. They make our lives increasingly easier on the Web, respect local customs even when it's in their best interest not to, and they have that whole don't be evil thing going for them. Google has always been the anti-Microsoft, and because of that we stand up for their honor when hit with seemingly bogus lawsuits.

I'm not saying that Google doesn't deserve our support. I love my daily dose of Google and I agree with their position here. I don't think Belgian publishers have yet realized the true weight of their "win". But Jack Schofield's post does make you wonder. Why was Google handed such a harsh settlement? And why did we take it so personally? Would we have cared if it was Microsoft instead? Probably not.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/26/06 at 12:05 PM | TrackBack (1)
See more entries in Branding, Google, Microsoft, Search Engines

AOL Joins Class-Action Club

AOL has been officially initiated into the class-action lawsuit club. Congrats, AOL!

TechCrunch broke the news that three AOL users have filed a class action lawsuit against AOL in California on Friday in response to last month's privacy breach. According to the filing (PDF), the suit seeks no less than $1000 in damages per user effected and $4,000 per effected California user. I guess that's the going rate for privacy these days, seems a little cheap to me (though this could be a $658,000,000+ bill for AOL).

There's a few very interesting things about this suit.

First, how will the courts determine what qualifies an "effected user"? Whose job will it be to identify all 658,000 affected users? To my knowledge, only one person has been identified by name. Will this suit require that everyone be identified by name and have their search history entered into evidence? If so, isn't that a bigger injustice? I will be very interested to see how this suit will go about identifying its class, and how many users will come creeping out of the woodwork claiming to have been victimized.

Making matters more complicated is that not everyone suffered the same privacy violation. Does just having your name mentioned in AOL's data make you privy to some of the settlement, or should only those who had credit card numbers or passwords revealed be made part of the suit? What happens to users who were victims of identify theft thanks to AOL's debacle (are there any)? Do they get more? Surely, some of the 658,000 users will be left unidentified. Are they just forgotten? I think user identification will be the hardest part of the plaintiff's case.

Second, in addition to cash payments, the suit also demands that AOL not be allow to retain search results for any amount of time, for any purpose. Though everyone would appreciate more transparency regarding how long AOL (and GYM) keeps this data and who has access to it, forbidding them from holding on to it for any amount of time seems somewhat extreme and potentially damaging to the AOL engine. There are good reasons for AOL to hold on to some user data, if only for users own safety.

I'm not too worried about this one. I don't think the United States government would ever embrace the idea of search engines NOT holding on to their data. It's too valuable, and I'm not talking about its value to AOL...

Third, it's only been a little more than a month since the AOL data was leaked. If users participate in this suit, what recourse will they have down the road should someone misuse their identity based on what was released? Should users worried about the long-term effects of his leak opt-out of this suit and leave themselves open for future suits? IF you're one of the users who had credit card numbers or other very personal information revealed, settling now for damage that may occur in the future seems like a risky venture.

The final point of interest for me comes from page seven of the filing itself [emphasis added]:

"As of the date of this complaint it is the understanding of plaintiffs and their counsel that AOL has not done anything to help the members whose personal sensitive and confidential records were released to the public by AOL. AOL members who sought assistance from AOL about the disclosure of the Member Search Data were not offered any assistance. AOL's only response, if any, was to offer the victimized member a free month of AOL service, a service which AOL is now offering for free."

While that's probably not 100 percent accurate (there were those public beheadings firings after all), did AOL seriously offer uses a free month of AOL as a way of making up for releasing all their search data? If so, that's completely insulting and arrogant.

This suit will definitely be one to watch. If the users named in this case are successful, it could lead to future trouble for Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/26/06 at 12:03 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL

September 25, 2006

What Will Be Google's Second Act?

A recent Fortune article gives what they call "the inside story of disorder, disarray and uncertainty at Google" as it tries to paint Google as a presumptuous one hit wonder struggling to come up with their "next big thing". Another cover story hailing the demise of Google if they can't come up with something that surpasses (or at least rivals) its search capabilities? Awesome.

Let's be honest. There's a very small chance that Google will ever release something that will rival the success of its search engine. But that's the curse Google has placed on itself after hitting the ball so far out of the first time. The bar is now so high the only way to see it is to start up Google Earth (sorry...).

The Google engine takes a lot of hits, but you have to remember that when Google first launched it was so far ahead of its competition that many users viewed it as pure perfection. As a result, it's likely Google will never be able to beat what it has already accomplished, just like a child actor who wins an Oscar at age seven will never peak beyond that moment. However, to call Google a one hit wonder just seems completely ridiculous and untrue.

If there was one line that irked me in author Adam Lashkinky's 4,000+ word googley essay it was this:

"To believe that Google will find its second act, you have to accept the hubris and the chaos, and that the brainiacs who got lucky once will do so again."

