Should Google Adopt an Ombudsman?

Barry Welford left a comment on Michael Gray’s Google Website Trends wrist slapping that asked if Google would benefit from hiring an ombudsman, or more likely a team of them. It’s a novel concept, but I don’t think it’s particularly realistic.

Barry thinks hiring an ombudsman and bringing in a third-party would allow Google to “ensure equity”. I can see his line of thinking here, but what does that even mean? You’re going to have a really hard time nailing down what “fairness” and “equality” means on the Internetz and what rights users have vs. the right of Google to run its search engine however the heck it pleases. Is it fair that Google is telling the world what keywords you target, what your traffic is, and who’s related to you? Is it fair that Google has established guidelines that you have to adhere to if you want to appear in their index? Is it fair that Google can remove your site from its index for any time and for any reason? Is it fair that Susan’s Web site ranks higher than mine even though I’m clearly superior? Probably not, but Google is a business and it has a right to do what’s best for its search engine.

Regardless of my displeasure with Google’s decision to share your site information for kicks, I don’t think Google is out to hurt its users or webmasters. I think they do a pretty good job most of the time of keeping their users in mind and doing what’s best for the average Web searcher. Unfortunately for you and me, we’re not the average Web surfer, which means we often feel wronged when Google does something to change how sites rank. In my opinion, as much as I love the geek journalism term, hiring an ombudsman would be a bad idea. Giving search marketers a person to complain to won’t make them feel more heard or listened to. It’s just going to raise their stress levels when they spend the entirety of their day ranting and complaining to that one person. [And slowly remove the will to live from that person. --Susan]

Are Video Conversations Next?

Kim Krause-Berg says that social media as we know it today is on its way out. People crave human contact and what we have today takes that away from us. We’re missing the feeling of being with people, being able to look someone in the eye, and form a real connection with them. Kim harks to a new social media system where people can form satisfying connections. Is that why video conversation site Seesmic just earned another $6 million in funding? Is Seemic that environment or can we only develop “real” relationships in person?

I don’t know. I don’t even understand the appeal of Seesmic. I’m not interested in video blog comments and the idea of meeting strangers and then having conversations with them seems unappealing, if not downright terrifying. And as much as I like the social connections that I’ve formed on Facebook and Twitter, I realize that part (okay, a big part) of the reason why I love conferences is because I get to hug my friends and gossip with them and be silly with them in person. Maybe a system like Seesmic will be able to help bridge those two relationships.

What do you think the next level of social media is? Is it video conversation among different social groups? Would that help people like Kim get the interaction they’ve been missing? How do you want to interact with people online?

Question: When’s The Best Day To Send An Email?

Answer: There isn’t one.

Jeanniey Mullen explains that there is no longer a “best” day to send an email. In case you thought you still had control over your customers’ actions, you don’t. You can’t simply send an email and expect your customers to act. Things must now be done on their terms, which means knowing when they’re thinking about your product, what they want from you, and being aware of what they’re using to read your emails. This is where checking site logs and looking at Web analytics information is super important because it gives you a clear snap shot of your core audience. If you don’t know who your customer is and what they want, you don’t even have a chance of getting their attention.

Fun Finds

Marty Weintraub (whose last name I can’t spell regardless of how many times I try) offers up 24 different industry recruitment channels. Yowsa. Who knew there were so many SEO job boards? [We should be posting to each and every one of them. --Susan]

The Google Operating System blog gives me the heads up about how I can play my favorite YouTube video on loop by adding a simple parameter. Sweet!

Microsoft says if Yahoo fires Jerry Yang they may bid again. Yikes.

SEO Weekend Update was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

One of the non search-related blogs I keep handy in my feed reader is LeahPeah. Somewhat Dooce-like, Leah Peterson writes on an assortment of lifestyle-related topics and does a really good job getting a chuckle out the cynical likes of me. (Okay, another reason why I like her is because she’s the mom of Devon, one of my all-time favorite Bruce Clay people.) Yesterday’s Leah non-SEO blog transcended all genres when she wrote a post appropriately titled Newsletter Spam, an issue that has become increasingly frustrating to many of us as of late.

Leah was surprised to wake up one day to find 30+ newsletters sitting in her inbox that she had no recollection of subscribing to. Even worse, when she tried to systematically unsubscribe from the newsletter hell that she never asked for, she found that all newsletters are not created equal. Some are polite and make it easy for you to leave their team, while others try handcuff you to the bench and leave you without food or water.

Leah explains:

"…kudos go to the companies that allow a one step unsubscribe. You click the link, you’re out. The next best are the two click unsubscribe. You click the link, they ask you if you’re sure or to input your email, then you’re out. But BOO and BAH to the companies that make you log in to your account and search for a tiny button somewhere that says ‘newsletters’ or ‘preferences’ that is hidden on the page or 5 clicks into the site. Don’t make me hate you while I try to get off your mailing list. That is when you become SPAM to me instead of just mostly a waste of my time."

I’d like to head over to wherever Leah is at the moment and give her a giant high five, or maybe a hug, because as those following me on Twitter can attest to, I’ve been stuck in my own newsletter spam hell lately. It seems The Knot hasn’t gotten the message that I no longer have a need for their services. In fact, I’ve unsubscribed something like six times over the past year and yet I still get their newsletter each month telling me about how awesome it is to be getting married. Now they’re even sending printed material from their sister site The Nest to my apartment, which is somewhat concerning since I didn’t live at my current apartment when I signed up for the services. What magic hat did my address get pulled out of? Or maybe they just heard I was a former Ask.com fan and assumed I was a married woman and put me on their list?

