Where My Mind has Wandered

Search Engine Opti-Media Buy

I continue to be disappointed by how little many supposed SEO-experts seem to know about SEO. There are many lotion and potion salespeople in the marketplace right now … banner ad mills masquerading as search engine optimization specialists. They aren't very interested in the impact of language analysis and earned media on search engine visibility. They want to sell banner ad campaigns and make money off the creative and media buy.

Paid media campaigns are effective in driving traffic, but only a short while longer than they are active. They won't have the sustained impact of an earned media campaign, in which the inbound links are less likely to expire. The vast majority of banner ads are tracked using Atlas, Dart or an equivalent third-party ad serving service. In order to track the ads, the URLs are redirected through a tracking server which cookies the user and track in order to track their behavior on the destination site. This redirect negates the search engine impact of the inbound link -- no Google juice as my colleague Andy Barnett would say.

Andy is our agency's resident SEO expert. His perspective on the current state of the SEO marketplace is below:

"Focusing on site optimization worked well. In fact it worked very well in 1999. Today, however, for the overwhelming majority of competitive search terms, gaining inbound links is paramount to achieving success. Too many so-called SEOs focus solely on title and meta tags and forget that Google is not the gullible simpleton it was eight years ago. Yes, there is certainly a benefit to deploying unique title and meta description tags. And, yes, it is definitely beneficial to have an optimized URL architecture (read: static URLs) among other onsite tactics. But, at the end of the day, the only way to truly move the needle in Google is to establish inbound links. If you don't build links, you're not an SEO. It's that simple.

It's my belief that the future of SEO aligns perfectly with the core competencies of progressive communications agencies. It can be summed up quite simply: create compelling content and promote it through online outreach, social media, and other communications tactics. That is the way to build permanent, one way links from highly relevant sites to your client's site."

Organizations need sustained SEO campaigns which in simple terms combine thorough language analysis; using the right words, in the right places, in the right frequency; good meta data; relevant outbound links; and a solid outreach strategy that generates high-quality inbound links. The benefit of doing it right is that you gain something just as valuable as search engine visibility: long-term relationships with key stakeholders.

This does not mean I don’t value paid media campaigns and the positive impact they have on online visibility and site traffic. They should be used in combination with earned media campaigns to generate the best possible outcome. But beware traveling SEO salesman that present a large portfolio of banner ad campaigns. After the paid campaign they will move on to the next client and you will be left wondering where all your traffic went.

Desperate Houswives for $1.99

One of my favorite radio programs is Marketplace on NPR. The theme song alone can get me in a good mood. I was listening on Tuesday to Kai Ryssdal interview Disney CEO Bob Iger and was drawn into Iger’s rationale behind selling TV series episodes on iTunes. The outtake that caught my attention is:

IGER: A successful TV series will produce between 22 and 25 episodes each season. And the committed or the avid viewer of that series, in a given year, will probably watch somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of all those episodes. … Because of other choices, other choices lifestyle-wise, meaning you're busy, you've got other obligations or other choices in terms of consuming media or spending your time. And if we could figure out ways, which we are starting to do, thanks again to digital technology, to engage these people more often, to get them to consume more, because we're creating either convenience or a different price to value relationship or making use of a new technology, then we actually will grow our business instead of in any way decreasing or diminishing our business.

So a lot of these initiatives, the one you just cited, iTunes and the $1.99 episode, or one you mentioned earlier, streaming on ABC, are actually designed to create incremental consumption, to give people who may not have a chance to watch as many of these programs as they once did, to watch more instead of to shift their viewing from the I'll call it the initial airing that creates the most value on ABC, to a secondary consumption form that may create less value. And so far, while the results are still relatively new to us because this has only been going on for about a year, what we're seeing is in fact incremental consumption and not a cannibalization of the initial form of consumption.

First of all, it may be common industry knowledge, but I’ve never known that the committed viewer only views one-third of the episodes in a given season. That strikes me as a low number, but perhaps not a low average, and apparently American Idol hasn’t skewed the industries overall numbers.

