« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 31, 2006

Do We Really Need an Interactive Gross Rating Point (iGRP)?

First a bit about Gross Ratings Points, before we add the ubiquitous i. A Gross Ratings Point (GRP) is an old media relic, a trace of that outmoded practice of extrapolating what the nation's 110 million households are watching based on 5,100 strong. One GRP = 1% of these 110 million TV households based on the sample of 5,100 actual TV households culled from a mere 56 markets across the much-more-than-fifty-six markets of the United States. I'm not kidding.

So this 1% of 5,100 TV households across 56 markets allows for the unit GRP to be expressed as costs per point (CPP) when TV advertising is being purchased. Sounds quite quaint when compared to our own Pay Per Click (PPC) system, where each unit of cost is an actual, live visitor actually engaging with the brand advertised via an actual, live click to the brand site, but it's worked for so long, right?

Cory Treffiletti warms my heart with her objection in her OnlineSPIN article today:

The problem is that Nielsen data is becoming less and less valuable at an alarming speed, as consumers' media consumption behavior changes.

That is indeed the rub, when you're basing pricing on 1% of a 1% that doesn't even sample 30.34% of the nation's TV markets nor account for the fact that sitting down and watching TV programming as it is broadcast is rapidly becoming a quaint relic of the past in and of itself. So Cory is spot on when she asks why we would want to add an i to make our industry Gross when the pricing model itself is becoming too gross to work anymore anyway:

My point with all of this is that a GRP only works if the model for buying is on a cost per point. If we revise the counting and measurement methodologies to reflect actual delivery or actual exposure in the way that we currently buy online, then an estimated share is no longer applicable, and we can revise the model based on impressions or OTS (opportunity to see). A few years ago, I tried to revise the buying model to reflect cost per visitor rather than cost per impression, and for a little while that worked, too, but it became onerous and didn't have the strength to stay in place, nor does the GRP--not until the methodology for measurement from Nielsen includes all opportunities for exposure and actual viewership.

Like her, I'm for a unifying apples-to-apples old-media-to-new unit of advertising cost someday, but why condescend from our accurate current system to their fanciful one? iRegression seems to be a move in the wrong direction.

Posted by john at 10:15 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 30, 2006

Former Intrapromote Client Openlist Sold for $13M

Over the years I've watched industry titan Alan Meckler tout vertical search again and again and again. So it was entirely appropriate that a former Jupiter analyst would co-found a vertical search engine that now serves as a model for next-generation search platforms.

Openlist, a former client of Intrapromote, was just purchased by Marchex for $13 million in cash and stock. (See the Marchex press release for details.) The Openlist site itself helps users select hotels, restaurants, and local attractions using content aggregation technology that narrows down search results to the most granular level imaginable, completely redefining the concepts of relevance and user satisfaction. But the real story is that Openlist technology is widely transferable and scalable, which is what will ultimately benefit many of Marchex's 250,000 sites. (You read that number correctly.)

I had the opportunity to work closely with Openlist founders Matthew Berk and Bejul Somaia and can honestly say that Marchex would be getting a bargain at many times the $13 million price.

Posted by erik at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 24, 2006

SEO Considerations for AJAX Development

If web development is even remotely within your periphery, you've probably heard of AJAX, which stands for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML. While most serious developers realize the hype is overblown, even the most caffeine-addled code monkeys are impressed with some recent AJAX applications.

Calling AJAX "new" is a little misleading, and it's no different from calling gin & tonic poured over Cap'n Crunch a "new" breakfast treat. The ingredients have been around forever; only the unique combination is recent.

Explained simply, the key benefit of AJAX applications is their ability to work in the background to supply data to the client browser and provide a relatively seamless "application" experience instead of the click-wait, click-wait game of traditional web pages.

The "J" in AJAX (JavaScript) has been a stumbling block for developers with an eye for search-engine friendliness, but that need not be the case. While it's true that engines typically ignore scripted data, good AJAX programs can occasionally come out of their JS trances long enough to feed even the most demanding bots. Following are some notes about AJAX development as it pertains to smart SEO.

The Problem: Not Enough Unique URLs

In my opinion, the single greatest SEO issue with AJAX is the tendency (although not necessity) of AJAX applications to not judiciously create unique, bookmarkable (and therefore indexable) URLs.

