Brand Interactivism

Heroes, Discover, and Useless Vestigial Parts

It is amazing how seemingly random events can spike web traffic.

Looking at a website analytics report yesterday for Discover Magazine, I noticed that they had a huge traffic increase on Tuesday (more than double the usual.) Digging deeper, I discovered that more than 40% of that day's traffic was pointing to a single article from the June, 2004 issue: Useless Body Parts. Wondering where all that traffic was coming from, I saw that mostly it came from organic search on Yahoo and secondarily from Google.

The analytics tool enabled me to see the exact keyword phrases that people were using to find this old and archived article from Discover's distant past. It turns out that nearly all of that extra traffic was using the exact same keyword phrase - "useless vestigial parts".

Why in the world would thousand and thousands of extra visitors come to Discover Magazine's website in a single day, having searched in Yahoo and Google for "useless vestigial parts"? And then it occurred to me...

Minor spoiler alert - if you have not watched this past Monday's episode of NBC's Heroes, I'm going to reveal an extremely minor detail that should not affect your enjoyment of the show. That said, if you don't want to know anything about it whatsoever, skip ahead.

On the most recent episode, Claire (the cheerleader) is intrigued by her biology teacher's lecture about certain types of lizards that can regenerate lost body parts. They get into a discussion about evolution and whether or not human beings could evolve to do this. The teacher points out that there are many parts of the human body that are now "useless" and "vestigial".

End of spoiler - see, that wasn't so bad was it?

Given the timing, almost certainly, all this extra traffic came from interested Heroes viewers!

Still, it was strange that nearly every one of these visitors used the exact same search keyword phrase. It's impossible that just happened on its own.

Given that a majority of the extra traffic came from Yahoo and not from Google, I suspect that Yahoo posted an article on its portal homepage about Heroes with a link to its search results page for "useless vestigial parts". Discover's article shows up as the third result on that page.

On Google, Discover's article doesn't show up until the third results page. Thus, less traffic from Google.

The next step on this is to figure out how to run targeted SEO/SEM campaigns on Google Adwords or other pay-per-click search ad platforms to help capture even more of these traffic spikes. The tough part is that they are unpredictable. I believe though that if you watch your traffic closely enough, in real time, you might be able to figure out something like this with enough time to do something about it.

Perhaps Discover should be proactive about this and run search campaigns on keyword phrases related to topics that are relevant to their demographics, in particular when those topics are being discussed on very popular television shows that are watched by their demographics. Shows like Heroes.

Google's Big Daddy

MarketPosition reports that Google has just completed a major change to its ranking algorithm.

Designing for Google

Pete Stein, Avenue A/Razorfish's GM, penned an article in iMediaConnection describing some of things web developers should think about when creating websites. He writes:

• For starters, when you're designing your website and/or making your marketing plan, you can no longer consider your site an entity unto itself. You need to design for Google. You need to design for a world where some users come in through the front door and some come in through the side door, the back door, or even over the transom. 
• Next, you need to consider Google your friend, a friend who regularly sends you a customer. You need to listen to your friend so you can plan for your new customer's arrival.
• Last, this type of planning must become a standard part of your marketing communications planning.

Right on!

 

Ignore Integration At Your Own Peril

So this is what happens if you do a SuperBowl ad with or without regard for the Internet. Most notible is what GM did to Ford. Many of us saw the sweet, nostalgic "Kermit the Frog" ad placed by Ford... "It's Not Easy Being Green". I actually enjoyed that ad, although that might be in part because my wife and I sometimes sing that song to our 15 month old daughter to help her fall asleep.

That said, GM, knowing full well that Ford was going to use Kermit in their ad, bought the keyword "Kermit" on Google! GM created a microsite that focuses on the use of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for oil (a hot-button topic if ever there was one).

What a nice job of using some basic Internet technologies to steal the thunder from a campaign by a major competitor.

And what a terrible waste of millions of dollars by Ford. They couldn't even devote a few thousand of those dollars to a smart keyword campaign?

I'm sure Ford's agency, having placed a $2.5 million ad buy, doesn't believe they did anything wrong...

How the Internet Fundamentally Changes Communications

Many traditional marketing and advertising agencies (even ones that claim to be "online experts") treat the Internet as just another medium to broadcast a marketing message (the way the SuperBowl was handled certainly proves that!) These agencies see email blasts as a cheaper form of direct mail or banner ads as a somewhat more efficient type of television advertising. And while others recognize that the Internet can help support sophisticated one-to-one relationships with customers through online CRM programs, such efforts are only a good first step. While such programs can certainly be of benefit, the best opportunities on the Internet are fundamentally different from those in traditional media. The traditional worldview limits the possibilities of what can be accomplished.

By its very nature, the Internet is a highly complex system. Extremely small actions can have major consequences online. A single comment on somebody’s blog can spread via syndication technologies like RSS to millions of people within seconds of being posted. This dynamic has helped to make marketers feel unsure in this brave new world. How does a company market itself in a medium where the customers are in control -- where they can easily exchange information about pricing, customer service, or product quality? And where a single negative comment is archived forever to be found by the masses on Google?

