Web Analytics & Search Engine Marketing Analysis - They're Not the Same

Posted by vern on March 30, 2007 at 04:43 PM

Hardly a week goes by without an announcement of the latest and greatest web analytics package.

Yahoo, Google, Omniture and others have done a terrific job of developing tools to mine every last bit of performance data from website traffic and paid search campaigns. Some companies package their offerings in a more intuitive wrapping than others, but they are essentially the same.

Looking to spend five figures a month on the just released, latest and greatest analytics package? Whoa - Don't put the cart before the horse.

The real key to success in paid search marketing is in the human powered interpretation of the data spewed forth by the Omnitures of the world. Having all the data on the planet at your fingertips is useless without thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent examination and analysis. Numbers aren't enough, regardless of the pretty interface and graphs.

What do the numbers mean? What are they telling us about trends? How can they help us identify the causes of problems or the reasons for our success? For example: What factors contributed to a drop in conversions this month over last. Then: How do we fix what's broken? How do we improve?

Analytics show us the past in a myriad of color-saturated graphs, charts and tables. The best they can do is display real-time data. They can't tell us what campaign changes and adjustments to make. It's the analyst interpreting the data that’s the real star here.

I argue that we all are in danger of allowing too much data to cloud our thinking and decision-making. Settle on a handful of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and watch them like a hawk for shifts in trends.

Look at the big picture first. Resist the temptation to dive in at a granular level. What you're looking for may be more obvious than you think. Often, looking at site performance issues may tell you all you need to know.

When assembling resources for your PPC effort, look first for experienced, knowledgeable, creative and thoughtful analysts. Then give them the tools they need to work their magic. Your bottom line will benefit and your board of directors will thank you for it.

Another Day – Another Online Marketing Cost Metric

Posted by on March 29, 2007 at 01:14 PM

Yesterday my colleague, Erin, wrote about Google’s test of a “cost per action‎ pricing model for content network advertising. Here’s hoping that this test gains a little more traction than the ill-fated “click-to-call‎ beta. (Sure, I’ll pay $80 for the chance to sell my $15 widget. Thank you, um, NO!)

While Google’s efforts of late are all fine and good for folks hawking widgets right from their e-commerce website, I’d like to take it one step further for those of us in the online lead generation biz.

With an offline conversion model, typically the only online “action‎ that occurs is the generation of a lead, and we all know that in this corner of the marketing world “quality is king.‎

Rather than an “action‎ or “conversion‎ based metric, there’s been buzz within the online lead-generation zeitgeist about measuring the cost of a qualified lead. That’s right, not just any old lead, but a well-qualified, living, breathing & shouting “yes I’m buyin what you’re sellin‎ person.

Paying only for a well-qualified lead may seem like a dream for the online lead-gen community, but this holy grail is not far off. As with cost per action, demand for such metrics/pricing models will drive technology.

Some time ago, I wrote about evaluating the value of a lead, and how it compares to the cost one should be willing to pay for a lead. Those formulas change dramatically when considering the value of a well-qualified lead.

The correlation between increased lead quality and increased close rate or conversion rate is as natural as flowers in spring. So to is the increased value of said well-qualified lead. Listen up G.

So tell me, fellow online lead-gen pros, how much are you willing to pay for a well-qualified lead?

Google’s Pay-Per-Action: Greatest Invention Since Sliced Bread?

Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Last week Google broke news of the beta launch for its Pay-Per-Action (or Cost-Per-Action) pricing model.

The new program is available through Google's AdSense content network and allows advertisers to potentially increase their advertising reach. Advertisers can predetermine what “actions‎ they are willing to pay for and how much they will pay for a completed action rather than paying per click or impression.

Many critics are acclaiming the new pricing model as a great addition to the search advertising world, but I beg to differ. With this new pricing model addition Google is shifting the traditional role of the search engine.

While search engines are typically lead-providers or site traffic providers, this new PPA model extends the engine’s role up until the point of sale or conversion. This makes Google a type of relationship building business partner rather than a traditional lead provider.

Google may have some kinks to work out and issues to consider with the new PPA model, which goes beyond creating ads, defining conversion actions and waiting for revenue to pour in.

How will PPA prices influence quality score rankings? Since there is no quality score on the content network, and those ads typically have low click-through rates, will PPA rely on price alone for higher positions? If so, this may make the playing field uneven.

