Google Adsense

Content Mission: About.com Turns to B2B Market

Written on July 31, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: marketing

Content for the consumer is good but let’s not forget content for the business world. The B2B world is always a bit of a laggard when it comes to Internet marketing techniques and practices but when it does catch on there is a lot of opportunity. About.com, a long time Internet success story, has seen the B2B light, so to speak. It is starting to move into the B2B space, which could be a wide open field if they can put it together in an attractive enough manner.

Webnewser reports

About.com is planning a major move into the business-to-business space, launching a number of industry-specific sites.

Right now the site is in the process of recruiting experienced writers with expertise in areas such as public transportation, the food and beverage industry, logging and ecommerce, among other topics. The goal is for the writers of these sites to be experts in their industries.

Once the sites are staffed up, About.com will promote the new B2B sites via a marketing campaign, likely towards the end of 2010.

It sounds interesting for sure. While the consumer side of the magazine business has taken a beating in recent years so has the trade publication industry. As a result, there are many areas of importance to business that no longer get the attention they once did thus creating a bit of a content vacuum. About.com is preparing to fill that void.

There is a page on the About.com site that shows just how many industries are being covered and this is no small undertaking. Of course, the ‘experts’ that are in charge of each vertical are likely to be just as important to the success of each subject area as the size of the potential audience is. As with anything relating to content, it always boils down to quality because even in underserved verticals there are other options for readers to consider if they deem the offering deficient.

One real advantage in all of this is that About.com is a New York Times company. As the Times sees online revenue growing it is likely to throw some weight behind this effort to ensure that quality is paramount so as to keep the Times reputation in tact. Whether this strategy ends up contributing to the bottom line or not is something that only time will reveal.

Will you be looking to About.com for information about your industry? Would About.com be the kind of place that can give the best coverage of the Internet marketing space or is that best left to industry ‘experts’ themselves? What would make this kind of content offering attractive to you?

Here is the original:
Content Mission: About.com Turns to B2B Market

Content Mission: Search Neutrality, The New York Times and Google

Written on July 17, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: marketing

I realize this Sunday section I have here on Marketing Pilgrim is supposed to be concentrating on the business of content but I needed to say something about an editorial from this past Wednesday’s New York Times. Since editorials, no matter how ill conceived, are content I will stretch the boundaries of the definition today.

The gist of it as follows. Since Google is so big and most people use it for their Internet searches, how do we REALLY know if they are being fair? If we can’t be completely sure should there be some form of government oversight for the engine to ensure its fairness? In political speak, this editorial is about search neutrality.

Here is a slice of the editorial

When Google was a pure search engine, it was easy to appear agnostic about search results, with no reason to play favorites with one Web site or another. But as Google has branched out into online services from maps and videos to comparison shopping, it has acquired pecuniary incentives to favor its own over rivals.

….the potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses.

So what this editorial is suggesting is to first follow the path of the European Union’s (EU) European Commission (EC) which has been hounding Google for just about everything as of late. The EC’s intent is clearly to limit Google’s ability to do business in the EU by looking to regulate everything Google does in the name of ‘fairness’. This comes from a group that is looking into Google because of the complaints of spam site producers and inferior search engines. Acting on these types of complaints is the equivalent of validating a street level drug dealer’s claim that the big pharmaceuticals are restricting his ‘trade’. Puh-leeeze.

There is even a scenario played in out in this mindless drivel from the Times that half wonders out loud if the government should require Google to make its algorithm public!

Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks.

Google provides an incredibly valuable service, and the government must be careful not to stifle its ability to innovate. Forcing it to publish the algorithm or the method it uses to evaluate it would allow every Web site to game the rules in order to climb up the rankings — destroying its value as a search engine. Requiring each algorithm tweak to be approved by regulators could drastically slow down its improvements. Forbidding Google to favor its own services — such as when it offers a Google Map to queries about addresses — might reduce the value of its searches.

Notice the wording of ‘might reduce’ or ‘could slow down’ when describing the potential impact of regulating a company like Google. This is the language of an entity that thinks that this may be a viable alternative. Even thinking this way and simply bringing this idea into the realm of this discussion is too much. For now at least, we are a free country and our economy operates on free market principles. While far from perfect I challenge anyone to show me another system that works better.

If you have had enough of my rant and would like to hear Google’s opinion of this whole thing then read the piece written by Google’s vice president of search product and user experience, Marissa Mayer, in the Financial Times. It’s worth the look and be sure to read the comments as well because not everyone outside of the New York Times thinks this is a bad idea.

