A few weeks ago Ken Fisher wrote a popular blog post about how ad blocking software can have devastating effects to the websites that you frequently visit. Mr. Fischer describes how ad blocking software is responsible for showing false page view data to ad networks. As a result each ad is priced at a lower rate because the number of impressions are significantly smaller. The number of page views is an extremely important metric for websites that sell advertising based on a CPM price model. So it’s only understandable that Mr. Fischer and other online publishers will hold a grudge against ad blocking software.

While I can understand Mr. Fischer’s frustration I cannot sympathize. To be completely honest I use ad blocking software every day. In fact on at least one occasion add blocking software has been responsible for a pretty embarrassing moment. So you’re probably asking yourself why does someone who feels so strongly about marketing block advertisements? It’s simple really, I hate ads.

What? You hate ads? How can you write for Marketing Pilgrim and hate ads? In my opinion marketing is fundamentally organizing people around information. Interrupting people with abrupt irrelevant commands isn’t how you organize people around information. Instead speaking to them on a unique and authentic level is more effective and genuine.

Putting philosophy aside, in my opinion ads are the worst way to monetize content. Generally speaking an increase in on-page advertisements contributes to a degraded user experience. Which can lead to lower user retention levels and decreased page views. Online advertisements are also ripe with fraud and manipulation. Historically click through rates have been at around 2% for most online advertisements. All of these factors and more contribute to the extremely low return on investment.

Online ads add to a decreasing user experience by taking attention away from the site’s primary content and placing it on the ads. This is not the actions of rogue spammers, this is the fundamental method to making any substantial revenue from ads. An excellent example of this in action, is taking a look at Google’s own recommendations for ad placement in the Adsense program. Here we see Google advises users to place ads on every available white-space on the page. This is a huge contradiction for a company that was so widely praised for starting with such a clean user interface.

Most ad platforms have large potential for fraud and manipulation. This is is an issue that not many professionals in IM discuss publicly because, quite honestly, whether they are participating in the fraud or not they still stand to profit off of ad manipulation. To a great extent Google and some of the other larger ad networks have gone to great lengths to minimize the impact of this type of fraud. However, any potential for fraud creates an uneasy market place where advertisers and publishers are continually left wondering if they are being taken advantage of. Google doesn’t help matters by keeping the exact specifics of their pricing model a secret from both advertisers and publishers. What’s even more devastating about these fraud schemes is that they can manipulate entire ad markets not just the individual ads they are targeting.

We reported back in January that the average click through rate for Google Adwords is around 2%. This means that 2% of the site visitors are clicking through on the ads. Most businesses off the Internet wouldn’t be able to survive with a 2% conversion rate. The only way to make substantial revenue from ads on the Internet is to completely dominate the market and control the flow of information. *cough* Google *cough*.

Wow Joe what do you want me to do? Not make any money? Absolutely not! But I do think that more companies and content producers need to experiment with different business models that aren’t reliant on ad dollars. The mainstream media on the internet is already starting to experiment with pay walls and different premium membership options. While I generally agree with the old saying that information should be free, I do think there is substantial room to monetize parts of the web that are currently a free-for-all. For example there are many opportunities to monetize communities and forums that provide quality content and meaningful dialogue to its users. Another potential opportunity is product development. Content developers and publishers should work to create their own products aside from their content that they can offer to their regular subscribers for premium fee.

So next time you see a drop in your ad revenue don’t blame the users, blame the ads. They got you into this mess and they aren’t going to get you out!

Social media is on the front of every marketer’s mind (or at least it seems that way) but it still gets the treatment normally reserved for those who don’t quite fit in. In other words, while there is tremendous value in social media it is still a tough road to travel to get social efforts integrated with traditional marketing campaigns. The techniques voted “Most Likely to be Siloed” include third party social networking site, blogs and microblogs. While all the talk centers on these areas there is still considerable concern about how well they play with other elements of marketing campaigns and just how to best help them fit in.

eMarketer tells of a report done by Unica which is a marketing management firm. Here are the numbers from this particular study.

So what’s the hold up? Why is it that many of the most active, important and vastly utilized social media activities are still considered persona non grata when looking at the overall effect of marketing efforts?