Beyond the wake up call on the relative lack of commitment to any one TV series, Iger is speaking not of the well-documented fragmentation of TV viewership, but to changes in overall media consumption.

A study I reference frequently when I give presentations is "A Day in the Life: An Ethnographic Study of Media Consumption", a study conducted by Ball State University's Center for Media Design. The study shows how Internet, phone, and game console use have increased dramatically over a 10-year period ending in 2005. Television viewership still dominates, but other media is gaining ground fast, and leaving traditional print in the dust. In addition, the study shows that consumers use the Web consecutively or simultaneously with other media, including television, print and radio. It also concludes that combining online marketing with marketing in other mediums "adds substantial incremental reach to other media, making it a great partner."

So online use is not only growing, it is improving the reach of other media types, even those whose reach continues to fall.

Most interesting of all, if Bob Iger is a good indicator Disney understands what this all means to their business and is doing something about it.

A Reaction the the European Parliament's Recent CSR Resolution

I found the European parliament’s resolution of March 13, 2007 on corporate social responsibility (CSR) to be a very interesting read. I’m sure there is a back-story on every bullet point in the document that could fill pages. I admit to neither having that depth of knowledge on the subject nor being an expert on European parliamentary politics.

What I found to be interesting is the document’s focus on labor issues. Representative passages include the following:

“… a serious approach to CSR may contribute to increasing job numbers and improving working conditions and ensuring respect for workers’ rights …”

“… to ensure that CSR also benefits third countries and, in particular, developing countries and in accordance with the ILO conventions concerning, in particular, the freedom to form trade unions, the ban on child labour and that on forced labour…”

“… recognizes CSR as an important driver of … respect for worker’s rights, a fair-wages policy, nondiscrimination, and lifelong learning …”

This focus on labor is striking when compared with the typical American CSR dialogue, which puts more weight on environmental issues, sustainable practices, and corporate governance. But that is the focus of American businesses and CSR professionals — not of the American consumer. Our agency published a study last year in partnership with the National Consumers League that explored the American consumer’s view of CSR (“Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility: A U.S. Perspective”). The findings of that study indicate that how an organization treats its employees is the No. 1 factor shaping a consumer’s view of corporate social responsibility. It is interesting to me that European policy aligns better with American consumer sentiment than American policy does.

While the American definition of CSR could expand to include workers’ rights and other labor-related issues, I don’t expect that it will move away from the focus on environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Those are the areas with momentum in our society; worker’s rights seems to lag behind as an issue. Perhaps in Europe there is enough focus on the environment and sustainability outside the sphere of CSR to render their inclusion unnecessary. That is the sense I get, but again, this is an area in which I am not well-versed.

Other items of note from the document include the following:

• The use of the term “compliance” when there is no clear definition of what CSR entails and how it can be measured. Although the document cites the lack of definition as an issue, the word “compliance” is one you wouldn’t expect to see in an American document.
• A recommendation that the commission “implement a mechanism by which victims, including third-country nationals, can seek redress against European companies in the national courts of the member states.” Once again, the suggestion that potential victims could sue for damages without a clear definition of CSR is surprising. And it seems viable only within a more narrow definition of CSR, as an issue related to workers’ rights.
• A suggestion that national, regional, and local governments use procurement policy as a way to advance CSR. Once again, without a clear definition of what CSR means how can it be used as a factor in a procurement process? The one thing that makes such an approach potentially viable is a more narrow definition of CSR, primarily as a labor issue.
• A recommendation that directors of companies with more than 1,000 employees bear personal responsibility for minimizing “any harmful social and environmental impact of (their) companies’ activities.” I read this to be analogous to an American director’s legal responsibility to personally sign off on a corporation’s annual financial statements.

I am not in the habit of reading resolutions issued by the European parliament. However, this was passed onto me by a European colleague in response to a recent discussion on global CSR practices. I will keep my eyes open to see whether other writers cover this subject in more detail.

For more focused blogging on CSR check out the FH CSR Blog.