Either way, I want off. Only they won’t let me get off. And now I hate them.

I used to think that perhaps my frustration with the awful wedding site [Nice anchor text there. --Susan] My mad SEO skillz at work. Huzzah! was just because I am so immersed in Internet marketing and therefore realize that sending me your crap even though I’ve expressed disinterest is not only bad form, but also SPAM. But hearing Leah’s complaints proves otherwise. It’s not just SEOs who are bothered by email spam; everyone is bothered by email spam. When you trick users into signing up for a newsletter or refuse to them out of your clutches despite their protesting, you’re crossing the line and are spamming. What do you think Leah’s brand association with the companies spamming her will be? The next time I get engaged, do you think I’m going to go sign up at The Knot? I’m thinking not. [rimshot?]

Email marketing is a powerful tool for increasing brand awareness, strengthening your relationships with customers, and bringing in new customers, but you have to know how to use it. And part of that knowledge means making sure your emails are as transparent as possible and understanding the CAN-SPAM legislation. All of your email campaigns should be double opt-in. Each email should have an easily accessible link that allows subscribers to leave, and as Leah points out, it’d be nice if that action could be accomplished in one or two clicks. Don’t hold people hostage like The Knot does. And when users do choose to opt-out, make sure that action is processed in a timely manner.

There’s a synergy that exists between email and search marketing. When you trample your customer’s privacy in an email campaign, you’re throwing mud on your search engine marketing campaign at the same time and losing all the positive brand effects you’ve created to this point. It’s not just "polite" to get permission from users before you clutter up their inboxes, it’s a law. Customers don’t like it when you try and take advantage of them. Shocking.

Killing Your Brand with Newsletter Spam was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

Scrolling AdSense Ads? Why Not a Ticker?

News broke today that Google is testing a new scrolling ad format that allows users to scroll through ads by using little up and down or left and right arrows. gSpy has screenshots and a video detailing how the whole thing works. Go check it out and then come back (don’t forget to come back!).

Good? Sweet.

I just have a question for Google. What planet are you living on that you think people want to scroll through ads? Fine, some people don’t mind ads and will click on one when it seems unusually relevant or interesting. But that’s very different than having users manually click on more ads. Why would they search through ads when they have a fresh search results page staring them in the face? I’m just not sure how successful this is going to be.

It would be interesting to get some numbers on how many click-throughs the "See More Ads" link that Google places at the bottom of AdSense text ads get. Does that button see much traffic? My guess would be that no, it does not.

I get that Google is always looking for ways to increase advertising and encourage people to interact with ads. However, I’d much rather see them do what Quigo was doing where there’s a block of ads and then every few seconds one ad drops off and a fresh one comes on. At least that does a good job of attracting eyeballs thanks to the slow movement. Also, it allows Quigo to run more ads without relying on users to take any type of additional action. To me, that makes much more sense. Or maybe they already do that and I just haven’t seen it?

Do People Care About Blogger Opinion?

The findings of a soon-to-be published study are said to prove that old fashioned word of mouth is more effective than having the backing of "highly-connected influencers" like bloggers.

I was suckered in by the title but, unfortunately for me, the little press teaser contains no actual statistics or data to back up that assertion in any way. It would interesting to know what criteria they used to come to this conclusion. Did they ask people who they trust more, their friends or Robert Scoble? Did they track how quickly information was passed along? Or did they test how many people heard about X from Y and then converted in some way? I’m hoping it was something more in line with the last option.

It makes sense that people would trust their friends and family more than Jason Calacanis or Mark Cuban, and therefore be more inclined to convert. I’d still like to see some data on how exactly the study was conducted. I guess I have to check out this month’s edition of the Journal of Advertising Research. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to be online.

Really, though, all this "study" does is prove what we already know – that consumers trust information more when they hear it from someone they know. Good. Take that information and design your product to make your customers happy, all of them, not just the elite. Pamper everyone. Ask for feedback from everyone. Make every opinion count. Do that and you should have no problem gaining some positive word of mouth, regardless of who it’s coming from.

All Email Is Spam!

Okay, maybe not all, but according to Barracuda Networks, as much as 90-95 percent of email is spammy and it doesn’t look like that number is going to die down any time soon. Yikes! The Barracuda Networks study is said to be based on an analysis of more than 1 billion daily e-mail messages sent to its 50,000+ customers worldwide.

Can that really be true? Is 95 percent of your email spam or is Barracuda, "a leader in email and Web security" trying to be sensational for their own good? I’m not sure. It’s worth nothing, though, that Symantec estimates the amount of spam to be more like 71 percent, which seems considerably more likely.

What does your inbox look like? Once you take out all the Twitter notifications and Facebook friend requests, is there anything left?

Fun Finds

Scott Karp explains why he stopped using Twitter. And then the blogosphere went nuts. W00t!

A super, super post from Chris Garrett on How to Generate Post Ideas When You Are Stuck. This post is filled with great stuff!

Scrolling Ads, Word of Mouth, Email Spam & Fun Stuff was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

They say it’s much easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission. And while that little nugget may hold true for many of life’s funny circumstances (eating the last cupcake, taking a picture during a concert, etc), it is not true when it comes to managing customer relationship. I don’t care how polite you are during the act or how remorseful you are after, if you knowingly spam me and put my Web site in harm’s way, I will never, ever forgive you. And that goes for your brand as well.

Here are just two examples of companies employing "polite" spam techniques I encountered while traveling the Internets today.

Example 1: Making people opt-out instead of in

One of email marketing’s most basic principles is the notion of the double opt-in. Joey sees your newsletter offering, subscribes and then confirms that he subscribed via a follow up email that you politely sent him. This process seems to work well for most people. It allows your customers to get access to the information they want and it ensures that you don’t look like a spammer trying to deceive potential customers. Apparently, however, Dell missed that memo.