First, I think it's insulting to presume that the Google brains are suffering from hubris. If that were true, they'd be resting on their laurels, not throwing out test products at speeds that give bloggers carpal tunnel. Second, it's also insulting (and presumptuous and out-right wrong) to insist that Google merely got "lucky" with the success of its search engine. Google's success had little, if anything, to do with luck.

From the outside looking in, Google's operation does not appear chaotic to me. It's inspired innovation. There is no lack of talent and ideas at Google and perhaps the "chaos" that Adam found was instead Google's version of freedom. Instead of being chained to their desks, employees are encouraged to be innovative and use 20 percent of their time to foster their own creatively. At times that can perhaps look chaotic when you're dealing with the type of brain power found at Google.

But there's a method to Google's madness. Just look at who Google chooses to align itself with – MySpace, Intuit, dMarc, Viacom – none of those partnerships seem chaotic to me. In fact, they seem very smart.

Adam asks several times throughout his article what Google's new breakout service will be and he never really answers or attempts to answer his question. If you're looking for an answer, ZDNet's Ryan Stewart has it:

"If Google wants to deliver applications to main stream users, they need to adopt a Rich Internet Application strategy. They need to use their talent and their web knowledge to build applications that bridge the gap between web and desktop. People want experience, and they want to access information wherever they are, regardless of an internet connection."

I think RIAs will be Google's second act. These apps give users the control they've grown accustomed to and provide Google with another way to capitalize on its bread-and-butter advertising model. An example of this in action: Google Earth – a service that has downloaded more than 100 million times and makes money through advertising and by offering the Google Toolbar to users.

RIAs may not have that "wow" factor that Google's first act did, but is there ever a sequel as good as the original? When's the last time Yahoo/Microsoft/Ask.com really wow'd you? Maybe people are just harder to wow these days. We've grown jaded in our Web 2.0'ness

There's plenty of quality stuff coming out of Google today. I realize Google is top-dog and it's fun to take shots when we can, but I think calling them a one hit wonder is just a tad unfair. And even without a wow-worthy sequel, Google will dominate. They have the money and the good-will to burn at their leisure.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/25/06 at 3:43 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google

September 22, 2006

Friday Recap

The Daily Mail found that British offices are getting increasingly quieter as almost fifty percent of workers admit they often email the person sitting next to them to avoid having to make verbal contact. I don't find that surprising. Susan and I have desks touching and facing each other and we email back and forth constantly. It's not laziness; it's that I know disturbing her iTunes rotation puts me in great danger of getting a piece of chocolate thrown at my head. Plus, the music must help her work, right?

The site also found that five percent of Brits listen to music purely to stop coworkers from talking to them. Oh really? Excuse me while I go have a talk with Susan. [Heck, I don't even bother with the music. I just have headphones on to discourage people from talking to me. Don't judge me, you do it too. --Susan]

If you're not anti-social and enjoy conversing with coworkers, here are some new office slang terms to help you better express yourself. Highlights:

404 - Someone who is clueless. From the Web error message, “404 Not Found,” which means the document requested couldn’t be located. “Don’t bother asking John. He’s 404.”

Batmobiling - putting up emotional shields. Refers to the retracting armor that covers the Batmobile as in “she started talking marriage and he started batmobiling”

Ohnosecond - That minuscule fraction of time during which you realize you’ve just made a terrible error.

Seagull Manager - A manager who flies in, makes a lot of noise, shits over everything and then leaves.

Another good way to start up a conversation with people at work: Shadow puppetry. Excellent. He'll be able to go on the road with that one pretty soon.

There's a provocative YouTube video making the rounds that shows excerpts from several video blogs (via GMSV) and gives watchers an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of their stomach. It's gorgeous and disturbing in that train wreck sort of way.

Stephanie Quilao showed me how to use "Oprah speak" to finally explain RSS to my mother. You have to break it down slowly:

"...in Oprah speak, RSS stands for: I’m “Ready for Some Stories”. It is a way online for you to get a quick list of the latest story headlines from all your favorite websites and blogs all in one place. How cool is that?"

Very cool, thanks, Stephanie. If you give me Oprah's definition of a blog perhaps I could start speaking to my mother again! Can you include a diagram with that one too?

(Hat-Tip Steve Rubel)

[For more parent-related laughs, I also recommend checking out Ask Skeptic's Mom: What's Tagging.]

Bloggers got their swag on this week: Michael and Jeremy (fine, his came last week) got lava lamps for being a part of the AdSense video program and Barry Schwartz hit the Ask.com mother load simply because he's a cool guy. In other news, I've had serious Ask Messenger Bag envy since Wednesday.

Another week brings another Top 21 list (21 is the new 10). This time it came from Matt McGee and gave readers the Top 21 Signs You Need a Break from SEO. The list included some amusing tell-tale signs, but its true genius came from the more than a dozen instances of blatant name dropping meant to inspire links back – which it often did. Well played, Matt, well played.