I'll use Google Maps as an example, not only because it's used in this excellent AJAX backgrounder written by an IBM engineer, but because Google Maps has come to be known as the "classic" AJAX application. If you have brand awareness like Google, you don't necessarily need too many deep, internal URLs, because everyone remembers and links to "maps.google.com". But for the rest of us, getting many internal pages indexed is critical. Like the IBM article mentions, the fact that Google put the "Link to this page" feature on the Maps page shows that they understand the need for unique URLs pulled from within the application. Depending in what you're doing with AJAX, you'll derive a ton of SEO benefit from a similar philosophy.

A secondary point is that once you've created the capability to create unique internal URLs, you'll need to post them somewhere so they can be crawled. For example, suppose you had an AJAX application that enabled celebrities to build a custom automobile. After enough celebrities had built them, you'd need to build a page that links to those deep links, such as "See Tyra Banks' custom Bentley" or "Ashton Kutcher's punk'd-out Prius," for example.

You'll also need a system that can create custom, relevant titles and meta descriptions for these deep URLs, since the amount of body copy on a page likely won't be particularly plentiful or relevant.

The Other Problem: Too Many Unique URLs

Looking at the other side of the coin, you can also have usability issues by creating too many unique, indexable URLs. Microsoft's Live.com (the beta edition of its search site, which I reviewed in March) is an example. if you go to www.live.com and search for [vacation rentals], you'll get a resulting URL like

http://www.live.com/#q=vacation%20rentals&offset=1

But if you scroll through Live.com's "infinite" results long enough, the "offset" argument starts to tick upwards. Before you know it, you'll be at "offset=20" or something like that. Not necessarily a big deal, until you decide to hit the "Back" button and go to your previous site. You'll need to hit it up to 20 times to get back to that site, since each time you hit it, you merely decrement the offset argument by one. See this post by Microsoft's Robert Scoble for more on this. (Read the comments too; they're a nice contrast to the post, and a great reality check for developers.)

Other issues to consider when developing in AJAX aren't as critical to SEO as the URL issue, but they're still important. These include load time, which can be as bad as bloated Flash if you're not careful, and disabling browser controls that the user has come to rely on - never a good move.

Google Web Toolkit for AJAX Development

Google, until now one of the reasons AJAX has been approached so gingerly, has just added a new twist to the game with the introduction of the Google Web Toolkit. If nothing else, Google has always focused on the size of its index, so you can expect that any toolkit will provide a framework for unique URL generation. In its explanation of the GWT's "browser history management," the docs claim "No, AJAX applications don't need to break the browser's back button. GWT lets you make your site more usable by easily adding state to the browser's back button history."

The Class History docs provide code samples and explain how "you can create new history items (which have a token associated with them when they are created), and you can programmatically force the current history to move back or forward."

That's the necessary first step in letting your AJAX application come up for a breath of SEO. Post those links to a permanent, crawled file, and you're in the SEO-friendly AJAX web dev business.

Posted by erik at 11:47 PM | Comments (84) | TrackBack

A Reminder To Small-Medium Size Players Seeking Google Love

Early in my career, I spent several years managing a 5 physician family practice in a small Missouri town.

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment of my life happened inside the walls of that clinic. That was the day I thought I was interviewing a gal for a receptionist position when actually she was there for a pap smear. You see, my office was occupied and I had to use one of the physician exam rooms for what I thought was going to be an interview. It was her first visit to the clinic and she thought I was the doctor. Talk about mistaken identities. You should have seen the look on her face when she asked if she should sit on the exam table and I said, “No, that chair over in the corner will be just fine.�

Rural health clinics (RHCs) are formed in Missouri and other states in order to get quality health care into medically underserved rural areas. Physicians can actually get a better reimbursement rate from Medicare, Medicaid, etc. by choosing to practice in a rural setting. The official designation as an RHC comes from the Department of Health and there are rigid guidelines to achieving this determination including an exhaustive “site visit� inspection.

I remember the preparation for this inspection was excruciatingly detailed and went on for months! One of the things I remember is that all 16 of our exam rooms had to meet 3 or 4 pages of criteria … everything had to be exactly per the requirements if we were to pass the inspection and be awarded the RHC designation. I even recall someone saying that if one room didn’t contain a particular Policies & Procedures manual, the entire clinic would fail the inspection….just that one little thing!

