Recently Trevor Claiborne of the Inside AdWords crew at Google informed us all that the Keyword Tool is now Updated With Search Volume Data. He illustrated this with the image shown below:

If you are not familiar with the Google Adwords Keyword Tool, it would be worth your while to check out. This latest change provides for free what many expensive keyword tracking services had been providing. It’s no surprise that AdWords professionals, such as Xurxo Vidal, Bloom Search Services, are enamored by this new Search Volume Data service.

As Tamar Weinberg of Search Engine Roundtable pointed out, some other experts are questioning its usefulness. Michael VanDeMar believes that the tool is useless for SEO, even though it shows exact numbers. Certainly the source of the numbers needs to be considered carefully. It may not provide an exact indication of the clicks your own particular AdWords campaign might produce. However for comparative purposes the figures would seem to be useful and clearly Google itself is the best source for Google click data.

The other advantage of the data is that you can download the figures into an Excel spreadsheet. Previously for all results, an indication of the search volume was presented as small histogram bars and only a rough visual comparison was possible. These quantitative results allow more intensive analysis, which is why it can provide a reality check for your business strategy. To explain this requires a short background review of Internet marketing.

Challenging Business Realities

An increasing number of businesses are realizing that the Internet is the primary way many prospects and clients will be communicating with them. Of course the Internet has a major weakness. That is because the Internet is a really, really crowded scene. It’s hardly surprising to hear that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the Internet, is working on tags to help find online information.

At the same time the Internet has a major strength. That is because the Internet is a really, really crowded scene. That means that for any product or service, however specialized, there will be a very large number of prospects who are active on the Internet. Since the Internet is a superb way of communicating, which is independent of geography, this gives great opportunities in Internet marketing.

Given that the Internet has changed the way the business world functions, clearly a business strategy must make sense in this modern reality. As Michael Porter has said,”Of course strategy is hard - it’s about making tough choices.” In other words you must decide what you will do and what you will not do.

The best reality check for your business strategy would really be provided by the views of those prospects you are aiming to persuade to become customers. One indicator of the prospects needs is how they go looking for solutions. What keywords might they use in searching for solutions? The Adwords Keyword Tool provides such data. Of course it is mixed in with keyword data for non-prospects who happened to be looking for somewhat related products or information. Nevertheless the Tool can help in confirming or rejecting a particular strategy.

Doing The Reality Check

The following is very much a Big Picture approach and cannot be pushed to the nth degree. It only confirms that a particular strategy has the necessary characteristics to allow success. It does not go beyond that to check that it has sufficient characteristics to actually be successful. However by applying the check, it may give insights into how a strategy can be tuned to improve the chances of success.

Step 1 - Determine the characteristics of your most typical preferred prospect and their needs.

Step 2 - Determine the most likely keyword phrase that would be included in a Google search for a solution

Step 3 - Use the Keyword Tool on that phrase in the following way. Insert the words of the phrase on a single line without quotes and allow synonyms to be included. What the Tool does is to explore the concept that is behind that keyword phrase and show you what closely related keyword searches are being done.

Step 4 - Download CSV files of the two lists of keywords developed by the Tool into Excel spreadsheets. The data should be combined into one spreadsheet of adjacent rows. Sort the rows based on the values in the 4th column in descending order. The fourth column contains the annual monthly average searches for the particular keyword or keyword phrase. Sometimes you will find a large number of closely similar keyword phrases that have high search rates measured in the tens of thousands. This may either mean trouble or opportunity. In other cases, very many fewer keyword phrases are listed. Provided the search rates are measured in the thousands, then you likely are looking at a potentially interesting strategic niche.

Step 5 - After comparing a number of different businesses and the key words that might be appropriate, one can develop a sense of what this analysis suggests for the corresponding strategy.

Step 6 - (optional in some cases) Repeat the analysis with the keyword phrase in quotes to produce a tighter comparison of what may be competition.

Possible Outcomes From The Reality Check

This approach is very much a work in progress. Accordingly it is not yet possible to produce a taxonomy of all the different patterns and what they may imply for a given strategy. The following represent examples of what we have seen in practice. Repeating the cycle and refining the ideas is often beneficial. Readers who try out this approach are encouraged to add their own experiences in the comments.

Case A - A Strategy Lost In The General Noise
Findings - The words with high search numbers clearly represented much more than just searches by the prospect niche. Clearly there would be many other online properties that such searches were accessing. A website focused on the keyword phrase would probably never stand out in this very crowded space.

Case B - Too Much Competition
Findings - There is only minimal information on the advertising competition for certain phrases (a scale from 0 to 100%). Nevertheless, if many of the keyword phrases have 100% competition, then clearly this is a market with a large number of competitors who are willing to spend money on PPC advertising. This undoubtedly translates into equal competition in organic search as well. Using that keyword phrase to define your target prospect may well be very weak strategy.