Seth Godin shared an email a friend of his received after purchasing a new computer from Dell. It seems that Dell was so overcome with emotion over this purchase that "as a gesture of gratitude" Seth’s friend was opted into receiving their weekly Dell Small Business E-mail Update. He was even advised to watch his inbox for the abundance of promotional emails that were sure to come!

Wait – what’s that called when you’re automatically opted into something you never wanted? Oh yeah, spam!

I can’t even count the number of companies out there expressing their "gratitude" through my inbox. It makes me want to stab them all with tiny little sharp objects.

Seth went on to share an example of how The Better Business Bureau uses bait and switch tactics to get people to purchase a membership. The irony of the BBB tricking people into shelling over the cash for a membership is delicious. It’s like Santa picking your pockets as you jump off his lap.

Example 2: Services that insert hidden links for you

This is one of my favorite forms of Web spam due to how prevalent it is. Never again will I copy and paste a piece of code without reading it in it’s entirely. Why? Because 7 out of 10 times there’s something in there that shouldn’t be.

Here’s a fun example.

I know you’re all really interested in your favorite blogger (that would be me, play along) so I’m going to embed a map right here so that all of you can see where I grew up. I decide to use CommunityWalk share a map feature to help me do this. Here’s the code snippet they provide me with. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the good parts:

<iframe src=”http://www.communitywalk.com/groups/set_commercial_domain/184956″ onload=”if (this.src.indexOf(‘http://www.communitywalk.com/iframe/content/184956′) == -1) this.src=’http://www.communitywalk.com/iframe/content/184956?zoom=-2′ + location.hash” width=”300″ height=”300″ frameborder=”0″ name=”ff_cw_184956″ id=”ff_cw_184956″ scrolling=”no”></iframe><a href=”http://www.weddingmapper.com” style=”position:absolute; top: -1000px; left: -1000px;”>The best wedding planning tool</a>
<a href=http://www.communitywalk.com/smithtown_long_island/map/184956 style=’display:none’>CommunityWalk Map – Smithtown, Long Island</a><img src=’http://www.communitywalk.com/images/blank.gif’ onload=”setTimeout(function() {document.getElementById(‘ff_cw_184956′).onload()}, 100)” />

Hmm, a link to weddingmapper.com that’s positioned far off the page? How did that get in there?

Surely, they can’t be trying to deceive me, right? I mean, they did tell me that I was free to remove the bad parts if I wanted. Well, at least that’s what they told me right before they changed their mind and instructed me to display the code in its entirety.

Take a look.

Methinks they’re confused.

But they’re not confused. They’re trying to take advantage of me. Putting that link in there has nothing to do with "helping the search engines", as they claim, it’s all about them trying to increase their backlinks while I go on not even realizing it’s there.

And even if they do give you "permission" to edit the code, it doesn’t make their act any less deceptive. It doesn’t make them any less guilty, nor does it help customers resolve that bad taste they got in their mouth when they found the dirty code in there to begin with.

Realize that no matter how polite you are about your efforts to spam your customers, you’re still spamming them and it’s not okay. By sending them that newsletter they never asked for, by opting them in to receive coupons and discounts they’re not interested in, and by inserting hidden links onto their Web site, you’re taking away their choice, showing them that you don’t care about them and potentially destroying your brand’s image.

Don’t do it.

It’s never okay to jeopardize your site’s reputation or to knowingly mislead your customers. This is how you find yourself with a giant reputation management problem when the search results are about what an evil spammer you are instead of how great/useful/wicked awesome your services are.

Permission Marketing is Still Best was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

Okay, so you have this Web site thing. It’s that place where you publish lots of information about the goods or services you offer and sometimes people come by and actually buy stuff. Then you have your blog. Your blog is the place where you author opinion, point to interesting news or maybe just whine about what a bad day you’re having. However you use it, your blog gives you that direct line of communication with those that are important to you and your business.

Now that you have all these new online mediums that you’re using to communicate with potential customers, do you really need a company newsletter on top of that or have blogs replaced the traditional e-newsletter? That’s the question Dawud Miracle is asking.

For me, no, a company blog does not replace an email newsletter. You can argue that if you started your newsletter as a way to generate conversation or to get people talking about your brand, then yeah, maybe those goals are now being met by your blog. But even so, there’s still room for an email newsletter in your Internet marketing campaign.

There are plenty of people who still think RSS is some sort of flesh-eating disease. Plenty of people who don’t know what a blog is, but do grasp email. Emails are those things that appear in their inbox and tell them stuff. Sometimes there are even those blue links that they can click on that take them to new and exciting worlds. My mother loves email. Sometimes when she finds an interesting site or a funny photo she even saves it to her AOL Favorite Places. She’s super savvy.

And even if your audience does grasp blogging and RSS, that monthly or bi-monthly newsletter is still a good way to reinforce your brand and keep yourself at their top of mind. ResourceShelf is a great example of this. Gary Price and crew have a great blog at RS, with lots of valuable information that you won’t find anywhere else. I subscribe to Gary’s blog and I read his feed as it comes in, but sometimes my brain is so swamped with SEO news, that I miss a good nugget or two. It’s not until I get his weekly newsletter on Thursday that I think, hey, maybe I should spend some additional time over there and see if I missed anything. And when I do head over, I’m usually guaranteed to find a valuable post that I skipped over in my hurry to empty my feed reader. With Gary’s weekly newsletter, I’d be missing out on a lot of good information

At Bruce Clay, we have both an SEO blog and an SEO newsletter. They’re two completely different entities. The styles are different, the voice is different, and the intent is different. Our blog is where Lisa gets a little mouthy and gives you her opinion even though you never asked for it; our newsletter is where we publish articles related to Internet marketing. It’s where we give you an intelligent recap of the past two weeks in search, keep you up-to-date on upcoming events, tell you who just got a new job, pass on industry rumors, etc. It’s geared towards education.