This small piece of my past recently came to mind while talking to a client this week. This is a client that if you put their site into a large aquarium with other sites in their industry, they would be a small to medium size fish in an aquarium with lots of very small plankton, a few sharks, and one giant sperm wale.

Google was giving some “special treatment� to the sperm whale (imagine that) and our client wanted to also be considered for this Google Love. Google has made some positive comments to them, but has yet to officially consider them alongside their competitor.

Our client is smart. Before I even had a chance to ask them, they had already started to double and triple check their site, making sure all their ducks are in a nice, uniform row. They know that if Google does consider them, they need to be prepared right now.

Google isn’t as strict as the rural health clinic above, however, it’s incredibly wise to make sure your site isn’t in the black or even gray when it comes to Google’s inspection.

Just a reminder to all you small or medium size fish, check your site using Google’s “No No� list routinely -- especially if you want to be considered along with the bigger fish in your industry.

Posted by doug at 1:16 AM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

May 19, 2006

Viral Videos – If You Can’t Beat’em, Join’em

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal recently (5/11/06-Marketing the Unmentionable? Talk to the Web by Brian Steinberg) that spotlighted a recent video ad that is appearing solely on the Web. {I would normally insert a link to the ad here but this is a family Wagon and we prefer to stick to the straight and narrow in our musings.} We lovingly refer to these types of ads as Viral Videos. They do not necessarily cover topics that can’t be broached on network TV but usually they do and/or they are a bit longer than the average 30 second TV ad.

When I read the article my first thoughts were of how undervalued this type of advertising probably really is. I think of all of the money spent on TV commercials and the limited reach that they have because of stupid things like budgets and so on.

Now I understand the arguments from those who say that the web only reaches a targeted audience, and that only niche markets are served by the web. But, I also know firsthand the power of the forward button on all email clients, and most importantly the “hey have you SEEN this yet? It’s hilarious…� peer to peer networking if you will.

At this point my thoughts turn to some of the great “hey have you seen this� commercials/viral videos over the years and how they are still paying dividends for those bold enough to create them.

I won’t bore you with an exhaustive list but here are three of my favorites from different era’s:

Pre-Modern era
The Macintosh superbowl video.

The Modern era
Man vs. Bear

Post-Modern Inter-Active Era
Project Gotham Racing for Xbox 360 (if you want to see great digital effects mixed with real-life video you'll have to work your way through the inter-active part by repeatedly clicking on the up arrow and then on the “Film� menu twice and choose the green X video in the bottom right. Sorry to have to be so descriptive here but as we all know, flash looks great but doesn’t allow easy direct linking in most cases. But that’s a whole other topic…….[insert sound of outrageously loud throat clearing])

Of all the emails that I receive by far the most memorable are the one’s that say “have you seen this?� I think big advertisers are finally seeing the opportunity in viral web marketing, and you know why? Probably because as they review their computer logs they find their own employees flocking to these video’s themselves. And as the old adage goes, if you can’t beat’em, join’em.

Posted by brent at 4:17 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 18, 2006

Miyagi-do Link Building vs. Cobra Kai

I have always believed that if the crane technique is done properly, no can defend. As unstoppable as it seems, though, it’s hard to find a situation that can be improved by the crane technique. The truly gifted and justly belted know exactly when to bust it out. Perhaps that is why I will never win the All Valley Torenament. I crane technique so often that people come to expect it, so it's just not that effective.

Speaking of the All Valley, what is it that separates Cobra Kai from Miyagi-do? Both can master any technique and know exactly when to use it. Perhaps it is just intent. What is each trying to do when they crane technique . . . or sweep the leg . . . or sand the floor?

If Cobra Kai and Miyagi-do were to cross over to Link Building, it probably would be the same story. They could master the techniques, to be sure. They would both understand how to impact search engines, but only one would go about it in a way that benefits the user. The other would go about it in a way that ignores the user, and hence, fools the search engines.

I would argue that the ability and the execution of Miyagi-do and Cobra Kai link builders would be equally impressive. Once again, the only true distinction would be intent. Other than Miyagi-son's use of third-person cryptic adage, It would be almost impossible to differentiate in any other manner.

Posted by tom at 4:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 16, 2006

The Second Cutts is the Deepest

You've probably read by now that Google has hired someone to help Matt Cutts in his work as liaison to webmasters. The new "MiniMatt," as he's been dubbed, is Adam Lasnik.

