Eighteen months ago Google launched a cool mobile application that localised search results based on GPS coordinates. To me, it seemed like a killer platform for local advertising via mobile devices. And it still is. But the competition for the lucrative local advertising has become hot. In particular, Facebook has entered the market with gusto following the launch of their Places product. In fact, I think Facebook Places has the potential to become the dominant platform mobile-driven local advertising. Even bigger than Google. Want to know why? You’ll just have to read my guest post at Search Engine People then…

Check it out – Will local advertising bypass search?

It’s been a little quiet round here of late. But it hasn’t been out of total and utter laziness, as I have been writing for the shiny new Next Digital blog. The links to my recent posts are below if you want to go check them out:

• Case Study: OfficeMax Ecommerce Launch
• Who won the online election?
• Location: The next big thing on the web

I’ve also written a short piece on mobile marketing for an upcoming edition of Marketing Mag. So there you have it. Go forth and read my pretties…

Some organisations shouldn’t bother advertising. Plain and simple. Banks are a primary candidate (warning – incoming rant!). Over the last few weeks, the Commonwealth Bank has unveiled a series of self-indulgent TV spots, the first of which can be seen below:

I’m not going to comment on the creative execution. There’s been enough snark relating to the Commonwealth’s new advertising direction on Mumbrella and Campaign Brief, and it’s truly not my area of expertise. What does shit me however is the underlying message the Commonwealth Bank is trying to deliver through these commercials – “we care”.

Bullshit!

For the first and only time, I’m in complete agreement with Senator Fielding. The banks are thieves! Let’s look at the facts. The Commonwealth Bank records a record profit of $5.6 billion, including an increase of 42% in cash profit. By anyone’s account, they are astonishing results. Yet while posting record profits, they want us to believe that it’s necessary to raise interest rates above and beyond the RBA’s movements…

And you expect us to believe that you actually care about your customers?

Please!

Actions speak louder than words. And when you act like a fucking jerk, no amount of advertising can possibly change that perception. So quit it with your patronising advertising! You don’t need brand awareness, and you’re never going to change perceptions that you are in fact devil spawn.

Unless of course you actually start acting in a humane manner… pffft!

Anticipating and predicting the future of different media formats (or lack thereof) is a favourite sport for many online commentators. Yet it can be difficult to predict who truly has the experience to add real validity to their insights/claims. So when I had the chance to speak to a man who has nailed both the radio and literature industries, I was keen to take it. Joel Roberts is a former prime time radio host who now runs a communications consulting firm with a particular focus on the development of media strategies for publishers and authors. Joel will be in Australia shortly for the Wealth from Marketing Seminar, and took some time out to answer a bunch of questions relating to the future of media.

You first made a name for yourself as a radio talk show host. If you were starting out again, where would you begin, given the rapid evolution of the media landscape?

At the risk of sounding unspeakably chauvinistic, if I had it all to do over again, and I could do it exactly the way I did it before, I would! Talk radio is one of most powerful communications laboratories on the planet. The demands of spontaneous articulation, breadth of knowledge, rapport creation and on-the-spot adjustment are second to none. The fact that I was lucky enough to do Los Angeles talk radio for a decade – and prime time for a year, until our station’s format changed – is something I wouldn’t trade for the world.

Now, I am, of course, exceedingly mindful of all “new media” (if one can still use the term), and I certainly celebrate its profusion of possibilities. There’s just one problem: unlike what Marshall McLuhan believed, the medium isn’t always the message. Not every podcaster is a true broadcaster. And not every blogger is a true publisher. Let me put that another way: the technology of mass communication has been democratized, but the techniques have not. You still need to know how to create media hooks. You still need to be able to grab an audience and keep them. You still need to master the laws of demographics. You still need to be able to tie into daily news stories in order to maintain evergreen relevance.

In fact, I’ll take this a step further. All this new technology has brought us two things: more potential customers than ever, but also more competitors, too! Add to that the ever dwindling international attention span — which, sadly, we westerners have exported to the planet — and you have a fascinating dual dynamic, one in which (in my company’s trademark phrase) —

The stakes are higher than ever before and the moment is briefer than ever before.

So, in our extremely loud and crowded world, the question is: how do you get heard? That is where our work comes in. And that work, in my view, is served incomparably by my decade’s sojourn in American talk radio.

Do you believe all current mainstream media formats will survive the next ten years?