Phil Lenssen kept me adequately distracted yesterday with his link to an M&M promotional game that asks users to identify 50 horror and suspense movies based on visual clues. It's hard, and addicting, and the music alone will give you nightmares. Earlier in the week he told us the story of the Google Murder. Phil's getting a little dark lately, isn't he?

Speaking of nightmares and horror films, Dumb Little Man shows how keeping a public Google Calendar could kill you. Eek. You know, I never thought of that. It's sort of like a high tech version of Home Alone.

Over at InsideGoogle, Nathan makes us giggle uncomfortably as he ponders the ROI on suicide clickers and reveals that Google allows certain publishers extra AdSense features, including letting them select ad keywords for blog entries.

Hmm, are you seeing weird themes emerge from this week's Friday Recap? It started out lighthearted!

P.S.
Jack Nicholson is an idiot. Go Red Sox!

[P. P.S. Most. Depressing. Update. Ever. --Susan]

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/22/06 at 1:00 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Fun Stuff, Search Engine Optimization

September 21, 2006

Daily Round Up

Attorney General Learns Nothing from AOL

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (aka AG squared) is back lobbying Congress to pass a law that would require ISPs to retain customer information for as long as one to two years. The law is being touted as a safeguard for "the children", but for those who haven't already forgotten AOL's privacy leak, red flags and panic alarms are going off everywhere.

Gonzales is trying to bypass privacy concerns by pushing the bill as a deterrent against "the growing threat of child pornography over the Internet". While, we'd all like to eradicate instances of child exploitation on the Web, what Gonzales is advocating is very dangerous. NCMEC president says the law could take two approaches:

"One form could require Internet providers and perhaps social-networking sites and search engines to record for a year or two which IP address is used by which user. The other form would be far broader, requiring companies to record data such as the identities of e-mail correspondents, logs of who sent and received instant messages (but not the content of those communications), and the addresses of Web pages visited."

Hmm... The problem with holding onto information for long periods of time is that information gets leaked. Without fail, no matter the safeguards, or whether it's done accidentally or maliciously, the outcome is always the same -- personal information is revealed and searchers are left feeling violated. It's the same reason why I never kept a journal as a kid. Someone, somehow, for whatever reason, always looks under the mattress. Let's hope someone in Congress has some common sense and knocks this one out.

Chicago Tribune Highlights Search

Danny Sullivan reports that the Chicago Tribune is running a special package on search today entitled Gunning for Google (subscription required). SEW has a full break-down on the package so I'd check that out.

Personally I enjoyed the Tribune's piece on Matt Cutts ("Google's Credibility Cop") and Inside a Web giant's manic search for staying power. The rest of the package is interesting, though it's nothing you haven't heard before.

Google: The Manhattan Edition

eWeek's Steve Bryant takes us with him as he sneaks ventures into Google's new Manhattan digs. Google's new office comes complete with a massage room, cereal dispensers*, healthy chips, multiple kitchens, razor scooters, funky red Panton chairs and yummy bowls of fruit. Now that's a place worth breaking into.

*Like Google, my adult dream house will also feature a wall of cereal dispensers. There will always be an endless supply of Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, Kix, Frosted Mini-Wheats, Cheerios, Special K and a few others. (I will also have a dispenser of corresponding cereal-box prizes, obviously.)

Is Bush is no longer a miserable failure?

Yesterday, a Threadwatch thread reported that George W. Bush had lost his number one ranking for the terms "failure" and "miserable failure". I bet there were high fives throughout the White House, unfortunately for Bush and minions, he seems to have regained his ranking.

The TW thread discovered that the Bush administration, likely having grown tired of Google's most famous link bomb, had moved the tainted bio to a new page and was using a Meta refresh command to direct visitors and spiders to the new, unbombed page. As a result, some forum members reported that Bush was no longer showing up for the Google bombed terms. Fixed, right? Not so much. It seems the Meta refresh transferred Page Rank, causing the new URL to once again rank for the terms, putting Bush in the exact same position.

Sorry, George.

Fun Find

Jeremy Zawodny points us to Matthew Baldwin's Defective Yeti blog where he ponders the origin of the name Taco Bell and the cruel lie he was told by his father as a child.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/21/06 at 4:51 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Fun Stuff, Google, Search Engine Optimization

Create a friendly web site customers want to visit

Normally, when we talk about making a site "friendly", we mean user friendly, but this isn't one of those posts. This time when we talk about creating a friendly site, we mean making it likeable -- specifically how to NOT offend customers.

Seth Godin points (via Embrace Pet Insurance) to the FAQ section of the FourPawsDesign site where the owners have decided to take a not-so-friendly approach to handling their customers. Here is a brief excerpt from the site's FAQ.

"I do not want to place an order online, help!
Unfortunately, we can no longer take phone orders. Customers forget to tell us something and after the order is placed and processed they claim we wrote down incorrect information. By placing an order online we have a record of exactly what you want, especially for custom-designed items, leaving no room for error.

