Archive for February 2009

MySpace Autopsy and Analysis of Facebook’s Success/Vulnerabilty

Feb
26
2009

2
Comments



My how the mighty have fallen! The once ubiquitous social networking site MySpace.com is well on the way to becoming the next Friendster.com. Who’s Friendster.com you ask? Exactly. The above graph compares the three social networking sites. The little green line at the bottom is Friendster. Barely a blip on the radar. But four years ago Friendster was the next big thing. Late Night TV had regular Friendster jokes. People were reconnecting after years of being out of touch. Everything was going great then MySpace came along.

MySpace wasn’t really any better than Friendster, in fact it was, and is, much worse! But it had some advantages.

First, it was built by web and email marketers (translation- spammers), so they knew some stuff about getting traffic. In fact MySpace was started by email spammers, eUniverse, as a way to get around spam filters, gather demographic information and find a new marketing venue for their clients. They made up a bogus story about “Tom” and the rest is history. Informative article on MySpace.

Secondly, it had band profiles that allowed bands to easily upload, for free, music that could be streamed by anyone, anywhere. Bands loved this (I was one of them, signing on in 2004 before the site really took off). They invited all their “fans” (translation- friends and family) to “friend” them so they could announce shows, etc. So bands flocked to MySpace leaving GarageBand.com and other sites in the dust.  Soon almost every band had a profile on MySpace and their friends were milling about finding other stuff to occupy their time. Friendster really dropped the ball on this opportunity and I think only added this functionality way after the traffic shift had happened.

Third, MySpace didn’t care what you did to your profile. You could embed videos, change the look (leading to a cottage industry of people who would charge to “pimp” your profile) and pretty much do whatever you wanted. You could set up business profiles. Run scripts to “friend” everyone in the world. Create false personas (leading to a glut of questionable folks signing up and the subsequent backlash). The site was very much a wild west for the first few years.

So MySpace rolled along, got bought by Rupert Murdoch, continued to grow and generally rested on their laurels while striking up ad deals and other stuff that was more about money than about people.

Then it happened, in the course of only a few months MySpace jumped the virtual shark. Everyone was friends with everyone (translation- friends with no-one), spammers had started to exploit the site and half the messages were from spam bots, child molesters found a perfect forum to pursue their evil deeds, scams were everywhere, account hijacking was out of control and the site had more “unexpected errors”, slow servers and downtime than any other site on the web, ever. It was a complete mess.

Along comes Facebook, the night in shiny blue armor! Here’s a platform that doesn’t let you mess up your home page, discourages businesses from joining, closely polices activity, has almost no downtime, is easy to use and just feels right.

Thus begins the great MySpace migration. Just as others had made the harrowing trek from Friendster to MySpace, they now packed up and headed to Facebook. They were in search of the ever allusive meaningful conversation. They had it, briefly, at Friendster and MySpace, but now saw Facebook as the last great hope. The next best last stop on the social networking road. “Just give me a place to hang out with my friends, leave me alone and don’t let the freaks and spammers in” was the battle cry. Facebook got it so they got the traffic. So far they are keeping it and growing, but it won’t be easy.

Now the challenge for Facebook is to maintain the environment where a meaningful conversation can continue to happen between the members BUT also find a way to sell ads AND compete against upstarts like Twitter and Ning that are increasing threats to their membership base and in particular, their member’s time on site. They are still nowhere near Facebook in traffic but if we have learned anything from the recent social networking wars is to not discount an upstart.



My advice to Facebook is the remember the lessons of MySpace and Friendster. Yes, functionality is important and Yes, you need to make money at some point. But don’t forget that people are there because they find and take meaning from the experience. That is your golden goose, don’t poke and choke it in an attempt to keep up or get paid. If your growth slows, don’t panic, go to your members and have an honest conversation on ways to improve the platform. If you listen to what they want and put the better ideas in action they feel they have ownership and that will propel your continued success.

What’s Behind Amazon’s Success?

Feb
24
2009

0
Comments



No question the last few months have been murder for most businesses. I’m happy that Small Box is doing well and still growing but believe me, I’m nervous like everyone else. So when you see a large corporation actually grow during this time you pay attention. A lot has been written about Amazon’s success so I’m not going to retread, hopefully, too much of that ground. I want to focus on one particular thing I think they do better than anyone else.

Amazon is acting like a real bricks and mortar company. They know real people are coming to their site.

I know that sounds simple but think about how many companies run websites that virtually ignore their visitors treating them like numbers and not people? I would argue that almost every business website out there needs to be run like it’s a real store front. Regardless of what you are selling.

How often do you look at your site’s Analytics? Some? None? What’s Analytics? The answer needs to be daily. Everyday, look at how people are coming to your site- keywords, links, direct. Look at where they go, where they get lost, what they are not finding.