Critics are also claiming that PPA will take care of the dreaded click fraud problems. But will the new pricing model pose a new threat of “return fraud‎ instead? It also seems to me there may be potential issues between the advertiser and Google in agreeing where conversions came from. Everyone knows that even the most advanced tracking technology has some flaws.

Google’s goal is to eventually expand this new pricing model into its successful PPC search network. According to Google’s website, advertisers will be invited into the beta program on a rolling basis over the next few months.

The very business model that made Google successful in mass markets is changing. Google's self-service and hands-off approach appealed to web marketers across the globe. Only time and testing will tell whether or not the new pricing model will prove to be profitable. I guess we will find out soon enough – Pay-Per-Action could turn out to yield higher returns for the advertiser and publisher, but I still remain skeptical.

Being Thoughtful Can Also Be Good SEO

Posted by on March 27, 2007 at 09:47 AM

I recently took a trip to visit some friends and family, and was able to spend time with an uncle who has been involved with computers most of his life.

He and I spent several hours talking about old and new technology, each telling our glory stories of programming and system implementation. To me, his stories were far more interesting.

I heard stories of computers that took up three stories of a building, systems that required flipping toggle switches on and off to send the instructions required to boot, punch-cards, vacuum tubes, tapes, and assembly language.

I had heard of these things before - in the mandatory computer history portion of my computer science classes. But hearing my uncle's first-hand accounts really brought them to life, as he described many of the great challenges he's faced with computers throughout his life.

For the past few years my uncle has faced a new challenge with computers; he is now blind.

Using JAWS® screen reader software to browse the web, he first gets a list of all links on a website; then the reader reads the link list to him one by one until he finds the one he is looking for. If the site's navigation is made with images that are missing alternate (alt) text, or with JavaScript, he can't browse the site.

The easiest sites for him to browse are the ones with the most relevant navigation first, with clean text and markup, and not over-heavy with images. Unfortunately, he says that more and more sites are becoming unreadable for him.

To be honest, I hadn't thought much about accessibility until having spoken with my uncle. Since then, I have done a little homework on what makes a site accessible. I was pleased to learn that many things I already try to do are a good step in that direction:

• Valid XHTML / HTML
• Clean link based navigation
• Using markup elements to add context to your web page content, things like <h1> to indicate a document heading, <p> to indicate a paragraph, <blockquote> to indicate a quote, etc.
• Using style sheets (not embedded style) to make the visual presentation.
• Providing alt text for images within the page.
• Using clear and readable language for web page content.

Does this list sound familiar? If so, then you may have also been considering what makes your site more visible to search engines. It turns out that most things that make a site accessible to the visually impaired are also good SEO techniques.

Having looked over the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), there is a lot to consider with accessibility, and it takes some effort to implement it. But it's not wasted effort.

In doing so, you will make the lives of visually impaired visitors to your site easier, and make your site more optimized for your friendly neighborhood search engine spider.

Does Online Success Justify MLB/DirecTV Deal?

Posted by on March 26, 2007 at 01:13 PM

The crack of the bat, the smell of the grass, the sound of another congressional hearing.

It's spring, and that means it's time for Major League Baseball to find its way into the Senate chambers again.

On Tuesday, Major League Baseball COO Bob DuPuy is scheduled to appear before a congressional committee to defend his organization's right to enter into an exclusive partnership with DirecTV.

This year Major League Baseball entered into an agreement with DirecTV to be its sole provider of televised nationwide coverage. DirecTV, however, is unavailable to approximately 20 percent of the country, due to restrictions on where the company's satellite dishes need to be directed.

Last week, Major League Baseball denied a bid by InDemand - a consortium of three major cable providers - to match DirecTV's offer and provide additional nationwide television coverage. The deal with DirecTV does not affect local broadcast or cable outlets.

To me, the issue isn't whether this is an illegal monopoly (it is). After all, MLB is simply following the lead of the NFL, who has granted this exclusive right to DirecTV for more than a decade. The issue isn't why Major League Baseball had the gumption to alter a service provided to all cable and dish users for so many years. (Money, duh. $700 million of it.)

The issue is why now? Because of the success of Major League Baseball Advanced Media, the league's internet arm.

MLBAM has become a major revenue source, as the league was the first to monetize internet radio, and has been the most successful among the major sports leagues in generating other sources of income for its teams. (MLBAM is, largely, the reason that the Royals' Gil Meche is making an eight-figure salary this year. Middling pitchers everywhere thank you, MLBAM.)