My theory is that it I just a matter of TMI. When anyone has too much of anything it becomes difficult to manage. When it comes to data social media activities like Twitter, Facebook and blogs generate so much information that it can bury even the most seasoned marketer.

When asked how all of this data impacts other marketing efforts it becomes extremely difficult to isolate the true cause and effect relationships that C-level marketers want to see. Of course, the general lack of knowledge of these marketing vehicles the further you go up the marketing food chain creates an even greater issue.

In your experience are you seeing the same kind of difficulty in truly integrating your core social media efforts with the rest of your marketing campaigns? What ways have you found to bridge this gap to help social media get out of the silo and in with the rest of the marketing efforts?

Share your experience with us openly. You won’t be giving away any secrets. Besides, it’s Friday and most people will forget what they read by Monday anyway.

On that note, have a great weekend!

Yelp is certainly an interesting phenomenon. Depending on where you live and who you talk to it can be either “all the rage” or it can elicit the “What’s a yelp?” response. Of course, in Internet marketing circles it’s all the rage especially in tech centers like NoCal etc. What is happening quite a bit as of late though, is not that yelp is “all the rage” but instead it is all about rage and, in particular, the rage of the small businesses being reviewed on the site.

The Wall Street Journal reports

As reported by the Journal, the reviews Web site Yelp is under fire. It is facing three lawsuits from businesses that claim it improperly skews reviews in favor of companies that advertise with it and against those that do not.

Yelp denies the allegations, blaming misunderstandings about the way it filters reviews to prevent businesses from inflating their ratings.

So what yelp has done is to create a video that is the equivalent of a yelp filter apologetics course. For those unfamiliar with the term apologetics, it is something that is done in defense of a particular position, activity or worldview. It is most often applied to religions but the way that some people treat the online world that may not be such a far-fetched connection. Take a look at the video that yelp has produced to defend explain its review filtering process.

If you took the time to watch the video it does little if anything to actually explain what happens behind the scenes regarding this mysterious review vetting process. Other than a cute rendering of the machine that reviews are dumped into (should have used a black box maybe?) there is precious little truly explained. The reason for this is told by Jeremy Stoppleman, yelp’s CEO.

Yelp chooses not to explain much about how it decides which reviews to show and which to hide. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman says that exposing too much of the site’s secret technology sauce would make it easier for shills to fill the site with puffed up reviews.

“It is similar to the challenge that Google faces in ranking Web sites,” he said. “The more that they share with the world about how they specifically evaluate links on the Web, the more they make it easy for somebody that wants to rank number one to do so.”

Yelp is in a very unique position. We sit on the edge of what may be a mobile explosion that could greatly benefit yelp in the future. It’s past, however, may make some folks suspect of just how reliable the reviews are and if there was any back room dealings to get someone on the top of the review heap.

What is your experience with yelp? Do you trust the reviews on the site? We have no filters here at Marketing Pilgrim so let’s hear it.

Take a look at the Google Analytics chart to the right.

Now imagine yourself waking up one day to see your web site’s traffic taking such a dramatic drop.

Did you get banned by Google? Is your site down?

Nope! But everyone just opted out of Google Analytics–rendering your dashboard useless.

Far fetched? Not too much. Not when you consider that Google has decided to build a browser plugin that will allow web users to prevent their data being collected by Google Analytics.

Over the past year, we have been exploring ways to offer users more choice on how their data is collected by Google Analytics. We concluded that the best approach would be to develop a global browser based plug-in to allow users to opt out of being tracked by Google Analytics. Our engineers are now hard at work finalizing and testing this opt-out functionality. We look forward to make it globally available to our users in the coming weeks.

Say it with me: crap!

Why would Google cripple a product that doesn’t really reveal any personal information about a visitor to your site. OK, so in theory, you could track down an IP or network host and possibly string together their browsing habits and maybe figure out where they live, but does that warrant such a move?

What I don’t get is the double standards Google is displaying here. Basically, us site owners can’t be trusted with anonymous data, but Google can continue to invade a user’s privacy by keeping their search history? Where’s the plugin that lets me opt-out of Google keeping–and analyzing–my search history? Heck, there’s not even an easy way to opt-out of personalized search results!

C’mon Google. What’s good for us, is good for you. If you’re truly taking a stand on protecting a user’s privacy, let’s not keep one foot planted on a big ole rock of hypocrisy!

