onlineprguy's Gooruze Blog

Sam's Club offers SEO. Seriously.

onlineprguy — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:08:00 -0800

Sam's Club is a great retailer. From deals on bulk pretzels to discounted computers, Sam's offers super deals across-the-board thanks to bulk purchasing (and, unions would argue, a too-cozy relationship with China).

But now, business community, rest easy. Sam's Club is offering SEO services to businesses in a convenient package, to be purchased in a box much like a giant pallet of baked beans.

What's wrong with this picture? Where do I start.

First Sam's simplifies things for consumers. 62% of U.S. online consumers are now searching for local goods and services, their website declares. Then Sam's further helps out U.S. businesses by telling us how to capitalize on this trend. How?

For just $25 dollars a month Sam's will ensure your site is getting in on this whole "SEO" thing by:

Establishing a local search profile
Having your site submitted to major search engines

I clicked around the site for more information, but had to fill out a form telling me just how Sam's would take my business deeper into the Web 2.0 world.

I again want to thank Sam's Club for offering me both discounted George Foreman grills, as well as solid SEO services, in one convenient shopping cart.

And therein lies my beef with Sam's: SEO is a highly technical, personalized, and customer-specific offering best tackled by firms taking a great deal of time to understand your business. SEO is part artform, part science, and even among experienced experts we find opinions run the gamut.

Put twenty SEO experts in a room, and you'll get 20 different takes on SEO. This is healthy of course; the debate around search is in constant flux, as everyone in this field continues to learn, expand and grow literally every day.

SEO is about making you findable online. Simple enough, but Sam's Club is dumbing down this concept to laughable extremes. Telling the public that search engine submission and creation of a local listing equals SEO is simply misleading, in terms of educating the business public about what SEO can and should be expected to do for your business.

Search success depends on a one-on-one partnership, where a business must sit down with an online marketing firm and learn exactly what makes you tick. It's a highly personal relationship requiring constant nurturing and adjustments.

Good SEO means going down to the front lines, and truly understanding your business goals. Then the variables become apparent, and only then do the tactics for success begin to crystalize.

I'm wondering, for example, where the hours and hours of keyword research come into play with this $25 dollar offering. Someone straighten me out: Who's worked with Sam's SEO team? What was their advice on subdomains vs. subdirectories? And their advice on H1 headers as related to CSS and font changes?

What's Sam's take on Google's algorithm? Do they offer the deep insight into SEO your business demands? Based on the simplistic and condescending home page outlining their offerings, I challenge someone to surprise me.

The good news: This is yet another sign SEO is going mainstream. If Sam's is offering SEO to customers, this is an indication search is gaining the seat it deserves at the marketing table.

I do remain insulted in the way Sam's offers SEO services in convenient packages, as if what we do for clients is similar to bulk-purchasing frozen shrimp cocktails.

I'm waiting for Sam's public relations offering. "Click here and we'll get you covered in 2 out of 10 magazines your audience may potentially read! Need a speech? Click here for our automated Speech Generator! Employee communications an issue in your firm? Buy some shower curtains along with our ready-to-go employee email newsletter!"

I know with certainty our industry can and will educate clients on why such a big-box solution is a sham for gaining online presence and prominence. I just hope in the meantime quality SEO work isn't sent Sam's way, instead of to the very qualified firms devoted - heart and soul - to helping build businesses online.

Tatiana the Tiger: my pro bono PR work

onlineprguy — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:43:00 -0800

I'd like to make a statement on behalf of Tatiana the Siberian tiger who killed a man and injured two others at the San Francisco Zoo.

I've not been retained by Tatiana or her handlers; rather this is pro bono work conducted completely on my own, as I speak for her as uninvited PR counsel.

I'd like to first remind the press my client is a tiger. Tigers are built to kill. You can contain them and even love them, but they still may want to kill you. Especially those who taunt them; tigers don't like that.

There is an investigation underway regarding whether my now shot-dead client was taunted, or actually let loose on purpose. Regardless, I stand behind some basic facts concerning my client.