Most small business website have 10-100 visitors a day in my experience. If you had 10-100 people walking into your business everyday, looking around, maybe asking some questions that you don’t have answers for, and then leaving, wouldn’t you be in a panic to fix that problem?

I’m in a constant state of panic when it comes to web traffic for Small Box and our clients. Why aren’t the visitors doing what we want them to do? How can we direct them to the conversion pages? What are they looking for that we aren’t giving them? Why are they bouncing back to Google after typing in a high intent search that we should perfectly match?

Your website’s visitors are real people. Most of them aren’t finding what they want when they get to your site. Amazon gets this and they obsess over giving their visitors and repeat visitors in particular, the exact experience they want to have.

I’m not a huge fan of Amazon’s design but it works. Sometimes horrible web designs make very effective websites- see plentyoffish.com for instance. I know it makes little sense but remember that you are not your audience. Your audience doesn’t care much for what kind of experience you want to push on them. They want to have the experience they expect to have, give it to them and you will see some of the same success that Amazon continues to have.

What’s On Your Hook? Quality vs Quantity on the Web

Feb
21
2009

6
Comments



Is it better to have 100 hooks in the water with stale bait or only 1 or 2 with the tastiest bait in the world?

I’ve been thinking about content, SEO, blogging, etc a lot recently. Some of it has to do with a recent post that has stirred considerable interest but mostly from some private conversations with industry folks I really respect.

It suddenly hit me that there are generally two approaches to content. Quantity vs quality.

If the web is an Ocean and Google the tour guide then what is the best way to be a featured stop on the tour? Is it to have as many attractions (read pages) that aren’t necessarily that vibrant (read activity) but show up at every turn or is it better to invest more energy into the BEST stop on the tour (assuming a search query is the “tour”) that people go out of their way to find?

I think the answer is different depending on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are looking to sell a trinket and make a quick buck I would argue that having a shack at every stop makes sense. The web version of a hot dog cart.

But if you are looking to be a destination, build customer loyalty, have repeat business, charge a premium for your services and products then I would argue you should invest in one really good destination (your website or blog) and maybe put up some signs along the path pointing to your awesome place. The web version of “Rock City”.

By “invest” I mean engagement. Be active, encourage others to engage, be that “tasty bait” that the fish can’t resist. Google will see that activity and reward you for it.

Neither approach is wrong, it really matters who your audience is. I would argue that a service company is best served by being “Best In Class” and a product company is better served by having as many hooks in the water as possible to catch all the fish swimming by looking for a quick snack but not a relationship.

Ideally you want both but there are only so many hours in the day and it’s important to use your time effectively. I would argue you closely consider your audience, your product and put together a strategic plan that finds a good mix between quantity and quality.

The Heart Of SEO – Usability

Feb
17
2009

0
Comments

I’ve been thinking about SEO (Search Engine Optimization) a lot recently. My recent post on Compendium really brought some of my thoughts into focus. Here is what I think a website’s guiding SEO strategy should be- usability. Not title tags, Meta tags, external links, etc. These are all important but really the heart of SEO is about the user. Giving them the experience they want to have when they come to your website.

You can spend a lot of money, and many do, on getting a lot of traffic to your website. But if it isn’t the right traffic or it isn’t sticky traffic then what good is it? You need to have a website that attracts and retains the right people. Engages them in a conversation. If you do this, along with the obvious on-site SEO stuff, you will see your rankings increase over time for the right searches.

Think like Google thinks. They aren’t really a technology company they are a connection company (borrowing a great phrase from our buddies at MediaSauce). They are trying to match people with the best possible result for their search. If they connect you with the right listing then they will consider the search a success. More importantly if you land on a page that quickly addresses your search and guides you to the information you need you will consider the search a success. If you bounce back to Google and modify your search or choose another listing then the site you landed on has failed. Google sees this and takes note.

Get to know your visitors. Use Google Analytics or GetClicky.com (my personal fav). They are as real as people walking in the front door of your business, looking around, maybe asking some questions and most of the time leaving without taking action. If you had dozens or hundreds of people doing that every day wouldn’t you be in a panic to fix the problem and convert more of them into paying customers? Start thinking of your website that way. People are walking in, looking around, not finding what they want and leaving, silently.

There are still a lot of ways to game Google but eventually Google will find those tricks and eliminate them. One thing they will never punish a site for is being user friendly. Focus on that and the rest will follow.