Yes, but in answering that question, allow me to draw a seemingly odd parallel: just as America will no longer be the world’s sole superpower and just as a more balanced integration of the planet is emerging, so too the hegemony of the “big three” – radio, TV and newsprint – is over, but that doesn’t mean the mainstream is dead. It does mean, however, that the marketplace will be increasingly diverse, diffuse and fragmented. This, in my view, is both good and bad. The benefit is that more people than ever now have a voice, and the possibility of reaching a macro stage.

The downside is that everything is segmented now. Everyone has their news source, and everything is filtered through political prisms. In the vastly expanded marketplace, individuals may actually contract. The irony of this cannot be overstated: with the astonishing profusion of media out there, we may actually be communicating less, if by “communicating” we mean engaging in open dialogue with a willingness to reconsider opinions. Mind you, I have no objection to listening to “the choir.” The problem is when it’s the only music you hear.

What proportion of resources/budget do you recommend for online vs. offline media? How do you see this evolving in the future?

This is an excellent question, but a single, pat answer is hard to find. Remember: “offline” media isn’t exactly offline. It’s still alive, thriving, and massively influencing billions of people! Every time a blogger makes reference to a network newscast, that’s an example of the “new integration.” True, things are more balanced and symbiotic now, but everyone, including traditional media, has an important role to play.

In planning media strategies, ideally, of course, one should “attack on all fronts,” but limited resources often preclude that. I would say that if funds are scarce – and, in fact, even if money is abundant — definitely begin with blogs, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and anywhere else you can go for free. There are at least two advantages to this: a) online niche marketing can be incredibly effective; and b) often the mainstream will pick up on stories that have their origins in “humbler” quarters.

That last sentence reveals a prejudice. Yes, I do believe that the mainstream is still important. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald continues to carry a certain cachet that blogs and Facebook posts might not.

Finally, let me further emphasize a critical point: even if one stays “online,” the masters at grabbing and keeping an audience are still very often in the mainstream world. The skills they possess are among this planet’s most vital curriculums. That’s what I teach, and I believe in it totally.

You are renowned in the field of media consultation and training for authors. What advice you do you give emerging authors on the use of new publishing platforms such as blogs?

My company is privileged to have media-coached probably more best-selling authors than anyone else. It is by no means the whole of what we do, but we’re extremely proud of our work in this area. Recently, when I was in Sydney, I walked down the aisles of a Dymocks location and saw over a hundred titles that we had worked on! We’re passionate about helping authors, and I plan to become one!

My answer to this question is largely contained above. Everyone, author or not, has to become a media mogul (or at least a mini-mogul). Pursuing online venues is no longer an option, it’s an obligation. Books can no longer be promoted without online media. In fact, I’ll go one step further: you have to show an online presence in order to get a book contract! If that’s not motivation to go online, I don’t know what is!

The culture and expectation of free content is now well entrenched on the Internet. How can authors utilise this trend to their advantage rather than their detriment?

Another great question! My basic philosophy is “give ‘em something great for free, and they’ll be more likely to pay for the rest.”

Complimentary reports. Delectable downloads. No-cost newsletters. Inspiring videos. Sample chapters. Anything you can provide for free that will get consumers into your universe can only HELP your sales in the end. Obviously, you don’t want to give away the whole grocery store. But the aroma of free samples gets them walking in the door.

How are Ereader devices such as the iPad and Kindle are changing the market, and what are the implications for authors?

These devices are incredibly exciting (I’m an Apple freak, and about to get an iPad). They bring content distribution to a whole new level and allow us to not only interact, but (in some cases) to actually collaborate, with authors.

The implications are vast on all fronts. On the one hand, aspiring writers can go directly to Amazon or iBookstore for the dissemination of their work. They no longer need a traditional book deal. And yet, the other side of the coin is abundantly true, too. We, as mentioned, have worked with every major publisher in the world and I can tell you that ALL of them have “new media” departments.

I would sum it up as follows: not only will writers find new venues for their work, but that work will be changed by the possibilities of those venues! “Books” are already no longer “just text and pictures.” They are multimedia phenomena, nuclei of atoms joined to millions of others that form the molecules of our truly miraculous world!

Here’s my bias, though: Technology is great, but it alone won’t produce great ideas and great writing.

And here’s another bias for you: to me there is still something sacred about actual, physical, hold-in-your-hand books. My wife and I have a nearly three-year-daughter. We won’t be leaving her “hyperlinks” in our will!

