Google Adsense

Search Keywords Are Your Market Segments

Written on January 11, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: marketing, searchengineguide

by Mike Moran

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

People who know how to do offline marketing are often mystified by how to get started with search marketing. They know how to think about their market segments in terms of demographics, so they know which magazines to buy ads in and which industry trade shows to attend. But search seems somehow different, because there are no demographics to latch on to. When I talk to them, things often become clearer when I explain that search keywords are their search market segments.

It’s not that demographics will never be important in search. As personalized search takes hold (and especially as mobile search grows in importance), marketers are likely to know much more about searchers than they do today. So, you might, in fact, know gender, age, industry, and other demographics (and firmographics).

But that’s not he place to start. Instead of trying to map your existing market segments onto search, you need to give in to the idea that the first level of segmentation in search marketing is the keywords that yur customers type into the search engine. Those keywords give you the insight you need to craft the message, whether it is for a newbie trying to solve a problem or for a customer that has purchased many times in the past. It’s the difference between “Unix server” and “IBM Blade Server model 3426-A45.” Theres a huge difference in the proper message between those two segments, just as in offline marketing, you have different message for different segments.

That’s the key to success. Put your messaging ability to work. Instead of trying to think about what message you want to send, and blanketing it over as many people as possible, you must do your keyword research to find out what people are looking for. Then, like a good salesman, you tailor your pitch to hit the points they need.

So, market segmentation isn’t dead when it comes to search marketing. You just need to take what you know about segmentation and apply in in a new way. If you do, your skills in messaging will suddenly start to make you successful in search marketing, too.

Check out our small business news site.

Read more:
Search Keywords Are Your Market Segments

Chrome Extensions Include Ad Blockers

Written on January 4, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Advertising, marketing

Google must know something that we don’t. Why else would they be SO open in their new move toward transparency as to allow for extensions on Chrome that, gulp, block the very lifeblood of their money printing operation? Well, considering the market share that Chrome currently has (around 40 million users) and the mindset of someone likely to use (or even know about) this extension the thought of this kind of ‘allowance’ is probably bigger than the reality.

The New York Times reports

In a manifesto-like e-mail message sent last month to all Google employees, Jonathan Rosenberg, a senior vice president for product management, told them to commit to greater transparency and open industry standards. Rather than hoard knowledge to exploit it, he wrote in “The Meaning of Open,” share it and watch Google and the entire Internet prosper.

The resulting openness is allowing for ad blockers as extensions but this decision did not happen without a Mountain View trip to the revenue mountaintop for advice.

Speaking at a conference on Dec. 11 in Mountain View, Calif., Linus Upson, engineering director at Google, said there were many discussions before allowing ad-blocking programs “because Google makes all of its money from advertising.”

But he explained that the prevailing thinking was that “it’s unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.”

“So I think the market will sort this out,” he said. “At least that is the bet we made when we opened the extension gallery and didn’t have any policy against ad-blockers.”

That was a long quote but it’s the last sentence that was uttered by a company that is both loved and scorned at the same time. This is uttered by a company that some would think anti-trust is in their future in the same way it was for Microsoft and IBM. Letting the market sort it out is the only way to go in the long run. Sure there will be hiccups but the alternative (some form of regulation that reads real well but in practical use is just plain stupid) is not going to work. I think that there is enough evidence from 2009 for that one.

Similar extensions are currently available on Firefox, which has a much larger market share but has not exactly stopped Google in its tracks so that may be the evidence needed.

Oh and if you want to gain access to these blockers here’s their stories and a link or two for you.

As it happens, two 28-year-olds, Michael Gundlach, an independent programmer from outside Athens, Ga., and Tom Joseph, an M.D.-Ph.D. student at Mount Sinai Medical School, separately went through the exact same experience. In telephone interviews, each told of excitedly looking to see if he could install a Chrome extension of his favorite Firefox add-on, Adblock Plus, which prevents ads from appearing on Web sites, whether bright flashing animation or the text ads that Google serves up after a search.

They did not find one. So, naturally, each spent a day or so creating a rough version of such an extension, with much more work to come. AdThwart from Mr. Joseph is now No. 2 in popularity among the more than 1,200 Chrome extensions; AdBlock from Mr. Gundlach is No. 8. Together, they already have more than 120,000 users.

Happy ad blocking!

See the original post:
Chrome Extensions Include Ad Blockers

IBM CEO On Google’s World Domination: “No.”

Written on December 26, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: Object

Sam Palmissano has transformed IBM over the past decade or so that he’s been in top positions in the company. IBM isn’t just a mainframe hardware company any more—it’s involved in a wide range of businesses, throughout the world, and unlike many tech companies is still growing.
Today’s Barron’s has a profile of IBM, with some [...]