Taunted or let free, it's not Tatiana's fault for the killing and mauling. Again, for those of you who missed it, she's a tiger. I've studied the martial arts for most of my life, and there's a reason we revere the tiger: They are efficient killing machines with a strong bone structure and the ability to crack a horse's neck with one swipe of the paw.

You cannot blame my client or her kind for killing you, given the chance, any more than you can blame a horse for shitting in a horse stall. That's what they do. That's nature. Nature is not ours to manipulate.

While our thoughts and prayers are with those hurt or killed by Tatiana, our common sense is aligned with the simple thought: She's a freaking tiger!

Tigers, and all animals held in captivity, are not here for our amusement. They are here because they are remarkable creatures worthy of our respect, and it's a gift to us to view them at all, let alone in man-made facilities. Somewhere in this equation and situation, respect was removed as the critical variable it remains.

You shot my client, as you had to, but I'd once more remind you she's a tiger. Hell, taunt my domesticated bulldog, the sweet big bastard that he is, and he'll attack you too.

Let's find some common ground, for the well-being of future tigers: Tigers kill people. Make sure they cannot. If you can't handle this, get out of the business of caging wild animals whose primary instinct is to strike, kill, and eat you.

Get off the tiger's back, and get on the backs of those who engineered her surroundings, or who allowed anything unseemly to transpire resulting in the death of people in accident.

I am not an animal rights nut; quite the contrary. I view human life as clearly superior to animals, given our gifts including free will. Tatiana had no gift of free will. Someone screwed up big-time, and the death count is at 2. Fix your problem San Fran, or get the hell out of the tiger business.

Media predictions for 2008

onlineprguy — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:07:00 -0800

Apparently it's quite en vogue to offer predictions about the coming year, as we try and paint a collective picture of our expected media landscape. "We" being the online marketing experts on top of every trend and ripple on the Net.

So by we, of course, I mean other people. Still, here are my predictions. Get some paper towels ready to clean up the mess, because I'm about to blow your minds.

1. Little kids in TV commercials will continue to spout out the lines they are fed, concerning deep philosophical issues they'll never understand even as adults. "What if our entire world could run on empathy and energy?" What? Shut up little kid and go play Nintendo.

2. Video will become increasingly important in corporate marketing equations as organizations seek ways to break through the marketing clutter. Related, education will give way to selling, enhancing consumer loyalty while bolstering businesses' bottom lines.

3. Blogs will still be ignored by companies who need them, but don't get this whole "Web 2.0 thing." This will give them all the more reason for kicking themselves in the ass in '09 as they begin to understand the conversations and customers they missed.

4. Commercials will continue to brainwash us with terms such as "suffer." As in, "I suffer from restless leg syndrome" or "nasal congestion." No - you suffer from a shotgun blast or a piano falling on your head. Your stuffy nose is an inconvenience at best.

5. Participating in popular news will continue to make us all collectively more stupid as a nation. From Fox News to GQ, news bites will gloss over, or ignore, what's really important in life. Man's search for meaning takes another gut punch.

6. Metrics will take center stage in Online PR. No longer will "hey boss I got you in X publication" be enough to justify PR budgets. Measuring things such as placement relevancy and related SEO traction for optimized keywords will become standard in reporting demanded by savvy clients.

7. Presidential politics will help define the rules of social media, as respective campaign camps call out other candidates for things such as relying on blogs versus facing reporters. I will continue to block all candidates on Twitter.

8. '08 will be the year of the jet pack. Seriously, expect to see a few dozen early adopters cruising around your city several feet above traffic level.

9. The line between mainstream news and entertainment will continue to blur until something breaks with a piercing noise. That breaking sound will be traditional media's relevance shattering, as we collectively realize our news is better found through bloggers, RSS feeds of choice, and all alternative news sources.

9. con't. . . Exhibit A: Some Fox News talking head (Yes I beat up on them a lot, but they are just so damned dumb) to a major presidential contender: "I will give you a topic and you give me a one word answer. Ready - Go!" WTF? One word answers on the greatest challenges we face as a nation?