Case C - Prospects Don’t Use That Keyword Phrase
Findings - One analysis showed that surprisingly there were no searches at all for the assumed best keyword phrase. Prospects were likely using some synonyms that did have high search results. The strategy was refined using one of these alternate phrases.

Case D - Several Keyword Phrases All Somewhat Strong
Findings - In this case, a number of alternate keyword phrases had somewhat comparable search rates. The advertising competition for some of these was strong whereas for others there was little competition. One of the alternates with little competition was selected to define the ideal prospect and therefore the best approach.

A Robust Strategy - Focus, Focus, Focus

The common thread that often runs through these strategy check cases is that focusing on a tightly defined niche is often the best policy. The overall measure that counts is the size of the niche multiplied by the small percentage who will convert into purchasers. The advantage here is that by targeting a tighter niche, it is more likely that the prospect will be aware of the company and more likely that they will find that what the company offers is attractive. Given the crowded Internet, even what might be thought of as a micro-niche can be preferred. This will be more fully explored in an upcoming SMM Newsletter.

Other Related Posts

• May 24, 2008 -- Someone is wrong on the Internet
• May 15, 2008 -- Keyword Selection Strategy
• March 29, 2008 -- Google Snippet Rules Change For Blogs

I was struck by those words at the center of the ad:

CREATIVE ACCOUNTANTS should no longer be used to describe book cookers, liars, little men in little rooms helping rich crooks get richer, or downright cheaters.

It is true that The Society of Management Accountants of Canada has applied for a Canadian trademark. If granted they, and only they, will have the right to use the trademark above on products they sell and on a series of services covering the following:
SERVICES:

• Establishing and enforcing guidelines
• training and educating
• disseminating information
• promoting and representing the interest of management accountants

Their new website, CreativeAccountants.org, (unfortunately in Flash), is really only new packaging around their existing resource-full website for Certified Management Accountants of Canada.

So why bring in King Canute? Well perhaps he might have counseled the CMA to go for some other trademark. As he tried to tell his advisers, sometimes you cannot turn back the tide. Just look at what Wikipedia offers as a definition of creative accounting.

Creative accounting and earnings management are euphemisms referring to accounting practices that may or may not follow the letter of the rules of standard accounting practices, but certainly deviate from the spirit of those rules. They are characterized by excessive complication and the use of novel ways of characterizing income, assets, or liabilities. The terms “innovative” or “aggressive” are also sometimes used.

It would seem the battle has been lost already. An appropriate choice of domain name is always a first consideration in doing a website review. CreativeAccountants.org is certainly a bold initiative but would seem to carry too much baggage to be the right long-term choice.

Related: SWOT That Domain Name

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• May 5, 2008 -- Microsoft should KISS more often
• September 19, 2006 -- The Favicons Are Coming
• February 5, 2008 -- Wordpress Blog Hacked

Microsoft has finally said its courtship of Yahoo! is over. Perhaps it was never meant to be. Danny Sullivan has a very fine analysis of the whole saga and wonders whether walking away is perhaps Microsoft’s $5 Billion Mistake? There is still the same concern however that Michael Martinez raises. How can Microsoft succeed in Search?

The key question is: Should Microsoft have two brands? That same question came up two years ago. However that was discussing whether they should be running with both MSN Search and Live Search. A subsidiary question was how to pronounce the latter: Liv Search or Lyve Search.

Microsoft seems to be good at getting itself into these problematic situations. Just think Internet Explorer versions 6, 7 and 8 as an example. In its strategic thinking it seems to follow the Tom Peters precept: “If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.” How much better they would perform if they followed the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Sweetheart). There are many more eminent thinkers they could refer to who would support that approach.

Focus, focus, focus

Peter Drucker

The Null Hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence indicates otherwise.

Sir Roland Fisher

A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Albert Einstein

Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

Occam of Occam’s Razor

With Bill Gates adopting a more hands-off approach, the chances of Microsoft becoming more KISSy seem remote. They presumably will soldier on trying to figure out how to get their Search horse back on its feet. The prognosis is not good.

Other Related Posts

• December 31, 2007 -- Where Do You Shop - MSN, Yahoo or Google?
• July 25, 2007 -- Internet Explorer Dilemmas
• April 17, 2007 -- Make Your Website Search Engine Robot-Friendly

Pierre Far, in a guest post on Techipedia today asks the question, Is Social Media the Final Frontier of Marketing? Given the popularity of such activities as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, it’s clearly a question that many marketers must be asking.

As confirmation of the topicality of the question, only three days ago Business Week had a long nine page article suggesting that Social Media Will Change Your Business. A few quotes will show how Business Week is seeing all this.

