Posts Tagged ‘training’

SEO: There Is No Duplicate Content Penalty

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Picture_1_thumb

There is a long held belief that search engines – namely Google – penalize websites that duplicate content or produce material that is largely the same as other sites on the Internet. But, I’m here to tell you, The Duplicate Content Penalty is a myth.

Think about it this way. If a page of content has five links into it and that page of content only loads at one URL, then all five of those links will flow their link popularity to a single URL. But imagine that same page of content with five links pointing to it that loads at five different URLs. Each of those duplicate URLs for that same piece of content now get a single link’s worth of passed link popularity. They’re each only one-fifth as strong as the single URL with all five links …

See the rest here:
SEO: There Is No Duplicate Content Penalty

Share/Save/Bookmark

Booklist: NearbyNow.com Founder Scott Dunlap

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Dunlap_small_thumb

Booklist is an occasional feature in which we ask ecommerce personalities about the books they read, and why. For this list, we asked Scott Dunlap, founder of ecommerce
technology developer NearbyNow.

As CEO of the Mountain View, Calif. company, Dunlap has more than 15 years experience in developing new Internet technologies to strengthen retailer connections with customers. Dunlap founded NearbyNow to simplify shopping for consumers who browse online but buy in physical stores.

High Output Management

By Andy Grove

“Awesome primer on how to focus a business on the right strategic goals. It’s also a great way to get a new management team on the same page. I use this book so much I have to buy additional copies every couple of year…

See more here:
Booklist: NearbyNow.com Founder Scott Dunlap

Share/Save/Bookmark

Has the internet made it easier to hide from adverts?

Friday, October 9th, 2009

This is important. As someone working in advertising naturally I try to avoid it at every turn. So are your customers. So how are they doing it and what can you do to thwart it?

Has the internet made it easier to hide from adverts?

First thing I do as I turn on the computer is check the news. Through Google Reader so I don’t have to see adverts. I do this in Firefox with ABP (Adblock Plus) on so I don’t see feed adverts either.

Surfing to the news site that has grabbed my attention with a good headline or to a favourite blog with a funny cartoon I once more miss the adverts. You are all blocked.

After that I check my emails. Everything that vaguely looks like advertising goes to the spam button and the rest is something I’m engaged in i.e. conversations with my friends.

Having digested the latest news, talked to friends, I’m off to my favourite social media site. Today it is Twitter. I’ve managed to get rid of the aggregators by spamming them with iTunes (thanks Tweetfeed) and I’m now left with the people I want to follow having filtered it with the people that want to follow me. I have five followers.

Jumping onto to YouTube you are all blocked. Unless you have a cool and very funny advert. And so it goes on. So has the internet made it easier or more difficult to chase customers with advertising?

Well,l read the clues. Before, when I was growing up you had an ad rag of a paper, TV, and radio. Three main channels. Is it better or worse?

It got better.

This is a story about multiplication. With a browser strategy, a great headline, funny blog, hubs applications (Twitter, iTunes), interest in your customers (even if they spam), great on-demand video, baiting word of mouth referral….  if you can genuinely engage you now have more options through a simple IP protocol than you ever had through traditional channels.

If I want to avoid watch a TV advert I turn off the TV. If I want avoid an internet ad I put a blocker on. But that doesn’t stop an advertiser engaging as the computer is still on.

You just have to be a bit …. engaging?

Originally posted here:
Has the internet made it easier to hide from adverts?

Share/Save/Bookmark

We mustn’t let the cookies crumble

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Everyone in our industry is looking for a better solution than the hoary old ‘last click wins’ payment model. Advertisers want the ability to measure their customers’ complete purchase journey and networks and publishers want to be able to prove the wider reaching value that they know that they provide.

Yet, while the industry should of course continue to explore and pioneer new systems, such as eBay’s Quality Click model or AgencyDMGs ‘Digital Brain’, we shouldn’t take our eye off the last click ball. 