Why can't I pay with a check?
We are no longer accepting checks or money orders as a method of payment. Over 90% of people who want to pay by check forget to."

Heh. Despite being amusing to onlookers, it's insulting to customers to blame them for previous customers' mistakes. Part of running a business is dealing with problematic people, if you don't have the personality to do that, you might want to entrust that role to someone else, or at least opt not to do your own copywriting.

You want your site to exude a feeling of warmth and friendliness. Part of doing that is by keeping your site and your copy positive. Show customers how much you appreciate their loyalty, how excited you are about your product and how willing you are to exceed their expectations. Throwing past offenses in their face will cause them to either get angered and leave, or make them feel embarrassed and leave. Neither is a good option.

Custom retention is important. You want first time customers to become lifelong, repeat customers. Customers return to sites that are welcoming. Make your site friendly with a warm tone, clean typography, appropriate color choices, and by providing a great value or service.

When addressing customers, be tactful. I'm not encouraging you lie, but it's probably a bad idea to tell customers the reason for your no check policy is because they can't be trusted to remember to write one. If you've adopted a no check policy, either give your reason a positive spin or don't give a reason at all Apologize for not being able to accept checks and move on. Never be insulting.

Lose the blame. No one likes a jaded business owner or to feel belittled. Mistakes happen in business. Regardless if the error was yours or someone else's, it's important to move on and not hold a grudge.

It's easy to get caught up in the product you're selling or the day-to-day management of your company, but it's important to remember there are people out there. You're busy shipping orders because people are buying things. You spend all day talking to customers on the phone because they are interested in your service. Disrespecting them is an injustice. The market has become competitive enough where just having a great product isn't enough -- you have to know how to sell it, and yourself.

Customers return to sites that are welcoming. All you have to do is look at the popularity of social sites to see that users like feeling a connection to the sites they're loyal to.

Something I found particularly amusing on the site Seth used in his example was how many times they hammered in that they were "a small, family-run business". Usually, the great thing about family-run businesses is that they try to make everyone else feel like family too. It's typically what helps them to grow and become competitive with national brands. Unfortunately, that's not the case here. Customers are made to feel like the bad dog that made a mess on the carpet or the naughty two-year-old who just drew on mom's perfectly white walls. Creating a site that is friendly and welcoming will go a long way in aiding customer retention.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/21/06 at 11:42 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Design

September 20, 2006

How to protect yourself against email spam

A recent study conducted by McAfee, Inc. shows that spammers are getting increasingly more cunning in their attempt to flood your inbox with harmful email messages. According to the report, last month saw a 72 percent increase in the number of domains registered for solely for spam purposes. That's an alarming number.

McAfee Development Manager Guy Roberts:

“It’s a cat-and-mouse game where spammers try to change their URLs faster than the anti-spam companies can react. If it takes traditional blacklists 15 to 20 minutes to block a site, then that’s how fast the spammers need to change their URLs. Since domains cost only US$6 per registration, the spammer is spending less than US$100 for four hours of advertising.”

Spending $100 for less than four hours of advertising may seem like a substantial number, but in the spamming world it's not. Keep in mind that Jeremy Jaynes, the man who received a nine year sentence for the first-ever felony spamming conviction, was reported to have earned $750,000 a month for this trade. My trusty calculator tells me that equals out to $9 million a year. What's a couple hundred dollars when you're bringing in a movie star income?

The troubling part for users is that the more domains spammers open, and the faster they go, the more spam users are going to be met with. And the more domains and IPs get burned and blocklisted for innocent users who come later.

Today's spammers are smart. They have to be in order to bypass today's spam filters. It may take an almost impressive amount of work to be a successful spammer these days, but the work pays off. As Jeremy Jaynes showed us, spammers stand to make millions of dollars a year. As a result, Bigmouthmedia says the only way to deter spammers is with larger penalties.

"The lure for spammers is obvious. than just a temporary solution from big anti-spam companies. What we need is larger penalties, and bigger deterrents to decrease the potential spammers' desire to annoy us every day."

I couldn't agree more, but in order to enforce larger penalties, we need stronger legislation, especially overseas. The United States celebrated its first felony spamming conviction with Jaynes, but too many others have receive mere slap-on-the-wrist penalties where spammers were forced to shell out trivial fines. This is not conducive to fighting the war against spam. Spam is a criminal act that costs companies millions of dollars of year. It's time it be treated at such.