Go ahead and bellyache about blogs. But you cannot afford to close your eyes to them, because they are simply the most explosive outbreak in the information world since the Internet itself. And they are going to shake up just about every business. … Given the changes barrelling down upon us, blogs are not a business elective. They are a prerequisite. And yes, that goes for us, too.

Still, blogs could end up providing the perfect response to mass media’s core concern: the splintering of its audience. Advertisers desperate to reach us need to tap niches (because we get together only once a year to watch the Super Bowl). By piggybacking on blogs, they can start working that vast blogocafé, table by table. Smart ones will get feedback, links to individuals-and their friends. That’s every marketer’s dream.

In a world chock-full of citizen publishers, we mainstream types control an ever-smaller chunk of human knowledge. Some of us will work to draw in more of what the bloggers know, vetting it, editing it, and packaging it into our closed productions. But here’s betting that we also forge ahead in the open world. The measure of success in that world is not a finished product. The winners will be those who host the very best conversations.

Overall Business Week seems to suggest that the big mainstream companies will still be the ones in control. Perhaps they’re missing the real point about social media. Pierre Far sees it in a different light.

The point is that consumers now have a more potent aggregate power: someone with a problem can now reach others with the same problem faster, build a community around this shared problem easily, and mobilize lots of people behind the common cause more efficiently. That’s what’s new: a significant leap in efficiency. This gives consumers a loud voice that companies have to listen to.

This message has been around for some time. It started with the Clue Train Manifesto in 1999. As the authors said then, As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies. If Business Week does not fully understand even now, how long will it take for the mainstream companies to realize that others are now in charge?

Related:
Business Blogging Now
Riding The Internet Tidal Wave
Smart Advertising On Cell Phones

Other Related Posts

• January 25, 2008 -- I Twitter Therefore I Am
• March 18, 2007 -- To Twitter Or Not To Twitter
• March 9, 2007 -- Social Media - Bad News Travels Faster

For Google, their much-touted slogan of “Don’t Be Evil” seems to do more harm than good. It so easily generates somewhat critical articles, like the Forbes item, More Evil Than Google?, or Joel Hruska’s article, Google struggles to see no evil, speak no evil. Hruska summarizes it thus:

As Google continues to grow rapidly and absorb more companies operating in a wider variety of areas, its operations and policies become, of necessity, more complex and murky, and the company’s informal motto of “Don’t Be Evil” becomes even harder to uphold in appearance and, perhaps, even in reality.

If the slogan does not do much outside the company and probably not much inside either, perhaps it’s time to look for a new one. Another major US entity was apparently looking for a slogan earlier in the year but abandoned the attempt. Some of the suggestions for a better slogan for NASA might at first glance be worthy of consideration:

• NASA: Giant steps for humankind.
• NASA: Above and beyond for humankind
• NASA: Pushing life further
• NASA: Forging the Future
• NASA: To Strive, To Seek, and Not To Yield

Such thoughts particularly come to mind with the latest venture from Google, which they dub Knols. Udi Manber, VP Engineering, believes these knols will encourage people to contribute knowledge. However outsiders have more reservations. Duncan Riley suggests that the Google Knol may be A Step Too Far. Michael Gray suggests that Google Knols give insights on Google’s Philosophy.

According to Google’s mission statement their objective is to organize the worlds information, however what they often leave out is they feel they should be stewards of that information as well. If taking control of your information fits into their mission statement, oh well the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. ..

While not necessarily agreeing with their philosophy, in a later item Gray satirically suggests it is better to take whatever opportunities you can from this initiative.

All this is pretty heady stuff. Google has publicly stated that Knols may never see the light of day and that raises a very important question. Google is a public corporation with stakeholders. That includes shareholders. Perhaps all of these NASA-like possibilities run counter to the clear objectives to improve shareholder values. Focus, Focus, Focus is still a good rule. A good slogan might help to let everyone know what that focus is.

“Don’t Be Evil” provides no direction whatsoever. It’s really no better than that Tom Peters’s slogan “We’re No Worse Than The Other Guy”. A better slogan for Google would simply provide direction both to outsiders and to insiders. That would be very much better than one that leads only to criticism or derision. If you feel you have one that would work better for Google, why not suggest it below.

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• July 10, 2004 -- The Intelligence Trap
• January 25, 2005 -- Mission, mmm .. Try Commitment.
• May 29, 2008 -- Creative Accountants Need King Canute

My friend, Kim Krause Berg, reminded us all that today, November 8, is World Usability Day. As the official website proclaims, “World Usability Day was founded to ensure that the services and products important to life are easier to access and simpler to use.” Looking back over the last two years since I last blogged on this, to be frank I don’t think the message is getting across. Companies still produce products and services that they believe will be right for us, and so often they clearly were never tested by real life prospects before they were released.