….

More here:
IBM CEO On Google’s World Domination: “No.”

Google’s Youtube Potentially Cloaking? Or VEVO Launch?

Written on December 22, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: book, seo

[update: Matt Cutts contacted me and mentioned that this was due to the Vevo launch which occurred after that page was cached. Over time that means such pages like the one mentioned below should be purged from the Google search index.]

Google claims they try to be pretty fair with publishers and publishing business models. They are fine with indexing preview versions of a page and just showing a user that, you can make the full article free, you can make the first x clicks free.

OR you can put it all behind a paywall and not get any search exposure.

UNLESS you are Youtube.

In which case you can put whatever you want behind a subscribe wall, still have that registration-required/paywall content fully indexed in Google, and then force users to sign in to view the content.

On the cache copy of pages people still can view the pre-roll ads, but not the content

Search Google for “poker face”, observe all the Youtube data in the search results, click the top Youtube listing, and watch them send you to a login page so they can better track you and target ads against you.

Many publishers that are having trouble figuring out search (from a business model perspective) would have no problem making a ton of money from search if they got the good ole home cooking treatment that Youtube currently enjoys (universal search promotion + cloaking forcing registration).

And this is where Google being rumored to acquire other content properties (like Yelp) becomes scary for users and publishers and advertisers alike.

Publicly Google preaches the virtues of openness

To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software … expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don’t have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won’t.

Open systems are just the opposite. They are competitive and far more dynamic. In an open system, a competitive advantage doesn’t derive from locking in customers, but rather from understanding the fast-moving system better than anyone else and using that knowledge to generate better, more innovative products. The successful company in an open system is both a fast innovator and a thought leader; the brand value of thought leadership attracts customers and then fast innovation keeps them. This isn’t easy — far from it — but fast companies have nothing to fear, and when they are successful they can generate great shareholder value.

Open systems have the potential to spawn industries. They harness the intellect of the general population and spur businesses to compete, innovate, and win based on the merits of their products and not just the brilliance of their business tactics. The race to map the human genome is one example.

But as soon as Google gets a market dominant position, you can bet on them locking it down to enhance ad revenues. The secret search relevancy algorithms, AdWords ad quality score, using AdWords rebates to push Google Checkout, always-on search personalization (even when logged out), mystery meat payout rates to AdSense publishing partners, universal search algorithms that allow them to arbitrarily promote their own websites, YouTube cloaking, etc etc etc

It looks like they jumped the gun on Yelp. Google was already integrating Yelp reviews in their AdWords ads before the acquisition was finalized.

What does it mean for the rest of us?

I am not sure.

It depends on if Google believes in what they say or what they do. They can’t believe both.

More here:
Google’s Youtube Potentially Cloaking? Or VEVO Launch?

Woman Loses Benefits, In Part, Due to Facebook

Written on November 20, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing

So I had to open my big mouth on my previous post today and say that Facebook is keeping its nose clean with regard to news as of late. I guess it still is despite this particular incident that happened to a woman living in our neighbor to the north, Canada.

You remember Canada. The place where Facebook had to adhere to their privacy policies for threat of shutting them down? Well, I wonder how that privacy deal is working out because it looks like companies working on Canadian soil may need a lesson in privacy. The CBC reports

A Quebec woman on long-term sick leave is fighting to have her benefits reinstated after her employer’s insurance company cut them, she says, because of photos posted on Facebook.

Nathalie Blanchard, 29, has been on leave from her job at IBM in Bromont, Que., for the last year and a half after she was diagnosed with major depression.

The Eastern Townships woman was receiving monthly sick-leave benefits from Manulife, her insurance company, but the payments dried up this fall.

When Blanchard called Manulife, the company said that “I’m available to work, because of Facebook,” she told CBC News this week.

Now before you get your knickers in a twist, I am not defending this woman. Honestly, I don’t really care if she is trying to get over on a company or not. I have too many other things to worry about.

What does make me wonder is how the insurance company accessed her Facebook account if they were not allowed by Ms. Blanchard? My guess would be that someone at IBM who is her ‘friend’ on Facebook turned over some data but I am not a private investigator and any speculation as to how this happens stops here.

What doesn’t stop here is where are lines going to be drawn moving forward. Of course, if you are ignorant (or even stupid) enough to put damning evidence on Facebook then that’s nothing that anyone can control. What will be considered actual evidence as retrieved through social media?

The story says

She said her insurance agent described several pictures Blanchard posted on the popular social networking site, including ones showing her having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a sun holiday — evidence that she is no longer depressed, Manulife said.