Until very recently, Adam was Intrapromote's Director of Paid Search, a role in which he handled PPC strategy for clients small, large, and very large. In his new role with Google, Adam's heading over to the organic side, where he'll be "hanging out at Webmaster conferences and various geek gatherings, occasionally replying to Google-related blog or forum posts, tackling some Webmaster-related e-mails, and undoubtedly popping up in other random places."

Intrapromote is proud to have had Adam on our roster, and we wish him the best in his new role at Google.

Posted by erik at 11:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 15, 2006

Meet the New Yahoo, Same as the Old Yahoo

A look at the new Yahoo, which, according to ABC News we won't begin to see regularly for a few Months, makes me wonder aloud: if they wouldn't have said anything, would anyone have noticed?

Perhaps it was this talking point which had me expecting a new revolution in a search homepage:

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo regards the latest changes as the most dramatic renovations made to its front page since the site's 1994 debut as a bare-bones directory developed by Stanford University students Jerry Yang and David Filo.

I'd say the movement from the 1996 Yahoo to the 2000 Yahoo was a far bigger leap, not to mention 2002 or the sea change of 2003. In fact, 2004, 2005, and current look a lot more like the new Yahoo heralded above as the most dramatic renovations since inception.

All of which goes to show you: with a Wayback Machine a hyperbolic talking point can be popped as easily as a balloon.

Posted by john at 11:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 12, 2006

Viral Advergaming - A New, Yet Old Piece of the SEO Puzzle

I remember the first day I interviewed with Intrapromote co-founders Doug Ausbury and John Lustina for a sales director position like it was yesterday. I was all dressed up with a tie while Doug and John were wearing the standard .com apparel of semi-casual attire while sporting the obligatory goatees.

We started off the meeting by discussing a little about myself and my experience with SEO. Shortly thereafter, John and Doug were talking up Intrapromote on how unique their company was and what a great work environment it was to work and grow personally and professionally.

Having already had several years of SEO experience with an Ad Agency under my belt, it made the interview quite smooth and effective for all parties. That is, until we started talking about a VERY unique marketing medium known as Viral Advergames. Viral what?? I knew nothing about the whole Advergame thing prior to my introduction to Intrapromote, but fortunately I did some homework before the interview so I could speak somewhat intelligently about the subject.

So, what exactly is a Viral Advergame & what makes if different from a traditional video game you ask? An Advergame is custom branded or in some cases “sponsored� video game promoting a particular company brand, product or service where a traditional video game doesn’t promote anything (except bad behavior in some cases.) The “viral� part of the game has to deal with being a video game that allows for peers to play the game online and pass along to family or friends to play as well via email, word-of-mouth, etc.

Due to the incredible demand of SEO, Intrapromote hasn't developed an Advergame in quite some time. However, the games we developed and promoted online in the past, we had a perfect batting average worthy of induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. I have a feeling we'll be getting back into the "game" here in the near future as this medium continues to gain traction...once again.

There's a lot more to discuss on Advergames in terms of creation, promotion, SEO benefits, etc., but its Friday and this boy needs to get crackin' at his desk. Check back often for more posts about this old, yet new piece known as Advergames.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I'll be starting my fifth year with the company this coming October and looking forward to many more years to come.

Happy Friday, y'all!!!

Posted by sean at 2:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 11, 2006

Who’s Winning American Idol?

Our friends at WordTracker tell us that 68,324 searches will occur today for [American Idol]. So who is winning American Idol? The answer . . . when we return from break.

OK, Fox has #1. No surprise. But look at #2. Call it David vs. Goliath. Instead of the network behemoth occupying the #2 spot (there is no reason it shouldn’t) or some other serp behemoth (Wiki and IMDB are further down the page), true American Idol William Hung is hanging right there! This makes me proud to be someone who spends way too much time analyzing Google Results.

So what forces are at play?
A. The American Dream.
B. Link Building.
C. Irony.
D. All of the Above

Yes, William Hung! She Bangs! She Bangs!

Speedwagon Out

Posted by tom at 6:02 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 10, 2006

Highlights of Search Marketing Standard - Vol. I, Issue I

With 15,000 subscribers already under its belt (and for a yearly subscription fee of $0, why aren't you one of them?), the first issue of Search Marketing Standard magazine hit my virtual actual In box yesterday. Following are some observations - a hastily crafted mix of humorous and serious - but each one true.