10. Gravy will make a comeback at holiday tables across this great nation, healthy hearts be damned. It's not that hard people - drippings, butter, flour, stir. Related: Rachael Ray will continue her march toward world dominance unless someone stops her. Someone, please stop her!

Frozen Pea Friday on Twitter: This post is for you mom

onlineprguy — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:32:00 -0800

Today is Frozen Pea Friday on Twitter and it’s for a special cause. Harnessing the power of 700,000 members - many of whom are thought leaders and first-movers, Twitter is bringing the story of Susan Reynolds to the online conversation forefront.

Susan Reynolds, a highly respected blogger, was diagnosed with breast cancer on December 7th and today she is having surgery to remove the cancer.

In Susan’s words:

“When I discovered a very thick area in my breast I called the doctor. The next day I was in her office. A half hour after that I was in the diagnostic radiologist’s.

A full afternoon and multiple stab wounds later we had a variety of samples of malignant tentacles of tissue that were on their way to the lab.

I was in a little pain - it would increase as the local anesthetic wore off - but left his office with a soft cold pack in my bra.

To keep bleeding down & relieve pain I’d need to keep things cool. Traditional ice packs are hard and heavy. As much as I try to be a good sport I’m not into having a brick sitting on my chest.

Enter a bag of frozen peas.

I tucked it in my bra, took a picture, and was ready to tell the story later that night. That bag of peas added a touch of lightness to what could have been a sad and serious tale.

* A bag of peas was something everybody could relate to.
* Some people love them, some hate them, some use them for their own injuries.
* A bag of frozen peas was a vehicle for conversation and let people tease me instead of having to cry.
* It let people share instead of bemoaning.

I napped a lot during the first few days after the biopsy. The news was sudden and stunning after all and my body was being assaulted.

Mmmm peas for lunch?

When I fell asleep with peas in my cleavage I’d wake to the smell of freshly cooked peas. That made the story funnier, and more human. Of course I shared it because what is life but a series of stories.

After enough cooked peas I moved on to baggies with ice cubes or larger gel-packs which truth be told still are too big and too heavy to be comfy but help with pain.

The peas however live on in the form of stories from others about their use of pea-packs and the line-up of twitter avatars sporting peas in support of my struggle.

This makes them a comfort in more than one way.”
Support Susan's cause here; it's a cause affecting so many of us. God bless you mom, and thanks for being a powerful example of a triumphant survivor. I love you.

Capitalizing on misspellings for SEO - shady or smart?

onlineprguy — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:43:00 -0800

I've been tasked with researching landing pages for client websites to capture search traffic based on misspellings.

I've done some research, and asked my fellow Twitter pals their thoughts, and have come to some conclusions.

First a well-known fact: a huge number of searchers enter the wrong terms, accidentally, when searching online. They may want info on, say, home mortgages, but spell mortgage "mortage" for example.

These searchers want to find my client's site. So what to do?

A for-sure wrong approach: Use a variety of spellings on your landing pages, burying the misspellings on your page so the average reader won't see them. This is bad. I want my clients to know how to spell, and I'm sure they feel the same way.

Another approach: create unique landing pages for misspelled words/search terms. This idea sounds better on the surface. "Hey, I see you were searching for mortgage information. Here's where you probably wanted to go." (and...link).

While I'm still very open to debate, direction and discussion on this topic, I have settled in on an initial verdict (again thanks in part to my Twitter friends).

Capitalizing on misspellings is a good idea for PPC. But as for your own website, I think we may be bordering on gray hat practices. If that's an exaggeration, I'm still thinking this is simply not best practice.

I feel a separate web page, buried in the site's structure to capture misguided, spelling-challenged searches will ultimately detract from a site's credibility. Yes, we are missing traffic if we don't optimize for these searches in some way. But solid, quality content will always pull good traffic without gimmicks or trickery.

I'm not yet willing to say a separate page for wrong words is trickery; I'm maybe 60/40 against adopting this practice.