That’s perhaps why Kim in the Cre8asite Forums started a thread entitled, Are We Designing For The Human Experience? It was triggered by a post about DUX 2007. This is a conference for designers working on better user experiences. As Bob Jacobson of Total Experience wrote “A great conference, but fundamentally off the mark“. The forum discussion was most interesting but unfortunately seemed to confirm that UX (user experience) is not being handled in a very effective way.

A key concern is whether there is anything going on that will allow us to celebrate significant success by World Usability Day 2008. I’m not optimistic.

Related: World Usability Day 2005 - Making It Easy!

Other Related Posts

• May 20, 2008 -- Evaluating Website Design Alternatives - A Counter-Intuitive Approach
• July 30, 2007 -- Sphinn Doctor
• March 25, 2007 -- 3 Non-blog Reasons Why Newspapers Are Dying

Children are brought up on the heartwarming tale of The Little Engine That Could. In this Internet age, many people hearing engine would assume we’re talking search engines. … and perhaps it really is about to happen in real life.

The engine we are referring to is ASK. It’s the perfect domain for something that will provide answers to your question. The only contender might be answer.com, and that inexplicably is not used at all. Perhaps the strength of the choice is best illustrated by the Public Library Services of the National Library Board Singapore. They’ve decided to use the name ASK! for their Advisory & Enquiry service for Children, Teens & Adults. It’s unlikely that ‘!’ will work as well for them as it has done for Yahoo! Yahoo! had no real competition from the Yahoo barbecue sauce, which they bought eventually. However my guess is that the ASK! service will find many of their clients mis-type and end up at ASK. .. and that’s OK.

This particular little engine has always had one of the best search technologies around. Thankfully it’s been focusing and that should improve its performance. First it got rid of Jeeves, who probably helped little with the US market. Now IAC, the parent, has hived off some confusing search cousins (tip of the hat to Andy Beal) and ASK is the single focus now. Google has been grabbing more and more search share, which has affected Yahoo and MSN/Live. However ASK has managed to hold the big guy at bay.

Gordon Hotchkiss has noted that Ask is finally making a move.

Their “share of search” has moved up from 3.49% of executed searches in August to 4.32% of searches in October, a bump of 23.7%. That’s huge. .. I suspect it has a lot more to do with a great interface and some user generated buzz that’s beginning to catch some ears. But I don’t think Ask is going to stop there. Within 6 months, you’re going to be reading stories all over the web about how Ask bumped Microsoft out of the #3 spot. It will be David vs Goliath, or in this case, Barry (Diller) vs Bill (Gates).

Ask’s strategy has always been to be your first second choice. They don’t ever expect to knock Google out of the lead, but what they want to do is be the place you turn when you find Google just isn’t cutting it. So their move to 3D made a lot of sense. ..

In fact, Marissa Mayer at Google paid the ultimate compliment when she mentioned the likelihood of Google moving to more of a portal, encyclopedia type format sometime in the future. So..that would make Google more like..Ask!

Given that Google is alienating some of its staunchest allies, how all this plays out is going to be highly interesting.

Related:
Ask And We Shall Answer… - the chocolate lover’s version

Other Related Posts

• November 27, 2007 -- Google BlogSearch Is Broken
• November 14, 2007 -- ASK TV Ads Grow Online Traffic
• April 17, 2007 -- Make Your Website Search Engine Robot-Friendly

The Google share price is over $740 today, so certainly the stock market is not unhappy with Google. However more and more of the people involved with Google in one way or another are writing about their dissatisfactions.

Andy Beard was concerned about the Google initiative to develop an Open Social platform for social media web developers. This is to compete with the enormously successful Facebook. However the concepts are not owned by Google. Beard felt that this was a Google Reputation Management Disaster.

In parallel with this, Adwords advertisers were complaining that the rules were being modified so as to bump up Google’s advertising revenues in the third quarter. Mike Churchill has a good explanation of this in Expanded Broad Match and The Google 1-2 Punch

Why does Google refuse to allow opt out for “expanded broad match”? The original explanation I received for implementation of “expanded broad match” was to enhance the AdWords user’s experience and provide them a better variety of related ads. Started out innocent enough, but as Google went public and had to answer to the ridiculous quarterly financial demands put on public companies by “Wall street” they probably realized that killing “expanded broad match” would have a severely negative impact on AdWords revenue. Furthermore, with continued “Wall street” pressure following Google’s first time “missed quarter” Google probably sees this:

(My Opinion Only and I will remove it if Google will allow us to opt out of “expanded broad match”.)

Not only can they NOT AFFORD to allow opting out of “expanded broad match” - by just loosening the knob they can instantly and dramatically pump revenue up in seconds.

Another commentator, Robert X. Cringely, believes that all these instances show that Google is becoming The Next Microsoft. He feels that some of the problems are created by the sheer size of the organization with little serious direct competition.