So how do you feel about the idea of the government essentially regulating Google? Is it a good thing, a bad thing or nothing? What’s your opinion of the New York Times going down this road?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

View original here:
Content Mission: Search Neutrality, The New York Times and Google

Only 19% Trust Your Sponsored Blog Posts!

Written on July 2, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: marketing

We all know it goes on. Sometimes it’s disclosed, other times not. Sometimes it’s black and white, other times it’s more of a gray area.

What am I talking about? Paid blog posts.

According to Fleishman-Hillard’s 2010 Digital Influence Index (pdf), consumers are wising up to paid/sponsored blogs posts–and they don’t like them!

If you’re given a free sample, only 24% of your readers will trust you to be unbiased. Paid to write a review, that trust drops to 19%.

Still, in both cases, there’s this big area of indecision (61% and 54% respectively).

Of course, it’s one thing to say that you wouldn’t trust a sponsored blog post, but what about in reality? Factors that need to be considered in the real world include:

• Do you generally like and trust the blogger in question?
• Do you want to buy the product anyway–so need little persuasion?
• How was the disclosure handled?
• How relevant is the product to the normal content of the blog?

All of these would effect the scores above, but at the very least, you have been warned that your readers don’t embrace sponsored posts as much as you’d like them to!

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Original post:
Only 19% Trust Your Sponsored Blog Posts!

How To Use Social Media Monitoring Tools To Aid Product Development

Written on April 20, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Object, book

To many, the process of developing a successful product can be a mystery. Sometimes companies will spend months of development time to create a product that doesn’t reflect the needs or the scope of its intended market. And other times, successful products are developed completely on accident. Because of this, it can often seem impossible [...]



*** Read the full post by clicking on the headline above or, in Facebook, by clicking on the “View Original Post” link below. ***

Original post:
How To Use Social Media Monitoring Tools To Aid Product Development

NYT vs. FTC: Is the Times Not Disclosing iPad Advertising?

Written on April 16, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Advertising, book, marketing

The FTC’s blogging guidelines have drawn a lot of attention—but little if any action by the consumer protection agency. But several bloggers think they’ve found a great opportunity for the commission to step in—or a great opportunity to ridicule the FTC’s guidelines—with Apple’s iPad and the New York Times.

Apparently (as you can see), some iPad ads feature the New York Times website including the paper’s logo. Dan Gillmor, for example, has petitioned the New York Times to reveal whether it’s compensating Apple for the use of its logo—a material connection under the FTC guidelines—while reviewing the iPad in its paper.

Other bloggers, TechDirt reports, point out that the Times and other news outlets may have a vested interest in seeing the iPad succeed, if they can successfully use that platform to build a fee-based content system.

We’re all in favor of radical transparency here, but based on reading the FTC’s guidelines (PDF; see section 255.5 on material connections), I’m not sure this is the test case these bloggers are looking for.

First of all, I can’t really see the New York Times getting a huge boost from just having its logo appear on iPad ads (especially if they’re not paying for this placement—I would like to know the answer to that one). Are consumers really so stupid that they couldn’t figure out that when they say you can browse the web, you can also visit the website of one of the most prominent newspapers in the country? Do we really believe the New York Times (again, one of if not the most prominent, well-known newspapers in the country) is going to get more subscriptions or advertising dollars because they got onto an iPad commercial?

The FTC offers specific examples to help (kinda) interpret their standards. From section 255.5, example 3 (emphasis added):

Assume that during [a] television interview, the tennis player [our iPad] is wearing clothes bearing the insignia of an athletic wear company with whom she also has an endorsement contract [using the logo of the NYT]. Although this contract requires that she wear the company’s clothes not only on the court but also in public appearances, when possible, she does not mention them or the company during her appearance on the show. No disclosure is required because no representation is being made about the clothes in this context.

The iPad commercials make no representation about the New York Times, they just display the website. If the NYT is paying to get onto an iPad commercial, they’re not paying for nor receiving an endorsement or any representation (other than visual).

The other issue of the NYT’s reviews of the iPad is a bit trickier. But the general rule goes: if you receive a free product or monetary compensation for a review, you need to disclose it. I assume the NYT reviewers did receive free iPads for review, and that certainly makes it easier to give a glowing review (even if they’re used to getting the latest greatest gadgets for free). But if the New York Times is paying Apple for ad placement, the money is flowing the wrong way.

I’m sure they do hope the iPad will reverse their flagging fortunes, but is that going to change how they review the product (but apparently not the NYT’s David Pogue: “There’s an e-book reader app, but it’s not going to rescue the newspaper and book industries (sorry, media pundits).”). But frankly, that’s a bit more tenuous of a motivation than something as easily measurable as money.