Here are some tips to help you protect your inbox against email spam:

• Use email-software with built-in spam filtering
• Be creative with your email address – An email address like 1a5tnam3@hotmail.com is harder to guess (and therefore spam) than lastname@hotmail.com. Use longer, multi-word email addresses that incorporate numbers and hyphens.
• Create throw-a-away email addresses – Don't use your primary email address when signing up for online offers or newsletters. Use emails that are easily disposable.
• Learn to disguise your email address – Have you ever wondered why forum users often type their email address as "lastname AT domainame DOT com? It's not because they're obnoxious (well, mostly), it actually prevents automated services that troll forums and newsgroup from being able to steal your email address.
• Disallow Images – Pictures in emails are often used as "beacons" to send information about you back to the sender. Disallow images coming from unknown senders.
• Update your programs – Spammers are becoming smarter and more cunning every day. Keeping your spam filter up-to-date leaves you better prepared to fight against today's spamming techniques.
• Be Cautious – Keep an eye out for those little checkboxes that automatically add your email to promotional lists. Also, beware of offers including an "opt out" feature, spammers often use this to confirm your email address is valid and may guarantee you receive even more spam.

When you do receive spam messages, and you will, don't open them. Many spammers are prudent analytics mavens and track their open rates to see which email addresses "worked". Continuing to open spammy emails may actually increase the level of spam you see appearing in your inbox.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/20/06 at 2:56 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

Headlines

We Don't Hate Microsoft

The European Union's antitrust chief assured everyone yesterday that despite the never ending legal battle between the EU and Microsoft, she does not have a vendetta against the company and is only acting in the interest of "creating the most innovation-friendly business climate in Europe".

Sure, I believe that. Tomorrow we'll hear Terry Semel doesn't have a personal vendetta against them either, it's just healthy competition. See, everyone loves Microsoft!

Al Gore no longer BFF with Larry and Sergey

Aren't Weren't Current TV and Google pretty tight? Isn't that why everyone looked to them when the Google TV ads rumors started? Then why did they just partner up with Yahoo!? Who thinks Google dropped the ball?

According to TechCrunch, Yahoo has paired up with Current to launch the Yahoo Current Network, a video site that will mix user submitted and professional videos. TechCrunch's Nik Cubrilovic explains:

"Current TV is a cable and satellite channel backed by environmentalist Al Gore that shows short user-submitted shows and segments in what it called ‘viewer created content’. Yahoo! has been granted the rights to exclusive Current TV content for its video portal, and in return some of the best user submissions to Yahoo! may make it onto the terrestrial Current TV channel."

Yahoo! is currently running four distinct channels via the network. I wonder if The 9 will make its way to Current, as well?

There has to be a back story here that we're not privy too. Why did Current suddenly switch teams? You have to think that Google had the same offer Yahoo! did and they just let it slip by. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this one. And what will happen to Google Current.

(Al Gore explains the Yahoo!/ Current TV pairing to Boing Boing.)

Search the World

Barry Schwartz showed readers how to check Google results in any country by using a tool that lets you perform side-by-side comparison searches. Barry and Danny Sullivan tested it this morning and found it to work fairly accurately. I tried to toy with it several times this afternoon and was greeted by this error message:

"I couldn't get no satisfaction, sorry.

The access points in my database could not be contacted or did not want to reply to your query. You might be able to try again, but I doubt it will change."

Let's hope SEW just overloaded their servers and it'll be up and running again soon. Being able to test organic search results (as well as PPC ads) in different areas and then compare them to your own is a great tool for SEOs.

New SEO Training Course

Ammon Johns announced that he and Lee Colbran will be offering an "SEO Intern Training Programme" (via SER) where interns will learn by working on real-life SEO projects. There are two different levels to the course -- a free, month-long scholarship program where you pay your work in "sweat equity", and an $1,800+ 2-week course that comes with full accommodations.

I'll be curious to see the level of experience showing up to take the course. Real-life practice is a great way to learn, but only after you have some idea of the fundamentals (which is why Bruce Clay offers a basic AND advanced course). SEO newbies may find themselves lost and confused when thrust in front of real-life clients. Of course, when it comes to hiring, most SEOs do value actual experience over book learning. Just look what happened when SEOmoz's Rebecca mentioned going for her MBA.

Fun Finds

Greg Linden beautifully summarizes Danny Sullivan's Why Search Sucks & You Won't Fix It The Way You Think post in two sentences.

"Type stuff, push a button. It's going to be hard to beat."

Meanwhile, InfoWorld sat down with Google's staffing program director Judy Gilbert and tackled the question everyone wants to know: How do I get a job at Google? Apparently, Google likes those "pro-active" types.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/20/06 at 2:49 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Google, Microsoft, SEO Tips & Tricks, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

September 19, 2006

What YouTube can learn from Google

It was widely covered yesterday that Google was ordered by the courts to remove all articles produced by Belgian publishers out of their index and cache. Well, Google won our hearts and did them one better. They removed Belgian publishers completely from Belgian search results. Heh. Good for you, Google.

Here's an example of Google's genius in action (via Nathan). You'll see Google returns zero results for the "site:www.lesoir.be" and includes this clause at the bottom of the empty SERP.

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1224 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

There are two ways this can play out. Either Lesoir and other Belgian publishers will see the error of their ways once their traffic drops and ask to be let back into Google's index or Google will become irrelevant in Belgium. I'm not one for placing bets, but I'd say choice A is more likely.