With the world inching closer to the "internet as television" model, and with the MLB.TV service increasing in subscriptions and popularity, it's not that much of a leap to claim that DirecTV in fact does not hold a monopoly over distribution - after all, these games are available to everyone online.

I'm not defending MLB here. However, I sense that this is their justification.

Me? For the 12th straight year, I'll be more than satisfied with another summer of the Pat and Ron Show. (And, yes, I've already sent my $15 to MLBAM for the privilege.)

Play ball!

Creepy Usability: "Speaking Characters" & the Uncanny Valley Effect

Posted by Christopher on March 23, 2007 at 03:49 PM

This, faithful readers, is merely my opinion; it does not in any way reflect the views of my coworkers or my employer. I mean, I'm right,
but they can believe what they want.

Speaking characters, the little internet helper faces that "talk" to you and follow your cursor around with their eyes, disturb me. Nauseate me, in a way both physical and existential. Like clowns after midnight, or clowns in general, really, they're horrifying. Their very names, generally something like "Web Buddy" or "Net Pal," evoke loathing. In an effort to present a human face, to allow users to interface with a "person," speaking characters present a monster.

I don't think I'm alone.

In 1970, Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori posited the Uncanny Valley Effect; simply put, humans feel an innate attraction and an attendant empathy that grows in response to a robot's "human-ness," but only up to a point. After that point, as the robot becomes more, and then too, human, humans feel an innate repulsion. A disgust. Thus the too-human but not-human-enough robot puts a big ol' damper on effective human-robot relations, because it makes us ill.

This "Uncanny Valley" lasts until the robot can perfectly mimic a human, until you can't tell anymore.

There are many simple things you can do to make your website friendly without scaring the crap out of people. If you want to attract and keep users, have your navigation make sense. Give us breadcrumbs so we can find our way home. Put the information about your products and services where we want it. Use your own site once in a while. Ask your friends and family if they like the font, the color scheme, etc.

Don't, don't, DON'T make us sit through endless flash intros; if you, like many people, are hopelessly married to the flash intro, give us a way to skip it. We're not that impressed, and if we have to sit through your damn pony show every time we try to use your site we'll take our business elsewhere.

And please don't rely on a creepy/friendly face; that thing ain't human, and I can tell.

Are Video Podcasters Ready for Apple TV?

Posted by keirsun on March 22, 2007 at 11:19 AM

It's officially spring and I can already smell change in the air. Or maybe I'm catching a whiff of the packaging materials being shipped with the now-available Apple TV.

Selling for $299.00 and shipping in 1-2 business days, according to the Apple Store, the Apple TV has been labeled a favorite in the race to converge the computer with the television.

Other players have already taken to the same field, including Microsoft's Xbox, but the Apple TV has a friendlier price tag and has been hailed as simple to setup and use. Usability is an obvious benefit/selling point for any piece of new technology.

We've been testing Apple TV for the past 10 days or so, and our verdict is that it's a beautifully designed, easy-to-use product that should be very attractive to people with widescreen TV sets and lots of music, videos, and photos stored on computers. It has some notable limitations, but we really liked it. It is classic Apple: simple and elegant.

Quoted from a favorable review by The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg and Katherine Boehret, this tiny piece of technology (7.7 by 7.7 inches) is ready to break some big barriers.

Being a producer of podcasts, I had one thing to say upon seeing an image of the Apple TV menu: HELL YES!

There it is, 4th option on the list: Podcasts.

And why shouldn't it be there? Absolutely free video content, on almost any topic, that I can watch any time I want? Where's the remote?

Sure there are a few good TV shows out there that I can pay to download and watch at anytime. But aside from the cost of the Apple TV, anyone can now explore a new world of large-screen video podcasts without having to leave the couch and without having to pay for content.

My advice to video podcasters? Take whatever steps necessary to ensure your video looks great on a widescreen TV. People purchase widescreen televisions for one reason - a damn fine picture. Therefore, the quality of your video is going to make or break your video podcast.

Google & I Release a Disc Golf Search Engine

Posted by duncan on March 21, 2007 at 09:32 AM

Google and I recently worked together to build a specialty search engine devoted to disc golf.

What? When did Duncan start working with Google?

This new Disc Golf Search Engine is made possible by a new offering from Google Co-op. It turns out that Google is offering anyone the ability to build a custom search engine through the Co-op tools.