For the uninitiated, Search Marketing Standard is our little industry's first major print periodical.

• At 36 pages (including covers), about half of which are ads, I think this is a good start for a publication that many viewed skeptically upon its announcement.
• "Collectively, page views are a good metric for site popularity" (page 8).
• I was a little disappointed that nearly every article was devoted to PPC. Maybe I should have expected that, but I was hoping organic SEO would get a little real estate.
• An article debunking SEM myths (page 12) leads off with an entry that says "any search engine that tries to lure you into a contract based on a huge number of searches is probably lying, or may at best be using a very loose interpretation of the word 'searches'." Six pages later, a full-page ad for a PPC engine tries to lure you into a contract based on a huge number of searches.
• With its landscape-style full-page ad, those crazy cats over at Kinetic Results are trying to make everyone think you're reading a porno mag.
• If someone tries to sell you a domain for $3000 and they claim it makes $20,000 per day, they might be lying (page 16).
• Most SEM agencies are really REALLY bad at creating print ads.
• 19 different SEM/technology/tradeshow companies advertised in this issue. Some clearly used URLs and toll-free numbers that enabled source tracking. Many did not. Come on, people - don't get sloppy.
• Jim Bouton will be at Affiliate Summit East - July 9-11, Orlando (inside back cover). I will not, because I was sure I had a 1968 Topps card of his, but now I can't find it.
• Grammarians take note: "Zunch" is now a verb (back cover).

Posted by erik at 2:51 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

May 9, 2006

Pagejacking and Vanilla Ice

Word Pictures – Yeah!!!

I know they wouldn’t admit it, but I’m sure some of my friends say I have a slightly irritating knack for comparing things and noting similarities. I call them word pictures and it’s something I learned a long time ago in sales training. I have yet to meet someone who doesn’t like or appreciate even a moderately good word picture. If you’re the first one, feel free to comment below.

Sometimes when explaining the intricacies of the world of SEO, I like to use word pictures. Technically stated, a word picture is defined as a graphic or vivid verbal description. Simply stated, a word picture explains something in a way that makes it easier to understand. When you hear someone say, “Let me put it this way…�, it’s highly likely that a word picture is about to follow.

If you’ve read some of my Wagon Posts, you can probably tell that music and SEO are two of my loves, thus the “musical SEO� posts and accompanying word pictures. Hey, it stays true to the “SEO Speedwagon� name coined by our very own quick-witted Link Building Director, Tom Lustina. Tom, I continue to salute thee!

And now that I can’t disappoint my adoring throng of readers (thank you, all six of you), here we go again.

Pagejacking

Plagiarism is a word that most people are familiar with. A much cooler, hip, web version of plagiarism is called pagejacking. Pagejacking is basically copying/stealing content or code from another web site and putting it on your web site with the intent of also stealing some of the other site’s traffic. The word “pagejacking� is a combination of “hijacking� and “web page�.

If it were me, I would have called it “pagelarism�. But, as usual, no one asked me. Sigh.

So, a pagejacker sees a page performing well at a search engine for a particular phrase they also want to do well for, they grab some or all of the content on the top performing page and copy it to their web page, hoping to also perform well at the engine. Sometimes pagejacking is exact copying and sometimes there is a minuscule change to tweak the hijacked page’s code or content, of course, in the pagejacker’s favor.

Pagejacking really caught fire with the Internet’s boom in the late 90s and is still very common today. In fact, when we perform our comprehensive site analysis of a web site prior to optimizing it, we spend much time investigating if our client’s site has any hijacked content on other web sites. We’ve seen some pretty wild cases of pagejacking over the years – even on Intrapromote’s web site.

In a 1999 case of what I’ll be kind and call “blaringly ugly pagejacking� which was settled out of court, one pagejacker found himself up against the FTC who charged him with violating the FTC Act. This particular case was of the variety mentioned above where there was one small change in the code which redirected the visitor to, let’s say, a highly undesirable site.

And now, what you’ve all been waiting for….the pagejacking word picture.

No, My Version Goes “Da, Da, Da, Da, Da-Da, Da-Da�

“It’s that extra Da at the beginning that makes it different!�

Those were basically the words of Robert Matthew Van Winkle, a.k.a., Vanilla Ice when asked about his music sampling of David Bowie and Queen’s song Under Pressure. He argued that one little note added to the beginning of Queen and Bowie’s version made his only hit Ice Ice Baby different than Under Pressure. There was no album liner notes thanking the writers or giving credit to the original song.