YouTube, are you watching? You are the Google in this equation, and I hope you consider that before launching into your next deal. Just as Google isn't stealing copyrighted content from Belgian publishers, you're not stealing copyright content from record companies. You're simply directing users to the videos on your site. If people like Doug Morris want to bellyache that you owe them tens of millions of dollars, I say you pull a Google and remove them from your index.

I understand that YouTube has to protect itself but it makes me nervous to see them enter into deals like the one they dove into yesterday. What is YouTube really gaining here? Warner Music group gets to share YouTube's revenue, decide which artists YouTube can and cannot feature, and in effect, turns YouTube into one giant Warner Music TV commercial. Is that really in YouTube's best interest?

The difference between Google and YouTube is that Google realizes its own strength. Google knows that ultimately newspapers need them more then Google needs Belgian newspapers. And it's in the same way, and for the same reasons, that music labels need YouTube more than YouTube needs record labels. YouTube brings the traffic, and ultimately, the revenue.

I think Doug Morris's lamenting comes down to the issue of control. Universal Records is losing control of their shop. At the rate YouTube is growing, it may not be long before artists don't need record labels anymore. Why give Universal a percent of your earnings when YouTube is happy to distribute and promote your songs for free? Why pay Universal when your audience is on YouTube? Why pay a record label when it's YouTube spreading your buzz and driving people into music stores? It doesn't make sense.

YouTube has replaced the small coffee house that artists used to have to play at to gain a following and create initial buzz. Now, someone uploads a video of Band X playing in their garage, and within a few days thousands of potential fans may have seen it. YouTube has changed the way bands attract and interact with fans.

Like newspapers need to embrace Google, record labels need to embrace YouTube. YouTube isn't Napster. They're not robbing artists of customers by giving them high-quality versions of their music; they're giving them low-grade videos to get potential customers excited and drive them into record stores. Just ask OK Go.

Instead of launching into bad deals, YouTube needs to take the Google approach to their index. If Universal Music wants YouTube to stop allowing users to infringe on their copyright, ask your users to stop uploading videos by Universal Music's artists. I bet you they'll by very inclined to help the cause, if only to prove a point. (Susan disagrees, but I think users are just that vindictive (I mean, loyal) and would be more than willing to make an example of Universal Music.) Remove them from your index and let Doug Morris see his artists' sales drop. Let him alienate his artists and his company from its core demographic. We'll see how fast he asks to be let back onto YouTube.

Obviously, there's a chance that this could produce a dangerous chain reaction where multiple record labels demand their artists' videos be taken off the site, but I think that's unlikely. A smart record executive knows the power of YouTube. They have seen the increase in the numbers that occurs after the YouTube audience grabs a hold of a video. They've seen OK Go's treadmill dance. You can't dismiss its effectiveness for getting music out to the users.

There's a lesson here: If you anger the people responsible for bringing you traffic and making you money, they'll stop.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/19/06 at 2:16 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding

International Talk like a Pirate Day

'Tis' Talk Like A Pirate Day har at Bruce Clay and be'ond, we be prope'ly celebratin'! Aye, matey, let's see what those swashbucklin' search engines have wo'ked up to'ay and if they be offerin' a wee bit o' pirate trivia to help ye sprogs in the bilge learn ye piratey ways.

[exhales deeply]

Okay, my brain hurts and my spell checker is officially very, very angry with me. I think I'll stick to 21st century English and let the search engines handle the piratey-stuff.

It was a 2-2 split this year when it came to which engines were lighthearted enough to celebrate their silliness with Talk like a Pirate Day and which were just too-cool to play along.

As usual, Ask.com is the leader of all things trivia. The folks at Ask.com are showing their Talk like a Pirate Smart Answer, which includes links to advanced pirate lingo, an English-to-pirate translator (though I prefer this one), pirate links and images, and basic info on the origin of this crazy International holiday.

Ask's Narrow Your Search function gives users an even greater wealth of information, directing them to a pirate name test, pirate vocabulary terms, pirate jokes, jargon and then something about those elusive Pittsburgh Pirates that wreak havoc and mayhem along the Eastern seas.

Sadly, Google is not running any sort of piratey-themed logo this year, but they haven't forgotten about the holiday completely. When the Inquirer contacted Google's marketing department to suggest a holiday doodle, they received an email that said in part:

"As ye may imagine, it be terrible difficult fer us t' choose which events t' be celebratin' on our site. We be hav'in a long list o' horlidays that we'd be liken' ter celebrate in th' future. We be hav'in ter balance this rotatin' calendar with th' need te be maintainin' the likeness o' the Google homepage.

Some horlidays that we no' been celebratin' in the past will be rotatin' into our horliday doodles fer future years."

Heh, well played, Google. Well played.