So Google says it will do the right thing and maybe even intends to do the right thing, but failures in its IT systems effectively keep it from doing the right thing, which brings us back to Microsoft, which has long been the poster child for inability to follow through because of IT failings.

It’s not that Google learned this behavior from Microsoft. It may just be an inevitable part of having an IT monopoly.

Related: Is Google Now The Big Ugly?

Other Related Posts

• July 24, 2008 -- Business Strategy Reality Check With Google Adwords Keyword Tool
• July 7, 2007 -- Maximum Bangs From Your Adwords Bucks

As any big corporation knows, some will automatically question their motives. Wal-Mart is perhaps the prime example of this. Even though a corporation may be attempting to apply the highest standards of ethics, inevitably mistakes may occur. Individual managers within a large corporation may look to further their own careers by taking decisions which might not be aligned with corporate policies. Even though a corporation may proclaim a slogan of, “Do No Evil“, that slogan may not be applied by every individual working for the corporation. The situation is even worse in a public corporation, where the bottom line results in any quarter must satisfy the investing public.

For whatever reason, Google seems to be running into a number of problem situations of this type. Andy Beard points to one of these in his post, “Google Reputation Management Disaster With Open Social“. As he mentions, there have been a number of reputation management and trademark problems. Google is now looking at a new “Open Social” platform for social media web developers. The big problem is that Google don’t own the trademark, or even a lot of the concept behind it, and they certainly don’t own their own SERPs (search engine results pages). Although he is expressing his own opinion, there is some element of truth in the following:

Google’s Idea of “Open”

Google’s whole idea of “open” is to have the data available to them to index.

• They don’t really care about privacy
• They don’t care about copyright
• They just want access to all your information

Sometime in the future, Google will have control of how your personal profile is represented online, and in many ways how it is portrayed.

If big corporations wish to avoid that ugly epithet, they must work hard to ensure individuals feel their rights are being fully acknowledged and respected. Given that so much personal data is now available on the Internet, a company like Google needs to work even harder than most to maintain a good reputation in the community.

Related:
Wal-Mart - The Big Ugly (UPDATED)
For Wal-Mart, PR = Public Revelations

Thanks to Andy Beard for Sphinning this.

Other Related Posts

• July 20, 2007 -- Wal-mart Adopts An Internet Mindset

Customer referrals have always been a powerful way of generating and closing sales. Way before the Internet existed, the effective Sales Representative would be trying to generate good customer testimonials to help convince prospects. Particularly when selling complex products or services, a satisfied customer can quickly give assurance that what is on offer will deliver satisfaction.

An interview that Andy Sernovitz had with Gary Spangler of DuPont brought this important factor home to me.

The key point being made in the interview is that B2B and B2C contacts are becoming increasingly similar and that word-of-mouth (WOM) works equally well for both. Even B2B business is done between two individuals, who are individuals first and members of their companies second.

A more fundamental reminder for me was that the Internet is all about making connections. Customer referrals can be establishing a connection between prospects and satisfied customers. Gary Spangler said that over the last year he had seen much more interest among business buyers in customer referrals. I would suggest that this is not that their interest is heightened but rather that they are becoming aware that the Internet facilitates such exchanges. Certainly any effective seller will ensure that the buyer’s appetite for WOM contact is satisfied.

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• July 27, 2005 -- Search Engine Marketing Strategy and USPs
• June 21, 2007 -- Three Golden Rules For Writing “Three Golden Rules” Articles For SEO
• April 21, 2006 -- Are You Guided By Your Intuition?

One word that causes a great deal of problems is Webmaster. Perhaps many will disagree with me, but hear me out. I acknowledge that it will be difficult to bury the word. After all even the mighty Google helps to support the word through its immensely useful Google Webmaster Central. However I believe this word and the function that it implies can create a great deal of organizational dysfunction, particularly in big companies.

Master of the ..

The problem starts with that word master. In this context, it usually means someone who looks after the well-being of some resource. Indeed it’s often applied to someone who looks after something with a cultural content. Just think Concertmaster, Master of the Queen’s Music or Master of the Royal Mint. It’s also often a word that dates back to a former time. How could it possibly have come to be used to apply to such modern innovations as websites?

It is of course a word that is often used in gaming. Perhaps that’s the explanation. Geeks are often heavily into gaming. Just think Gamemaster or Dungeon Master. Since geeks are often also the persons looking after websites, then perhaps webmaster is a very comforting descriptor. It may have been an easy word to accept in the first instant, but it can lead to all sorts of problems.

Big companies

The problems are most often seen in big companies. Websites are complex and can often run into problems, some of them being difficult to correct. Given this, many companies decide that the website is best handled within the IT group. The marketing group, with enough of its own problems, is often happy to leave this potential tar baby to another group. Since the IT group usually does not understand marketing and the marketing group does not understand the working concepts of the IT group, this is a recipe for disaster. Over the years, I have spoken to many situated either side of this divide, who are constantly frustrated by the working difficulties of this arrangement.

Marketing and Sales

The webmaster dysfunction pales into insignificance in some companies, given the dysfunction they have between the marketing and sales groups. Sometimes the two groups have somewhat independent existences. The company operates in a similar way to the way wars used to be waged. The artillery (marketing) shell the territory to be taken. Afterwards the infantry (sales) go in and secure the territory street by street. That is no longer the way wars are waged nor is it the way that marketing and sales should be cooperating. Strong team action is needed between marketing and sales to ensure the most effective sales operation.

The website should not be seen as a fine piece of art that has been created to support the marketing and selling activity. The webmaster concept might support this inappropriate view. A selling effective website is an integral part of the marketing/sales activity. Like any other part of the marketing/selling activity, there should be objectives and metrics to establish performance. Activities should be modified in the light of results. The Google Webmaster Central website can provide some useful data in this approach, but other parts of the marketing/sales group will have their own selling activities and their own metrics to add to the review process.

What’s a better job title?

To emphasize this marketing/selling role for the website, some title such as Internet Marketing Manager is much more appropriate. The exact title will depend on the size of the organization. Whatever the title, the responsibility for a selling-effective website must clearly rest within the marketing group. Some activities may be subcontracted to the IT group. But the buck stops with the marketing group.

Related: What’s in a name - Web mastery?

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• July 10, 2004 -- The Intelligence Trap
• July 24, 2006 -- The Coming Developer Wars
• July 12, 2006 -- Wikology, The Democratic Version Of The Open Directory

Mark Evans takes the opposite tack in proclaiming that Scoble is wrong. However he suggests that circulation figures show that newspapers are growing. He then seems to spike his own argument by mentioning that this is largely explained by the growth of free newspapers. Doc Searl takes a more helpful line in suggesting a number of different ways the newspapers can avoid their untimely fate.

So often this ongoing conflict is represented as the battle of the journalists versus the bloggers. However I believe there are more fundamental reasons why the newspapers are finding it difficult to move with the times. It’s because newspaper publishers have a long tradition spanning centuries of producing printed newspapers. They’re good at it but they, like many others, assume the Internet is merely an alternative communication channel to transport their wares. Developing an effective website on the Internet is fundamentally different. Here are three principal reasons why newspapers are having problems.

1. Graphic Design is fundamentally different from Web Design. A viewer looking at a printed page is going through a very different experience from a reader looking at a web page. Not the least, he or she is probably willing to look at only 25% of the content that might be acceptable on a printed page.
2. Given that most people find things with Google, Yahoo! or one of the other search engines, an effective website must be search engine visible. Online newspapers are often not set up with this intent.
3. Moving around any website must give a pleasing user experience or the visitor will click away to more welcoming websites. This is what is called Usability and it requires special attention. Trying to mimic the printed version on the Internet will be disastrous.

Any newspaper that can accept this different mindset can develop an effective online presence. In turn this can be supportive of the printed version and may even encourage readership. Only a few newspapers are showing they understand this Digital Divide that must be crossed.

Related:
Can Graphic Designers Do Website Design?
Newspapers Are Dead Scrolls
Newspaper Design Awards And Usability

Tags: newspaper, Internet, usability, graphic+design

Other Related Posts

• May 20, 2008 -- Evaluating Website Design Alternatives - A Counter-Intuitive Approach
• November 8, 2007 -- World Usability Day 2007
• July 30, 2007 -- Sphinn Doctor

Google in the official Googleblog has no problems if that is their desire.

Google has a clear policy of respecting the wishes of content owners. If a newspaper does not want to be part of Google News, we remove their content from our index-all the newspaper has to do is ask. There is no need for legal action and all the associated costs.

However the ‘walled gardens‘ business model has not yet proved its long-term survivability for newspapers. Newspapers are with difficulty finding how best to operate in the open world of the Internet. Professional journalists do not always get it right as Corante points out in “The herd misses opportunities“.

The mainstream media believes that “user-generated content” has to come through their sites, their walled gardens of tightly controlled participation, so they miss the vastly larger opportunity that exists on the Internet as a whole.

It is interesting to speculate on how the traditional media will learn to live most profitably with that larger opportunity.

Related:
Google Loses In Belgium Newspaper Case - review by Danny Sullivan
Walled Gardens - The Walls Keep Tumbling Down - in the Mobile Web

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• October 10, 2006 -- The News Feeds Are Coming
• July 21, 2006 -- Microsoft vows to play fair
• August 30, 2007 -- A Small Peephole On Google Supplemental Results

You could get the impression that the Blogosphere is now the only cyber-space that’s involved in peer-to-peer communication. The Blogosphere is certainly very powerful, particularly given the search engine visibility of blog posts and the instant visibility of new blog posts through news feeds. .. and yes it does encourage horizontal communications. However let’s not forget the traditional Web and regular business websites. Somehow the two have got to interconnect and interrelate. Whether you call it slogging or some other name, you won’t get the right answer unless you consider both.

Other Related Posts

• January 19, 2007 -- Slogging For The Long Tail

Walled Gardens is one of the most important metaphors around on the Internet and probably for the foreseeable future. It’s also one of the most apt. The original meaning was a garden surrounded by a wall, as you might expect. The new version, according to Wikipedia, is described as follows:
A walled garden, when referring to media content, refers to a closed set or exclusive set of information services provided for users (a method of creating a monopoly or securing an information system). This is in contrast to providing consumers access to the open Internet for content and e-commerce.

Hugh MacLeod of gavingvoid has one of his usual pithy cartoons to explain what it’s all about. At least that’s what the owners of walled gardens would hope would happen. However building a wall around your garden can be a two-edged sword, to mix metaphors. It keeps people in but it also keeps people out. Provided the garden is so rich and pleasurable that no one would ever wish to leave, then it may work well for those who are inside. However as SeachSecurity.com points out, some may regard the walled garden as a “walled prison”.

This is one of the two main concerns of the “walled garden approach”. It really links in with the whole Permission Marketing philosophy. Permission Marketing starts from the premise that the customer is in control. More and more companies have adopted this philosophy since it was described by Seth Godin in 1999. Some walled gardens are very much appreciated by their visitors, since it may keep out less desirable visitors. Provided that this has value and outweighs any frustrations for visitors created by the walls, then such a walled garden is consistent with Permission Marketing. Not all walled gardens are so appreciated by their visitors. In some cases, the visitor must accept distressing constraints imposed by the walls in order to get some other desirable benefits only available in the walled garden. In this case, the walled garden is operating in a quasi-monopolistic way.

This might seem to create serious problems. However these can be handled if the walled garden owner is astute. Dave Gilbert who is involved in the GNU Classpath project for open source Java recently wrote, “Remarkably and fantastically, Sun has announced plans to bridge the gap between what we have now, and what we’d like to have, outside of Sun’s walled garden. They’re not taking down their walled garden just yet (nor should they), but they’re creating a level playing field outside of it, which is a very smart, brave, and generous move.”

An even more worrying concern about walled gardens is their tendency to isolate their inhabitants from the rest of the world. To operate effectively in the widest space possible requires that most often processes should operate according to generally accepted standards. On the other hand, within a walled garden, there is no need to follow accepted standards. The rules can even be set by the walled garden. This might be considered an advantage to the walled garden but is also a penalty in that it may deter some visitors from entering. It may also reinforce the differences and delay any efforts on creating standards.

These two major problems means that the walled garden approach may have serious problems in the longer term, even though it may seem economically attractive in the shorter term. It is interesting that as time goes on, AOL (America On Line), the most celebrated example of a walled garden is gradually lowering the walls.

Tags: walled garden, open source

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• January 26, 2005 -- Would computer-generated large-scale website directories work better?
• April 19, 2007 -- The Magazine Meme - Thoughts On Being Sociable
• May 20, 2006 -- Google Gets A Different Point Of View

Since Mr. Schwartz has been pushing for that for some time, it’s good to hear that this very obvious way of increasing the full transparent disclosure of corporate information is getting attention in the right places.

The Internet brings completely different mechanisms for widespread communication into play. Hopefully each time we see another slice of the population smelling the coffee, the next step becomes easier. We’ve always done it that way is often completely the wrong argument in this Internet era.

Tip of the Hat to John Battelle

Tags: SEC, Internet, blogging, Corporate Disclosure

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• May 20, 2006 -- [ I'm Feeling Lucky ] Out | [ Search Blogs ] In
• May 14, 2004 -- Do the Japanese always do it better?
• June 19, 2005 -- An All Web Browsers Box Width Solution

The article is all about when you start doing something. The same concern for time is often important when you stop doing something. Perhaps the person you are involved with has another engagement to get to. Perhaps someone else is waiting to use the ‘equipment’ you’re using, whether it be a conference room or an exercise machine.

The most important end time of all is the time when you told the customer that the product would arrive or the new system would be running successfully. Many suppliers seem unaware of how important time of delivery is to most customers. It’s a very visible sign of the total quality being delivered. Even when there are no adverse economic effects of a late delivery, it’s still late. The customer is waiting. It’s even worse if they’ve not had news on why the delay is occurring.

That’s the downside of time associated with a product or service. If you deliver late, then the product/service is just that much less satisfactory than it might have been. There can be an upside to time. You can turn it into a distinguishing mark of your products and services. Delivering on time or even ahead of time is so unusual that you’ll really stand out from the crowd. I remember a very rich Norwegian lawyer friend of mine. He was very successful in the early days of the North Sea gas finds. On most issues he had a 48-hour turn round policy. Whoever heard of a lawyer who reliably delivers answers and documents within two days? What a great USP (Unique Selling Proposition). He left the competition trailing in the dust. It certainly worked very well for him.

In some ways, it’s one of the easiest features that you can build into a product. Yet what an enormous benefit it will be to many customers. There are no worries that it may arrive late, when you buy from ABC Corp. All it takes is some planning and making sure that the resources are there to do the job on time. Most importantly the whole team must have the enthusiasm and commitment to deliver the product on or before the promised time.

So don’t just be on time to avoid being rude. Be on time because it’s one of the easiest ways of delivering an important benefit to your customers. If you do, they’ll probably tell their friends about it too. So it’s a win/win situation.

Related: Time Is Critical

Tags: time

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• February 22, 2005 -- I’m Blogging For Myself, But Do You Really Want To Hear?
• January 25, 2005 -- Mission, mmm .. Try Commitment.
• April 7, 2004 -- 7th International Internet Marketing Conference - Montreal - Final Day Report

In March, TechnoServe launched Believe Begin Become in Ghana. It’s a program that identifies entrepreneurs whose businesses can create jobs and increase incomes. Ghana’s competition marks the beginning of TechnoServe’s multi-country rollout of these business plan competitions across Africa. The Google Foundation now joins TechnoServe in sending heartfelt congratulations to all of the winners, finalists and participants in Believe Begin Become.

Google.org and the Google Foundation support select organizations whose work addresses the challenges of global poverty in ways that are effective, sustainable and scalable. The words of its founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, set its vision: We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world’s problems.

Tags: Google, Foundation

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• January 15, 2005 -- Google knows your time is precious
• April 13, 2004 -- Helicopter Vision on IMC 2004
• February 18, 2006 -- Human Nature Abhors A Vacuum

Now we have the latest from the MicrosoftMax Team. This desktop feed aggregator, codename Max, features news displayed in a newspaper layout and a two-pane interface, and it has a bit different approach than many other aggregators on the market.

The blog entry has a worrying caution:

It’s important to note that by upgrading to the latest version of Max, you will lose any lists you might have created or received in previous versions of Max. We apologize for the inconvenience. You can still access the pictures from those lists in your My Pictures folder.

To say the least, the comments show some very mixed reactions among the technogeeks. Some are delighted:

This is my first time installing max. It’s a really cool example of wpf, especially the newsreader. Is there any reason you used a scrollbar rather than standard wpf “next page” model for text display? Also do you intend to release a mini version as xbap?

Many others are less so:

Are you guys kidding me with not having Vista RC1 support? .NET Framework 3.0 RC1 is even installed on Vista RC1 already for you.

One wonders how many will jump in, given that it seems like a decision that’s difficult to reverse. Hopefully we’ll hear more from the brave souls who do so.

Tags: Microsoft

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• July 25, 2007 -- Internet Explorer Dilemmas
• March 17, 2006 -- Two Different Worlds We Live In
• December 18, 2006 -- RIP DMOZ: 1998-2006

The blogging software is so user-friendly that everyone is jumping into the pool and blogging their hearts out. If they have a hankering for writing and are just blogging to enjoy themselves that’s great. However you can sense that some hope they’re doing something useful for their businesses. That may or may not be true. Few will be harming their business, but many may be spinning their wheels.

It is interesting to look at the blogs produced by company CEOs and classify them. They fall into two types. This is not the same Type A / Type B classification used to assess personalities. You may remember that a Type A personality generally referred to hard workers who were often preoccupied with schedules and the speed of their performance. Type B personalities were seen as more creative, imaginative, and philosophical. This typology was originally formulated to detect behaviours that lead to heart attacks.

Although there might be a certain value in using those types, a more useful split is into Type P and Type B bloggers. For Type P blogs, the P indicates Personal. They’re writing traditional blogs on whatever comes to mind. They do it for themselves. For Type B blogs, the B indicates Business. The Type B bloggers are to an extent doing it because it pleases them, but they’re writing their blogs with their customers and prospects in mind. In other words, they mean business.

It’s all a question of objectives. In some ways you can liken it to making a visit to a sales prospect that you’ve never met. In such a case, would you just go as you are or would you think a little and dress and act appropriately to try to make the sale happen.

There are many more Type P bloggers around than you might expect. Are they all doing it because they enjoy it? Perhaps some of them may decide to be more Type B. Whichever way they take that, it’s probably a good thing.

Related: Business Blogging - Type P or Type B?

Tags: Business, blogging

Posts You May Like From The Archives

• December 21, 2007 -- A Better Slogan For Google
• June 23, 2007 -- Jason Calacanis And The No Free Lunch Theorem
• March 31, 2007 -- Supplemental Result in Google - Hell or Help