We keep the newsletter around because it really does serve an entirely different purpose than the blog. We also realize that far more people read our SEO newsletter than they do our blog. Susan says this is because some people want their SEO news sans Lisa. That’s just crazy talk to me.

Dawud says he’s beginning to question his need for an email list. He mentions the backlash that’s occurring against interruption marketing and how users are becoming less and less tolerant to spam. And he’s not wrong. People hate spam and are becoming increasingly hostile towards it. This is why your email newsletter should not come even remotely close to resembling an email from that Nigerian cousin you never knew you had. If your newsletter is primarily targeted towards selling, then yeah, you may want to drop it. Focus on educating and providing valuable information instead. You’ll win far more friends and customers that way.

If you’re out there wondering if your newly popular blog means you can throw away that email template, my answer would be no. I think that when used in tandem, blogs and newsletters are actually really great complements to one another. Why weaken your Internet marketing message by using only one?

Has Your Blog Replaced Your Company Newsletter? was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

Happy Wednesday! You guys are totally missing out because I’m doing my happy I-got-coffee-and-life-is-good dance to the blaring Nelly Furtado playing in the ballroom right now. Take a second and imagine all the crazy shimmying in your minds, if you will. Huzzah!

Okay, knock it off. It’s time to get serious. Jon Fine (BusinessWeek) is moderating this morning’s keynote roundtable panel with speakers Jason Hirschhorn (Sling Media Group), Kourosh Karimkhany (Wired Digital), Suzie Reider (YouTube) and Caroline Little (Washingtonpost.com, Newsweek Interactive).

Before we get to the keynote, Drew Ianni is back to deliver some opening remarks and housekeeping details. He says that some of the session rooms have been changed due to overcrowding. Oh, no! I’m going to get lost again, aren’t I? More running in heels for me.

Drew shares some noteworthy terms he heard yesterday including:

• Video Snacking – Heh. I heard this all day yesterday and it made me giggle and slightly hungry all day.
• Web 3.0 – Thankfully, I haven’t heard this.
• Engagement – Are we still talking about Rand? That happened 2 months ago, people. Let’s move on!
• Mastering "The Art of Conversation" – Creating a brand dialogue.

Now that we’re updated on yesterday, it’s time for today. The keynote speakers are all comfortably seated on the blue couch and orange chairs that I’m stealing out of the conference hall Friday night. Don’t tell anyone.

Jon says if content is indeed king there are a lot of people in his neck of the woods not feeling it right now. The value of certain top tier content is not being recognized or monetized in the new media world. These new distribution platforms have also shown that professional content isn’t always needed.

It’s worth noting that today when we talk about content we’re not just talking about professionally written words. We’re talking about all forms of social media, but especially video.

Before the panelists are allowed to speak, Jon warms them that if they’re caught using the phrase "the consumer is in control" they will be seriously punished. Awesome.

Caroline starts out talking about her experiences working for Washingtonpost.com and says that her company has an unprecedented audience. Ad revenues are growing at alarmingly fast rate. Her goal is to make enough money in alternative forms of media so she can continue to build what is core to her mission which is newsgathering. And that’s newsgathering for all forms of media, not just print.

Jon asks if the power is with the content holders or the aggregators?

Kourosh says it’s still with the content holders. The aggregation is becoming less important because of Google and the search results. Having good old HTML on your site with good content is the surest way of getting content to your audience. Create the content and the engines will find it.

Suzie from YouTube says, like love and marriage, you can’t have one without the other. Content and aggregators are in control because we need them both for the system to work.

Jason says content is still the King. Distribution without content doesn’t mean much but the biggest pockets on the Web are sites like YouTube, Yahoo, Google, etc. These sites aren’t creating content, they’re aggregating it. What’s genius about Google is Google’s platform is not Google.com. It’s everywhere AdSense is. Google doesn’t actually create anything but they’re involved in everything. That’s powerful.

Kouosh says where Wired gets the most value is making sure they’re ending up in the search results. Jason says a key factor is that not everyone needs to be a Time Warner. Sites are content to be smaller and getting less traffic. They know if you are doing a deal with AdSense or Panama, it’s not just about the big publishers. In aggregate, the small publishers mean something.

Suzie says the real question is what is content today? When you hear content people think of professionally created content. They don’t think of the stuff that’s on YouTube, but it is. That may be true but that just means all those people are wrong. All those YouTube cat videos are content. It doesn’t matter how you feel about cats.

Jon questions Suzie on the rumors that YouTube is experimenting with testing ad models and when they’ll "flip the switch" and make those live.

Suzie responds that YouTube cares a lot about their content partners and they want to reward them. YouTube is approaching testing in an academic way. They’re looking at the ad executions on the watch page (the page where the videos reside) to find a system that will not interrupt the user experience but will provide a revenue stream for these content producers. They’re testing very quick commercial intros at the beginning and than maybe one at the end. What they don’t want to do is interrupt the user experience. It’s not going to be a great unveiling, she says, it’s going to be an evolving process. Suzie says they’re being really careful not to screw it up, but content products may begin seeing ad models as early as this summer.

Jon says one of the reasons YouTube took off was the user experience. Will a bumper or pre-roll ad disrupt that experience?

