SEO Confusion is Common
April 28, 2012
If you are confused by SEO tactics, don’t fret because you are not alone. SEO admits even it is not sure what it does.
In an effort to ease the confusion, Search Engine Journal recently posted an article titled, “24 Eye-Popping SEO Statistics.” The article begins by commenting on the apparently misunderstood medium that is not well regarded in the online marketing arena (just type “seo is” into Google and watch it fill in the blanks.) We then read that a user should begin by getting their minimum viable SEO right before site-building and may then turn to more advanced SEO once they have accomplished that.
And then, to complete the explanation of SEO, some statistics are presented. Some key stats from the article:
“*Content marketing rocks. Marketing Sherpa reports distribution lead to a 2,000% increase in blog traffic and a 40% increase in revenue.
*70% of the links search users click on are organic.
*70-80% of users ignore the paid ads, focusing on the organic results.
*75% of users never scroll past the first page of search results.
*GroupM states “when consumers were exposed to both search and social media influenced by a brand that overall search CTR went up by 94 percent.”
*Search and e-mail are the top two internet activities.”
Still confused? So are we. And I’m fairly confident the SEO gurus are too.
Statistics do not define SEO, and readers should be provided more valid reasoning and explanation of processes before being asked to embrace the so-called marketing tool.
Andrea Hayden, April 28, 2012
Sponsored by Ikanow
Consultant Picks on Apple. Real News Asks, Why?
April 26, 2012
Short honk. Navigate to “Why has Forrester’s CEO Become an Apple Doomsayer?” A real journalistic operation asks this question. I was surprised. Here’s the key passage in the write up:
Colony, to a great extent, is following the classic formula of the provocateur:
- Find a hook: Apple just had one heck of a quarter: the company blew past estimates on both earnings and how many iPhones it sold, while breaking other quarterly records in iPad and Mac sales.
- Find something contrarian to say: Sure, things look good, but the fun times won’t last. He even puts a time frame on it.
- Add a touch of obviousness: Everyone knows it’s a risk that Jobs no longer runs Apple. That’s hardly something people don’t know. The obviousness gives it credibility. Can you say that concern hasn’t crossed your mind?
- Add some context: Hey folks, bad things happen when the founder leaves a tech company. Look at Apple when Jobs left the first time around. Microsoft hasn’t been the same since Bill Gates stepped down. Hewlett and Packard. The list goes on. Other than Intel, it takes some time to think of a big tech company that continued to thrive after the founder or founders left.
Actually, this is a lot of words. The reasons are incorrect.
When a consulting firm makes any type of controversial statement, several thoughts go through my mind.
- Apple rejected a Forrester pitch to buy consulting services. Ouch.
- The controversial statement is designed to sell the firm’s services. After all, coming off a pretty good quarter—although not as lucrative as some of the azure chip outfits’ earnings I surmise—the radical statement suggests that the former English teachers and graphics arts professionals have hot, new information.
- Publicity.
I am delighted that “real” journalists have a formula for consulting services marketing. The capability may come in handy when another budget cut slashes through the erudite ranks.
Stephen E Arnold, April 26, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Conversation? I Think Not
April 23, 2012
In my dead tree edition of the New York Times, I read “The Flight from Conversation” by an MIT professor and author. The newspaper put the story on page one of the Sunday Review section with a jump to pages six and seven. The online version was visible to me this morning (April 23, 2012) as “Opinion. The Flight from Conversation.” I am never sure which New York Times story will be available to whom or for how long, so you are on your own if you get a 404 or a begging for dollars screen.
What I know is that “conversation” is idealized in today’s thumb typing world. Defining conversation is useful. Holding a conversation is getting to be an exercise in human interaction archaeology.
Does this Thomas Kinkade painting represent a real place? Does discourse today provide “conversation” or an idealized notion of give and take among and between individuals?
Straight away let me say that I found the write up interesting because it was chock full of “hooks”. I had a boss at Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the days when the firm had a pretty good reputation for management and technology consultant. This particular manager collected “hook phrases,” which he hoped to use in his reports, speeches, and his various writings. On my first pass through the Flight article I noted these keepers:
- Devices change what we do and who we are
- Turn desks into cockpits
- The Goldilocks [sic] effect
- Put ourselves on cable news
- Automatic listeners
- Confuse conversation with connection
- Illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship
- New devices have turned being alone into a problem that can be solved
- Device free zones
- Casual Fridays and conversational Thursdays
Quite a payload. Upon reviewing my collection of hooks from the essay, the author should be working for CNN or CNBC.
The key point of the write up is that instead of engaging in conversation, the thumb typing generation likes being with people and being online. I agree. The notion of checking email in the middle of a face to face conversation with a person at KY Fry or lunch chatter at a trade show often warrants some digital supplements. I get paid to attend to trade shows, but not even money can cut through the marketing blather, the pitches from consultants looking for work, and speakers who are nervous about giving a talk which will avoid controversy, make a good impression, and sell someone something.