Yahoo! and Microsoft are too cool for their own good, ignoring the holiday completely. I realize it's silly but it's also a branding opportunity wasted. I would have loved to see Microsoft use today to attract more attention to Live.com, possibly with relevant searches or just a blog mentioning the day and pointing to their new search. There are a million things Microsoft could have done to play off today and highlight the new functionalities of Live.com. Why not take advantage of them?

Or what about Yahoo? They're about to launch a multi-million dollar, multi-medium advertising campaign. Why not capitalize on today and put a 30 second video on the Yahoo! homepage showing what pirates would be like with and without Yahoo? Make a pirate yodel. It would be low cost for them and would be seen by millions of searchers and written about by dozens of bloggers.

To make up for Yahoo! and Microsoft's slack, here be some pirate trivia to help ye sporgs learn the ways o' th' pirate (I apologize. I really can't help myself):

• Always speak in the present. A real pirate lives for today. (i.e. "I be" instead of "I was")
• The letters "r", "g" and "v" do not exist in the pirate language. Except when they do.
• Use as many adjectives as you can, preferably back to back, ad nausea.
• Insert words and phrases like "scallywag", "scurvy dog", "avast!" and "walk the plank" into every sentence. [Actually, walking the plank was an invention of Hollywood but use it anyway for the land-lubbers that don't know better.]
• Capture a parrot, teach him piratey phrases and train him to sit on your shoulder and (only) speak at key moments.
• When all else fails, end each sentence with "arr", "aye" or "argh" (this is where all the missing Rs mentioned above went.)
• Wearing an eye patch doesn't hurt.

You stay and practice, I have to go make amends with my spell checker. And my 12th grade English teacher.

Don't look so horrified, we warned you yesterday...

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/19/06 at 10:46 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding

September 18, 2006

Weekend Update

Google, Belgium both lose in court ruling

The hot story of the day is that a Belgian court has ordered Google to remove all articles, photographs and graphics from Belgian publishers out of Google News Belgium and its cache. And because Belgium must not have a "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment like the United States, Google must also display the entire judgment (without commentary) on the Google Belgium homepage for five days (it's not there yet). Failing to comply with either order could cost Google between 1 million and 1.5 million Euros a day. That's some serious we-don't-like-Google going on over there in Belgium.

This whole thing seems odd to me. First, Google News only uses snippets on their news page. All they're doing is directing others to content that may be relevant. Why do publishers get so enraged over this? Belgian newspapers may have "won" this case, but it seems to me all they've won is less traffic, followed by less advertising. Congrats?

Second, why make them display the entire judgment on the homepage? Why not just require a link on the Google News page? It's sketchy.

YouTube, Warner Music Sign Deal

YouTube and Warner Music have forged some sort of revenue sharing agreement that will put thousands of Warner Music videos on the YouTube site and allow users to legally use Warner videos without the fear of being sued. As I write this I can't help but picture Doug Morris sitting in a corner, arms folded, doing some serious pouting. You know he's not taking this well.

TechCrunch writes:

"YouTube is reported to have created technology that will automatically detect when copyrighted music is used in videos, give Warner the right to accept or reject those videos and will calculate the royalty fees Warner is owed."

Yowsa. What kind of technology is YouTube running that it can recognize songs located on some master shall-not-be-uploaded list? We're not talking about YouTube recognizing the Warner licensed-videos themselves, we're talking about them identifying every song located in the background of every homemade movie. That's quite an undertaking.

Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Mark Cuban thinks it's the undoing of YouTube, Marshall Kirkpatrick thinks it will legitimize them and I'm stuck somewhere in the middle wondering why YouTube agreed to this in the first place. I can't help but think Warner Music needs YouTube a lot more than YouTube needs Warner Music.

(TechBlog has a great rundown on the technology required to handle this deal.)

Time to drink the free coffee

Reuters reports (via SEW) that Yahoo! will soon launch a global advertising campaign to highlight its revamped homepage and popular services like Yahoo! Answers. The new campaign will hit TV, radio, cinema and online advertising and will take a humorous look at life with and without Yahoo!. The campaign sounds very good and ordinary and boring until you hear the part about Dunkin Donuts. Yes, there's yummy, delicious coffee involved here!

"There is also a Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee giveaway for Yahoo visitors on Friday, September 22. Consumers who visit the Yahoo home page and print out a one-day coupon qualify for the free coffee promotion at the U.S. fast-food franchise."

Yahoo, you're a GENIUS! If only I still lived on the East Coast where there were three DDs for every one resident. Nathan thinks Yahoo!'s DD component is silly and will induce further silliness. He's suggests Yahoo! encourage users to actually work for their free coffee. That means next time Yahoo! makes their giveaways harder, you know who to blame. [I'd rather have the free ice cream they gave away on their 10th anniversary. -- Susan]

Web 2.0 directory

Having trouble remembering the name of your favorite Web 2.0 service? The guys at Go2Web20.net created a Flash directory to help you keep track of them all. Clicking on any of the thumbnails will give you a brief description of the service and a link to its homepage. Who knew there were so many podcast, photo and video upload sides? It's all very cool, but is Google really considered Web 2.0? Really? (via TechCrunch)

Don't Forget...