A Solid Corporate Blog Case Study (Finally)

On Friday, March 9 I spoke on a panel at the Texas Public Relations Association 2007 Annual Meeting with Paula Berg of Southwest Airlines. Paula presented a fantastic case study on the Southwest Airlines corporate blog, replete with the kind of statistics and anecdotal information that is of value to communications professionals. As I see about an email a week looking for corporate blog case studies, I thought I’d share Paula’s story (with her permission, of course).

The Southwest Airlines blog was conceived a year ago and presented to the Airline’s executives as "just another communications tool" and one that could be handled by the existing staff at no additional operational cost. According to Paula there was little resistance, and three months after the idea was pitched the blog was live.

The blog has approximately 30 contributing posters. Comments are allowed but they are first screened before they reach the site. Despite this layer of filtering the blog has a loyal following. So loyal in fact that Southwest feels obligated to post every day, even if the post is simply to explain that there will not be a post on that day.

The blog’s audience was slow to build, but nine months after launch the site has more than 200 posts and 4,000 public comments and is viewed within Southwest as a success.

While the site is moderated, the vast majority of comments are posted, including negative posts. Posts containing vulgar language, overt religious or political messages, and those that attack specific individuals are rejected. In addition, individual customer service complaints are not posted but they are answered directly.

With those posts culled the resulting dialog is more about the airline’s business practices, service, and culture. The blog has a discussion board feel to it and may be seen as a hybrid.

What lessons can be learned Southwest’s experience?

• Maintaining the site is a labor of love. It is staffed by two communicators who are backed up by two alternates. Paula checks it "once an hour every hour" that she is awake, and estimates it adds two full hours to her average workday. So don’t underestimate staffing requirements and secure the resources needed to sustain the blog.
• Approximately one-third of all posts are the airline’s employees. This activity is encouraged and helps to communicate the inclusiveness and transparency of the Southwest culture.
• The community will respond to negative and inaccurate comments on Southwest’s behalf. This experience seems to prove true something we have been counseling for years, that online communities are self-policing.
• The blog has become an extremely cost-effective research tool -- a "virtual focus group." Customer input has been of value to Southwest around the issue of assigned seats and the related trial they are conducting in San Diego. Boarding and seating ideas harvested customer comments have been added to the trials, and customer feedback the blog is influencing their decision-making.
• One additional byproduct -- journalists are using the blog to generate story ideas. They are also calling the airline’s communications team requesting to interview employee bloggers and posters.

Is this experience relevant to all organizations? Southwest’s blogging experience rings true to their culture, which is informal and open. Not every organization is ready for such an experiment. How many corporations would allow an employee post to begin with the words "As a blonde, I have had my share of embarrassing moments"

My counsel to organization’s debating launching a blog remains consistent. Don’t start by blogging,. Instead get familiar with the space. Know who is blogging about your organization and topics about which your organization wants to have a public voice. Who has the dominant voices in the space? What are there biases? What kind of people comment on their posts? Cite them? How will your point of view add to the dialog that already exists? You have to understand the space you are entering before you take your first step.

And what should that first step be? Start a blog on your Intranet and get used to wearing the clothes before you go out in them. You can even start with a limited community of participants, such as a blog limited to the communications team. This will help you find a voice that is comfortable and identify the members of the team that have the interest to keep up the activity. When it comes time to go outside, start by getting involved a bit in dialog that already exists by commenting on other sites. When you know the landscape better and you have the confidence that you can commit the time and energy to support a blog, then and only then should you start an official organizational blog.

What is an Organization's role in Wikipedia?

There are countless views on this issue, including the public statements of some of the bigger names in the PR industry. The issue elicits passionate and emotional responses. At the core of the issue is an important question: “Can an organization have a voice in Wikipedia?”

Many people are saying it is simply too hot to touch, a platform with no upside. Others are saying that Wikipedia is inherently a platform for individuals, not for organizations. If you pull back from that statement, you can reach a position that social networking is by its nature an activity only for individuals.

Where does that lead us? Can an organization have a voice in Wikipedia? Within the entry that describes it? Within the entry on its patented technology? What about an organization’s employees? Can they act on their own? Can their action be separated from their role in the organization?