——
My thanks go out to Joel for his detailed responses. If you like what you read, check him out at the Wealth from Marketing Seminar

I love a good analogy! And while the field of SEO certainly isn’t short of them, I’ve just added another to the list in a guest post over at Search Engine People. In the post I posit that SEO is just like property development. Of couse it is I can hear you saying! Or perhaps not… For further clarification, you’ll just have head on over to Search Engine People. And then it’ll all become quite clear… I promise!

Check out ‘Yet another SEO analogy‘

Last week I wrote about content phobia. And coincidentally, last week I also saw one of the most breath taking live performances of my life, by a group of artists called Drum Tao. The show blends ancient Japanese percussion with martial arts. And yes… it’s just as cool as it sounds. For a taste, check out the video below:

So what do content phobia and Drum Tao have to do with each other…? A lot unfortunately. You see, the day after the show I visited YouTube to re-live the performance. I bought their DVD on the night, but was keen to see other performances. But to my dismay, I found little more than a handful of official one minute snippets, and low quality camera uploads from the audience. Yes… Drum Tao have content phobia.

And that sucks! Because here is something truly ‘remarkable’, as Seth Godin would say. Here are a group of performers with the potential to rack up millions of YouTube views and create an army of new fans and admirers. Yet they hide their content. And by doing so, effectively hide themselves from the world! I want to show everyone how amazing they are. But I can’t. Unless I invite them over to watch the DVD one by one…

Why would a group that make a living off their audience, prevent that audience from growing exponentially online?

Presumably, it’s to protect DVD sales. But here’s the thing… they don’t sell their DVDs online. Only at their live shows. They’re not recording artists. They live off ticket sales, not CD/DVD sales. And YouTube views don’t cannibalise ticket sales in the way they cannibalise CD/DVD sales. Nothing replicates the live performance!

So while Drum Tao dwell in a state of content phobia, inferior rivals with low quality videos are reaching over half a million new fans. And if you click through to the YouTube page of the video below, you’ll find that three of the first ten comments make reference to a recent performance they’ve attended…

Phobias are a fact of life. Amongst other things, I’m petrified of spiders, sharks and the thought of having children (eek)! Everyone has phobias, even if they won’t admit it. Phobias are common within the workplace as well. Fear of change haunts many people. Others are terrified of public speaking. And some are scared of content. Yes… content. Content phobia is found within organisations that are both afraid and unwilling to publish more than the bare minimum on their web site. And it’s crazy! For reasons I’ll divulge right now…

Why content matters!

It’s simple really. Consumer behaviour has changed. Significantly. And it’s all been brought about by the web. Last year, McKinsey Quarterly released a famous paper with the controversial claim that the legendary ‘marketing funnel‘ was dead. The study examined the purchase decisions of 20,000 consumers across 3 continents to come to this stark conclusion. A number of factors led to this assertion:

• Consumers are more savvy then ever and actively pull information when needed via online research. They no longer rely on advertising.
• Based on that online research, consumers expand the list of brands considered, rather than reducing them (as the funnel hypothesis contends)
• Subsequently, the web is becoming increasingly important in influencing consumers at key moments in their purchase process

Intuitively, the findings from McKinsey make perfect sense to me. It’s certainly true of the way I shop. A number of other research reports came to similar conclusions:

1. A research report from Fleishman Hillard found the web to be critical to the decision making process. In particular consumers use the web to compare options, save money and gather expert/peer advice that increases their confidence.
2. A survey of 200 purchasers of professional services by Rain Today found that only 3% weren’t influenced by an organisation’s web site

By now, I hope my point is becoming self evident. Your prospective customers judge you based on the quality and depth of information found online. If you under-invest in content, you’re underselling your business!

Your web site = Your online sales person

Think of your web site as your online salesperson. And your content is your sales pitch. Actual sales people are measured on a range of criteria including:

• Depth of product information and expert knowledge
• Ability to answer customer questions and circumvent any objections
• Ability to convert interest into a sale

Now… how you would feel if one of your actual salespeople consistently failed to address customer questions adequately. Or worse, what if they deliberately withheld information from the customer during their interaction? You’d be pissed off right? They’d probably get the sack. Yet for some reason, many people think it’s ok to apply those principles to their web site. It’s not. Customers are judging you based on your web site. Disappoint them online and you’re unlikely to see them in-store. Simple!