Suzie says it might. She doesn’t think a :15 pre-roll in front of a :27 clip is going to be a great experience. YouTube is going to keep looking at it.

Jason argues that pre-roll ads don’t work because users are clicking expecting content and they don’t want to have to wait for it. Placing a bumper on a second video may work as long as users know where they are. No one has figured out a model that works yet. Advertisers need to be very flexible about what the units are.

Kourosh says he’s a big fan of YouTube and with that the love fest begins. He says Wired is a big supporter and they use it everyday. They have their own video solution but their journalists and editors prefer YouTube over their own. Aw, that’s nice.

Jason jokes that YouTube is cool but he’s selling Slingboxes out by the taxi stand.

Jon asks if advertisers are comfortable taking from what’s online?

Jason says they’re not because there’s a whole system built against NOT going down that road. However, what we’re seeing is that users care less about "quality" versus great, funny content. The utility that we’ve gotten out of SNL shorts has been the same as professional content. There’s a great farm club and they’ll pick talent out from there. Advertisers have to get with it and realize that they don’t control their brands online.

Jon asks Caroline what she thinks about Yahoo now partnering with 12 major newspaper companies to share revenue.

Caroline says that if you look at the people who have signed up with Yahoo they’re primarily smaller companies. The deals were originally built around jobs, now it’s changing. If you look at the larger newspapers (like Caroline’s), they haven’t signed up for big distribution deals because they already have fairly decent distribution. The smaller papers are looking at something very different than what we’re looking at.

Jason cautions that you also have to look at the long term. Who controls the sales in those deals? You have to protect yourself. It’s not about copyright; it’s about control and sharing.

Kourosh becomes the coolest guy in the room saying he’s totally comfortable with users mashing up Wired content. Wired allows users to take their content, modify it, and throw it up on their site as long as they link back and they’re not using it for commercial purposes. They realize their audience is actually smarter than they are in some areas.

Caroline doesn’t seem quite as comfortable as Kourosh with letting users take control of the content. That’s because she’s from a "big media company". She believes there’s a scale with reporting and editing that is useful. If you’re a political reporter you know more than a layperson who just dabbles in it. I think there’s a role for reporters and journalists, she says. I think Caroline’s not making a lot of fans this morning, heh.

The difference with Wired and sites like Washingtonpost.com is that Wired really lays the framework for users and then let’s them take control over it. I think users respect that. I also think Wired has the perfect audience for adapting that kind of business model.

Jason says this stuff is going to happen the way it’s going to happen. Major media has put way too much effort into fighting it instead of letting the floodgates open and learning how to monetize it. I totally agree with Jason the approach Wired seems to be taking. Big media needs to wake up.

Caroline says there is a definite attitude in media NOT to send people off their site or link to a competitor and it’s a losing proposition; the Web doesn’t work that way. The major media still haven’t accepted things like blogs.

Kourosh says you make money from the conversation the same way you did before. The only thing difference is that these days the conversation is a lot more interesting than the static voice it once was. He shares a funny story where a Wired reported wanted to interview Jason Calacanis but didn’t want to do it through email (which Jason was fighting for) because the writer didn’t want to lose the conversation and the ability to go off on tangents. Jason blogged about it in the normal angry Jason way and proclaimed that Wired was afraid of email. Wire, smartly, used their blog to respond and before any knew it the conversation that was created was a lot more interesting than the actual interview probably would have been.

He’s right. That conversation is more interesting because it’s real. Not to use the popularity of reality TV analogy used in yesterday’s Blogging session, but there is some truth to that. It’s interesting to watch people react in their natural way. It’s always more interesting to see Jason Calacanis act out the way Jason does than to get him into a cold interview format over email. Which conversation would you rather ease drop in?

The lesson of the keynote is that video is content and that big media needs to recognize that people do want to have these conversations. Poor, Caroline. She’s taking all the heat for being part of "big media". Jason wants to see traditional media companies taking the lead in these conversations. I think we all do.

Keynote Roundtable Panel: Content Is King! (Again?) was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

I’m not sure it was a brilliant idea to put an analytics-based session at the end of Day 1, but here we are. At an analytics-based session on the end of Day 1. Ah, I crack me up. Good times, good times.

So, Rick Bruner (DoubleClick) is acting as moderator amongst panelists Young-Bean Song (Atlas), Chad Parizman (Scripps Networks Interactive), Darren Stoll (Macys.com) and John Squire (CoreMetrics). Am I the only one who just wants to scoop DoubleClick’s Rick up, lock him in a room, and grill him about Google? [Yes.--Susan] Okay, moving on then.

Rick starts off saying that the Internet is much more accountable than any other medium, however, it’s still very complicated. He asks the panel to talk about a client that from a measurement point of view has really made a breakthrough. Who’s getting it right?

Young doesn’t out a company, more a way of doing things. He thinks companies that are doing things right are those that combine their online presence with display advertising. He says it makes sense that there would be some kind of combined effect and obviously there is. He states that advertisers who run campaigns simultaneously with other online efforts saw a considerable lift in conversation rate. To those of us in search, this makes total sense.

Several of the panelists talked about the need for analysts to looking beyond the last click or the last ad seen in order to find a richer story. Darren talked about this in depth, highlighting some of the stuff Macy’s has been working on.

For example, he noted that Macy’s tracks their marketing programs through CoreMetrics, as well as a separate email tracking system. Often while comparing data he’ll find a significant discrepancy from what CoreMetrics reports to what their email tracking program reports. Digging deeper he can see that there is so much activity tied to multiple mediums that to have that cut and dry "this is what got them here" is insufficient. Often people will click through the email, then leave, and come back later in the day through Google and make a conversion. In this case, Google would get credit for the conversion even through it was really sparked by the email.