I have a hard time accepting the argument that an organization cannot or should not take an active voice in such descriptions and discussions. It doesn’t make sense to me that a site like Wikipedia, which purports to seek truth by combining facts from multiple sources on a single subject, would deny the one voice closest to the issue at hand.

Many professional communicators have been in this discussion with clients, talking them off the ledge, keeping them from blowing a gasket over the nature of a Wikipedia entry, or trying to create entries for online marketing.

If you use the right analogy, this is actually old hat for the public relations profession. What do you do when a journalist shoots from the hip and plays loose and fast with the facts? You talk to the writer, and you appeal to the editor. You put the facts in front of them. The more adversarial the position, the easier it is to paint the writer as an advocate and to discredit his or her position.

I am not suggesting that organizations should use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. That runs counter to Wikipedia’s mission and would be a mistake. But I believe that an organization has an obligation to the public to challenge and correct publicly available inaccurate information. An obligation to its patients, employees, and stockholders. And this is highly visible content. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 visited Web sites globally. It is used by more and more people as an issue primer and even an alternative and/or supplement to search. The higher the visibility, the stronger the obligation to have a voice regarding the content. 

Why would that analogy not transfer to Wikipedia? If you know the rules of the game, you know you can reach out to the volunteer editors, the stewards of Wikipedia, and address the facts. This requires transparency. Individuals who edited an article on behalf of an organization must identify their role with the organization. Fortunately, the tools to guarantee transparency are built into Wikipedia itself, including editor profiles, change logs, and discussion threads.

Innovation Frustration

The statement “We want to be known as an innovator” can elicit a groan from communications professionals. My gut reaction to such a statement is typically “Well, perhaps you should do something innovative.” Of course that is not a productive answer. As painful as the task may seem, a client’s request to be known for innovation represents a golden opportunity to dig deeper into an organization’s brand and messaging.

The typical mistake is to start developing a list of organizational innovations and then to try to create a communications plan to support that hodgepodge list. Worse yet, the focus often turns to innovative ways to communicate innovation (that is, “Let’s do an innovation podcast; that will show how innovative we are!”). Instead, the place to start is to define what innovation means for the organization. That, too, can be a painful process, but you cannot build an effective and sustainable program around innovation without first defining the space. It is a lot easier to get your message through in a defined space than in a generic space.

Defining what innovation means for an organization can transform the organization. Once an organization identifies its actual or aspirational definition of innovation, the organization may need to realign parts of  its business in order to encourage and measure the innovation just defined. This process will lead to changes in internal communications to drive awareness and behavior change within the organization. Eventually the external-message platform aligns with internal reality and communications is well-grounded and naturally sustainable.

Three Social Trends Behind Social Media

Why the rise in use of social media tools and the glut in coverage? The increase in coverage is part topic pile-on, a me-to rush to what is hot. It is also part reality, the trend is real and the dialog around what it means is important.

But why the trend? Hw did we get here? And what do we need to understand to navigate in this space?

I think (I hope) the technical reasons are known. The proliferation of cheap, easy-to-use tools that rely on standards, such as RSS and tags, to work together has allowed for the explosion in user-generated content and online social networks.

But what about the social reasons? Why are people using these tools in the manner that they are? I see three trends that have been driven by the Internet and have also driven the social media trend.

Exhibitionism.

Far more people believe their personal experience and point-of-view not only should be made available to others but will be valued by others than at any time. The examples are everywhere, from “American Idol” to YouTube to Flickr. It is more than just shooting for 15 minutes of fame. People expect are growing to expect a sustained public voice. It has become part of the fabric of some people’s self image and self-worth.

Voyeurism.

This is a natural companion trend to exhibitionism. People enjoy watching the extremely personal content generated by their peers and of celebrities, public officials, and business leaders. They not only enjoy it, the feel it is their right to see it.

The Decline of Formality.

With the trends in exhibitionism and voyeurism comes a decline in formality and civility. Because people feel that their voice counts they expect direct access to others, no matter who they are. They expect dialog with elected officials, business executives, their physicians, and others in a way that we could not have imagined even 15 years ago. Bloggers write open letters to CEOs, calling them by their first name and inviting them to backyard barbeques. And that is a tame example.