Overcoming content phobia

Organisations develop content phobia for a bunch of reasons. The most prevalent ones being:

Resource shortage: A lack resources is common (either writing or monetary). However, what is the value of a higher performing web site? From a practical perspective, many marketing and operations people are competent writers (if you can squeeze their time). Or alternatively, contractors can be engaged to produce new content when necessary. Internal resources tend to be better however as they have a firm industry knowledge. But whatever you do, don’t farm it out to India for $5 per article. That won’t improve your business in any way. Guaranteed!

Lack of ideas: Beyond resourcing, many organisations simply lack ideas. Many believe their industry is too dull to justify fresh content. That’s simply not true. If your customers have questions, you’ve got content waiting to be written. Start by answering the most common questions. Speak to your customer representatives if necessary. Also have a think about what sort of ‘How-to’ content you can write. Educational content is both useful for customers, and handy linkbait. Other potential content categories include industry news/opinion, industry research, expert interviews, case studies and product reviews (amongst many others).

Don’t want to give away too much: This is a pet hate of mine. It’s more prevalent in the B2B sector. Organisations withhold information in the belief that if they put too much information online, people won’t have a reason to call. Huh..?!? Rather than giving people a reason to call, this is doing the exact opposite. You’re giving them a reason NOT to call, because your web site sucks!

And that’s my whole point really. When it comes the the web, your content defines who you are. If your content sucks, so do you!

A week or so ago Twitter unveiled its latest attempt to transform itself into a viable (aka profitable) business. Naturally, Twitter’s monetisation strategy is built upon advertising. Its latest product has been dubbed ‘Promoted Trends‘, which as the name suggests enables companies to buy their way into Twitter’s trending topics. It follows hot on the heels of Twitter’s ‘Promoted Tweets‘ product, which affords advertisers premium position for branded messages in Twitter’s real time search engine. While neither product seems like an instant silver bullet to me, one thing is clear… Twitter believes that the solution to its cash flow problems lie in real time search.

Why search is smart

Twitter’s decision to pursue profits via real time search is smart for a couple of reasons:

1. Google has proven that contextually relevant search advertising is a booming business model, although whether it translates across to real-time search is questionable
2. Confining advertising products (promoted trends/tweets) within the search engine ensures that users’ Twitter streams aren’t polluted with unwanted advertising. Long time readers will know my strong feelings on the topic (which I labelled Twitter whoring)!

Much respect must go to Twitter for maintaining user experience as a primary goal when building their business model. It’s a philosophy Facebook could learn from, particularly in light of their recent clumsy attempts to build their own real time search product.

Facebook’s Privacy Saga

Like Twitter, Facebook clearly see real-time search as critical to their future. And with over 500 million users, no-one is in a better position to report on the pulse of the planet in real-time. Yet Facebook can’t analyse and aggregate its mountains of data, as most users lock their data (status updates, links etc) behind privacy settings. So while Facebook undoubtedly has the best grasp on what the world is talking about, they can’t aggregate or report on (most of) it.

Facebook is clearly frustrated by this. Indeed, Mark Zuckerberg went as far to claim that “the age of privacy is over“. And in the last few months Facebook actively attempted to rectify this situation by introducing new privacy settings that pushed people towards open profiles.

Many argued they did so deceptively, and I tend to agree after discovering a number of friends maintaining inadvertently open profiles against their will (and knowledge). It’s clear the move to get users to open their profiles was designed for Facebook’s benefit, rather than the users. Thus the Facebook revolt began. The irony of the whole situation is that privacy controls are precisely what put Facebook where it is today.

But will real time search ever be profitable?

That is the question. I personally don’t doubt there are mountains of profits to be made via real time search. Advertisers will always chase ad space when people search for brand names, products and relevant keywords. So Promoted Tweets and Promoted Trends make perfect sense as advertising products.

The problem however is that normal people don’t use Twitter, let alone Twitter’s search engine. Few would even understand the benefits of real time search. It simply isn’t mainstream. Which is what Twitter needs to happen for it to attract real advertising dollars.

So how can Twitter take real time search to the mainstream? Here are my thoughts:

• There’s one sure fire way to take real time search to the masses, and that’s via Google. Google definitely want (and need) to integrate real time information into its search results, as it is a clear weakness. Real time data is returned in Google’s ‘Updates’ search filter, but it isn’t sorted or ranked in any meaningful manner.
• Rather than compete with Google, a battle they’re likely to lose, Twitter should be aiming to partner with Google. Twitter has the real time data, and Google has access to the masses and a proven advertising platform. Furthermore, Twitter is far less of a strategic threat than Facebook, so a partnership that may in fact weaken Facebook’s real time search ambitions is feasible.
• For the partnership to be struck, Twitter needs to bring some major cards to the table. Google won’t jump into bed without reason. Access to its data alone isn’t enough. Google already has that. What they don’t have is a way to rank that real time data, such as PageRank for standard web search. Real time data is simply displayed chronologically, which fails to sort the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, the quality of Google’s real time search is very un-Google like. It’s more reminiscent of Alta-vista…
• With a head start in aggregating and analysing real time data (aka trending topics), Twitter’s best opportunity is to develop the most advanced real time search product on the web. Google has proven that being the best at filtering data is a business model in itself. Twitter must nail real time search before anyone else, and should have a head start on the field. The good news is Twitter seems to be thinking the same thing.
• Finally, with a superior real time search product, Twitter should aim to strike a partnership with Google to make it available via their search engine. Advertising revenue generated via Google’s advertising in real time search results could then be split between the parties.

Of course, this is a gross simplification of the situation. Indeed, Google may seek to tackle real time search on its own. But Google has shown in the past that they’re not shy in acquiring businesses with a specific technical capability. And if not, there’s always another fairly large search that’s constantly looking for news ways to differentiate itself from Google…

Online trolls are an unfortunate reality of the web. The combination of simple publishing tools (forums, blogs etc) and total anonymity creates the perfect breeding ground for keyboard warriors to flourish. Almost every online community experiences some form of trolling behaviour. And the Australian media/marketing community is no different. Indeed, we have our very own type of troll, which I have entitled the Snarcissist.

The snarcissist is an ugly little character. Chock full of snark and an inflated sense of self-importance, he lurks within marketing communities such as Mumbrella and Campaign Brief, waiting for any opportunity to impart his superior marketing intellect. You can spot a snarcissist from a mile away. Just look for the following character traits:

• The snarcissist is a visionary, blessed with the unique talent of being able to forecast the human response of every possible message/campaign/scenario (in hindsight of course…)
• The snarcissist cares not for solutions. What’s important is identifying faults!
• The snarcissist is a master of all trades, being able to provide expert commentary on any campaign regardless of industry, budget, client brief or audience (as if they matter anyway…!!)
• The snarcissist is immensely humble, preferring to remain anonymous most of the time, instead of taking credit for his insightful commentary
• The snarcissist is a master of time management, managing to juggle a (supposed) full-time professional career with a part-time trolling habit

So where exactly will you find the snarcissist? I’m glad you asked. Just head over to the local trade press to find him pulling apart the latest campaigns. Here’s just a few recent examples:

1. A swarm of snarcissists took aim at the recent Tourism Australia campaign
2. Bakers Delight was baked itself on Campaign Brief for producing a TVC ‘as bland as their bread’
3. A Channel 9 TV ad was  crucified, albeit in a blatant case of plagiarism. Was the criticism justified? Perhaps. But the self indulgent snark… Perhaps not!

So what are we to do with the dreaded snarcissist? Well one thing’s for sure… he certainly ain’t going away any time soon. Indeed, the curse of the snarcissist goes back as far as 2006, when rumblings of his unsociable behaviour first began to emerge. Four years on and he’s just as prevalent as ever, if not more so with the rise and rise of Mumbrella. So I’m afraid we’re just going to have to learn to live with the little bugger. Ho hum!

With that in mind, here are a few practical tips for living in a world with our snarcissistic friends:

• Don’t feed the troll! Wherever possible, avoid entering into debate with the bastard, regardless of the stupidity of his opinion. He feeds off conflict and craves the reaction. Employ the Simpsons mantra – “Just don’t look“.
• If you absolutely can’t ignore the snarcissist (ie. they’re attacking your campaign), challenge them to submit their own campaign/message for consideration. Independent thought ain’t their forte, so a challenge like this is likely to send him running!
• And if all else fails… build a bridge! Trolls love em, and it’ll help you get over it!

Everyone knows that link building is a fundamental activity for any SEO program (or at least everyone who works on the web). Yet the topic of link optimisation gets relatively minuscule airplay in comparison, which is kinda weird when you consider the whole purpose of SEO is optimisation. In essence, link optimisation refers to the process of optimising existing links to extract maximum SEO benefit. It can be a rich exercise, and is the topic of my guest post over at Search Engine People.

Check out – Back to basics with link optimisation