For my blog this month, I decided to go ahead and build a custom search engine to see how it works. I chose disc golf as a topic because disc golfers are always weeding through search engine listing pages trying to get to pages about disc golf rather than regular golf.

It was very easy to build the custom search engine with the tools Google gave me. Google does require that you have an account with them before allowing you to create your own search engine. Since I am already a Gmail user, this wasn't a problem. All I needed to do was login and follow the prompts. In about 5 easy steps I created my Disc Golf Search Engine and Google emailed me the code to stick it on my web page.

The basic idea of the custom search engine is that you choose the sites you want Google to look at for your queries. In my case I selected the top five or so disc golf related sites. This will ensure that my searches will only bring up listings for those sites.

Now I can search for putters, driving tips, and tournament information without seeing any pages on traditional golf. In regular Google I always had to add the words "disc golf" to every search to ensure I was getting what I wanted.

Go ahead and give it a try:

I'd expect that custom search engines will start popping up all over the place once people see how easy this is. Only your creativity will limit the ways you can use this new, free technology from Google.

To you search engine marketers out there, I encourage you to think very carefully about the implications of this new offering from Google. Keep in mind that Google will be showing AdWords on the results of these custom search engines. Natural optimization will continue to be important as these custom search engine results won't take away the need for technically sound sites that deliver great content.

Are we getting closer to personalized search with the advent of custom search engines? Perhaps this is the next big thing.

Duncan had so much fun creating his custom search engine that the rest of the SUS team just had to take it one step further. So we created a StraightUpSearch Blog Search. Don't be shy - give it a try.

Keep Site Content Alive - Archive It

Posted by steve on March 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM

More and more, we are seeing Google provide webmasters with information and resources to implement a variety of best practices on their sites. One such recommendation, which is no secret, is the importance of having unique, relevant content on your website.

While a ton of webmasters are searching for different ways to boost the amount of content on their sites, there are some who actually reduce the amount of relevant content unsuspectingly, and unnecessarily.

I want to take a minute to explain how this is a fairly common practice. Here is one such example:

Bob has a real estate site. On his site are over 1,000 home listings, each with unique descriptions that Bob's staff of copywriters have written. He typically sells about two homes a week, and once a home is sold, Bob naturally removes the listing from his site. The length of time that any one listing stays on the site is usually about three weeks.

Bob "naturally" removes the listings because why would he keep them up once they've been sold?

Even though a listing has been sold, the page is still comprised of unique content which is contributing to the overall relevancy of the site. In this type of situation, it is not uncommon for pages to be added to a site, then taken down before search engines even have time to find and index them. Why not benefit from the vast amount of time that was taken to create these listings? The solution: a Sold archive.

Archives are a great way to house dated content which continues to benefit a site. From sold real estate listings to old products, news articles and press releases, archives are beneficial not only from a search engine perspective, but a user perspective as well.

Let's use Bob as an example again. Keeping a Sold archive on his site will give potential sellers the ability to view successful sales from the past, and help to facilitate a decision as to whether or not Bob is the right agent for them. A Discontinued Product archive can be used to alert customers to new, comparable products. A News archive will allow users to view past achievements, technology updates, etc.

Regardless of the type of content on your website, there are a number of ways in which archives can be beneficial from a user standpoint. And when combined with the added benefit they provide from a search engine standpoint, it's a win-win situation.

The Wal-Mart of the Internet

Posted by adam on March 19, 2007 at 04:07 PM

Most every online user knows by now that Google is the most dominant search entity to date. But it seems lately being known as #1 in search isn't enough. Google has expanded into social networking (YouTube), competing with Microsoft Office (Google Docs & Sheets), not to mention the 35+ other services offered on Google.com.

The newest revelation (or rumor depending how you look at it) is the possibility of a Google branded mobile phone code named Switch.

This phone is speculated as being part Blackberry but with enhanced internet/search functionality. Its most obvious competition would be the much anticipated iPhone due for release sometime this summer.

Google, just like Apple, would most likely lease tower space from established mobile providers such as Verizon, Alltel, or Cingular. These middleman carriers are known as MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator). Some other examples of MVNOs are: Amp'd Mobile, Helio, Boost, Disney Mobile (ESPN), and Virgin Mobile.