For advertisers, looking beyond the last click or last ad seen creates a richer story. Sometimes an ad that didn’t look good in reporting is actually found to be delivering really well. It just wasn’t the last ad seen so it doesn’t get the credit. More thorough analysis is used to see that credit and reallocate budgeting channels accordingly.

Darren notes that Macy’s is working hard to identify the different value points throughout the site. Historically, they’ve given the last click credit and used that to determine what’s working but now they’re looking at the long chain of events.

Chad chimes in from a publisher’s perspective saying that their differentiator is video. He says he’s had some really great success with custom Web-based content sponsorship. The hot buttons in measuring video are things like completion of content, watching another video, just starting a video, etc. He wants to see users watching multiple videos in the same session and coming back for more.

You can also using metric information to see the relationship between online researchers who buy things offline. John’s company does a lot of work with tracking customer behavior offline. He uses things like membership IDs, email addresses, and tracking cookies to see what ads are leading users into the physical store to make a purchase.

Young commented that you don’t even need a big CRN infrastructure to figure out the offline/online scenario. He says, imagine you have a simple promotion in the offline store where every time someone buys something you give them a ticket to go to a Web site and enter their email address to see if they "won" a free gift. You don’t need everyone to go, you just need a sample. Once they give you their email or some other identifier, you can go back and see if they’ve ever spent time on your site before. You can use that information to better target products to them in the future.

Rick polls the panelists and asks them to identify one aspect of analytics that is still a really big challenge for their company.

Darren says his company struggles with the cross channel analytics. Figuring out what their online activities are doing to drive offline activity. They’re striving to be smarter on an individual level in order to engage consumers more intelligently.

Somehow the other panelists are let off the hook and Rick moves on to his new question: Where do you think advertisers are not doing metrics well?

Chad says that marketers can come up with a compelling story but they have to get into the equation early on. The good thing about Web analytics is that you can track everything. The downside is that you can track everything. [*forced laughter*] The skill in analytics comes in knowing when to track, how to track and how to report on the date you’re receiving. Chad says this is his company’s stumbling block.

John says advertisers are getting caught up in the hottest new thing instead of spending that dollar on things that are already known to convert well. The thing people struggle with is that there are so many ways to go out and address customers that advertisers get distracted.

The always opinionated Young says advertisers need to get looking at view through conversions. VTCs are when a consumer sees an ad, doesn’t click on it, but then converts. Even though there was no click, the conversation is still attributed to the last ad seen. Young says he’s seen no evidence that VTCs are a significant measure of direct response. Actually, it’s not a measure of direct response at all. It is a measure of targeted reach. If you get more VTC from one site than another, you’re getting a more targeted reach. Basically, Young things VTCs are named wrong.

Darren agrees with Young and says he doesn’t put a lot of weight on VTCs. All they are doing is capturing a sense of the quality of the traffic that’s seeing that ad. When he’s optimizing his marketing he’s looking at what sales are being driven by this and clicks.

What is missing in the field of metrics?

Chad says talent. Heh. I think that’s a great place to end!

See you tomorrow. Blogger’s gotta eat.

Measurement and Metrics was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

Hi, friends. Yes, we really are doing this again. I have 17 sessions to cover over the next three days (assuming I hit all the keynotes). My eyes are already welling up with tears. And even worse, the closest Starbucks is still too far to walk to in heels. Somebody hates me and I’m pretty sure it’s Susan.

Despite my non-caffeinatedness, it’s time for this morning’s keynote. On stage, Lynne Johnson (FastCompany.com) is set to interview keynote speaker Brian McAndrews (aQuantive, Inc) on one of the coolest navy blue couches I’ve ever seen. That’s how you know this is an advertising conference – the sets totally rock. I wonder if that blue couch and the accompanying orange chairs would fit in our rental car? They’d look wicked sweet in my apartment.

Drew Ianni starts with some opening remarks and making San Jose vs. San Francisco jokes that I don’t understand. Drew says he’s from the 408. Or something. Other people laughed so I did too (I already feel inferior because I don’t have a blackberry. I don’t want to feel totally out of the loop). Thankfully, he moves on to some Ad:Tech housekeeping and says Ad:Tech is about how digital is transforming marketing communications. It’s given me a job for one thing. He also talks about the upcoming Ad:Tech awards and how there will be free booze. People laugh again and this time I can comfortably join in. I, too, understand the humor in free booze.

Drew welcomes the marketing maelstrom. Luckily, Drew defined "maelstrom" before my brain had a chance to explode. A maelstrom is a powerful, often violent whirlpool sucking in objects within a given radius. That sounds disgusting.

From there, Drew offers a State of the Industry and talks about things like DoubleClick, YouTube, how content is king, the rich getting richer (99 percent of online revenue is going to the Top 10 sites), and the importance of measurement. All good stuff.

And with that, it’s time for this morning’s keynote. Yay.

Lynne says welcome (Welcome, everyone!) and asks Brian, whose been in the game for a long time, how he came out of the "bust" five years ago.

The key for Brian was that his company was founded on the idea that digital was going to be valuable, and that over time everything would become digital. He says that even during the downturn he knew his company was going to be worthwhile and that marketers were going to pay for that. His company had a lot of people who continued to believe in the direction they were headed.

Brian says that behind the scenes they stayed afloat by trying to bring traditional companies into the digital space. They didn’t just focus on those "hot companies" with unsustainable business model. They diversified revenue streams. Perhaps most importantly, they had a relative mature management team comprised of people from different experiences who had already been through the down times and knew how to handle it. I think that’s pretty important. You want people who know how to handle disaster and find their way out of it.