Huh? What if she was just trying to get undepressed (is that even a word?) and and part of the process was to share her ‘happiness’ with others? Where will a line be drawn on this kind of stuff? In the US it’ll like land in the 9th Circuit because if it’s weird that’s where it goes.

Anyway, what’s your take on this one? Should the insurance company be ale to use Facebook as evidence if they were not directly connected to her account? Is finding out information in Facebook any different though than investigators digging to find evidence any way they can? Or will these kind of stories just always be part of the social media world we live in and we just need to make sure to keep our side of the street clean?

Fire off before you head out for the weekend. We’d like to hear from you.

See more here:
Woman Loses Benefits, In Part, Due to Facebook

A Billion Reasons for Twitter to be Happy

Written on September 17, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing, seo

So it looks like Twitter has entered some rarefied air for sure. According to ReadWriteWeb and TechCrunch the micro-blogging juggernaut is moving into an exclusive club by securing a new round of funding ($50 million) based on a valuation of $1 billion (yup, it’s a b). No doubt, this will begin to stir the supporters and detractors alike. Unless we have ridiculously short memories or just think that this time will be different one has to wonder how a company that no one can figure out revenue wise can be valued at that much.

While I am not an analyst I did think about staying at a Holiday Inn Express over the past year so I qualify for jumping into the fray, right? Let’s hear what the RWW folks had to say first though.

While it’s unlikely that Twitter CEO Evan Williams was wearing a Dr. Evil costume when he delivered the news, he had the pleasure of announcing his company’s $1 billion dollar valuation today at an all hands meeting. According to TechCrunch, the company has raised a $50 million dollar funding round and the money will be in the bank shortly. Given the fact that Twitter turned down an offer to be purchased by Facebook earlier in the year, it appears the two are about to tango.

So of course, this conversation wouldn’t be nearly as much fun without bringing Facebook into the mix. Facebook is starting to look almost like IBM compared to Twitter. What with actual revenue generation plans and actually having the audacity to be cash flow positive one begins to wonder if Facebook is going to actually merit its own valuation. Master of the Universe, Mark Zuckerberg, has something to say in the Facebook blog.

We’re also succeeding at building Facebook in a sustainable way. Earlier this year, we said we expected to be cash flow positive sometime in 2010, and I’m pleased to share that we achieved this milestone last quarter. This is important to us because it sets Facebook up to be a strong independent service for the long term.

So is Twitter in for the long term? They certainly still have the buzz going and now there appears to be a a real Facebook faceoff looming for the foreseeable future.

In the past, ReadWriteWeb has looked at Twitter’s platform potential. The service has already been used to create meme trackers, emergency alert services, news feeds and brand monitoring tools. As the infrastructure and search have improved, Twitter has become the go-to site for real time media. But can the company make a Facebook-like leap?

Facebook has added Twitter like features so why not? So what’s your take? I bet there at least a billion opinions on this one.

Read more from the original source:
A Billion Reasons for Twitter to be Happy

Barnes and Noble Wants Your E-book Biz

Written on July 21, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing

Barnes and Noble is no stranger to the eBook business. The first ‘go round’ was shelved six years ago but yesterday the retail bookseller announced it is reentering the market in a big way. As the storefront book business continues to fight for survival in the continuing move to online purchases and other formats Barnes and Noble is looking to make sure it is in the fight. All Things D covers the development:

On Monday afternoon, the bookseller announced what it describes as “the world’s largest eBookstore,” an online storefront that boasts 700,000 titles. That’s substantially more than the 300,000 available for download on Amazon’s Kindle service, though half-a-million of them are public domain books provided by Amazon (AMZN). They’ll be compatible with Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch, BlackBerry smartphones, and, when it finally arrives at market, the Plastic Logic eReader — a Kindle DX-sized E-book reader for which it will be the exclusive storefront

With the major players in the marketplace being Amazon and Sony the Barnes and Noble offering of E-books will not be compatible with their players. Not a surprise but interesting to say the least. You always wonder if it is more important to own the platform or the renewable purchase market (the E-books themselves). We all know that little story about Microsoft and IBM right?

While I report on this industry I am not E-book friendly at this point. It would take a lot to make me switch from a physical book to the E-book format maybe because I don’t read enough. I can say though that creating a proprietary platform that will limit where or how I could buy my books is not making me interested in getting involved. One thing that people look for is flexibility and when a company tells people that they need to make an either/or vs. a both/and choice I will balk. If I were to make a paradigm shift to a new format I would want the ability to see if one is better than the other. Making your E-book offering restrictive to a particular platform is not attractive but that’s me.

So are you interested in the Barnes and Noble E-book play? If there is a larger library available would you switch to their platform? How many E-book readers do we have out there anyway?

Excerpt from:
Barnes and Noble Wants Your E-book Biz