One of the biggest hurdles Google will have to face is the monthly cost for a subscriber's air time. Several companies have tried similar business models of renting tower space; some have been very successful and some failed miserably. ESPN Mobile is a great example of a failure. By having a niche product and loyal target market ESPN was very confident in success with its sports only mobile service, but shut down shop in only 11 months.

Google has done its share of throwing weight around online, as has Wal-Mart in the retail world. To make the "Switch" a success in the competitive mobile world where ESPN couldn't, a large sumo named iPhone will have to be pushed out of the MVNO arena.

YouTube - Broadcast Your Resume

Posted by anne on March 16, 2007 at 04:24 PM

Stage the setting; nestled in the comfort of your kitchen surrounded with carefully chosen food pairings created by you, the author, with just the right candlelight, just the right wine, and just the right words. You press record and your dialog begins with, "Let me begin by giving you a little taste of my background and work history."

The creation of this video serves the sole purpose of marketing oneself, in a three-minute sound byte, to fine dining establishments that are seeking talented Sous' Chefs. Is it a video? Is it a resume? It's the newest venue for job seekers hoping to make a visual impression on potential employers.

Sound crazy, maybe not. The video resume, if done right, has the potential to be an impressive snapshot, but only if you can talk impressively about yourself and your professional achievements.

Though the practice is still in its early stages, young job hunters are starting to make a video clip part of their job applications, posting them on sites like Google's YouTube.

By now many people have heard of the Yale student, Aleksey Vayner who submitted his video resume to the investment bank, UBS. Unfortunately for Vayner, the employer was not impressed but the resume became a YouTube classic.

This served as a wake-up call to both recruiters and job seekers regarding the possibility of marrying video resumes to the internet. Already, YouTube has close to 1,590 entries listed under resume but only a few can be named smart, colorful and effective. So far, these videos have been posted mostly by people in entertainment or media.

Last May, a recruiting firm convinced a University of Illinois graduate seeking an engineering job to make a video resume. The video was produced in a professional studio with the graduate answering five short questions about why he'd make a good employee. The recruiting company then emailed prospective employers a link to the video. The guy ended up getting four job offers and accepted one of them.

Job seekers in different industries are starting to make videos through professional recruiting services. This could lead to candidates including a link within the text of their resume, allowing employers to view the video within seconds. Pretty snazzy!

Jobster.com, a Web site for job seekers, is exploring the possibility of enabling users to add short video clips to online member profiles. This month, Time Magazine cites a quote from Jason Goldberg, CEO of Jobster stating, "I can see a day when video as part of the resume is the norm." Online job boards such as Jobster and "HireVue will soon launch career sites featuring video resumes. At the same time, smaller companies hoping to ride the popularity of online video are rolling out services that make it easier to create a video resume.

As a human resources professional, this type of self promotion is a venue that provides further insight into the personality of potential job seekers that a normal resume does not convey. Its popularity is only a click away.

Chasing Technology

Posted by on March 15, 2007 at 09:01 AM

I don't know about you, but all the incessant talk about the latest and greatest tools and outlets that are perfect for online marketing seems to be much more lip service than anything else. Call me old school, but it seems everybody with a unique tool will tell you that you, too, need that tool.

With technology at a point where it seems to expand almost exponentially, sometimes it seems like you can barely make a decision to implement something, before the newer, better, quicker, more-efficient version is being pushed.

This rapid introduction and progression of tools can have a polarizing effect on organizations, who either:

• chase technology and implement it all for fear as being perceived as archaic if they don't, or
• disregard it altogether for fear of wasting good budget money on flash-in-the-pan gadgetry

In actuality, like any other course of action you choose to take, decisions should not be made relative to the newness or "cool" factor of the move. One of the first staples of marketing is to:

• define the needs of your consumer base
• establish your corporate goals to meet those needs
• create a plan to achieve those goals

Changes of any kind should fall in the last category, and this includes technology.

When you have assessed the market for your product or service and devised a plan to help your organization satisfy the market, you can work backward to determine if there are new tools or avenues that will allow you to do this better--or better than your competition. My guess is that you'll find a few things that could really make a difference. You'll also find a lot of stuff that might be fun to play with, but that's about as far as its usefulness extends. After all, when you need to pound a nail, the shiniest new screwdriver doesn't help much.

Once you've found the tools you need as part of your larger corporate goals, and know how they are supposed to work for you, you can feel better about investing the time and budget into them.