My concern is not about the essay. The anomie of modern society has been an idea kicking around since I experienced college lectures from razor sharp academics. I started thinking about the assumptions on which the essay rests. For example, how easy is it at MIT or any big name university focused on funding, start ups, and getting faculty to function as magnets which pull cash for chairs to get faculty to make themselves available for students who want a conversation? Are those office hours real or the academic equivalent of vaporware?
Gartner Pushes Enterprise Social Network Integration
April 21, 2012
The regulators and project managers of certain government work will enjoy figuring out how the next big Gartner thing affects their day–to-day work.
Gartner has been quiet in the search sector. It is tough to make money in a space where open source and low cost or baked in solutions are widely available. But quite a few azure chip consultants have discovered social networks, which might be viewed as “search under a different name.”
Gartner’s blog expounds on “Search and the Enterprise Social Network.” There are some new buzzwords like “enterprise frictionless sharing” and some spice like “notifications,” but the message is that corporations have to figure out how to make social networks work for them.
Notifications do feature prominently in blogger Larry Cannell’s concerns. If an opportunity or problem arises regarding a client or project, interested parties can be automatically notified so they can take action quickly. Also, Cannell stresses the value of building a company knowledge base that integrates information from multiple applications. I think most will agree that these are meaningful issues which may support some fresh consulting revenues for the firm.
The write up follows the consultant’s middle path by stating:
“As multiple business applications become integrated with a social network site, a significant challenge will be the normalization of business entities across applications. For example, aligning a customer record in a CRM system with the same customer record in a warranty claims system. Without this alignment, cross-business application relationships cannot be captured within the site’s social graph and workers participating in the network will see duplicate customer profiles (one from the CRM system, the other from the warranty claims system).”
Yes, I can see how that could be a valuable tool. The article also points out some areas where for-fee expertise may be useful:
“Another important question regarding these types of integrations will be the role of security semantics managed by the originating business applications. Should the social network site enforce the same access control specified in the business application or should a different set of controls apply to this information? In other words, should revoking a worker’s view permission to a customer’s record automatically revoke this access to the entity’s shadowed social network profile? Replicating a single business application’s security semantics with the social network site may be difficult. A more daunting task will be normalizing security semantics across multiple business applications feeding the social network site.”
Yes, such security reconciliation could be a challenge, but it seems like a fundamental function. Again, this all comes down to the message that organizations must figure out how to make social networks work for them. The assumption is that social networks are here to stay.
Look, most “companies” are small, fewer than 50 employees. The big outfits can afford to experiment, though, if they desire. What we have here is solid azure chip output aimed at generating revenue.
We keep thinking about the interesting intersection of social networks and government contract requirements, regulatory requirements for compliance, and plain old trade secret common sense.
When it comes down to it, aren’t social networks little more than amplifications of traditional communication methods? Oh well, lashing the social hobby horse to search may be one way to keep senior management sufficiently nervous to seek outside wisdom. Gartner caters to large organizations in 85 countries and has been in business since 1979 which is longer than most of the companies offering expertise in social media, networks, and analytics.
Cynthia Murrell, April 21, 2012
Sponsored by OpenSearchNews.com
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Now the Gartner Nexus
April 12, 2012
The Nexus? Perhaps Gartner is the azure chip outfit behind the rush of certain search and content processing vendors to the customer service market niche?
Industry analyst firm Gartner, Inc. is attempting to introduce a new term into the world of information, as Business 2 Community notes in “Harnessing ‘the Nexus’ for Deeper Employee and Customer Engagement.”
Basically, writer Mark Myers explains, “the Nexus” is the collection of all things social media, cloud computing, mobile, and big data. Any recent technology that has changed how we live and work, basically. Interesting concept, but it seems to me that “harnessing the nexus” is even less clear than “information optimization”.
Whatever you want to call it, Myers believes he is on to the key with Vivisimo’s CXO Mobile app, the release of which he helped to plan. He asserts that having myriad data tools available on a smartphone will give a huge advantage over having to pull out a laptop. The write up declares:
“A customer-facing professional can hold in their hand access to systems as diverse and powerful as CRM, content management, supply chain management, ERP, business intelligence and more, all fused in a contextually-relevant way that gives them a better view of their customers and partners. Rather than burying them in data, CXO Mobile pushes the right information and engagement power ‘to the edge’ to enable mobile workers to accomplish more without anchoring themselves to a desk.”
Well, ok, that app does seem useful. However, does it really add anything of value to embrace vague categories like “the Nexus”? It seems to me that it only adds the potential for confusion.