Tomorrow is Talk like a Pirate Day and I can't promise you that the BC blog will not be participating in some way. I hear Susan had a little too much fun with it last year. Heh. [If you need tips on how to talk like a pirate, the Language Log has you covered. -- Susan]

(Hat tip Good Morning Silicon Valley)

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/18/06 at 2:09 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Search Engine Optimization

September 15, 2006

Friday Recap

Intermedia.net conducted a study and found hat IT people are "twice as likely" to wear heavy metal t-shirts and 33 percent LESS likely to wear clean clothes every day. This "study" clearly proves that IT people are rock stars--dirty, grungy rock stars. I'd love to see what "data" they used to discover this. Either way, go Team Nrrd!

[I have taken a survey of our IT department and found this to be false. However, IT does think that Math is Delicious.--Susan]

Robert Scoble and I apparently agree on something: Google Press Center is useless. Robert received his Google/ Intuit Partnership email notification about four hours after it was widely covered on Techmeme. That's very helpful and impressive. Personally, I'd like to thank Google for locking me out of their Multimedia Press Center because for being a mere blogger. Oh well, one day I'll be worthy enough.

While I was being rejected from Google's Press Center, MiniMatt composed a haiku about paid links. Are you read for it? [Clears throat]

"Advertising's fine
Buying links for PR: bad
Google senses much"

Excellent work, Adam MiniMatt!

Eric Ward gave us part one of his Linking Commandments and the blogosphere linked appropriately. I particularly enjoyed Eric's distinction between being a "link whore" to being just "marginally slutty". And he's right, unless you want to disappear from the Web completely, it is never ever a good idea to use Matt Cutts' name in vain.

Three things you have to know: Rand. On video. With a transformer.

This level of hot geekdom renders me speechless. In the video, Rand speaks about how he learned about the engines, his passion for the job, the advantages of going over to "the dark side", and how he thinks I'm incredible. Okay, maybe there's one of those he didn't talk about. I won't tell you which one though.

Over at Cartoon Barry, we learn why men should never be trusted to baby sit without a female present. Left to their own devices, the supposed male watcher will end up taking creepy pictures of himself, adding scary effects and then uploading them onto to Flickr. Meanwhile, young baby is left alone to crawl out a window and reenact Christmas morning by sitting atop the family's chimney contemplating making the jump. Oh, Barry...

The Funniest Line of the Day award goes to Nathan Weinberg. Nathan used the following to title his post regarding Google's blatant linking to ripped videos:

"Okay, lets make a deal: You Don't Promote Copyright Violations, And I Don't Call You A Hypocrite."

Heh. One of this week's almost-winners was Marissa Mayer and her assertion that "It's what I always wanted". Good Morning Silicon Valley speculated the comment was either in reference to the iTV demo she witnessed or Steve Jobs' soft black turtleneck. I think we all know which one she really wanted.

Nathan also pointed us to a handy Ask.com cheat sheet from About.com. Some cheats I didn't know about:

• Time in: get the time anywhere in the world.
• Betweendate: search engines between two dates. (i.e. madonna songs betweendate:19940201, 19991119)
• Geoloc: searches on geographic location

Pretty cool!

Now, this got me. I understand that file-sharing is bad. Really, I get it. It kills me to see already-wealthy musicians lose money. But did we really send in "top officials" from the U.S Patent Office to scare pig-tailed 2nd graders into paying for music on the Internet? Yes, yes we did. Those 7-year-olds just can't be trusted! [You have to be carefully taught, Lisa. Haven't you seen South Pacific? --Susan]

[Susan, you know I haven't seen South Pacific. You know this because I haven't seen any of the i-swear-you-made-that-title-up movies you've asked me about in the past 6 months.]

Apparently the message is getting through, though. After the assembly, second grader Griffin Lindahl recounted what he had learned: "No taking other people's stuff!" Fellow second grader Mikayla Snyder then added, "Don't copy other people's ideas or you'll get in trouble". I feel dirty.

Niniane Wang (via Andy) explains that sometimes working at Google means getting stuck in traffic, attacked by snakes and watching your servers die. Eeek! We're sorry, Niniane! If it makes you feel better, the snakes were probably only there because they smelled all the rodents that were hanging out around Google (like this guy). They've probably eaten them and are gone now. We hope Friday's working out better for you.

Finally, a personal thank you to Michael Arrington who blogged about Blogmusik last Saturday, a service that allows users to search for songs and play them instantly via an iPod-modeled Flash player. The database is pretty large and I was able to find and listen to many of my most favorite songs. The playlist I created was one of the few things able to keep me sane this week. So, Michael, I thank you.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/15/06 at 1:56 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Fun Stuff

September 14, 2006