Today’s pagejacker is yesterday’s Vanilla Ice. As with the 1999 pagejacking case mentioned above, it has been long rumored that Bowie/Queen vs. Van Winkle was also settled outside court walls.

If you find the content you suffered Blood, Sweat, and Tears to create has been pagejacked, I recommend spending a few minutes reminding yourself that some of the greatest writers, both authors of book and song, have had their compositions copied.

Then, ask the pagejacker to remove the jacked content within 48 hours or they’ll find themselves "under pressure" from your attorney.

Posted by doug at 10:27 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

May 8, 2006

On Advertising, Egalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Hegemony, and Adaptation

The internet is an egalitarian system. The distance between the birth of a new idea or thought and the critical mass obtained to make either suddenly part of the global conversation, or even a niche conversation that would have never been possible at any other epoch in human history, can literally be minutes- minutes only because the atomic element in these births is equal across the global nursery.

Were the atom in this case to be judged first and categorized by a hierarchical appraisal of assets, as is the want of the current net neutrality land-grab attempt before congress, we would no longer have an egalitarian system, and the distance to critical mass would either stretch out beyond sight and reach or be barred completely by an electronic ceiling. The heads hitting it would be those attached to the least assets, of course.

It's this same egalitarianism that challenges old media, and as hegemonic systems usually demonstrate when challenged to change, the urge to become totalitarian rather than adapt to the burgeoning egalitarianism they are faced with clouds judgments, and very bad ideas seem very good. The loony Philip's toothpick-in-the-eyes patent is a wonderfully stupid case in point.

All of this as preamble serves as a way to attempt to fully recognize a good old media idea in the face of the egalitarian change they are confronted with- an all-too-rare attempt to adapt rather than change the game such that only they and their buddies can play:

TiVo today launched its new advertising search product, TiVo Product Watch, offering advertisers a new way to reach highly valued in-market consumers - those TiVo subscribers who are actively looking for products - with advertising content and information, MarketingVox reports. Some 70 advertisers and 100 leading brands have signed up at launch. TiVo subscribers will be able to create searches, including their favorite brands, and select advertising content ranging from one minute to 60 minutes.

Mind you, TIVO is no old media company. Yet note in the following advertisers adapting to the challenge of a new media format like TIVO, rather than trying to disable it like the Philip's Clockwork Orange approach:

At launch, General Motors, Sony Pictures, Lending Tree and Kraft Foods will be among the premium advertisers for their respective advertising categories. Examples of content range from cooking demonstrations from Kraft Foods, to understanding the impact of different types of mortgages from Lending Tree, to behind-the-scenes movie trailers from Sony Pictures and new automotive features and aesthetic options from General Motors.

I'm willing to bet viewers just may appreciate this a bit more than having their eyes pried open forcibly.

Posted by john at 7:25 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

May 5, 2006

Microsoft adCenter – A “First Eyes� Look

The term “first eyes� that is used quite frequently in the insurance realm refers to what people notice the first time they walk through your building. It is something that is very valuable for noticing things that you may have become used to because you look at the same scenery day in and day out. I’ve recently become on of the last of the select group of 6000+ advertisers who were invited to use adCenter before it was recently opened up to everyone, and I’d like to give all of you a “first eyes� impression of the site.

You never have a second chance to make a first impression….
My initial impressions are that of a clean interface that is responsive and informative, albeit a little frustrating to learn and sometimes even understand what they are trying to tell me.

Submitting orders….
Submitting an order was a pretty straightforward process. However, I would love to see from adCenter a disclaimer before you start telling you what you are going to need to accomplish this. They ask for basically everything from keywords to credit card information all on the “first date�. In my opinion that’s a lot of information to have all ready to go at once. I also found it a little frustrating to try to make campaign-wide changes through this process and kept getting error messages that I was doing it the wrong way. I was impressed with the built-in basic demographic choices that they allow you to make. Demographical targeting is the holy grail of PPC and this is a good start towards getting people accustomed to thinking in these terms. I’m sure they will continue to get even more advanced as data accumulates.