I hope a conversation ensues following this post. My thoughts at present are - Go for it with PPC, but keep a site's integrity sound with quality content, and let your audience know you can spell while missing traffic from those who can't. Our clients' reputations are at stake here, and I want to be damned sure that if I recommend a strategy for capturing wrong spellings, it's not flying in the face of best practices.

photo credit: http://dcist.com/attachments/dcist_heather/2007_1025_bee.jpg

PPC campaign consistency for higher quality scores

onlineprguy — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:47:00 -0800

Recently a client of ours was considering halting a PPC campaign, with the intent of starting it up next year. Bad move, we collectively thought. Google is a fan of history.

Google repeatedly tells us Quality Score is very important, and it's derived from your ad's CTR, landing page quality, relevance to landing pages, and historical account performance.

This last factor, historical performance, is the reason to reconsider stopping an AdWords campaign cold-turkey. If you start a PPC campaign and cut it short, expect to fall in your quality score rankings when you re-launch it. All that historical equity will be lost.

I'd recommend instead dialing back the daily spend while keeping the campaign active. Why am I blogging about PPC, anyway, I'm now wondering . . .

I actually did have the thought that every PR pro should have to go through ADWords training, and manage a PPC campaign. Understanding PPC is a great start to understanding search, which is a great start to becoming a proficient online PR practitioner. Nice save, Vince!

How to choose a social network 101

onlineprguy — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:40:00 -0800

And by 101, I don't just mean simple for you to understand; I mean simple for me to explain. I'm not Seth Godin, who recently had a great post about how much he knew about the Net in 1993 (and what he could have/should have done with that info).

Nope, in '93 I was graduating high school, which was a side note to my main activities: girls, beer, boxing, being cool and beer.

How things change. Over the past few years I've joined and played in dozens of social networks. I even got paid $500 dollars just today for helping build a fantastic community for online marketers. Really, they paid me and the money is in my account, just for helping supply (hopefully) quality content. There's a business model to consider, but I digress.

Having played in all these social communities - even if I haven't been doing it for 14 years like the esteemed Mr. Godin, I do have some common-sense thoughts to share with my peers.

If you are in the online marketing business, join most of them. If you are a PR pro, definitely join them all, even if it's just to poke around for a bit and get a lay of the land.

We're communicators by trade, and we need to be as comfortable in Facebook as we are in Word; as relaxed in a niche Ning PR community as we are writing speeches. How do we do this? Time. Error. Success. Flubs, small victories - and then - we slowly gain knowledge we can actually share with clients as actionable advice.

But only if we've been knee-deep and dirty ourselves in those social networks. The "game" analogy as applied to social media is not a bad one in my opinion, and this is definitely not a spectator sport.

Many will fall way to the few

But as I look at the spreadsheet I have tracking my social networks (I really have one), I'm thinking most of those current 19 networks will eventually give way to just a few.

Why, and based on what? Relevancy and usefulness. I see a few categories naturally shaping our social network usage as professionals and online society members-at-large:

Professional. Gooruze is a niche professional community giving me online marketing insights. I can go to Topix or Ning but why bother? I have a question or need answers, or want to share - Gooruze meets that need. Linkedin is useful for networking, they say; I've yet to use it personally for any reason but to maintain a presence there.

Personal. How do I stay connected to a group of friends not in my professional online circle? It was MySpace a few years ago, and has morphed into Facebook.

Pownce? Their tagline is "share stuff with friends." What the hell does that mean? I don't know: Professionally I need to play a bit more there, while personally I am a bit dismissive at the moment.

Connectivity. I can connect with friends, peers and even those I don't know (yet) through the above networks. But for me, no community yet rivals Twitter. I view this as community messaging at its finest. I can follow friends and hold online conversations, all the while getting breaking news and insight from online thought leaders.

Of course RSS and email remain a part of the connectivity / information sharing equation, but even as I type these features are morphing. If I want to read a post from Solis I can usually catch it on Twitter, with no need to get my feeds through a third party. If I want to talk with George Nemeth or Clyde Miles, Twitter works for that too.

Ironically, as I type I see George and Clyde talking on Twitter. One site will dial me into their exchange, while giving me the insights, opinions and news of countless others.