Mark your calendars for April 10!

That’s the day that Google is reportedly going to officially pull out of China, with the announcement coming as early as Monday.

According to Bloomberg (via China Business News) this is all based on a tip from an anonymous sales person inside Google’s Chinese office–I could make a bad joke about the game of Chinese Whispers, but I won’t.

Anyway, I really can’t help but ponder the real reason Google is pulling out. Is it because of the security issues? Is it because the search engine is struggling to dominate the search market? Surely its decision isn’t purely a stance on censorship. After all, China’s not the only country that requires Google to censor its results:

In Turkey, it’s a crime to defame the country’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or to ridicule "Turkishness." So Google restricts access to videos that the government of Turkey deems illegal on google.com.tr.

In Germany, France and Poland, it is illegal to publish pro-Nazi material or content that denies the Holocaust. To comply with those countries’ laws, Google does not display links to those sites on its search results pages on the company’s German site google.de, French site google.fr or Polish site google.pl.

Yet, Google’s not pulling out of those countries anytime soon. Which makes me think that "censorship" is a nice clean–publicly supported–reason to quietly noisily shutter its China operations, without having to admit defeat.

PS. There’s one search engine that can’t wait for Google to exit China–Baidu’s shares are skyrocketing!

Remember like 10 years ago when the “cool” thing to do was WebTV? A computer on your television set, with a keyboard and a mouse that worked (sometimes) with no wires?! Okay, so it was never really that cool—maybe watching TV and computing simultaneously hadn’t been invented yet—and yet Google is partnering with Sony to bring the Internet back to the television.

Right now there are a few set-top boxes that offer access to limited Internet content. Google & Sony’s box, with the Android OS, would allow users to access the full Internet, possibly with apps for popular sites like Twitter and Picasa, according to the New York Times.

Google and Sony have already tapped Logitech to make some auxiliary devices, including a remote control with a mini keyboard. Isn’t it great? All the inconveniences of your other devices—the tiny keyboard on your phone, the constant distraction of the Internet and the mind-numbing power of the tube—combined into one ultimate time-wasting device. (YouTwitFace?)

And before we all start begging that this is a joke and not seriously what Google’s planning to pursue next, apparently this project is several months under way. (But knowing the business world, that probably means they’re still in the paperwork stage, if they’ve even got that far.)

(In case you were wondering, WebTV was purchased by Microsoft and eventually rebranded as MSN TV. While they continue to support existing customers, Microsoft finally gave up on selling the hardware last year.)

What do you think? Are all things old new again? Or is this another money pit for companies that really don’t need it?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Yesterday at OMMA Global in San Francisco, US Cellular illustrated a unique way they were using search campaigns: to test calls to action for their print campaigns. According to MediaPost:

U.S. Cellular tested six paid-search campaigns to determine the one targeted message that would reap the biggest rewards and conversions. “The messaging is limited because you have 70 characters, so it won’t be exactly the same message, but you can see specific calls to action that might work better than others,” [EVP & Managing Director of SMG Search Jill] Balis explains.

Of course, print and PPC are two very different media—what works for one might not work for the other. PPC requires only a click to act, where print requires a lot more initiative for the consumer to take action. However, identifying which calls to action encourage users to click may help narrow down which ones are more effective at getting them to put down what they’re reading and go to the phone or computer.

Cross-medium integration is becoming ever-more important:

Balis says about 80% of online sessions begin with search and 67% of searchers are driven to search from an offline channel, followed by 37% from television, 30% from newspapers, and 20% from in-store point of purchase. Search accelerates consumers down the purchase funnel, from creating to capturing demand.

So print does have at least some power in driving people online. (I’m a little confused by MediaPost’s wording here—67% come from an offline channel not including TV, newspapers or point of purchase? Are they sure that’s not 67% of searchers are driven from an offline channel, and of those 37% are from TV, etc.?)

What do you think? Would the same calls to action work for PPC as for print?

Google is testing a new opportunity for companies to advertise in Google Maps. While the tests are only being run Down Under (Australia) it doesn’t mean that they are being secretive. The idea is a way to for companies to make their listings on Google Maps stand out a bit more thus increasing their exposure. While this would seem to be perfectly suited for mobile users it is currently only being rolled out on desktop and notebook environments.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports

Google has begun putting ads on its popular maps pages in Australia, a sign that the search engine giant wants to convert more of the high traffic to its websites into advertising dollars.