Research….
Perhaps the funniest, er….best part of the adCenter is the research. Although I enjoyed reviewing it, I’m not sure I trust it completely. With 5 basic trending breakdowns for the keywords you are researching it sure does offer a lot of information. The five are Traffic, Age and Gender, Geography, Wealth Index, and Lifestyle. It was the last two that caught my eye. In Wealth Index there was just something about the terms “Lower Elite� and “Lower Affluent� that just sat kind of weird with me. On the next graph, Lifestyle, I was perplexed by not only the names but how they came to these conclusions, and how I would integrate them into my campaign decision making. When I did research on the keyword “comedians� and chose the Lifestyle tab here are the “Lifestyle Clusters� that came up. Bourgeois Prosperity, Career and Family, Sophisticated Singles, Routine Service Workers, Comfortable Retirement, Low Income Elders, Industrious Blue Collar, Smokestack Survivors, Metropolitan Strugglers, and finally Rural Inheritance.

Huh?

Needless to say this quickly became my focus as in “hey buddy, what do you think “smokestack survivors� means?� I’m not sure if the creators are trying to be funny, ingenious, politically correct, or some weird combination of all three, but it definitely makes wonder not only what in the world they mean, but question the validity of the data they are presenting.

Reports….
I would love to be able to tell you about the reports that adCenter can generate except I can’t get it to generate any. I’m sure this is just a user glitch on my part but it sure is frustrating to try numerous ways and have NO success.

Final Grade….
Incomplete. I like the idea of focusing on demographical data for the core of your campaign. I like the clean lines and the responsive user interface. I don’t like the campaign setup process, and I don’t like the lack of intuitiveness that is the reporting section. Finally, I don’t trust the keyword research data beyond the actual search numbers but I would hate for them to take it away as it is still a head-scratcher and worth a good laugh just reading the categories they have listed.

Finally, unless you get a significant amount of traffic from Yahoo PPC I wouldn’t be too concerned about immediately opening up a Microsoft adCenter account. I’ll be very interested to see their numbers after the first quarter of results.

Posted by brent at 3:15 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

May 4, 2006

Silent Bob Carries a Big Stick

When Kevin Smith releases a movie, his audience knows about it. In fact, when Kevin Smith does anything, his audience knows about it.

A Kevin Smith movie will not have Titanic advertising, and it will not have Titanic returns, but there will always be Kevin Smith movies. His movies make more than enough money with limited enough advertising to afford him auteur status, a rare condition these days.

Kevin Smith's online presence is largely responsible for the life he leads, and the films he makes. He does not have to rely on offline expenditures to sell tickets. His audience hears about upcoming work from him online. Below are just some of the ways Silent Bob is growing his audience for Clerks II.

• The Main Site
• The News Site
• The Message Board
• The Blog
• The Movie Site
• The Merchandising
• MySpace
• Wiki

The Clerks II site was purchased in 2004, and the movie is not due out until this August. I doubt Kevin Smith is worried about the sandbox effect.

Posted by tom at 3:47 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 3, 2006

Another Brand Bites the Dust

Oh, the irony. Regular riders of The Wagon will remember it was but last week I blogged about the ironic electronic disappearance of the brand that was to be the very definition of living life online- now we must rubberneck to even have a glance at M-Life as we 301 past it like a car wreck.

Now the brand that put the M-Life rabbit back into the hat, Cingular, itself a brand built by $870 Million in advertising last year alone, is about to make like a Bodhisattva and disappear from this world:

The new AT&T, created by SBC Communications'$16 billion acquisition of AT&T, revealed last March that it would replace the names BellSouth and Cingular with AT&T. Currently, San Antonio-based AT&T is in the midst of a rebranding effort whose cost is estimated at $500 million, by far the most expensive in U.S. telecommunications history.

BellSouth, with a 2005 ad spend of $115 million, per Nielsen Monitor-Plus, is currently represented by Grey in New York. BBDO offices in Atlanta and New York have worked on Cingular, which spent $870 million on ads last year, per Nielsen Monitor-Plus. The first campaign used the tagline, "What do you want to say?" The agencies declined comment on the future of the account.

What can anyone say if they no longer have a mouth?

Posted by john at 4:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 2, 2006

An Objective Look at Google vs. Microsoft

Just a few counterpoints about the current spate of Google/MSN craziness floating around:

Steve Lohr kicks off the hoopla in a NY Times article that states, regarding Microsoft's long-awaited release of IE 7, that

The new browser includes a search box in the upper-right corner that is typically set up to send users to Microsoft's MSN search service. Google contends that this puts Microsoft in a position to unfairly grab Web traffic and advertising dollars from its competitors.