Windows Vista - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Posted by jak on March 14, 2007 at 10:09 AM

According to the Online version of Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word Vista means:

1: a distant view through or along an avenue or opening, or
2: an extensive mental view (as over a stretch of time or a series of events)

With its big release last month, it's very likely that we've all heard at least something about Microsoft's new operating system. This blog post is going to be about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Windows Vista.

Now this is just my opinion, based on my experience with this operating system over the past week, and I promise it won't contain a bunch of technical terms that none of us care about anyway.

Now, I believe that the Redmond cronies would like us to believe that definition number two from above is the correct definition for their product. In my opinion they're wrong. I think definition number one fits much better. The Vista or "View" that Redmond actually sees is the $ signs through the narrow view provided.

The Good
Let's start with the good. For me, this is going to be a very short list. One of the best things this operating system has to offer is the fast install time. I think it took me about 20 minutes to install this and get on the Internet. Luckily, there's not seventy five security updates as of yet. The other thing that was nice was the fact that even though they changed the entire look, you can still make it run like the old classic Windows. Unfortunately, that's just about all I liked about it.

The Bad
Being a System Administrator and having my Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer certificate, I would like to think that I know a few things about computers and the way Windows works. With Vista I found myself trying to find certain items or settings that were no longer where I am used to. They must be catering to new users that have never used Windows before.

And the Ugly
I know Microsoft prides themselves with the fact that Vista is the most secure system ever, but prompting me every 30 seconds on whether I want to do something is a little ridiculous. Are you sure you want to do this? Are you really, really sure? How about now? At least with most firewalls out there you can change settings to always allow certain events to happen. So, once you find your programs and you have given the OK to run them, again, you start to feel pretty good about your new purchase.

But wait, what's this, the Blue Screen Of Death, on my new operating system. Surely you must be kidding, or maybe this is the Vista that Microsoft is talking about. At least the memory dump was faster than it was in the past. Based on the error code, I have some faulty hardware. Since this is my test box and I had been running Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP before this without error, I figured it is probably just a fluke. Nope, it happened every couple of hours whether I had programs running or not.

Being the troubleshooter I am, I was able to fix the problem in just a few short hours. I am happy to say that my Windows XP Pro with SP2 is now running just fine.

Social Networks and Popularity

Posted by drew on March 13, 2007 at 01:43 PM

Remember when social networks were the new thing? Facebook was an infant on the doorstep of every college or university in the country. Myspace was a mere idea in Tom's brain. Ultimately, there is a trend to almost all social web innovations; they become popular.

Having a popular site is what the Internet is all about. But with popularity also comes interest from the marketing community. Most recently, we see Yahoo and Google both taking action to get into the social networking market. The social networking sites have changed because of this. Some would say for the better, others would say for the worse.

This is not the first instance of social degradation. Think back to when instant messaging became popular and we began to see spam messages or ads displayed on our chat clients. In a more recent example, spam text messages seem to find their way to almost any phone no matter how careful you are.

Email has obvious problems with spam and even the Internet itself has the issue of pop-ups. But, as much as I've bad-mouthed these practices, they have made the Internet what is today: A popular area of society and commerce. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Tools of the Trade: Firebug

Posted by on March 12, 2007 at 03:57 PM

Every so often, I take a moment to look at the tools and processes that I use as a programmer to marvel at the progressions of time. Occasionally, I actually find that one of them has ascended to a level of importance that is rarely achieved. A tool that, maybe weeks before, had felt like a luxury, instead becomes central to the way that I work. I had experienced this turn around several months after installing Linux at my house, or when I first tried out a "natural" keyboard back in high school.

Today, I'd like to talk about something that has been more of a recent revolution for me, and I know that there are a great many people out there who would similarly be blown away by its usefulness. Ladies and gentlemen, please let me introduce you to Firebug.

Firebug is an extension for Firefox (you are using firefox aren't you?), which adds a vast amount of functionality for web designers and programmers. Originally, firebug was a better javascript console, replacing the built in version, and adding some handy features. In its most recent versions, however, Firebug adds a pile of additional tools. In fact, it adds so much to the developer experience, that I can sense a feature list approaching rapidly...