Logos for Bankwest, JB Hifi, LJ Hooker, NAB and Chemist Warehouse have started to appear on maps when users zoom in close.

Australia is the first country to trial display ads in maps which, if successful, will be rolled out across the world, the company said today.

The ads look like this

The article continues by reporting that the model will be impressions based for advertisers.

But, unlike Google’s usual advertising model where advertisers must bid for certain keywords for their ads to appear in paid for search listings, Google is reverting to a more traditional ad model of charging companies every time a web user sees their logo on the page.

And this being Google it is not as simple as a company paying for its logo to be on the maps. Advertisers must be ‘‘relevant’’ to be listed and for Google to allow their logos to appear on its maps pages.

Google is taking its usual approach by putting the user experience above all else, officially, but we all know that this is about money in the long run. This particular addition to maps could be a strong one though, because the visual cue of a logo that has relevance to a search could very well impact search behavior. People want to be led through the search process and anything that involves images speeds that process along more easily. Boy, that really says a lot about us search users doesn’t it?

Right now, there is nothing to report as to if this will ever be done outside of Australia. Of course, if there is even a modicum of success you can expect to see this on your maps in the US and elsewhere sooner than later.

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

We all know that it is virtually impossible for Google to keep a low profile on anything. When you are that big and influential everyone is paying attention and it seems like every time someone breaks wind at the Googleplex it’s news. It’s the price of fame I suppose.

Of course, if you create the kind of stir that Google recently did around its Buzz service and the apparent “mistake” of making way too much information public without asking the users, then people pay close attention.

One of those is the soon to be ex-Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, Pamela Jones Harbour. During an FTC roundtable discussion in which she noted that her remarks were her own and not those of the FTC (since she is the acting commissioner until April 6 I call BS on that statement but that’s another issue) and the Wall Street Journal reports

“Protecting consumer privacy is of utmost importance,” Ms. Harbour said during a Federal Trade Commission roundtable discussion about privacy Wednesday, speaking via videoconference from Barcelona, Spain. “Unfortunately, many of the companies that consumers look to as leaders — and that we expect to be leaders — still have not taken this message entirely to heart.”

She went on to rip Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt as well.

Privacy is a fundamental right that consumers still care about and have expectations for, Ms. Harbour said. Those norms do not change as technology evolves, and the stakes are growing as more information, such as genomic and public-health records, is made available, she said. Ms. Harbour cited recent comments from Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who said during an interview with CNBC, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Ms. Harbour said she could not disagree more with that assertion. “The Commission will continue to evaluate consumers’ preferences, and armed with these insights, I hope and expect that the Commission will continue to shape the conversation about the intrinsic value of privacy,” she said. “But make no mistake: The Commission will unfailingly step in to protect consumers where we believe the law has been violated, and that includes violations relating to privacy promises.”

Google’s arrogance, whether perceived or real, doesn’t appear to be serving it well in Washington. If this is the attitude of the exiting Commissioner then they better hope that the next one is a little more Google-friendly. Google’s response to this is what one would expect.

A Google spokesman said in a statement that user transparency and control are “top of mind” for the company. “When we realized that we’d unintentionally made many of our users unhappy, we moved quickly to make significant product improvements to address their concerns,” he said. “Our door is open to additional feedback and we’re continuing to make more improvements based on that feedback.”

While I am not a big fan of government being too involved in anything I am beginning to wonder about privacy more and more. Ms. Harbour’s following statement made sense and made me think a bit.

“Deeds speak louder than words, and this is turning into a dangerous game of ‘copycat’ behavior,” she said. “Unlike a lot of tech products, consumer privacy cannot be run in beta.”

Hmmm. Maybe this is why she is leaving the FTC. She makes some sense here and there appears to be little room for that kind of behavior in Washington these days.

Each month we tell you about reports that have come out which talk about the fact that Google is still leading in search. It pains me to write these sometimes because there is nothing to make anyone stand up and take notice. I think we all get it that Google is the dominant search engine across the board.

Where it can get interesting, though, is just how dominant Google is in search for a major business segment online: the enterprise. The latest findings from iCrossing have been reported by MediaPost. To be fair, the author of the article I am referring to is an iCrossing employee. In this instance, though, there is less concern for results being “skewed” since there is no real advantage to iCrossing in reporting these findings (other than some market exposure, of course).

So what’s the difference between Google in general and Google with regard to enterprise search? Even more dominance. Sorry all of you bing and Yahoo folks who would like to see something else. The reality is that when people are searching for business information Google is clearly the search engine of choice. I know it is for me personally. I’ll let some pictures tell the story.

With Google having 80% of the enterprise search market it becomes a bit ridiculous to consider that bing is gaining on Yahoo and AOL lost 25% of its enterprise search traffic according to the study. It feels nearly irrelevant but considering the overall size of the market can you afford to ignore the 16% of the enterprise search market that bing and Yahoo currently hold?

So rather than ponder the “Why is this so?” questions let’s consider another angle. As marketers, whether you are working with enterprise accounts or not, what percentage of your efforts in search are focused on Google? Is it 80%? Is it higher? How do you really view bing and Yahoo as search options and how much money and effort do you direct to these engines?

Lastly, do you really see these numbers ever changing? If so, how and what might be the cause?

A new study from market research firm Chadwick Martin Bailey and iModerate Research Technologies shows that social media might actually pay off—in real dollars in addition to the traditional branding and influence lift. The survey of over 1500 consumers showed that they were more likely to buy from and recommend brands they follow on Twitter and Facebook.

51% of those surveyed said they were more likely to buy from a brand after following them on Facebook; 67% said they were more likely to buy after following on Twitter. Brands also got a boost in recommendations: 60% of Facebook fans and 79% of Twitter followers were more likely to recommend a brand to their friends.

This is only natural, says eConsultancy:

The most popular reason people follow brands in social media is to receive discounts. But there were also many people who responded that they follow as a customer of the brand and to show their support of it. On Twitter, that reason was less popular. Only 2% of respondents followed a brand to show their support. More often, they are looking for discounts, new information and exclusive content.

That makes a lot of sense, as Facebook’s fan ability is more geared toward letting users express their appreciation for something.

And here’s our grain of salt: this is a survey. This only shows what people think they’re doing. It may be that people don’t want to admit they’re only following Nike to look cool. However, with questions like these, I’d assume there’s at least a little boost for the brands in terms of dollars and recommendations.

What do you think? Are these people accurately reporting their spending and recommendations?

Google is/isn’t/might/mightn’t/will/won’t pull out of China over censorship and security concerns. Nobody really knows what the future may hold (although CEO Eric Schmidt’s forecast calls for a 99.9% chance of “something”)—including Google’s 27 Chinese ad resellers. In a letter to Google Monday, the resellers pleaded for some information.

As the home of tens of thousands of employees—a headcount they reached at Google’s behest—not to mention their clients and partners. Since Google’s announcement in January, business has dramatically dropped off (although Google has yet to make any changes). The resellers point out their dilemma (as translated by the WSJ):

There are altogether 27 Google reseller agencies for Google in China, and currently, they are all in the investment phase of Google-related business and have yet seen reasonable returns on their investment. If Google withdraws from China, then most of us will face possible bankruptcy or close-down, since up to now, as requested by Google, we have invested huge amounts of capital and efforts in our business. How will Google compensate for its resellers?

Without communication, it seems that Google’s plan may be to pay its partners with a “don’t let the door hit you on our way out.” Say the resellers:

At this moment, if Google tells us this is a business practice, and our clients, employees, and investors all should take our own commercial risks, we, as well as our clients, employees, investors and everyone absolutely will refuse to accept it!

Uhhh sure.

The WSJ notes: “Not all the resellers listed as signatories in the letter had a part in drafting it, and each has a unique relationship under different terms with Google.”

Google acknowledges they’ve received the letter and are currently reviewing it. However, they’ve been reticent to comment on the discussion that are/aren’t going on with the Chinese government, and it looks like things are grinding to a halt.

What do you think? What kind of provisions should Google make for its resellers?

Display ads in the Internet space are always an area of lively discussion. Do they work? How should their effectiveness be measured? What is the real value of a display ad? You can insert your question here.