With this erosion of formal distance has come an erosion in civility. Online discourse is more than just conversational and informal, at times it is shockingly uncivil. This can not be blamed solely on the ability to remain anonymous. More and more online anonymity is less feasible, and in a society that values exhibitionism it is less desirable.

These trends fuel the growth of social media and consumer generated content. They also challenge the norms of organizations, executives, public officials, and the communications professionals that advise and support them. But it is the new reality, one that requires our immersion, understanding, and counsel.

The value of company websites

Shel Holtz tosses up the subject "The Value of company websites" for discussion. Are they less valuable in a peer-to-peer, Web 2.0, search engine dependent environment? I don't think so.

The corporate site may now be one voice among many, but it remains an important voice. I think this is particularly true if you step back and look at the cause and effect relationship between corporate press releases, news articles, and consumer generated media. Most of the online dialog is a reaction to the announcement. The challenge for corporations is to find out how to take part in the dialog they generate.

I think that the “where” of dialog is also less important than the dialog itself. For many organizations a good place to start a dialog is where it is already happening -– joining the conversation on active sites is a valid way to start, particularly for organizations not ready to ramp up the headcount required for full-time blogging and discussion boards. I’m not saying that hours spent in direct dialog won’t generate cost savings elsewhere in an organization, I think they will and I’ve seen it happen. But that is a big leap of faith for many organizations.

Finding Balance Between Audience Vernacular and Business Speak

I’ve spent enough time in human factors labs doing usability studies to know that writing in the customer vernacular will deliver the most successful task-based user experience.

Plain spoken text that uses the words and phrases of a typical user will outperform more formal marketing prose that is laden with benefit statements and aspirational clutter.

The best transactional sites have learned this and the digital and marketing communications professionals ignore it (all too frequently) at their own peril.

But what about communications that is not task-based? For example, B2B lead generation and pre-sale investigation versus the instant gratification of a pre-determined consumer product purchase?

This is the kind of question that is rarely asked in the lab, and I don’t have an answer that is based solely on lab-based evidence. I do have a point of view based on usability studies, anecdotal evidence, and personal experience.

I recommend a mix of language, a blend that layers simple labels for way finding above denser, more professional language.

A usability study I ran to evaluate the effectiveness of a client’s online investor and analyst relations helped to form this opinion.

We ran retail, buy-side, and sell-side professionals through three very different corporate web sites. The results were consistent across audiences. The typical labels used in financial communication made for very poor labels, particularly for way finding. Users wanted simple, clear, and plain labels and descriptions.

However, once they reached deeper content they valued more complex business ad financial vernacular. Even the retail investors were not intimidated or put-off; they trusted the content more because it was a bit complex. Please do not confuse vernacular with writing style here. I am not advocating for verbose language. The best online writing is clean and crisp and very efficient with space. Vernacular speaks more the nature of the words and phrases.

This is an important learning for non-transaction online communications, such as business to business  or corporate social responsibility. Audiences trust the business vernacular in context (within reason). They want to communicate at that level, in part because they aspire to be able to converse and that level, and in part because they distrust content that talks down to them. Business vernacular makes the reader feel like more of an insider as long as they aren’t left out in the cold through the overuse of acronyms and obscure jargon.

The recommendation seems straightforward, but execution is more difficult than you would think. I know, I’ve spent time analyzing language within a space and building bridges between plain-spoken labels and descriptions and deeper business content. It requires an investment in time and a change in business process. It also requires a client that accepts the premise and allows the business process to be put in place to put it into effect.

New American City

If you like This American Life and have an interest in architecture, economic development, and community planning I recommend you pick up a copy of New American City. I came across the quarterly magazine's fourth issue when I was doing research for a project on behalf of The St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association. I was immediately drawn in by the subject matter and quality of writing.

The magazine is produced by a not-for-profit of the same name. The organization recently held a symposium in New York which is billed as the first in a series. I was surprised when a quick search did not produce much coverage of the event, it looked like a good lineup and was moderated by NBC News correspondent Tom Brokaw.