Lynne questions Brian on what’s different from the last boom to today’s boom. Brain says there’s a more stable foundation of marketers in the industry. The reality is there are so many companies now who are firmly footed in this industry. Back in 2000, a lot of the high flyers were unprofitable. Today that isn’t the case. The companies that are footed in this place are valuable and marketers themselves are very strategic. They’re not getting into digital because they "have to". They’re getting involved because they recognize that it’s good business and that’s where customers and viewers are going. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction, which is very different from years past.

Lynne asks: Where do you think we’re going in the next five years? Will we still be looking to integrate traditional and digital, or will be all digital?

We’re going to be closer to all digital, states Brian. Ultimately all media will become digital. In the next five years, you’ll see significant shift. A key development will be with television. By 2008, 43 percent of all households will have video on demand in some form and we’re already seeing that with devices like TiVo. (I wish I had TiVo. I’m missing some quality cheese programming this week.) [I love my TiVo. --Susan]

Brian’s company is taking their learned lessons from the Internet (technology, analytics, etc.) and repurposing it for the other mediums. Brian also talks about inserting dynamic ads into television (Google? Are you listening?). There will be more fragmentation. The Web site is replacing the :30 commercial in terms of defining the brand of a company. The ability to interact deeply with a Web site and have an immersive interactive experience is where marketers are going today.

Brain says the reason dynamic ads and on-demand programming is important is because consumers want it. Also, cable companies recognize this is an opportunity to respond to the desire for consumer control and make their product more readily available to them. This gives them an economic model to do that. This is where the world is going.

Lynne says: Lots of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) going on lately. Why do you think this trend is coming about?

According to Brian, the trend of M&A has been there off and on all along. It was on the "off" during the burst because companies didn’t want to bet on companies. This is a very dynamic industry with lots of innovations. One of the similarities between now and five years ago are that companies you’ve never heard of 5 years ago are now at the top of their game. Think Facebook (hi, girls!), YouTube, etc.

Brian’s strategy is that they’re not a roll-up. It’s not about growth. It’s about understanding what their customers need and then deciding if it’s better to build it or to buy it. Brian said his company’s acquisitions are driven by what the customers want, especially geographically. Brian says global expansion is both an offensive move and a defensive move. To Brain it makes more sense for companies to grow organically than through acquisitions.

Lynne: Often we’re hearing a lot about integration, social media, video, etc. It’s really changing the way the business is developing. What really is integration?

Brian says what marketers ultimately want is one view of their customers. They want to interact with them through various channels and learn more about them and what they’re interested in. Consumer A is interested in X and we’ve reached them through Y and Z. You can use this information to target them later on. Traditional agencies used to come up with a big idea for TV and then try and repurpose it through radio, print and billboards. This is not the model of the future.

The model of the future is that we have to think about all the channels upfront. When we think about messaging a consumer, we need to find an approach that is relevant to all mediums. You have to think upfront about the creative message and what the interactive is that your consumers will have with that message. Where do you want to be seen? Where do you not want to be seen? It’s more work, but you get a lot more data too. Brian’s belief is that digital becomes the center where marketers are left much better informed about how users are going to interact.

Lynne says mobile is a totally different beast with no advertising standard. How should marketers be creative?

Brian says when he thinks about mobile he fears that trying to standardize it too quickly will kill it. Mobile is different, he says. There’s a certain utility and value to mobile that’s very quick. Users are looking for things to "snack on", not necessarily to watch an entire full length movie. His feeling is people will be creative but he says let’s learn and take the time to make some mistakes and experiment before creating standards that everyone has to adapt to. Amen, my friend!

Lynne asks about social media and questions Brian about his company is working with clients.

Brian calls social media an interesting change in the landscape. There are constantly things coming out and consumers are defining the marketplace. In turn, this advertising is content they’re deciding how they want to receive that and how they want to avoid it. It’s another part of the media fragmentation. Social media is here to stay. People want to have the opportunity to interact, to make their opinions known, to share content with their peers, etc. Viral may become the new broadcast.

Marketers need to listen to those consumers – go to blogs and see what’s being said about you. Use that big focus group to see how people are naturally reacting to your message. Also, recognize that "interactive" means two-way. You can have a really long interactive with consumers that you could never have before. You can see when they left your page, what you asked for that turned them away, how long do they spend on our page? In return for that learning you have to take some risks. You need to be willing to listen, to be open and figure out a way to measure it.

AdTech Keynote: What The Past Five Years Can Teach Us was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

Um, no.

Precision Marketing (via TW) reports that the geniuses behind AOL and Yahoo’s Goodmail campaign will launch a similar "paid-for" email venture in the United Kingdom. That would be awesome had, you know, the system actually worked in the States or gotten any kind of backing whatsoever. But it didn’t. So why would it be adopted in the UK?

The perceived idea behind these pay-to-send email systems is that charging emailers a small fee to send a piece of mail will deter the spammy mass mailers from overloading your inbox. The problem is that it doesn’t. I know, it’s shocking, but spammers aren’t going to stop emailing you simply because others are willing to pay an admission fee. They’re simply going to get smarter about it.

My problem with these paid-for email services is that they try and mask the problem instead of fixing it. Instead of email service providers putting their efforts into fighting spam, they’re more apt to charge companies to fight the war for them. There are so many problems with this. In my eyes, ESPs who adopt this system are selling out their customers.