What do you think? Is this the way to demonstrate the absurdity of the FTC guidelines? Or does this just not fit the bill?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read the original here:
NYT vs. FTC: Is the Times Not Disclosing iPad Advertising?

Murdoch: Paywalls and iPad Are Good, Google Not So Much

Written on April 7, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing

We have heard this song sung by News Corps Rupert Murdoch on many occasions. If consistency counts for anything he certainly gets point for staying on message. Murdoch has again opened up his war of words around paywalls for online newspaper content and calling Google on copyright infringement. This time, though, Mr. Murdoch was able to show that at least he is hip to what is going on in the world of technology by talking about Apple’s iPad as well.

Murdoch was speaking at a National Press Club event at George Washington University and the Guardian reports

Rupert Murdoch has launched a spirited defence of putting up paywalls around his newspaper websites, while embracing the game-changing potential of Apple’s iPad. The News Corp chairman hailed the new device as a possible saviour of the newspaper industry.

Murdoch renewed his attacks on search engines, such as Google, whom he accused of stealing journalism from traditional media outlets. He said the newspaper industry had to stand up for itself and charge for content while using copyright law to defend its journalism from being used without its permission.

So Murdoch is carrying through with his threat to set up paywalls when he does so for the Times and Sunday Times of London in June. What he needs, however, is the support of the rest of the industry. In his remarks it sounded, however, that the rest of the newspaper industry may not “have his back” on this. Needless to say, Murdoch is not happy and pointed the New York Times out as one of the problem spots in the paywall line of defense.

Murdoch also fired a shot at the New York Times – a common bête noire of Murdoch’s and the Journal’s main rival – by saying that the New York Times’ own paywall plans were half-hearted and needed to be more restrictive.

They don’t seem to be able to make up their mind. They will have opposition internally from some of their journalists, especially their columnists,” he said.”To really make it work they have got to put a paywall up. I think most newspapers in [the US] have got to have a paywall.

The likelihood of all newspapers suddenly getting up one morning and saying as they read their own newspaper online “Gee, I think Rupert is right and today is the day to tell our readership they are screwed unless they cough up a fee” is slim. In fact, some of the experiments with paywalls have left something to be desired.

Murdoch did, however, show off his hipster coolness by showing the WSJ iPad version and he even pulled out his crystal ball.

I got a glimpse of the future last weekend with the Apple iPad. It is a wonderful thing,” he said. “If you have less newspapers and more of these… it may well be the saving of the newspaper industry

Now all he has to do is find the 300,000 initial buyers (total sales figures for the iPad since the “opening day” are not readily available) and convince them that they need to pay for all of his newspapers so they can be read on their iPads. Unfortunately, I would have to guess that many of these iPad owners aren’t exactly the WSJ crowd so he may want to lay off the savior talk for the short term.

So we ask, yet again, are there ANY newspapers that you are willing to pay for online? Is there content from one source that you require so specifically that you are willing to pay for it? Let us know. Maybe your answers will help the newspaper folks to move closer to or further away from Murdoch’s call to arms.

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Excerpt from:
Murdoch: Paywalls and iPad Are Good, Google Not So Much

The Charge of the Paywall Brigade?

Written on March 29, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Advertising, marketing

I watched the movie “The Blind Side” this weekend. Being a sports fan I was interested in it but being a human being I was touched by it. I recommend anyone take a few minutes away from things being offered as entertainment these days and watch this one.

Why am I telling you this? Because there is a part of the movie that relates to the famous poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson “The Charge of the Light Brigade” (don’t worry, this won’t be a spoiler for the movie at all). I never paid close attention to the poem until yesterday but the second verse reads

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

What I didn’t know is that this group was sent into battle because of a mistake made by someone else. Despite the mistake they carried out their orders to the end.

Ah yes, the Internet marketing angle. The parallel I am drawing here is that one of the most vocal leaders of instituting paywalls for online newspaper content, Rupert Murdoch, is leading his own charge that many think is a mistake. His News Corp. holdings in the UK, The Times and The Sunday Times will be putting their paywalls up starting in June and many wonder if this will be the beginning of the end or a much needed proof of concept. Mr. Murdoch has been the most vocal proponent of paywalls but there has been very little action until now. It looks like he is about to put his money where his mouth is.

In a way, I respect his charge forward into what many see as a losing battle. Who in this day and age will pay extra for content from one source that will be found elsewhere for free? Many competitors of News Corp. are more than happy to watch this experiment play out on a bigger stage and will be ready to comment whether News Corp. proves its point or essentially falls on its sword.