Issues like these don’t just apply to corporations. For example, how important is it for a politician to make sure that empowered constituents stay “on message”? How can a not-for-profit organization leverage the Internet in ways to give it influence, visibility and a reach that would have been impossible just a few short years ago?

Emergent online communities form and grow every day, and it is in helping to nurture and empower these communities where opportunities lie for marketers.

An important question for any online marketer is, who controls your message? Success online is rooted in relinquishing control of your message to those you are trying to reach – your customers. Allowing them to speak, rather than speaking down to them, is the first step. Marketers must remember that the Internet is made up of empowered individuals who do not want to be treated as a mass consumer or a demographic. The ease and immediacy of communications from anyone to anyone is what makes the Internet so different from traditional media. Broadcast and narrowcast marketing each implies that the source of the message is in control, but this is not how the Internet works. The organic power of online entities like message boards, chat rooms, blogs, podcasts, RSS, grassroots communities, expert opinion sites, mobile smart mobs, and viral emails change the equation dramatically.

While marketers cannot hope to control the Internet, successful companies work to empower their natural communities to sit up, interact, get involved, take action and tell others.

Individuals respond well to organizations that are perceived as being encouraging and supportive of their communities, and brand loyalty is what results. The desired effect is the exponential power of positive word-of-mouth.

Paid Search Getting Too Expensive?

Paid Search. Everybody's doing it. Everybody's excited about it. Lots of our clients at Abstract Edge are clammering for it.

Has it reached a point where the returns are getting too small? Well, it might be the case for at least one former client.

We worked with a small e-commerce company several years ago, performing technical maintenance on their website. At some point, the work we were doing was too basic (and thus too expensive) for their needs, and they found somebody more appropriate for them. We maintain a great relationship with them and I catch up with their CEO from time to time.

Over the last few years they have gotten a ton of business through paid search. Basically, $1 invested resulted in $4 of revenue. Now, things have changed. Keywords have been so competitive, that the ROI is now more like $1 invested results in $0.80 of revenue. Clearly that's not sustainable.

Obviously, this is just one data point. However, I'll be looking out for more evidence to see if a trend is emerging.

Shady Search

Shari Turow at ClickZ expounds upon the reasons why providing a smart user experience is so much more important than attempting to get top ranking on a search engine. As she points out:

"Black-hat SEO techniques might get clients top search engine positions, but end users aren't provided with a positive branding experience. They don't get a positive user experience. Usability professionals ask users for their perspective and measure task completion. In my opinion, top search engine positions are useless if the target audience doesn't take the desired calls to action and leave with a positive brand and user experience. White-hat SEO techniques, done properly, provide users, business owners, and Web search engines with the desired results."

If a supposed "search expert" claims to be able to guarantee you top ranking, be suspicious... be VERY suspicious. Odds are, s/he's a "black-hat"...

What's Coming in 2006?

ClickZ has brought together a number of luminaries from different parts of the interactive spectrum to weigh in on what 2006 will bring. Predictions are written about:

• Creative
• RSS (syndication)
• Video
• Search
• Abuse
• E-mail
• Mobile

While there is certainly some hype and buzzwordiness here, it's worth a read.

Marketing to the "Long Tail"

I recently had a discussion with Abstract Edge's CEO, Doug Stone, about what kinds of keyword phrases are useful in an online campaign. For example, if our client Atkins Nutritionals wants to gain visitors who are looking for nutrition bars, should they bother with going after the very specific phrase "Atkins nutrition bars and shakes"?

This article, from Patricia Hursh at SearchEngineWatch, talks about marketing to the "long tail". According to the Wikipedia:

The phrase The Long Tail, as a proper noun, was first coined  by Chris Anderson, drawing on an influential essay by Clay Shirky, "Power Laws, Weblogs and Inequality" that noted that a relative handful of weblogs have many links going into them but "the long tail" of millions of weblogs have only a handful of links going into them.

This also applies to search keyword phrases. Obviously the single keyword "nutrition" is going to get the most hits, and something like "Atkins nutrition bars and shakes" is going to get a LOT fewer. However, the former is also going to be much more competitive, and therefore more expensive. A good Search Engine Marketing (SEM) campaign will take this into account and balance for it.

A few points to keep in mind (that are mentioned in the article):

1. Somebody who types in "Atkins nutrition bars and shakes" is much further along in the sales cycle than somebody who simply types in "nutrition". The odds of converting a sale are so much stronger in this case.
2. The more specific the phrase, the cheaper the click-through
3. Remember that the goal of a pay-per-click campaign is not to get the most possible impressions, but the most profitable click-throughs for a specified budget.

Figuring out the optimal way to do this is a  big challenge, and is why it makes sense to hire an expert in this area to consult on any significant campaign.

Google's Jagger

Jason O'Conner from MarketingProfs.com points out that the recent "Jagger" update to Google's search algorithms has affected most website's Google rankings. This article talks about the changes that Google has apparently made, and makes some suggestions for what to do about it.