Gartner, Inc. is a prominent IT research and advisory company serving thousands of organizations. Founded way back in 1979, the company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
Cynthia Murrell, April 12, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google: Listen Up. The IPO Harmed You
April 8, 2012
I love inputs from the bleachers. Well, anyone who is anyone knows that Google’s going public in 2004 was the fatal step, the digital equivalent of Adam’s going for the apple. Point your browser thing at “How The IPO Ruined Google.” The idea is that Google has lost its original focus. The company is chasing the social media sector which means Facebook. The author points out some social media goofs by the GOOG. He writes:
How’d Orkut do? Do you remember it? Didn’t think so. Sidewiki? Failed. Friend Connect? Gone. Google Wave didn’t even get past testing. Now we’ve got Google Plus, which is showing some of the worst engagement numbers of any major social media site.
Google, now under the management whiz Larry Page is focusing, or I think that is what he said in his Update memorandum that big bets are needed. So focus is there, right?
Several observations:
First, I think that advice to big companies is a tricky business. Most big companies find outsiders’ inputs more like background information than course corrections.
Second, Google is going to be a tough outfit to change even when one is the CEO. The start up mentality has been smothered under the hard facts that Apple’s business model is performing better than Google’s business model. Facebook chugs along, apparently untroubled by Googzilla’s desire to feast on the haunches of prime zuck. Google has managed to build a one-trick pony but increasingly has to find inspiration for new ideas elsewhere.
Third, Google is not about search. I remember reading that social is the new Google. So search is a subset of social.
Google is, what, 12, 13 years old. If I consider Backrub, Google is 14, maybe 15 years old. Like Lycos and Yahoo, Internet companies face a number of challenges. Chief among them is management. Technology is important, but making the right decision at the right time is part of the magic.
Perhaps the pundits who make suggestions about what Google should may find magic more useful than inputs?
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Woola Economics for Social Media
April 2, 2012
I admire some azure chip consultants. Now I understand that hiring of middle school teachers and home economics majors have fallen on hard times. Even people with juco degrees in information technology are struggling to find purchase on today’s economic ice hills. Enter Woola economics: fun, fanciful, and better than a job at Kentucky Fried Chicken doing inventory.
It stands to reason that the more motivated college grads and the progeny of helicopter parents would turn to mathematical pursuits. A good example is the story in Virtual Strategy, a heck of a title, but I don’t know what virtual strategy has to do with paying for petrol or retiring one of those pesky education loans. The story “Social Media Advertising Revenue to Show Steep Growth, Reaching $25 Billion by 2015 and $114 Billion by 2020” caught my attention.
Those are decent numbers, particularly the $114 billion. Here’s the best part in my opinion:
Further the Worldwide Social Media revenue is forecast for consistent growth with 2012 revenue totaling $14.9Bn, and the market is projected to reach $29.1Bn in 2014, $58.1Bn in 2016, will touch magical mark of $100Bn towards early part of 2018 and by the end of 2020 it will grow substantially closing at around $233bn.
Note the $233 billion.
Let’s assume that this estimate is accurate, give or take a few billion. Among the azure chip crowd involved in virtual strategy, what’s the risk?
Consider the Google. Replete with mathematicians and stats savvy, socially adjusted wizards, Google would look at these numbers and ask, “What can we do to get as much of this money as possible?? The answers to this question have in our exercise in virtual strategy concluded that Google must dominate social media. We can see the outcome of this type of thinking in Google’s efforts in social media and making everything from colanders to clicking on a Web page a social experience.
The problem, of course, is that social media has some established outfits like Facebook. There are quasi social operations which seem to appeal to specific demographics like Pinterest. And there are giants like Microsoft who want to convert making a phone call into a sharing opportunity.
Are these companies really social? Nah, these outfits are trying to make a buck. The social thing is the current hobby horse. The azure chip crowd knows that wild and crazy estimates are like charcoal starter fluid on dry wood shavings. The bigger the number, the more the frenzy.
Wild and Crazy Analysis: The New March Madness
March 18, 2012
You must read each and every word of the article “Is Google Facing the Beginning of the End?” Now that you have read the write up, answer these questions. Take your time. You won’t get a grade, but you will have an opportunity to figure out whether you are more like the former Forrester “expert” or more like the addled goose in rural Kentucky.
Question 1: Is Google simplifying?
My view is that Google is more complex than ever. Want to set up a Google Custom Search Engine? You will need more skill that it takes to fire up the word processor and write a Forrester- or Gartner-type generalization.
Question 2: Is IBM focused?
My view is that any company which buys overlapping and duplicative products and bets its future on selling expertise to help companies make those products work may not fly here in Harrod’s Creek. IBM is a consulting firm but it has quite a few other activities and many activities means a lack of focus. How does one explain Lucene based Watson and the purchase of i2 Group? A lack of focus is my answer.