One tried and true measurement for the medium though is just how much is being spent on display ads especially when held up against historical numbers. A press release about a report from Kantar Media and shared with us by TechCrunch shows that the world of display ads vs. it’s competition is doing alright overall.

The curious number is why there was a slip in the 4th quarter spending because it is the biggest buying season in every year no matter how far the economy has slid down the crapper. Maybe there was a shift to more search at that point? I don’t know.

This next chart though takes an interesting look at particular sectors and their overall advertising spend.

Looking at the only sectors of this report to show an uptick in spending, I would have to conclude that during bad economic times people talk on the phone while taking alternate mouthfuls of Doritos, Milk Duds and Prozac. That last bit of data was extremely unscientific in its analysis but I stand by the observation nonetheless.

So now, that we have an idea of what has happened what do you think will happen with the rest of advertising for the year? Will this year see a rebound? Will traditional channels continue to decline? Where will the display ad number be for 2010? Let’s hear it.

According to analysts, Google’s Nexus One phone isn’t selling too well. In fact, its 135,000 units sold is way off the 1 million iPhone’s sold during its launch.

Still, there’s good news for Google. It was just denied a trademark for Nexus One, because it’s too similar to one that’s already being used by Integra Telecom.

“Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3554195,” the trademark office wrote in its March 9 ruling.

OK, so that’s not good news, but if Google decided that entering the mobile hardware business was a bad move, it now has an excuse to pull out–hey it worked for China!

Meanwhile, back in Portland, Oregon, Integra is obviously delighted with the USPTO’s decision:

“We appreciate that the PTO is protecting our trademark rights. Integra has over $60 Million in annual revenue associated with our Nexus brand and it represents millions of new revenue for the company each year. Google hasn’t contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we hope we can work together to achieve our respective business goals.”

Let me translate that last sentence for you:

Google hasn’t contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we’re looking forward to either big fat licensing fee or being acquired by them for a ridiculous multiple!

So, what’s next for Google? It is likely too early to pull the plug on the Nexus One, but a rebranding or licensing deal is on the horizon with this decision.

(via)

Even if you don’t watch David Letterman, you’ve seen his infamous Top Ten lists before.

A couple of nights ago, he took on Twitter addiction.

Enjoy!

(hat tip)

Apps is now one of those words that has taken on its own meaning in the American lexicon as most people who use it are referring to the apps for mobile devices. Why not since the market is growing at a serious rate because it makes having a handheld device much more interesting than just being a phone and a way to connect to the web.

A study suggests that the growth will be unprecedented in the very near future with bold predictions of billions of dollars being generated in the apps market. Mashable reports on the study which I will allow you to read about before I say anything further.

Lithuanian-based GetJar, an independent mobile phone application store with over 60,000 mobile applications for major mobile platforms such as Android, Symbian and Windows Mobile, commissioned a study that predicts a huge surge in the number of mobile app downloads and the overall size of the mobile app market.

According to the study, created by Chetan Sharma Consulting, mobile app downloads should jump from 7 billion in 2009 to almost 50 billion in 2012. By this time, the market will be worth 17.5 billion dollars, the study predicts, despite the expected lower price of mobile apps, which should drop from the current average of 2 dollars per app to 1.5 dollars in 2012.

I bet you can guess where I am going carrying my red flag. Yep, the source of the report is someone who has a vested interest in making the market look ginormous. Also, the information is somewhat appnostic (that’s just another cheap attempt to turn a phrase to describe an app agnostic) because this particular company from Lithuania (red flag number 2?) can’t do anything with Apple apps so they have a vested interest in pumping up the Android and others app market hopes as well.

The apps industry is going to grow. There is no need to commission anyone to make that prediction. It’s a no brainer. As to how big will it get? It’s anyone’s guess and the real intrigue as we move forward is the growing intensity of the battle for the platform of choice between the iPhone and Android devices.

Any predictions on who wins that one?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Maybe I missed the point of the whole China/Google kerfluffle, but I could have sworn the reason Google was pulling out of China was because they didn’t want to obey China’s rules on censorship anymore. Apparently China has decided to conveniently ignore that fact as they remind Google to continue to obey China’s Internet rules, even if Google does decide to leave the country.

Riiight.

According to Reuters:

“On entering the Chinese market in 2007, it clearly stated that it would respect Chinese law,” the spokesman, Yao Jian, told reporters in answer to a question about Google.

Google opened its Chinese search portal in 2006.

“We hope that whether Google Inc continues operating in China or makes other choices, it will respect Chinese legal regulations,” Yao told a regular news conference.

“Even if it pulls out, it should handle things according to the rules and appropriately handle remaining issues,” he said.

Yes, of course Google should continue to obey the law for remaining “issues” within the country (possibly its other services, if Google decides to only pull its search engine). However, although I’m not in favor of China’s censorship, I don’t think Google should wage a direct Internet war against the country.

China’s admonition seems a little like a parent expecting a child to keep the same curfew when they leave the house. Google is leaving precisely because they just can’t abide those rules anymore. They’re going to live their life the way they want to now.

Or, for another analogy that might hit home a bit more with the Chinese government, maybe this is more akin to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telling China to investigate the hack attacks (to which China said Clinton damaged the countries’ relations, and basically she should mind her own business).

What do you think? Could China seriously expect to dictate to a company even if they won’t have any jurisdiction to do so?

Hang around any industry conference, forum or blog long enough and you’ll find someone lamenting our dependence on Google, or search engines altogether. It’s absolutely true that we as webmasters and marketers need to diversify our traffic strategies (you know what they say about eggs and baskets)—but are you willing to take the step to block all search engines from your site?

Hacker News was—at least for a little while. At news.ycombinator.com recently, the robots.txt file was changed to disallow all crawling from search engines, as theNextWeb reports. However, Paul G. at Hacker News quickly explained:

Don’t worry, it doesn’t mean anything. The software for ranking applications runs on the same server, and it is horribly inefficient (something 4 people use every 6 months doesn’t tend to get optimized much). This weekend all of us were reading applications at the same time, and the system was getting so slow that I banned crawlers for a bit to buy us some margin. (Traffic from crawlers is much more expensive for us than traffic from human users, because it interacts badly with lazy item loading.) We only finished reading applications an hour before I had to leave for SXSW, so I forgot to set robots.txt back to the normal one, but I just did now.

There’s nothing wrong with that (though you’d hope you wouldn’t forget that kind of thing!). Rather than the User-agent: * Disallow: / theNextWeb spotted, Hacker News’s robots.txt now only disallows all user agents to five selected paths.

Can you ban all search engines (on purpose and for the long term)? Sure—that’s what robots.txt is for (I’m looking at you, newspaper sites who claim Google’s stealing your bacon content). Some people do it just to keep search engines out; others do it to force themselves to develop other traffic streams. But if you do it, be sure to actually work on those other traffic streams, and to have a good on-site search capability.

What do you think? Would you ever block all search engines, for any reason?

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Twitter is not content to occupy those little moments you share together when the boss is not looking. It’s not willing to put up with being used merely as a channel to share what you ate for breakfast!

Nope, Twitter wants to be @anywhere and @everywhere.

OK, so officially it just wants to be @anywhere–the name of its new framework–but you’ll soon see Twitter’s real plans are to be everywhere on the web.

According to co-founder Biz Stone you’ll be able to…

…follow a New York Times journalist directly from her byline, tweet about a video without leaving YouTube, and discover new Twitter accounts while visiting the Yahoo! home page.

Yay, more noise! Ahem, I mean, valuable content being distributed throughout the web.

While @anywhere is not live yet, Twitter has an impressive line-up of sites that have agreed to participate, including Amazon, AdAge, Bing, Citysearch, Digg, eBay, The Huffington Post, Meebo, MSNBC.com, The New York Times, Salesforce.com, Yahoo!, and YouTube.

How will @anywhere work? According to DigitalBeat, those annoying nifty hovercards that Twitter implemented on the web interface will be the carrier for the disease that will infect every web site in the world platform used for @anywhere.

Your 2-cents? Go!

I really thought this chart from Hitwise (via TechCrunch) was going to be a bigger deal than it actually is.

On the face of it, Facebook just overtook Google as the most visited site in the U.S:

However, Google doesn’t get the benefit of traffic to YouTube; and Yahoo is a mere third, because Yahoo Mail or Flickr aren’t credited towards its total.

Considering Facebook does video, images, messaging, it seems this chart has been carefully crafted to create headlines.