First of all, it’s self-serving. It gives ESPs no incentive to better their spam detecting techniques. By working to fight spam they would actually be taking money out of their own pockets. This system puts it in their best financial interests to provide a weaker service. Why would anyone support that? The email that makes it into your inbox should be there based on your ESPs ability to trust the sender, not because they paid for it. Email is not pay per click.

Second, paid-for email will act as an obstacle for nonprofits and small businesses who can’t afford to pay for every piece of email they send. That’s why lots of companies send email – because it’s free and print mailings costs money. There’s something very wrong about asking honest companies to use their marketing budgets to cover their email costs simply because ESPs aren’t improving spam filters as fast as spammers are learning to get past them. It’s almost backwards.

Advocates of Goodmail (read: those that stand to make money off it) say the system will manage mail in a way that will make it "easy" for recipients to complain about spammy messages. They also add that if there are too many complaints, the sender will lose their Goodmail account.

Until they create a new one?

The jaded email reader in me believes that spammers will go through Goodmail accounts like they go through servers and IPs today. This doesn’t solve the problem; it’s putting a non-waterproof band-aid on it that will fall off at the first sign of contact. It’s good for those who stand to make a lot of money off it, but it’s bad for setting email standards.

And for the record, (despite what Susan may tell you) I don’t like complaining. I don’t want to have to grumble about the amount of spam in my email. I’d rather it just not be there in the first place. By legitimizing spam it’s basically giving up on the fight to abolish it.

If you’re looking for a way to put trust back in your inbox, we at Bruce Clay recommend the 1st Certified email system. It’s free to download and each time you use it the company makes a digital fingerprint that will certify that email address later one. Better yet, each time you click on an email from an advertiser, 20 percent of the revenue from that click is donated to charity of your choice. You can’t get much better than that.

We can all admit that spam isn’t going to disappear any time soon, but that doesn’t mean we should sit back and watch it take over our inbox. The way to combat spam is to actually try and combat spam. It’s not to make people pay to get around it. That idea didn’t fly in the US, and I don’t think it’s going to be well received in the UK.

Will Goodmail Make Friends in the UK? was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.

Regardless whether you love ‘em, hate ‘em or live for ‘em, the holidays are coming. There’s no escaping it, next Thursday is Thanksgiving, which means while you’re suffering through forced family conversation and turkey (personally, I’ll be on a delightful mini-break), your customers will be talking about their holiday plans. And according to Advertising.com’s 2006 holiday survey, those plans include a lot of online shopping.

Shoppers are expected to hit the URLs early this year and spend even more than they did in 2005. With customers salivating with cash in hand, now might be a good time to remind them of your existence.

The holiday season offers marketers an unparallel opportunity to reach out to current and prospective customers. And one of the best ways to do that is by using holiday emails. If your holiday campaigns aren’t finished yet, you better stop eyeing that turkey leg and get to work. Here are some tips for creating awesome deck-the-hall-worthy holiday emails.

• Personalize, Personalize, Personalize — We all get a little needier during the holidays (you feel that way too, right? Right??), so reach out to customers and show them you’ve been paying attention. Address them by name, offer products related to the ones they’ve already purchased, mention the city they live in, etc. Show them you know who they are – or at least pretend that you do.
• Holiday Templates — Which email would put you in the holiday buying spirit – the same old generic template you’ve been seeing all year, or fresh and fun, high-impact holiday-inspired greeting card? I think we know the answer. Contact your email service provider to see what kind of holiday templates they offer. It’s likely they offer a wide-range of fun holiday templates for you to choose from.

  Or if you’re one of those folks with design skills, create your own! But be careful, avoid the smiling reindeers and frantic colored lights design, there’s a difference between embracing the holiday spirit and looking like a 3rd grader’s holiday sweater.

• Give Those Heartstrings a Gentle Tug – It the holiday’s, darn it. If you can’t form an emotional connection with your customers today, when can you? Hint back to the days of yore and help give customers that sought after warm and fuzzy emotional aftertaste.

  To me, the absolute best example of this is Starbucks "Its Red Again" campaign. It’s Thursday and I’ve already been there three times this week. There’s just something about those red cups, yummy holiday flavors, and decked out store front that makes me keep coming back for more wonderfully overpriced coffee. [Gingerbread lattes are the real reason for the holiday season. --Susan]

• Highlight Holiday Sales and Promotions – Whether it’s free shipping or 10 percent off their entire order, customers like feeling like they’re getting something a little extra. Offer incentives to encourage customers to explore the depth of your site.
• Offer Gift ideas – Finding the perfect gift is never easy. Make your customers’ lives a little easier by offering them suggestions for special holiday gifts. Highlight the best products available for mom, dad, siblings, that special someone, and even that special I-think-I-like-you-but-we-haven’t-had-the-talk-yet person. Presenting them with a list of unique gift ideas gives you the chance to highlight some of your favorite products and it draws them in by catching their interest, encouraging them to click further into your site.
• Present a Call to Action – Don’t get so caught up in setting the tone that you forget to tell customers what you want them to do. Invite them to explore your site or to come and visit your brick and mortar store. Don’t let your holiday emailing be confused with just another holiday greeting card.
• Say Thank You! – You should be doing this anyway, but it’s even more important during the holidays. When a customer makes a purchase or completes some other action, offer a genuine thank you. Whether it’s a short email back or a surprise free gift with purchase, this will help reinforce a positive brand image, show your customers you’re a real person, and will encourage customers to make a return visit.

Don’t miss out on the holiday shopping season. It’s time to get that holiday email campaign finished up and start sending them out to customers. Following the tips above should ensure everyone has a most enjoyable fourth quarter.

Whip Email Campaigns into Shape For The Holidays was originally published on BruceClay.com, an SEO tools provider.