Between Stations » the road to hell

Intergalactic!

Julie — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:14:35 +0000

One of the most challenging things about optimizing a web site for a small business owner is controlling their expectations and tempering their ambitions. For many, a web site is more than just a way to reach their core audience – it’s a blurring of their understanding of who their core audience really is.

Because it’s called the World Wide Web, many business owners decide that they really will be reaching the world. Unfortunately, if this is their expectation, they get very upset when this isn’t necessarily true. A web site doesn’t automagically translate into state-wide, national, international or intergalactic reach. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before expanding the expected coverage area of a site:

If you’re a service provider, can you legitimately provide services in those new territories? If not and you’re thinking you can refer the business for a cut, do you have the contacts or credibility to do so?
As a product provider, can you ship/deliver to those areas? At what cost? What value proposition makes you more appealling than a more local provider who will have lower rates for delivery?
What are you willing to do to be able to compete in this age of Local Search with people who may be truly local and thus have an algorithmic advantage?

I know of some businesses that really do manage some national reach. For instance, homebrewing suppliers have traditionally had some ways of reaching national audiences – online homebrewing forums populated by local fans of various shops. And every shop has some unique ‘house’ recipes that can pull in a client. In some areas, there aren’t ANY homebrew suppliers, making going outside the local region essential (even though shipment of glass is always heinous). And there’s now a hops shortage – this is bad news, believe you me – which means that some people to get the specific varietals they want (what, you thought hops was hops? Hops are like lettuce: there are a billion types and they all taste different) need to find shops that have a supplier.

But for most local businesses who decide that they’re intergalactic? Not so much.

Strategy

Julie — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:35:05 +0000

Building a web site is not a ‘marketing strategy.’

A web site is a marketing tactic or a marketing tool.

The Premature Death of the Cover Letter

Julie — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:21:17 +0000

I have maintained for several years, and can probably find industry study to support me, that the rise of online job sites has driven both an increase in applications to positions, and a decrease in cover letters written to support said applications.

Some might say: “Oooh, increased pool to choose from!” They’re generally wrong, simply in the sense that the ability to clicky-click and send a resume often leads to a larger pool of unqualified applicants to slog through in search of the future company rock-star you wish to hire.

Cover letters are a part of this. In a deluge of applications, a decent cover letter can be the difference between an interview and rejection – especially if you’re stretching a bit to apply for something (ex: traditional marketer trying to crack online marketing). Intern candidates really need to include cover letters, as most online application systems just barely ask your college major – leaving a hiring manager knowing that (a) you’re a college student, and (b) you work at the grocery store part-time. While internships don’t generally require a lot of specialized skill, the effort of telling a manager your major and that you have any related coursework goes quite far. It’s an applicant’s best chance to market himself – and if you’re applying in any form of marketing field, I happen to think failure to take advantage of the opportunity says poor things about an applicant’s potential!

Across the board, I have some advice:

Cover letters matter.
Be careful about copying and pasting a ’standard’ letter. Cover letters don’t count for ‘full credit’ if they’re full of vague platitudes and no reference to the characteristics sought in the job ad.
GET THE COMPANY NAME RIGHT. Nothing warms the heart of a hiring manager to et a cover letter referring to another local company as a swell place one might want to work.
Check your spelling. And your grammar. Egad. Now, not everyone is going to be a rhetorical genius, but for professional positions, reasonable communication skill is a must.
Be a realist. If forced to give a salary number, be aware of the general range such positions or such experience tend to compel – it’s not heinously difficult to research, and if your salary figure is daft, all the other work on the resume and cover letter will be wasted.

I’ve become grumpy in my old age, but back when I was a wee sprout (cane shake!), WE WROTE COVER LETTERS. And people LIKED them! We also had to send them in ENVELOPES on PAPER with POSTAGE. Don’t get me wrong – I like online application. But it’s made people lazy.

Reality Check

Julie — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:35:46 +0000

We need to all quit pretending that MSN/Live Search is a ‘real’ search engine, or that it is a legitimate third competitor to the Big Two.

I know that it’s Microsoft, etc., but just because they’re huge we needn’t pander to their ego.

Real search engines can follow basic web standards.

Age, Reason &amp; SEO Strategy

Julie — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:07:03 +0000

At some point, the idea that you ‘age’ a domain got entered into the brains of many people. When considering age, they consider solely ‘registering a domain’ and ’slapping some content, no matter how lame’ on it.

I am thoroughly sick of this concept, and have been speaking against it for months. I expect my life would be easier if I would sigh and give up, as the truth of the matter is so much more complex that the people I deal with would rather not entertain the concept.

Here’s the thing: At age 16, you can test for a driver’s license. You can pass the test. But you can’t necessarily get your parents to loan you the car. It’s not age; it’s trust.

The same is true with a web site. Having a domain with content on it? Super. A great start, in fact. But it doesn’t guarantee indexing. It doesn’t guarantee that future upgrades and content additions will rocket your traffic to the high atmosphere. It just means you have a domain with some content on it. It’s what you do with it that matters. Do you get links? Do you publish? Do you participate in topical communities, which is the very heart of what we like to call social media marketing? Or do you just wait?