The problem with Compendium Blogware and how to fix it

Feb
16
2009

43
Comments

Note: due to the interest in this blog and the many excellent comments posted in response I want to encourage those finding this post for the first time to also take the time to review Chris Baggott’s comments in particular. He is the CEO of Compendium and I feel his responses are particularly useful as a counter balance to my points made in the following blog. Compendium blogs do a lot of good things for a lot of good companies. Although I still have concerns that I voice in my own comments below I do feel that Chris has done a great job of explaining and defending his company’s software and I encourage readers to balance my critique with his response. Chris is a real gentleman and has earned a good deal of respect from me for taking the time to answer in detail my, and others, questions and concerns.Thanks! Jeb
________________________________________________
I’m asked about Compendium Blogware on a regular basis. The questions come from friends, associates, clients and prospective clients. They’ve all heard about Compendium and want to know my take. This is what I tell them…

First off, I am not eager to critique a local company, especially one that is doing well, which is why I have waited months to post this blog. But I feel I need to post my concerns in a public venue since others might benefit from it as well as Compendium since I think there is definitely a market for business blogging services and I think there are some fairly simple things they can do to fix the issues I identify. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to Compendium to not give them a forum to respond to my feedback and I hope they do on their own blog or using the comments below.

What is Compendium? They are an Indianapolis company founded by Chris Baggott, of Exact Target fame. Their service is providing customized business blogs on their proprietary blogging platform. The primary “twist” that gives them an advantage over free services like Blogger and WordPress is that they provide keyword research and create “compended” URLs based around targeted keyword phrases. Here’s a couple examples from a blog for Monon Coffee here in Broad Ripple (great place btw!)

http://mononcoffee.compendiumblog.com/blog/broad-ripple-cafe
http://mononcoffee.compendiumblog.com/blog/broad-ripple-coffee-shop

See how the content is almost the same but the URLs are different. They are set up to show up as different pages in Google and target their respective searches- “Broad Ripple Cafe” and “Broad Ripple Coffee Shop“. And they do show up right at the top of their respective searches.

So what’s wrong with that? Well the real problem is that Google doesn’t like intentional duplicate content meant to manipulate search results and this is exactly what Compendium’s software does. It “compends” the same blog (content) under different static, keyword rich URLs as I demonstrated above.

Right now Compendium is essentially gaming Google’s algorithm but it may not last forever. They run the real risk of Google changing their algorithm to punish the Compendium blogs essentially pushing them down in Google’s listings. Google tweaks their algorthim about 400 times a year, so every day they run the risk of being “tweaked”. Since many of Compendium clients are on sub-domains of compendiumblog.com this could mean a big loss of traffic for their clients from Google. Not good.

In my experience Google will eventually eliminate any inefficiencies from their algorithm as they become exploited. The more successful Compendium is, ironically, the more they are at risk. While I think what Compendium is doing is novel it is essentially a Grey Hat trick. They are gaming a system for clients and it’s pretty clear from my conversations with some of their clients that most of them do not realize the risk Compendium is taking on their behalf. Compendium, however, does not see this as a risk.

Another reason their clients’ blogs get indexed quickly for relevant searches probably has something to do with the fact that many of the blogs are all a sub-domain of compendiumblog.com- i.e. clientname.compendiumblog.com- which essentially gives the blog a big push into the search engine waters. This pro could easily become a con should that main URL get blacklisted by search engines for duplicate content.

Compendium will argue that their compended blog pages are actually the best result for the related search even if there is duplicate content on them. I would disagree. Who goes to Google to make two different searches to pull up two different pages to find the same content? That is not what I use Google for- I want new, different information when I modify my search. (note: Chris’ response below does address this concern satisfactorily in my opinion).

How can Compendium fix this problem?
First off, stop duplicating content under static URLs. Secondly provide content writing services for clients so they have real, relevant, not duplicate, content under every static URL. There are already other companies popping up to provide this valuable service of interviewing clients and ghost writing their blogs (not this one!). Some clients will self motivate, some really need help, provide this help and charge for it. This is potentially a huge market, go after that along with making the Compendium platform SEO friendly in a very White Hat (no tricks) way.

(note: another idea I had after posting this blog was to have their software only allow blog content to be compended in 10-25% of the static category/keyword URLs).

Chris, Ali and their team at Compendium have done a fantastic job of identifying their market and promoting their platform. I am really impressed with their sales strategy. I’ve met Chris a couple times and he is a genuinely nice guy with good ideas. This is not personal in any way, in fact, I have avoided posting this blog since I have conflicted feelings about critiquing a local company. But my main concern is that their service may be putting their clients at risk and is potentially a house of cards built on an ever changing algorthim. Maybe they will get lucky but I wouldn’t bet on it.

About Duplicate Content- here is a link to a blog on Google Webmaster addressing this issue. Not all duplicate content is bad but if it appears “intentional” with the aim of manipulating search results then Google can punish the site for this. Another Webmaster blog addresses this issue and includes this quote- “In the rare cases in which we perceive that duplicate content may be shown with intent to manipulate our rankings and deceive our users, we’ll also make appropriate adjustments in the indexing and ranking of the sites involved.”