Social media will shake itself out in the long-run. I have a few personal favorites, but recognize the need to keep playing in every arena to best explore an area that, by all appearances, still resembles the wild west transfered online.

The great press release debate

onlineprguy — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:13:00 -0800

Pr people must be a confused lot. A press release is the foundation for releasing news to the media, right? Well, you have BL Ochman saying the press release is dead. In fact, a search for "press release is dead" on Google produces 14,400 results.

And BL's points are great: "Respect today's reality: take the time to write less and make it mean more. " And, "Want to win coverage? Start by throwing out the tattered old print press release. Write like you have 10 seconds to make a point. Because online, you do."

K, can't argue there. Then we hear Facebook is the new press release, a thought put forward by Robert Scoble.

Hold on there sport, many in the industry say, press releases are great; they simply must be social in nature. Who says this? Todd Defren, for one.

Wait - not so fast says Greg Jarboe. Social press releases are, in fact, a meatball sundae.

No guys, you are wrong, says Brian Solis in his elaborate, thoughtful case for the social release.

Is your head spinning yet?

Look, here's how I use press releases, and why I find them valuable to my clients.

First, a press release - devoid of corporate bullshit - indeed provides solid background for media covering news. Beyond that, a press release optimized for search offers:

Links back to the client's site, directly driving relevant traffic

Search: An optimized release gives the ability for media and consumers to find company news based on key terms optimized for search

SEO boost: Optimized releases distributed to search engines boost company search rankings based on key terms

Fresh content: hanging an optimized release off a company's site is a great way to add fresh, spider-friendly content augmenting search visibility and page rank

Nailing two birds with one stone: An optimized release sent out through PRWeb secures placements while simultaneously increasing search rankings and online visibility

Measurable results: Combining client site analytics with data provided by an online distribution service clearly tells a client who is visiting their site, based on a release optimized for specific search terms

Rich media: Online releases offer the chance to interact with a brand through images and video, increasingly important in the universal search equation.

Case in point: My firm recently sent out an optimized release securing both placements and a search ranking boost based on optimized key phrases.

It's true we secured significant media coverage through careful hand-pitching. My point: One PR tool doesn't necessarily need pronounced DOA, in favor of other tactics. All effective tactics can, and should, have a place as arrows in a marketer's quiver.

My suggestion: Write releases optimized for search. Send them out to gain search traction, as well as media placements. Then, carefully hand-pitch targeted media (including bloggers) as BL suggests - be relevant, brief, and helpful. After that, examine all other creative ways to secure publicity for your clients. From blogger outreach to leveraging appropriate social media, leave no stone unturned. A message on a Facebook wall to a journalist? Sure - if all of your fundamental bases are properly covered.

It's this grand mix of several smart tactics that ensure maximum online exposure for your client's news.

Is the press release dead? Yes, if it's the only tool you use - you are likely just adding more corporate fluff while cluttering editor inboxes with your bulky attachments. But thanks to the Net, press releases are more relevant than ever as a tool for securing both media placements and impressions resulting from search.

Website ghost towns: why sites don't get hits (revisited)

onlineprguy — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:23:00 -0800

I got an email today from a woman interested in getting her hands on an article I wrote a few years ago: "Website Ghost Towns." Actually I wrote it in 1999, and it found a home in several leading PR magazines.

I wrote the lady back saying no, I'm sorry, I don't have a copy of that article - other than in my dusty print portfolio at home in my closet. I told her much has changed since then, so the article was likely quite dated.

Then I got home and began to wonder just how dated my article was; I smiled to myself as I pulled my portfolio from my closet, realizing it weighs about three times that of my laptop.

So what were my gems of wisdom 8 years ago regarding capturing website traffic? At the time I was peeved at companies slapping their web address all over the place as an afterthought, not tied into any particular marketing message/plan. My solution? Use this equation: Visit our website "X," in order to "Y and Z." In other words, give me a reason to visit your site.