Waiting is a useless game. It won’t do much for you. It won’t do what the people I know think they mean by ‘age the domain’ — establish trust and authority. The only thing that does that is participation and heavy lifting, over time.

Thus, the reason why these ‘genius SEO strategies’ will never work is because they are basing their expectation of creating web site empires on multiple ‘aged’ web site domains on ‘build it, and they will come.’ Nope. Build it, invite people, blow up balloons, make some party-type beverages and nachos, and THEN maybe people will come. Traffic takes work. But no one wants to hear that truth; they want fast, easily comprehended solutions to difficult problems.

And when they don’t get them…. we have the summary of why I will not give up my little crusade. When they don’t get them, I invariably end up having to deal with the fallout.

Web 2.0 Idea That Screams ‘Uh-Oh’

Julie — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:51:23 +0000

The Romney campaign is doing an advertising mash-up contest in partnership with some online software people and Yahoo.

The chirpy press release assumes that this will be done by supporters. I can’t quite tell if there’s going to be full editorial review of submissions before they post to the site. If not, this just screams ‘bad idea.’ It screams it as loudly and screechily as an auditorium full of tween girls watching the dreamy boy band of the month. Given the high negative ratings, uh, enjoyed, by Romney in polls, this has the potential to be either a big ouch or a big editorial time suck for some poor intern.

Hazards of Web 2.0

Julie — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:04:02 +0000

The greatest hazard of Web 2.0 is a failure to be genuine.

Today’s failure to be surprised moment is that WalMart’s back-to-school foray onto Facebook didn’t ’start a conversation’ on dorm decor. It got them slammed for labor practices. Mind you, they’re claiming future roomies are using the site to coordinate, but it just doesn’t look that way on the surface.

WalMart’s past ’social’ experiments have been a bit lackluster in actual result.

The real takeaways on this are first, it’s risky to be Web 2.0 when you have a lot of bad PR to start with. Second, you can’t change the conversation just by trying to participate. Web 2.0 actions need to be compatible with who you are, and recognize who others think you are. Sure, you can use Web 2.0 to ‘move’ who you are to who you want to be, but depending on where you start… it will take a while.

Social Media is Getting Out of Hand

Julie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:58:37 +0000

Sure, we all know Digg. Search marketers have Sphinn to play with.

But every niche is getting their own social media site. A cyclist? Become one of the three people apparently using cyclecluster.com! I’m sure there’s something for every niche either in progress, or coming.

How long can search engines pretend this stuff is relevant? It’s a lot like the proliferation of ‘SEO Friendly Directories!’ in my mind.

I know that Squidoo finally got a bit of a spam-slap. I sort of hope to see the same with a lot of social media. I’m having bad flashbacks to UseNet back when AOL opened up access to the real Internet, and not just their locked-up version of things, when something that didn’t suck rapidly began to suck.

Submissions: Snake Oil

Julie — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:47:52 +0000

One of the top questions I get from well-intentioned new site owners concerns search engine submissions.

“I got an e-mail from a company that says they will submit me to 181 search engines for $(small amount of money). Should I do it?”

Truly, these people mean well. They see a low price tag and think/hope there might be value in it.

I always end up having to crush them. Assuming a $35 submission fee, that’s between 8 and 10 delicious gourmet schmancy coffee drinks. Mmm, caffeine.

Submission to the top 3 search engines — Google, Yahoo, and MSN — is technically unnecessary, as they’re all crawler-based, but if it makes you feel good, it can be done while drinking one of the abovementioned caffeinated treats. Yum. I actually tend to recommend submitting to MSN, because they’ve been totally irregular about indexing some of the sites I’m associated with even when we submit. Ask only recently started allowing submission, rounding out the top 4 properties.

Then, let’s look at Nielsen’s list of the top 10 search referring properties in the US, June edition. Pretty much everything in the 6 remaining entrants in the top 10 have some relationship or data feed from the top 4. So, with the top 4, you’re really probably reaching into about 96.5% of households.

So, what to do with those other 7-9 coffee drinks? I typically recommend making a coffee date with your web traffic reports, once a week, for 7-9 weeks with the rest of the money you saved by not using a submissions service. Check your referring sites and URLs. See if you see any chances for inbound link building. Get all happy inside if your search referrals start going up. Be a coffee achiever.

New Webmaster Central Feature

Julie — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:57:54 +0000

Google’s Webmaster Central Team just announced a new communications console within Webmaster Tools.

I think for both agencies and little guys, this is outstanding news. I’ve said before that I think some bad behaviors by little webmasters tends to occur from good intentions (the road to hell, etc.). Having clear communications when these good intentions really do lead into hell will benefit the perpetrators, and hopefully improve overall content quality within SERPs.

As far as agencies are concerned, I already think Webmaster Central gives the agency a better view of what the client may be doing on their own, especially as far as ill-conceived (well undoubtedly well-intentioned) independent link-building is concerned. Having a formal communications channel when penalties or removals occur helps deal with client confusion, and to deal with the inevitable questions:

“You’re an SEO. Can’t you just call someone at Google and have them fix it?” (no)
“How can you tell I’m penalized?” (duh, check your traffic and indexing)

Ought to be fun to see how this develops…