Question 3: Is it a surprise that Microsoft faces challenges?
I believe that the larger an outfit becomes the larger the challenges. And if there are not enough external challenges, the insiders will whip some up. My view is that a large corporation is a fiesta of challenges.
Question 4: Is Netscape a factor in anyone’s life today?
Wow, I did not expect Netscape as a case example from an azure chip consultant. My view is that Netscape had its moment in the sun and management muffed the bunny. Sure, Microsoft played a part, but there is no pass for lousy management.
Question 5: Did Sun forget what it was or was Sun an example of transcendentally bad management?
Sun was the engine of the Internet and then it wasn’t. Oracle’s acquisition of Sun may drag Oracle under water. Once again, my answer is management. Period.
Question 6: Do we need to be reminded that Yahoo is the poster child for Silicon Valley’s decline? At Yahoo, different management teams tried to make decisions which would move the company forward. What happened was a weird environment in which silos crowded out the corn fields. Yahoo makes clear that when there is money, an Internet centric company will try many things and avoid the big things. I submit that Yahoo embodies the “Yahoo principle.” I wish Laurence Peters were alive.
Question 7: Is Google edging toward evil?
My answer is that Google is doing what publicly traded companies do. Management is the issue. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, the US government, and any other exogenous entity and action are not the problem. After 13 years, Google will be Google.
Question 8: is Facebook error prone?
My answer is that Facebook manifests the same type of errors one associates with a company run by a founder who is essentially technical and not too keen on the MBA type of life experience. More excitement will be forthcoming from Facebook. The train is in motion and the tracks are not true.
Question 9: Is there a 1-2-3 recipe for killing a company?
My answer: There are 50 ways to leave a lover and just one way to kill a company: no money. Without dough, no go. You can put lipstick on a pig, but if you have money, it will be called art. If you are broke, you are a can or two short of a six pack.
Did your answers match mine?
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
HP, Autonomy: Baby Tigers on the Loose
March 12, 2012
To many, it may seem that $10.3 billion is a large sum to pay for a software company. However, that’s exactly what Hewlett Packard paid to acquire Autonomy late last year.
The company is now embracing a powerful new marketing metaphor to describe the costly acquisition as a baby tiger.
In “HP: ‘Baby Tiger’ Autonomy Will Drive Channel Business,” we learn about HP’s Information Management division, which includes Autonomy and Vertica, the business intelligence vendor also acquired by HP in 2011. HP will apparently be focusing on getting Autonomy incorporated into HP during the first half of this year, and expect to see financial “synergies” in the second half. The CRN article tells us more:
One thing Autonomy lacks is a services arm, but HP expects to fill the gap with its own services oriented partners. The big question, though, is when partners will actually be able to start getting into this side of the business. [HP CEO] Whitman often describes Autonomy as a “baby tiger” that is vulnerable within the giant organization that is HP, and she has made it clear that she has no intention of rushing it into the channel.
Last November, HP launched two Autonomy powered appliances. One of these archives structured data; the other makes that data available for e-discovery purposes. Sounds good, but why the strong comparison to jungle cats? Autonomy co-Founder and CEO Mike Lynch, vice president of HP’s Information Management division, says simply, “It is Autonomy’s ability to understand meaning that gives the technology such differentiation.”
Our thoughts on the marketing comparison? We’ve been close to baby tigers, and while fiercely precious, these cats are dangerous. Competitors should beware. Autonomy is said to be adding between 50 and 60 cloud customers per year.
Baby tigers have teeth.
Andrea Hayden, March 12, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Existential Crisis in the SEO Field
March 11, 2012
SEO is trying to preserve its credibility and relevance in a shifting world. Search Engine Journal asks, “Is SEO Really SEO Anymore? Index Search Down 50%, Apps and Social Search Exploding.”
Search engine optimization, a young profession (compared to, say, farming or tax collecting) is going through an existential crisis. Why so soon? Writer Gabriel Gervelis explains:
“An earlier post of mine for SEJ stated that index search is down fifty percent. Search has moved to sites like Wikipedia and other popular content sites. Search in the app store is up. People have made a the statement that they prefer branded content from apps they trust, rather than sorting through links on a SERP [Search Engine Results Page]. “When the term ‘search engine’ is actually in your job title (or at least in your job description), that’s a change that demands your attention.”
Indeed. Gervelis wonders how SEO professionals will refocus their efforts on social platforms and mobile apps. For the first, he suggests, they will have to invest more in the end user’s experience. As for the apps market, Apple’s recent acquisition of app organizing tool Chomp highlighted the importance of the apps revolution in Gervelis’ mind.
In the end, the article ponders: is even the title itself, “search engine optimization expert”, obsolete? Marginalized, for sure.
Cynthia Murrell, March 11, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