We’ve seen what shrinking marketing budgets and the pressure to shift more volume for less can do. Just ask Orange, T-Mobile and the content owners at Onlyfights.com.

However, touch wood, thanks to heavy auditing from bodies such as IASH and widespread industry back lash, examples of ad misplacement are now few and far between. The budgetary pressure is still being applied though and, like those networks who sought to buy unchecked inventory, there is a growing risk that the last click model could be similarly abused.

Just type the words ‘cookie stuffing’ into Google and you’ll see what I mean. There are numerous blogs by numerous, usually self-styled, marketing ‘gurus’ gleefully explaining and extolling the virtues of hijacking users’ PCs, without their knowledge, and overwriting other cookies to gain fraudulent commissions.

Telling people how to ‘have their cookies and eat them’, if you will. At the same time, reports from researchers such as the UC Berkley School of Law and privacy groups are warning against flash cookies, still largely unknown to the public, which can’t be deleted and can potentially regenerate deleted HTTP cookies.

If these practices were to happen and be exposed (you can just imagine the Daily Mail headlines!) what would the implication be for those networks and agencies that are performing perfectly honestly?

Our industry has enough to contend with without a ‘big brother’ scandal. There are plenty who do not believe in a self-regulatory model and call for over arching and inflexible legislation. Any suggestion that the industry was not behaving responsibly would only serve to add further ammunition to this argument.

The argument that’s forever levelled against the last click model is, of course, that a customer could visit 15 or 20 different sites before they ever make a purchase and is it fair to reward the last one? Fair or otherwise, the reality is that until there is a better system and proven tracking technologies, campaigns will continue be judged, budgets allocated and plans made according to these metrics. Imperfect as it may be then, it is vital that the industry works together to promote and enforce high standards in reporting and ad serving. 

If the reputation of online advertising is tarnished, we will inevitably see the search agencies, affiliates and voucher code world rush to take advantage. 

‘Last click wins’ is clearly not perfect but if we allow it to be abused there will be a very simple outcome: nobody wins. 

Read more:
Share/Save/Bookmark

CUNY makes another argument for freemium content online

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Here’s another argument for the freemium model online. the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism has started the CUNY New Business Models for News Project, and the school’s research so far has found that putting content behind a pay wall online does not work.

CUNY ran the numbers on a few paid models for newspapers online. What did they find? That publications that try charging for all their content will lose millions of dollars.

The Graduate School of Journalism ran two models. One was a 100% paid model. The second was a hybrid model that would keep up to 80% of the content available for free.

Accroding to the New Business Models for News Project:

“We will use as our model market a hypothetical top 25 metro area in the
U.S. where the sole daily newspaper has ceased publication. In short:
We are asking what will fill the void. We posit that no single company
or product will do that. Instead, an ecosystem made up of many players
operating under many models and motives will emerge. In all cases, we
are agnostic as to who owns and operates these entities: legacy or new
companies, large or small.”

Both models used four scenarios with differing subscriber and fee levels. The paid model, holding all content behind a pay wall, would result in a loss of millions of dollars over three years. But in three out of four scenarios, the main site in the hybrid model would be
profitable in its third year. And the main takeaway of the study so far is that profitability rises with the level of free content available.

Media companies are struggling to find a business model that works, and while consumers are opening up to the idea of paying for content, only 51% of publishers believe it will work. Part of the reason is the large gap between what people say they are willing to pay for and what they will actually open their wallets for. Many large publications have been burned in the past by putting their content behind a pay wall. And as the publications burn through cash trying to find a profitable model online, the stakes are becoming greater.

According to Jeff Jarvis, who works with the CUNY journalism school, finding a model that is profitable is a neccessity:

“The only way that journalism is going to be sustainable is if it is
profitable – and out of that market relationship comes many other
benefits: accountability to the public it serves; independence from
funders’ agendas; growth; innovation. This is the future for journalism
we envisioned in the New Business Models for News Project.”

Read the original here:
CUNY makes another argument for freemium content online

Share/Save/Bookmark