Reaction, predictably, was polarized, with many people wondering what Google is thinking, since

1. The current search engine market share numbers favor Google over MSN at a ratio of roughly 4:1, and
2. Google has similar arrangements (that is, to be the default search engine) for Firefox and Opera browsers

I'll address the second point first. It basically boils down to the fact that IE 7, as well as Windows, the platform it runs on, are software, not a web site. And in terms of anti-trust, Windows is already tainted goods.

In 1998, the government made the connection between platform ownership and its ability to unfairly influence browser adoption - especially when choosing another browser was difficult or impossible: "The thing about browsers that's different from a lot of software is this is potentially an alternative platform," said Joel Klein, then Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust.

Google is counting on the government to make the same "alternative platform" connection between a browser and a search engine that it made between the OS and the browser in the late '90s. With MS holding roughly 80% of the market share with Internet Explorer, it seems like a plausible argument. Now if Opera or Firefox were to suddenly run on 80% of machines, Google might still not find the tables turned, because the arrangements between Google and those browsers are deals between different companies - not one company using its standing to push another of its products.

As for Google crying foul before a foul has been committed, that's possible. Yahoo's Jeremy Zawodney claims "double standard," noting Google's $1 billion deal with Dell to tweak browsers on Dell PCs in Google's favor. Danny Sullivan asks, "what advantage?" when he says

I am nauseatingly exhausted by idea that Microsoft will conjure up some magical method of yanking people into its MSN Windows Live Whatever You Want To Call It search service via the Windows operating system or the Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft has failed for years to be successful in this, which is why it's amazing anyone would still believe it.

I submit that Danny's nauseated exhaustion is premature. Google is smart to point out a potential advantage in Microsoft's setup before that advantage is illustrated in the marketplace. Should Google wait until MSN controls 80% of the search market before it claims that Microsoft unfairly used its advantage of platform and browser control to influence search?

It'll never happen, you say? Maybe not. Google certainly hopes not. But Google would be foolish to simply sit around idly and not use the Justice Department's precedent in this case.

The path of computing and Internet history is littered with the carcasses of companies who underestimated Microsoft or never thought Microsoft's ownership of the OS would pose a serious threat to their vertical. Ask Digital Research. Or WordPerfect. Or Lotus. Or Netscape.

Does Microsoft's ownership of desktops and the browser market create an unfair situation for other search engines? The answer, as determined by a court, may well be "no." But Google is not foolish or hypocritical for asking the question.

Posted by erik at 11:14 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 1, 2006

Repeated Searches as Social Bookmark Application

Trying to understand user behavior on the Web is a little like trying to track an electron using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can measure with reasonable certainty a user's state of mind - or his/her location on your site - but never both simultaneously.

I've become quite a fan of Google Analytics since it launched last fall, and several clients have come to us with GA already installed but not quite knowing how to maximize it. And frankly, I think truly maximizing it is a challenge for analytics veterans.

I've become particularly interested in tracking conversion data overlaid with other data, such as referring source, number of page views in the converting visit, and whether the visitor was new to the site or a returning visitor. Lately, I've been especially interested in why such a large percent of returning visitors still arrive by search engine. Typically, once I've found a site that I know I'll return to, I mark it somehow - whether through my own Firefox bookmarks, a social bookmarking service like del.icio.us, or, if it's truly the creme de la creme, its own button on my Bookmarks toolbar.

But if statistics (and my siblings) taught me anything, it's that I'm "not like the other kids." In a recent conference call, I was trying to give a client the URL of my favorite header checker tool, when Tom told the client, "just do what I do - search for [rex swain tool]." And the client immediately got it.

I've written before about being mystified by people who search for distinct URLs at a search engine. Right below that, on the growing list of things that mystify me, I've officially logged another entry: people who find sites again and again by performing the same search at the same engine.

This implies some real faith on their part - that each time they search for something, the result they remember is going to come up on top. And in an industry for which constant change is a requirement, I'm shocked at the permanence people expect from engines. Next on my list of things to find out: whether people expectation of permanence is the same for branded and unbranded queries.

Posted by erik at 11:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack