Archive | seo news

Review Spam on Google Maps, 10 Months Later

With thanks to my Anaheim florist friend, Cathy, I just ordered a nice flower arrangement for good friends in San Jose who just had their first baby. I asked Cathy for a recommendation because she’s very much in touch with the best local florists around the country, and I wanted to make sure I was spending money with a real, small business — not some affiliate or intermediary who would charge me more for doing nothing.

Cathy suggested I call Marlowe’s Flowers, a Milpitas florist whom she liked after visiting a few years ago. It’s a good thing I had Cathy’s recommendation, because if I’d relied solely on this company’s online reviews, I would’ve never called them. Have a look at this screenshot of Marlowe’s listing on Google Maps:

screenshot

I’d probably skip right past any business with a 2.5 stars rating, wouldn’t you? But, if you bother to dig into the reviews (which most people won’t), you’ll see something awfully suspicious:

screenshot

Most of the reviews — and all of the 1-star reviews — were written over the course of two days: January 3 and 4, 2008. I circled the dates on a handful in the image above, but that’s only half the story. There are ten 1-star reviews, all left in a two-day span. And as if that’s not suspicious enough, let’s look at the review history of these “people” leaving the negative reviews about Marlowe’s Florist:

screenshot

Above is the review history from “Mike.” Two reviews on the same day, and no others. He doesn’t like Marlowe’s, but he loves Lili of the Valley Flowers. Let’s see another one:

screenshot

Hmmm. Someone named “Greppolo” also doesn’t like Marlowe’s, but loves Lili of the Valley Flowers. What about this “Angus” person’s review history:

screenshot

Same thing happened with “Poly“, “Daniel“, “Rich man“, and others.

Pretty obvious review spam, wouldn’t you say? And it’s been sitting there for 10 months, turning away who-knows-how-many potential customers from picking up the phone and calling Marlowe’s Florist.

Luckily for Marlowe’s, Cathy showed them all this and they’re now doing what every small business needs to do: Claiming their Google Maps listing and reporting this obvious case of review spam. Hopefully, Google will react and clean this up.

On the bright side, I see Marlowe’s ranking #1 on a search for “milpitas florist,” so it’s not affecting their rankings in Google Maps. But you can bet that seeing so many negative reviews is affecting the amount of click-throughs and customers they get. And the scourge of Google Map Spam, this time in the form of fake reviews, continues….

Advertisement: Instant SEO audits for $12 or less. Single reports or subscriptions available. Save time and $$$. Learn more at www.semcheck.com.

This is a post from Matt McGee’s blog, Small Business Search Marketing.

Review Spam on Google Maps, 10 Months Later

Related posts:

  1. Found Spam on Google Maps? Tell Google…
  2. Google Maps gets more “more info”
  3. Google Maps Adds Phone Verification, Upgrades LBC

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Links for 2008-11-13 [del.icio.us]

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Whiteboard Friday - What’s PageRank Got to do With It?

Posted by great scott!

This week Rand discusses Google’s PageRank metric: what it is, what it isn’t, and how much it actually has to do with how sites rank.  A lot of people (especially clients) tend to misunderstand what PageRank implies; either over or under valuing the metric. This video will help you get a better idea of how to consider PR in your SEO efforts.

SEOmoz Whiteboard Friday-What’s PageRank Got to do With It? from Scott Willoughby on Vimeo.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Differential Diagnosis: A Broken Website Ranking Atop Google

Posted by randfish

As I was stumbling around the web today, building some slides out for my Pubcon sessions next week, I came across some search results I couldn’t help but blog about. Have a peek:

Stand Mixer Reviews Search Results at Google

Check out that fourth result from hugthecook.com. It’s currently down, and has been that way since at least October 20th (when Google’s cache shows the "invalid website" page). The last date I can confirm it was up and available is January of 2008, when Archive.org shows a functional site. What makes this more perplexing is that page’s complete lack of inlinks, according to both Yahoo! and Linkscape.

The query "stand mixer review" might not be the most competitive phrase, but it’s certainly not insignificant either, and there are a lot of what appear to be very competitive and robust sites and pages ranking in positions 5-20. So, in the spirit of my new TV addiction to medical mystery shows, I thought I’d ask you - what’s making that URL rank so well at Google?

If there’s interest, perhaps we can have an ongoing series with more SEO diagnoses in the future :-)

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Lead Generator MostChoice Must Pay Competitor 4.8 Million Dollars For Creating Fake Leads

Posted by Sarah Bird, Esquire

May It Please the Mozzers,

A Jury awarded 4.8 million USD to NetQuote after finding that its competitor, MostChoice, submitted more than 3,500 false applications for insurance quotes to the NetQuote website.

The jury was so disgusted with MostChoice that it actually awarded double the punitive damages that NetQuote asked for in the lawsuit. Getting punitive damages is unusual; getting double what you asked for is extremely rare. After reviewing the allegations in the case, I’m not surprised that the jury wanted to teach MostChoice a lesson.

Both companies operate websites where consumers submit applications for competitive quotes on insurance. Each company then resells the lead information to insurance brokers, who then contact the individuals with an insurance quote. Obviously, the challenge for lead generators is to produce accurate, genuinely interested leads.

NetQuote filed suit in 2006 after receiving complaints from insurers that it was forwarding bogus leads. After investigating, NetQuote’s attorneys discovered that MostChoice had hired a man named Brandon Byrd to submit false applications to NetQuote’s website.

Allegedly, Byrd worked 20-30 hours a week over nine months submitting at least 3,500 false applications, thus polluting NetQuote’s lead database. Some insurance agents and brokers ended their relationship with NetQuote citing bad leads. As if this trickery wasn’t enough, MostChoice also advertised on its site (and apparently still does) "Better than Netquote Leads." Ouch.

MostChoice had some creative defenses in this history of the case. It claimed at one point that it shouldn’t be held liable for damages resulting from false leads because NetQuote often receives bad leads without MostChoice’s help. It also claimed that it couldn’t be held liable because it didn’t know that NetQuote would actually act on the fake leads MostChoice was feeding NetQuote. MostChoice also argued at one point that it did NetQuote a favor; if MostChoice had never submitted all those false leads, NetQuote would never have developed its super awesome lead filtering system! Not too surprisingly, the Court rejected these argument and others.

MostChoice also had the audacity to countersue NetQuote for "click fraud." Allegedly, NetQuote’s employees sometimes clicked on MostChoice ads for which MostChoice paid per click, without any intention of using MostChoice’s service. NetQuote employees apparently did this 25 times from October 2004 through August 2005, and 27 times from January 2007 through September 2007.  (Srsly?) The court dismissed the counter claim earlier in the case because there was no evidence that NetQuote engaged in any misrepresentation. They clicked on MostChoice’s ads to see what services it was offering as part of their practice of checking out what the competition was doing on Google, Yahoo! and other search engines. NetQuote’s employees never completed an application for insurance nor were they "prompted by some illicit purpose."

In addition to to MostChoice having to pay 1.6 million in actual damages and 3.2 million in punitive damages, Byrd has to pay $10,000. NetQuote only asked for $1 for damages against Byrd, but apparently the jury wasn’t impressed with his conduct either.

Although the jury issued its verdict, it is still possible for the judge to reduce the award if MostChoice succeeds in convincing the judge that the jury responded solely out of emotion and contrary to law. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Best Regards,
Sarah

If you want to read more:

Case filings on Justia.com

Rebecca Tushnet covers all the legal angles on the Summary Judgment with aplomb.

The Denver Post also gives you the nitty gritty.

Insure.com also covers the jury award.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Fluctuating Search Results, Hand Editing and Poker

Posted by willcritchlow

Rand has talked before about the need to think like a search engineer when you are doing what we do. So a week or two ago, I came up with a theory about how I would look at things if I were a search engineer and set out to prove it.

I was wrong.

My theory went something like this:

If I were a search engineer, I would want an algorithm to determine my results. I would, however, validate these results with human input for at least the highest-volume search queries. For the very highest volume queries in the world, I would hope, by now, to have got it "right" - and that at least the first page of results output from my algorithm would be exactly what I wanted it to be.

With a corollary that:

If this isn’t the case, I would strongly consider hand-editing the top results for these huge volume phrases while I worked on the algorithm in order that my search engine worked as well as possible in the meantime.

There is a big question over what the "right" answer should be for very high volume generic queries that I might come back to another time (for generic queries there can often be far more than 10 pages good enough to be on the first page, and choosing between them requires more knowledge about the searcher than you can possibly have). To be clear here - I’m not talking about which results should be top under the current algorithm, but rather which pages should be top when thinking from scratch like a search engineer.

To test my theory, I decided to look at the search results for poker-related terms. I think poker’s been on my mind since my brother (who won an award this week - congratulations, bro) took me to a casino for my birthday so I could lose money…

I picked three phrases of varying search query volume:

  • poker
  • free online poker
  • rakeback (a term related to poker affiliates)

And then analysed the top set of results over a week-long period.

My null hypothesis was that the highest volume phrase (’poker’) would be very static through the week. Either the results are actually hand-edited behind the scenes (in which case there is very little chance that they would be edited daily) or the engineers are happy with their algorithm (and, again, trying to think like a search engineer, for a generic search like this, what factors would cause you to change your mind from day to day about the top set of results?).

I have couched a lot of this in scientific language, but I’m not trying to claim my little test was perfect. There are a lot of factors that can spoil it, but taking care to minimise as many of these as I could, below are some charts that show what I found.

These are charts of rankings over time: the x-axis is time (from the 28th October to 6th November this year) and the y-axis is ranking at Google.com (gl=US). Each of the lines (or points in some cases) is a different page (generally different website - there were no examples of different pages off the same site swapping for each other in the results sampled).

I haven’t labeled the points and lines because this isn’t about whether I see the same results as you or whether they are still ranking (or even about tactics or underhanded techniques). I think the patterns are what is interesting:

poker ranking graph

Anyway, you can see how wrong I was.

The ‘poker’ search which I thought would have acted as though it were hand-edited over a short timescale like this (even if it isn’t actually) in fact behaved differently to my prediction in two ways:

  1. The results changed almost entirely on each of the first three days. I still find this hard to believe. As a search engineer, what (in the absence of news, which wasn’t in evidence during the course of this week) could cause you to want to change practically the whole set of results for such a high volume search phrase from day to day?
  2. Even with the same set of results in the latter part of the week, there were some pretty significant movements:
free online poker ranking graph

The ‘free online poker’ search behaved far more like I was expecting for a high volume search phrase. It shows evidence of being algorithmic (the pinpoint result that dropped in on the fourth day subsequently went into free fall and now ranks somewhere in the 60s). I think this shows that it got there via some kind of manipulation (I haven’t looked into what, and for the purposes of this analysis, I don’t think it matters - I don’t think that it came in via a hand edit). Apart from that, the rankings are fairly stable with gradual changes and few surprises.

rakeback ranking graph

I like the pattern of the ‘rakeback’ search results, the serenity of the top three with chaos below. Obviously I wouldn’t like it much if I were number 4, but that’s a different story. Given the range of insights above, I’m not sure that this graph actually tells us all that much, but since I gathered the data, I thought I’d include it for completeness.

So what can we learn from this and feed back into my initial assumptions to correct them and see where we end up? I’d love to hear others’ thoughts in the comments, but the things I have come up with are:

  • Methodology: I am the first to admit that this is not a scientific study (to understand what is really going on, I would need to see referral data for all the top results - not something I have access to for high volume searches).
  • Testing: even if I am correct and results are as they would be if hand-edited for top volume search queries, given the data-driven nature of Google, they would want to test variants to see if they satisfied their users more.
  • Spam: perhaps the algorithm is ‘nearly right’ but still susceptible to attacks such as the one we see in the single data point in the ‘free online poker’ results.
  • News: obviously, when a query deserves freshness (QDF) the results are going to be shaken up regularly. I don’t think that is the case in any of these examples, as none of the results coming or going were particularly timely.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Technorati Tags

, ,

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Whiteboard Friday - PageRank Part II

Posted by great scott!

Following up on last week’s Whiteboard Friday, this week Rand discusses what PageRank means to YOU.  How can you use it to your benefit? What can the metric tell you about your site, your pages, and your links to help you target keywords and improve your rankings? PageRank doesn’t show the complete picture, and it’s an imprecise metric (there are more precise metrics, such as mozRank…shameless plug) but it is a metric nonetheless. While it shouldn’t be overvalued–as discussed last week–it is definitely worth considering in your SEO efforts.

SEOmoz Whiteboard Friday - PageRank Part II from Scott Willoughby on Vimeo.

NEW PRO Video Tip! For our PRO Members, there’s a new PRO Video Tip available in the videos section. This tip deals with how to optimize for cyclical content. Whether you’re looking at seasonal media programing, new product iterations, annual content features, or anything else that comes out with new versions on a regular/semi-regular basis, this optimization strategy is an absolute must!

Want access to this PRO Video Tip as well as many more video tips, guides, Q&A, and awesome SEO Tools? Join SEOmoz PRO today!

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Washington State Sues SEO Company Visible.net

Posted by Sarah Bird, Esquire

May It Please the Mozzers,

The Washington State Attorney General announced in a press release yesterday that it was suing a Redmond-based SEO company, Visible.net. According to the Complaint, Visible also does business under the name WebMarketingSource.com, Caputures.com, and Captures.com (that’s not a typo). The AG also names the owner of the companies, Gilbert Walker, as a defendant in the case.

The defendants sell website design, SEO, and other internet marketing services, along with providing e-commerce services to process online purchases for merchant customers. They promote their services through their website and by telemarketing. Packages include an initial startup fee of 3,749.99 up to $9,749.99, plus a monthly fee of $39.9 to $99.99.

“When it comes to Internet search results, every small business wants to pull rank,” Attorney General Rob McKenna said. “Merchants hoping to increase their online sales paid thousands of dollars to Visible.net and Captures.com but didn’t always receive the top listings and other services they were promised.” The Ag’s Consumer Protection High-Tech Unit, said that AG’s office and the Better Business Bureau have received nearly 90 complaints about the defendants, showing a pattern of recurring problems since at least 2005.

Washington filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers and accuses the companies and their owner of violating state consumer protection and telemarketing laws. The complaint makes the following claims:

  • Defendants misrepresented their ability to increase their customers’ traffic, ranking, and sales. Defendants misrepresented that their customers will obtain increased sales by using defendants’ services, for example stating that they will have "more business than they can handle," that they will be making money within "60 to 90 days," and that they will have a "hard time keeping up with Internet orders."
  • Defendants also misrepresented that they are affiliated with other marketers in order to sell services to prospective clients. For example, they falsely represented that they are affiliated with Specialty Merchandise Company, a drop-ship. SMC is a "membership program" whereby member/resellers pay a monthly fee for the right to advertise and sell products that SMC directly ships to their members’ customers. The defendants directly solicited these members, claiming that they were affiliated with the company. A number of consumers agreed to purchase defendants’ services in the mistaken belief that they are, in fact, affiliated with SMC.
  • The defendants are also accused of wrongfully claiming that its customer services representatives can be reached at any time when, in fact, customers are often unable to reach representatives and sometimes do not receive return calls.
  • Defendants allegedly failed to provide refunds or honor cancellation requests. They continued to bill the credit cards of some consumers who have attempted to cancel and submitted alleged debts to collection agencies.
  • The defendants also failed to register with the Washington Department of Licensing as commercial telephone solicitors and failed to provide written confirmation of a consumer’s rights under the Commercial Telephone Solicitation Act.

The AG is seeking civil penalties and consumer restitution in addition to a court order halting the deceptive practices.

Visible.net has not yet issued a statement about the lawsuit, but a representative said that they will probably post something on their blog. UPDATE: Visible.net posted a response on its blog. They deny the AG’s allegations.

I’ll keep you updated as the case develops.

Best Regards,
Sarah L. Bird

Hat tip to Ryan Todd for bringing the case to my attention.

Other coverage:

Networkworld.com

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

8 Ways to Buy Links Without "Buying Links"

Posted by randfish

This post is sourced from my presentation at Pubcon on the Linkfluence: How to Buy Links with Maximum Juice and Minimum Risk panel. Since it received such positive feedback and a lot of requests for sharing, I thought I’d do so in a more reference-able way here on the blog. If you’d like to download the slide deck, you can find it here in Powerpoint format.


 

8 Ways to Buy Links Without "Buying Links"

Matt Cutts’ webspam team, a segment of Google’s broader Search Quality division, has made their position on buying and selling links for the purposes of boosting search engine rankings reasonably clear over the past 3 years. The practice is anathema - viewed as unacceptable because it infringes on the engine’s ability to use links as an editorial signal of importance for search rankings. Both manual penalties and algorithmic filtering are applied as solutions, damaging the rankings of sites that buy as well as the ability for sites who sell to pass on link equity.

Naturally, this has led many individuals, sites and businesses seeking higher rankings to employee tactics that are plausibly removed from the direct exchange of capital for links, and while link brokers and link sales still thrive, they do so in an ever-increasingly paranoid & underground realm so as not to risk discovery and devaluation. In this post, I’ll walk through examples of some of the more valuable and directly applicable methods to leverage finances for link growth while dodging Google’s webspam edicts.

#1 - Event Sponsorhips

Principle - Sponsor an event, online or in-person, and receive a link from the event’s website, and possibly those bloggers/site owners in attendance.

Process - Locate events with geographic proximity or topical relevance (search engines are useful, but events calendars like those on Upcoming.org & Craigslist.org are valuable, too). Get in touch directly and offer sponsorship. Depending on your level of aggressiveness, you can directly ask for a link or simply cross your fingers that some will appear. In my experience, if the audience/attendees are relatively web savvy, links are very likely. Even if you don’t get a link, or it’s devalued, the side benefits of networking, goodwill and branding are valuable on their own.

Example - SEOmoz sponsored a local Startup Weekend event here in Seattle this year, and received a link from the "thanks to our sponsors" post, as well as several related blog posts.

#2 - Charitable Donations

Principle - Donate to a charitable or non-profit organization and receive a link on their website.

Process - Find nonprofits/charities online - Charity Navigator and the BBB’s Accredited Charity Directory can help, though greater specificity through topical relevance and geography is wise. Locate the charity’s list of donors and see if they offer links. In general, it’s better to get in touch directly, rather than using any online forms if you’re seeking a link in return. As an added benefit, you’re doing a good thing by helping organizations make positive impacts, and the donations are typically a tax write-off as well.

Example - Google themselves donated money to the FreeBSD foundation and earned a link from their donors list page.

#3 - Website Purchases

Principle - Acquire other websites and you’re free to make them link or redirect to the URL(s) of your choice.

Process - Find relevant websites to buy and negotiate ownership. This is a complex process which requires far more detail than this post will cover, but good resources on the subject are here and here. Once the website is in your control, decide whether you want to use a 301-redirect to move the site’s content (and link equity) over to a domain you control or simply maintain the domain and point links out to areas in need.

Example - Conde Nast publications purchased Reddit.com, which now links to both Wired.com and Howto.Wired.com on every page.

#4 - Content Acquisition

Principle - Find content that ranks well or has earned considerable link popularity on a topic, purchase it from the owner and move the content to your own site.

Process - The easier, but more expensive path is to find content that’s already earned significant link equity, make an offer, and have the owner 301-redirect the page(s) over to your domain. This is, in essence, like buying a small part of a site. A more time intensive but cheaper method is to find content you expect would earn high amounts of links and rankings if given the proper SEO & marketing effort, purchase it and promote.

Example - BuddyTV.com acquired the content on OnlyWentWorth.org and re-points it to their page on the actor.

#5 - Advertising to Viral Traffic

Principle - Buy advertising that gets "Linkerati" in front of your viral-worthy content in an effort to attract more natural links.

Process - Create viral and link-worthy content on your site. Leverage the audiences at "Linkerati" heavy portals like Digg, Techcrunch, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Techmeme, Memeorandum, Facebook and others with advertising. Once attracted, use strategies like badges, embeddable widgets, tools, interactive content and emotional hooks (humor, conflict, etc.) to encourage sharing.

Example - Farecast.com (prior to its acquisition by Microsoft) used StumbleUpon’s advertising program to help attract bloggers, forum posters and journalists likely to write about the service and link to it.

#6 - Blogger Product Reviews

Principle - Put your product/service in front of bloggers in a direct, personal manner to encourage them to take interest, review and link to your site.

Process - It helps to first establish relationships with bloggers. Meeting in person at conferences is a terrific way to build trust, but even a casual email exchange or phone conversation can help pave the way. Once you’ve created rapport, request a review (if you’re aggressive about link acquisition) or simply provide a free product or access to your service and request their feedback. In the latter scenario, it’s been my experience that a high percentage will still make mention (and link) on their blogs.

Example - The authors of Web Design for ROI sent a copy to SEOmoz, where Rebecca reviewed it and posted several blog entries with links.

#7 - Content Partnerships

Principle - Forge content and link sharing relationships, ostensibly with high audience relevance.

Process - Identify sources that could use your site’s content. Pitch them on the concept that they can earn more traffic, clicks and page views with your content. If you’re running into a wall, you can even offer to pay them to feature your work. Make sure to earn links back to the originals (unless you’re willing to risk losing the SEO traffic to those articles/posts).

Example - The NYTimes.com licenses and links to content, including the homepages, of both VenturBeat.com and ReadWriteWeb.com on their Technology homepage.

#8 - Blog Incubation

Principle - Grow your own blogs by seeding writers, hosts, platforms and material.

Process - Put out ads for bloggers and have your development team custom-build or assist them in building blogs they can own and operate. Give the bloggers marketing plans and training so they know how to broaden beyond an insular ecosphere and earn link juice and rankings of their own. Create an agenda for blog posts, links and messaging and launch the sites.

Example - According to a Columbia Journalism Review article, 2008 presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign used this strategy to seed a number of bloggers who could help to create buzz around certain topics and build stories that the mainstream press would then cover. These bloggers would write about and link to stories to help spread the campaign’s message (and grow their search rankings).

 


 

These tactics have proven valuable for others but should be done relatively discretely. Virtually any strategy where SEO, and specifically link equity growth, is disclosed as the primary motivation for the transaction/relationship carries some (typically minor) inherent risk.

If you have other methods to share on how to acquire links with money indirectly, please do share!

p.s. Jane’s comprehensive review of Pubcon should be out tomorrow for those anticipating release.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Posted in seo newsComments (0)

Is Social Media Marketing A Waste Of Time?

Social media is the next big thing! No, it’s the big thing! It is here, now, and it is big! Let’s face it, if you’re not aboard the cluetrain to social media marketing city, you’re sitting on that station alone!

A pity, then, that social media traffic is so often worthless.

Worthless?

Let’s look at the market signals. Why is it that you pay dollars per click on Google Adwords for financial keywords, yet the same keywords on social networks are priced at five cents?

This suggests to me one of two things. Either the social networks are seriously underestimating the value of their own traffic, or most of the people on social networks aren’t interested in commercial messages. If they were, then the bid values would closely match those of Google Adwords.

I think the latter is the most likely scenario. Social media traffic isn’t priced higher, because it isn’t translating into revenue for the advertisers. This isn’t happening because the intent of the users when engaged with social media is not conducive to selling stuff.

Of course, social media traffic isn’t all bad. We’ll look at some ways you can benefit from it. But firstly, let’s compare and contrast some aspects of social media marketing and search marketing, in order to help clarify the value proposition.

1. Traffic Is Not An Asset, Traffic Is A Cost

Traffic only becomes an asset when it translates into something else. When it becomes a bookmark, a sign-up, a link, or helps establish a genuine relationship. It must also result in an increase in revenue. If it doesn’t, then traffic remains an expense.

What is the value of 10,000 Diggers hitting your site to look at, say, a picture of a monkey riding a bicycle? Zero. The trouble is that a lot of marketers are watching the web scorecard - that spike in the visitor stats that shows the number of visits - and using that as a marketing metric. “Hey, I’m popular!”.

Sure, with 10,000 teenagers amused by a picture of a monkey riding a bicycle. But how is that helping boost revenue?

There isn’t a lot of meaning to such a relationship. It is low value.

This is a truth of the Internet: When traffic comes to your site without focused intent, it bounces. 75% of all unfocused visitors leave within three seconds.Any site, anywhere, anytime. 75% bounce rate within three seconds. By unfocused, I mean people who visit via Digg or Stumbleupon or even a typical Google search…..”I’m just looking,” is no fun for most retailers. Yet they continue to pay high rent for high-traffic locations, and invest time and money in window displays. Very few retailers lament all the traffic that walks by the front door without ever walking in. A long time ago, they realized that the shoppers with focused intent are far more valuable. Smart retailers work hard to get focused people to walk in the door and to keep the riff raff walking on down the sidewalk.”.

2. Uncontrolled Message

It is difficult to control the message. Released into the wild of social networks, the message can just as easily result in negative effects as positive ones.

Check out this sad experience of being dugg, from Kim at Cre8Pc:

“Since I logged off last night around midnight, 12 hours later, over 23,000 people have been to this blog. The reason is that someone dugg about the post I wrote, where I shared a resource I found useful. That post was “dugg” and the incoming traffic this blog is receiving is to that specific blog post I wrote….Diggers complained about everything from the site design of the site I wrote about, to how stupid I was to write about it at all…..Which part of this Digg activity am I supposed to be happy about, now that something I wrote has officially been slaughtered there?”

Kim wasn’t trying to get on Digg as part of a marketing strategy, but it shows how unpredictable the “benefits” of social media exposure can be.

Perhaps this might explain why Digg has been left at the altar a few times? It suggests to me that it might be difficult to extract real commercial value from such environments. Part of the problem is structural. Digg is “free” and “open” and “anonymous”, which leads to a tragedy of the commons.

At the risk of blowing our own horn, part of the reason our SEO community is valuable is because people have to pay for it. People have provided a signal of interest lacking on most broad social networks. There are no questions from a member named MakeEasyMoneyOnlineTodayRightNow asking how to get his adsense earnings up to $1 a day. The price of admission helps protect the community from the tragedy of the commons.

3. Branding Is Often An Excuse For Failed Marketing Campaigns

“It’s a brand spend!”. Marketers say that a lot.

What they often mean is “we can find no no measurable return”.

Return on brand spend is very difficult to measure, and even more difficult to isolate in a channel such as online social media marketing. Did visitors remember our brand? Did it affect their future buying decisions? Was the brand association positive or negative?

Who knows?

If you’re thinking of engaging a social media marketer, and they use brand building as a metric, ask them to explain how they will demonstrate an increased, favorable level of brand awareness. If they mention traffic numbers, ask them how that squares with my first point “Traffic Is Not An Asset, It Is A Cost”.

To my mind, any commercial endeavor must ultimately come back to revenue.

4. Level Of Interaction

What are people doing on social networks?

On the likes of Facebook, they are engaged in social activities. They are catching up with their friends. They are playing games. Marketing messages in this context are about as welcome as an Amway salesperson at a bachelor party.

Consider the context of the message. Search marketing works well because the searcher has already signaled their intent, and that intent may well be commercial. It’s like walking into a shop, and asking to buy a watch. The relationship and interaction is direct and obvious. The context of social media is more like a cocktail party. People are there to socialize, not enter into commercial interactions. They may do so, but the relationship is fuzzy and indirect.

To overcome this obstacle, look for social networks, or network groups, where the users demonstrate clear, commercial intent. Alternatively, have a clear idea of how you’re going to progress “fuzzy indirect” visitors to desired action.

5. Time

Social media marketing is time consuming.

Building your social networks. Responding to “friends”. Is there are measurable return for the time spent? What is the opportunity cost of that time?

For example, compare the time you need to get a commercial message on the front page of Digg, with getting a commercial message on the front page of Google. With Adwords, I can do it in seconds.

With Digg, I’d be unlikely to get a marketing message to the top, unless I’d previously developed relationships with all the right people and/or gamed the system, which, in itself, takes a lot of time. Even then, the marketing message, unless heavily disguised, will likely be despised by a community rabidly opposed to any message with an obvious commercial imperative.

Is this time well spent on either channel? Once again, a cost/benefit analysis, where the benefits are clear and measurable, will provide the answer.

6. Rampant Stupidity & Useless Distractions

I guess no-one ever went broke underestimating human stupidity, but one really has to question the marketing value of these types of approaches:

“The Coca-Cola Company will feature its Sprite brand on a new Facebook Page and will invite users to add an application to their account called “Sprite Sips.” People will be able to create, configure and interact with an animated Sprite Sips character. For consumers in the United States, the experience can be enhanced by entering a PIN code found under the cap of every 20 oz. bottle of Sprite to unlock special features and accessories. The Sprite Sips character provides a means for interacting with friends on Facebook”

Facebook, which distinguished itself by being the anti-MySpace, is now determined to out-MySpace MySpace. It’s a nifty system: First you get your users to entrust their personal data to you, and then you not only sell that data to advertisers but you get the users to be the vector for the ads. And what do the users get in return? An animated Sprite Sips character to interact with.

Are people going to then talk about Sprite in a way that would increase the sales of Sprite? Really?

I can barely imagine this would work for a teen audience. Such an approach has no chance with an adult audience. Keep in mind that most people who are heavily active on generalist social network sites are likely to fit in the 15-25 year old range, although there is evidence to suggest this age range might be changing. Look at it this way - how many stories about hip-replacements ever make it top the top of Reddit?

There are a lot of messages that just aren’t going to work on social media. Wrong time, wrong place.

“Media buyers — the agency people who book campaigns — report that the college social network is a truly terrible target. They’re mainly students, with low disposable income, of course; but, beyond that, the users appear to be too busy leaving messages for each other to show much interest in advertising. Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic. Clickthrough rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04% — just 400 clicks in every 1m views — according to one report seen by Valleywag.”

7. Difficult To Scale

It is easy to scale up a television campaign. Buy more airtime. It is easy to scale up an Adwords campaign. Increase the number of keyword terms and/or bids. How do you scale up a social media campaign? You can’t re-create viral. Viral is hit and miss. All word of mouth is hit and miss. How many people can you cost-effectively follow on Twitter?

Social media tends to pay dividends in the long-term. Social media, generally speaking, is hard to influence, but by understanding your field well and creating relationships in your niche, you can learn to create the types of content that influencers will pick up on. Like the mavens in The Tipping Point, they will spread your message for you.

Forging such meaningful relationships won’t happen overnight.

Where Social Media Pays Off

Ok, I admit it. This post has been a bit of a rant :)

It’s not all bad news.

Whilst not a replacement for a marketing strategy, social media can be a viable component of a wider marketing strategy. It can be used to generate buzz. It can be used to attract links. One well placed article can achieve both these ends. If that buzz, and those links, can then be translated into a valuable relationship, and perhaps better Google rankings for commercial keywords, then the social media approach may well pay dividends.

In order to do this, social media must be back-ended with content geared towards establishing a valuable relationship, rather than one-off visits.

Marketing exists for one purpose: to sell stuff. If it doesn’t do that, then it isn’t marketing.

The key to evaluating social media marketing, like with with all media spends, lies in tracking and cost/benefit analysis. If traffic provides you with a measurable return on investment, then the marketing spend is justified. The only traffic worth anything is that which ultimately results in revenue producing interaction.

The problem I find with social media traffic is that so little of it ever does.

Your mileage may vary.

Posted in seo newsComments (0)