The Wall Street Journal reports

“At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition,” said Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, the U.K. newspapers division of News Corp., which publishes the Times and Sunday Times. Their readers will pay 2 pounds a week (about $150 a year) or 1 pound a day, starting in June.

News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch is one of the most vocal champions of paid Web sites, and has pledged that all the company’s news outlets will adopt some kind of reader fee system. The Times and Sunday Times are the first News Corp. outlets to make the transition.

Apparently, the higher ups are not fooling themselves either. In fact, they may just be cleaning house a bit

It’s unclear how many readers will agree to pay the fees, and advertisers may demand lower rates from the papers or spend money elsewhere as Web traffic declines. In a recent internal memo, Ms. Brooks said Web users will drop “dramatically” and that the remaining readers will be “those who are more committed to and engaged with our titles.”

So maybe their plan is to provide advertisers with actual real readers who will be best suited for specific products and offerings? Maybe this will just be a way to find where the true strength of the readership of these offerings are?

The next question though is will there be enough readers left and will this mean there will need to be new payment methods for ads? Rather than “cost per thousand” rates the new ads may be sold at the “cost for the one thousand readers left” rate?

June will certainly be interesting when this all unfolds. Is Rupert Murdoch leading his own “Charge of the Light Brigade” into the valley of advertising death or will he come out the other side victorious? Your thoughts?

See the original post:
The Charge of the Paywall Brigade?

Sergey Brin Might Do Google Buzz

Written on February 11, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Object

Want to follow Google cofounder Sergey Brin on Google’s new microblogging service, Google Buzz? Brin says he might join in the future.
During the Google Buzz launch event, Brin spoke of being a big fan, even using it to gather opinions internally at Google about a New York Times opinion piece he was writing about Google [...]



….

Go here to see the original:
Sergey Brin Might Do Google Buzz

Google Building Instant Translator Companion

Written on February 8, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: Object

Google leaps language barrier with translator phone from The Times Online reports Google is working on a new tool that would bring instant translation to people.
It appears that Google is a couple years away from this coming but they would build on their existing Google Translate and Google Voice features to create an instant translator. [...]



….

View post:
Google Building Instant Translator Companion

New York Times Putting More Bricks In Paywall Discussions

Written on January 18, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing

New York magazine is reporting that the New York Times could be announcing its own move to a paid subscription model as early as this week. If this is the case, we may see more of the dominoes fall in this tenuous conversation. It seems that whenever anyone discusses even the threat of paid content online, a hush comes over the room and people start to whisper like they do when your creepy uncle shows up at the family reunion. Well, whether this is the time or not, this could be the year where content makes a break from the free world to either save itself or crash and burn in spectacular fashion for all to watch.

New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.

There are a wide variety of thoughts on the actual time that the announcement and then the service would happen so suffice it to say, it could be this week and it could be in a few months. The point is that there is pretty good chance that this will happen. When it does there will be plenty of interested parties looking on to help them determine what might be next. Apparently this has not been an easy discussion for the Times and they have looked at several options.

The Times has considered three types of pay strategies. One option was a more traditional pay wall along the lines of The Wall Street Journal, in which some parts of the site are free and some subscription-only. For example, editors and business-side executives discussed a premium version of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s DealBook section. Another option was the metered system. The third choice, an NPR-style membership model, was abandoned last fall, two sources explained. The thinking was that it would be too expensive and cumbersome to maintain because subscribers would have to receive privileges (think WNYC tote bags and travel mugs, access to Times events and seminars).

Now, the article in New York does examine how difficult this process is for the Times because in reality, they are trying to assess what their worth is to the English speaking world from a journalistic and reporting standpoint. Some feel that they could be the last one standing as others go away as a result of online media. If that were the case, the NY Times could garner plenty of ad revenue if they could hold on in the near term. Others are just watching the paper bleed money and feel that there may never be enough ad revenue in the new media world to support the level of reporting etc that they are used to promoting.

I am not sure where I am on this one. I would like to see news outlets like the New York Times survive. We need to pay people to cover stories and do the necessary digging to hopefully get somewhere near the truth. The trouble comes in whether the truth is ever the issue or not. Honestly, it doesn’t matter if a publication is on the left or the right of the political spectrum because the real concern is the bias that exists in many of these big publications. Everything that is reported is spun and often those who get to the position of being a Times reporter use that position as a power base. As a result reporting is out the window. It’s more like opinion and agenda with a few facts thrown in here and there. Sounds a lot like bloggers actually!

Anyway, here’s the easy question for our readers. Would you pay to get the New York Times content online? Yes or no. Oh and since we are a blog please let us hear your opinions as well.

More here:
New York Times Putting More Bricks In Paywall Discussions