• Tree based, syntax highlighted html source code viewer.
• 'Inspect' feature, which lets you click on a visible, in page item, which brings you directly to that item's location in the html source.
• DOM positioning information, displaying sizes of the content, padding and margin areas.
• HTML element real-time markup and css editing. With real-time display updates. (Think WYSIWYG). This breaks the standard cycle of edit, upload, preview, repeat.
• Ability to view linked in CSS and Javascript files inline.
• A DOM inspector (much like the one built into Firefox).
• A Network connection graph, showing the delay and duration of all the downloads required to render a page.
• And for all you AJAX guys/gals. Firebug will even show you the content of all xmlhttp requests and responses made by your page.

If you spend, really any, time doing website development, you truly owe yourself the pleasure of trying Firebug out for size. I guarantee you'll like it.

*Guarantee of happiness does not extend to anyone who is actually disappointed, for any reason ;)

Know Your CMO

Posted by on March 08, 2007 at 09:04 AM

Because they'll give you maybe 20-seconds before tuning out - a minute if you're smart and pretty.

Social Media is supposed to be social, riiiiiight? So why aren't online marketers providing real and useful information in an effective manner to those people who will actually be responsible for when, where and how this all-too-important medium is wholeheartedly embraced by business?

The average CMO very likely has 300 unread emails, back-to-back meetings, an aloof creative department, a rioting sales staff, a preternaturally cranky CFO, a brewing HR crises, delinquent performance reviews, a budget in need of slashing, a national sales meeting to plan, oh... and he or she's out of the office all week on fly-by's of a couple of trade shows two time zones away.

Do you honestly think said CMOs read the latest trade rag cover-to-cover? (Well, maybe if their JetBlue flight was delayed at O'Hare.) But you'd be lucky if they opened up an e-newletter and caught the first two headlines. CMOs are CMOs because they glean enough info to remain informed, formulate a reasonable POV, make up the rest and pitch their plan.

Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit as I've never been a real CMO myself - just the schmo, running to-and-fro from below. But my remarkable rhyming repertoire - and hey, alliteration too! - was built during a decade of attention-starved dealings with CMOs in every imaginable business category from Kalamazoo to Calcutta.

So I'm mildly confident in proclaiming that while the average CMO may know what MySpace, YouTube, FaceBook, Digg, Flickr, Wikipedia, Technorati, Photobucket, Del.icio.us, and certainly iTunes - are - they haven't entirely grasped, let alone conceptualized into an actionable framework, what they mean now or in the immediate future to their business.

So why do we - we being online marketing specialists - speak to them - time-deprived, ADD-riddled CMOs - as though they're up-to-date and fully schooled on the latest and greatest web marketing developments cropping up by the minute? They're not. They may sound like they are, but that's why they're CMOs.

So can we toss them a bone already? They really do know they need to be diving head-first into the Search Marketing 2.0 pool. But they just can't - physically, and in some cases morally - read this week's top five white papers on the topic. So if you want to keep referring to the latest research study or 2,000-word article - with no pictures! - when pitching your wares, go for it. But it's not hitting home. So stop pumping up your esoteric ego for your cubicle cohorts and think about the folks you really need to be speaking to and how.

CMOs are going to usher in their business' full, integrated embrace of Web 2.0, social networking and Search Marketing 2.0 business solutions. They'll eventually get there - they always do - but it's the truly prescient online marketer who will deliver the facts and actionable strategies that will enable them to do so now rather than in two years time.

My suggestion on where to begin? Check out Oneupweb's March 22nd webinar in partnership with the AMA titled Search Marketing 2.0: Integrating User-Driven Technology Into Successful Search Marketing Strategies. www.oneupweb.com/webinar

An SEO Lesson from Shoeless Joe Jackson?

Posted by teal on March 07, 2007 at 09:21 AM

It's been quite a week and I am going to have a little fun with this post, so bare with me. I saw an E! True Hollywood snippet on Gabby Hoffman the other day and I began to think of one of my favorite movies - Field of Dreams.

I remember watching Kevin Costner, James Earl Jones, Ray Liotta, and little Gabby Hoffman woo baseball heroes by building a baseball field in the middle of corn field, where the ghosts of the infamous "Eight Men Out" or "Black Sox" accused of throwing the 1919 World Series could come and relive their best moments.

There are a number of memorable quotes that come to mind when I think of this familiar movie including, "If you build it, they will come." This gets me to thinking how webmasters can learn a little something (or not) from Ray Kinsella, Shoeless Joe Jackson, and Terence Mann.

"If you build it, they will come..."