I know, revolutionary huh? At the time it apparently was revolutionary enough to get published in PRWeek, PRSA's Tactics, and several other publications. But PR always has been a bit behind the online times. Quit snickering, I learned PR in a conservative school and initially put it to practice in a conservative Fortune 300 manufacturer, where we focused on quality CEO speeches and great newsletters. And not on PR's tie to the web.

I love looking back on what I've learned, and this was the perfect chance. So what did I tell the woman, off-the-cuff, who was looking to drive traffic to her website? I recommended plenty of quality content, SEO, a blog and an Online PR program to ensure use of searchable keywords and fresh, spider-friendly content. Maybe some PPC to launch the site, an email program, and outreach to the community including bloggers, explaining why people should visit her hopefully social and content-rich site.

I liken traditional PR to my childhood: It was a simpler time. We drank water from a hose and loved the taste; we watched TV even if we didn't have a remote control; and the Noid promised us pizzas in 30 minutes while we played video games like Frogger.

SEO, SEM, PPC, Online PR, social media . . . I do have to tell you that as much as I liked water from the hose, water tastes much better coming out of the bottle. And I remain grateful to those who taught me the communication basics, even as I'm equally grateful to those taking the time to teach me the best in online practices.

Yellowbook's mainstream SEM mention

onlineprguy — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:31:00 -0800

In the latest cheesy Yellowbook commercial I happened to catch the other night, actor and over-the-top Asian stereotype David Carradine was offering advice to a small, attentive group of business pros.

Dressed in oriental garb and playing the role of guru, Carrradine was peppered with marketing questions which I paraphrase here.

"How shall we advertise?" someone asks. "YellowBook," he tells them, referring to the massive print publication that clogs my mailbox (and then trashcan) every few months. "What about the Internet?" someone asks. "Yellowbook.com," he answers sagely.

Then a third question piqued my interest: "But what about people searching online?" That's the first mainstream, pop-culturish reference to search engine marketing I've personally heard. Here, in between the Simpsons and Family Guy, was a commercial suggesting there's value to search, and questioning its place in the marketing mix.

Carradine says something about trusting YellowBook to ensure their ads are placed on prominent websites. His answers aren't what interest me: YellowBook's premise is backwards anyway in my opinion. I haven't picked up a clunky yellow page book in years, nor have most people I know with a Net connection and working fingertips. We search first, before yanking out the heavy yellow page book from some dusty drawer.

But my point for calling out this SEM mention is this: We as Internet marketers and online PR pros are still encountering clients who don't quite "get it." This commercial underpinned, to me, the simplest selling proposition of SEO and SEM: We make your business findable through search.

If the viewers of the low-brow Family Guy cartoon sitcom can process this thought, it's my hope businesses across the spectrum are also increasingly realizing the intrinsic value of Internet marketing.

The promise of a viral video

onlineprguy — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:41:00 -0800

It bugs me when politicians are called out for changing opinions. As if learning, growing and evolving is inherently bad. If you read something on my blog counter to something I've said prior - hopefully it means I am learning and growing as well. Now that we're clear:

Should agencies promise clients viral videos? It depends on how you define "viral." If by viral you mean your video will spread around the web like wildfire, the answer is a clear no.

If by viral you mean a video designed for the Internet, utilizing social features allowing for the easy spread of your video and message - yes, that is quite doable and is often a smart marketing tactic.

No one can force a video to go viral; the biggest and best Internet sensations often are complete surprises coming out of left field.

Rather than focusing on creating a video designed to be the Net's next big hit, firms should focus on creating videos that build brand messages, and create actual sales and predefined conversions. Included in those videos can be elements of great viral videos: Edgy, humorous, unusual content that capture attention and stimulate conversation.

Don't start out with "going viral" as a goal; rather create great content furthering client goals and maybe, just maybe, your video will be the next Dramatic Chipmunk.

Bribing bloggers or best practice? Product review.

onlineprguy — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:47:00 -0800

Give a blogger a product, and have him or her review it. Cool, or not cool?