This one really got me thinking - because when it comes to SEO, building it WILL NOT necessarily make them - meaning search engine spiders and visitors - come. You could build a really great site that portrays your message and your voice, but without implementing some very basic SEO best practices, your beautiful site may not see the traffic you anticipated.

"Go the distance..."

Now, if you were aware of SEO during the design and construction of your site, or have made alterations to account for search engine spiders, please, please, please go the distance and address usability throughout your site. Make the navigation clear, the structure intuitive, and the contact information or conversion points visible and easy to find. Building an aesthetically pleasing site sometimes isn't enough, but by creating a site that encourages users to investigate and research your product or services you are increasing the chance of having visitors become customers.

"Ease his pain..."

This is a tough one and may be a bit of a stretch, but for the sake of fun "Ease his pain..." can refer to the pain of the user helplessly trying to navigate your site, or the pain of the company waiting for traffic or sales. It is important to address SEO, usability, and conversion goals to make your site a successful endeavor.

Don't sit and wait for people to visit your site, and don't wait for them to convert. Analyze current business practices, pull out what sets your business apart from your competitors and put this front and center, hire an SEO company or work internally to implement SEO best practices to increase your positions in the SERPs for important keyword searches, and help users convert by making conversion points more visible. Furthermore, by including PPC in your search marketing mix you're likely to increase brand awareness, traffic, and conversion opportunities.

Google Calls 'Shotgun' on Auto Loans

Posted by keirsun on March 06, 2007 at 10:34 AM

I have an auto loan. No surprise there - many people take out loans to buy an automobile. And like most people, I can wistfully imagine the day when I no longer have an auto loan. I only hope my Toyota truck is still eager to cruise the back roads when that day arrives.

But let's put this in reverse for a moment.

In order to get a loan I first needed to find a lender. Using a search engine named Google (you may have heard of it) I came across Capital One Auto Finance. Nice rates, easy to navigate website, familiar brand, chuckle-worthy TV commercials - I had found my lender.

Shift gears forward a couple years. I'm making headway on the loan, my payments are on time, everything's running smoothly. And then one day, I log into my Capital One account, and there it is: Google Auto Loan.

What the hell? Google Auto Loan? Is that right?

But I thought Google was a search engine? Why would Google suddenly have dibs on my auto loan?

If Google now owns my auto loan, then it must have access to my Capital One account details, such as my social security number. Why does a search engine need to know my social security number? If someone searches for me on Google, will they get my social security number?

At this point, you may be sensing my sarcasm. But it's not unfounded. My concerns are real.

Sure, Google probably entered into some kind of partnership that puts a little loan revenue in its back pocket. That's to be expected from a multi-billion dollar corporation. But it's this specific corporation's bread and butter that punches my personal anxiety accelerator when I see "Google Auto Loan" on my online loan statement.

Surely there must be an explanation for letting Google ride shotgun on my loan. I search Capital One's website. Nothing. I search Google, Yahoo, MSN. Nothing. So I call Capital One's customer service number and after posing my questions to a very nice woman, I get put on hold.

When she comes back on the line, she responds with, "My system is updating and I can't get that information at this time. Please feel free to call back."

I feel like the air has gone out of my tires. I reluctantly pull off the information highway. I turn on my emergency flashers. Now I can only hope other people are stopping, and asking these questions.

USA Today 2.0

Posted by tim on March 05, 2007 at 10:03 AM

USA Today recently 'relaunched' the online presence of the paper, introducing a host of new social features.

This is significant on several fronts, probably key among them is seeing an established, major "mainstream media" (MSM) outlet take advantage of the explosive growth of social networking online.

Over the last several months, the social web has become increasingly important as it garners more attention. To see a site with the stature of USA Today embrace this is hugely important. Too many of the old-guard MSM have remained almost defiantly stubborn, trying to bend an online experience to one they control - leaving display to be a near mirror of their print editions, forcing old material behind pay walls, and requiring a subscription to read all but a cursory summary.

The change at USA Today, while visually pretty subtle, represents a huge shift in the presentation of the news. While the articles remain unchanged, and the paper still presents the top stories in a manner consistent with traditional journalism, they've now offered their readers the chance to comment on articles, rate the importance of stories and interact with one another.

With every passing day the web and the content there becomes more about the user than it is about the provider. Sites that understand this idea stand to gain tremendously. Welcome to the new web USA Today, nice to have you.

Techcrunch (among many others) has coverage as well.