An over-covered issue clearly, thanks in part to the Microsoft controversy when bloggers were given computers loaded with Vista to test-drive. But bloggers gain increasing prominence every week and actually every day, and this issue deserves revisiting as best-practices continue to evolve and become cemented in the social media realm.

As I blogged about this issue, I knew I needed an expert take. I called a journalist and current blogger for a highly respected Cleveland business publication. He quickly brought up a key point:

He said: Yes, journalists have been taking products from PR pros for years, in order to review them. But these journalists have an editorial check and balance system. In other words, the editor makes sure the product is shipped back. "Great review Tim, now ship that back." Tim can't take home that Acer laptop; he returns it. It's not a gift - and thus clearly is not a bribe.

Not so with bloggers. No one's monitoring them like the newsroom hawks watching their reporters (trust me I know as a former reporter). Implied in editorial control is a more objective approach to the product, as it's not a gift but a test-run.

My take, and where the theory of bribes falls short: Ever meet an influential blogger?

They are all pretty damned opinionated and outspoken. They balk at bribes, and call out companies attempting to win their influence through gifts. Go ask Bl Ochman what she thinks about free gifts influencing her reporting on a product. Expect a mouth-full.

Robert Scoble compared sending computers to bloggers to pay-per-post. I'd ask, can a tech-savvy crowd, already connected to the web via high-tech machines, be influenced by a free freaking Acer loaded with shitty software? My answer is no. No way.

Still, opinions remain strong on both sides. My research shows some bloggers calling those accepting products to review as "whores" whose credibility takes a major hit for subsequent commentary/product review.

Conversely, many bloggers see "outdated" standards surrounding product reviews. If you ship them a Vista-loaded machine and they hate it - you'll know it and fast. That's a fast-ticket to very bad PR. Now we have a double-edged sword in the blogger free-gift equation.

Another variable to consider in the blogger bribe equation: The cost of the gift. Shipping me a new wine bottle opener is one thing; shipping a laptop I can keep if I wish is entirely different. I've never been shipped a free laptop, but can't think I'd try and find good things to say about the software loaded on it - if the product really sucked. I don't need your free laptop, and neither do the influential bloggers you are reaching out to, most likely.

Back to my point about bloggers: They may not have editorial checks and balances, but they do have strong opinions and values. They won't comprise pimping the horrid Vista just to hold onto an Acer laptop. Or if they like Vista, they'll say so in an honest fashion and boost your brand.

Bottom line: Shipping products to bloggers for their opinion is okay. Just be transparent, and make sure the blogger is transparent in his or her review. "Yes I got this for free, but it sucked," for example. Or, "Yes I got this for free, and loved it."

Send out your products to bloggers for test-drives. Expect and accept before-hand any diverse commentary contrary to your beloved mission statements, and know that getting influentials to talk about your brand is a good thing. Stimulating conversation about your brand or product will benefit you in the long-run. Like great marketers before me have said, "Give your brand to the consumer, and they will return it in better shape than you gave it to them."

There are no gods online

onlineprguy — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:53:00 -0800

Man, in college did I piss off the administration. We were adopting a curriculum shift; one I felt discarded solid courses teaching fundamental skills (like Western Civ) in exchange for flaky peripheral courses focusing on trendy topics.

I was editor of the school paper, and I loved the catbird seat in which I found myself. I sat back and blasted the academic dean in hard-hitting (and very biased) editorials week after week. While the old-school University board of directors loved it, the administration hated it. What was their recourse?

A paltry letter to the editor? Fast-forward to now. What if the school paper were online versus print, and social in nature allowing for comments, community, and feedback?

The academic dean with whom I tore into with great pleasure and perhaps reckless abandon could have sat back and done nothing: Others would have picked up the fight and battled for him. I can imagine the dozens of angry students and offended professors who could have commented on our paper's website. Or started their own blogs, websites and social communities with platforms such as Blogger and Ning.

This academic dean in my sights now would have potentially dozens or hundreds of others making his case for him, across several diverse Internet channels from Twitter to Facebook. A pitch for curriculum change he once gave likely only to the board would now be heard to anyone with Internet access.

That's true democracy in action: That's the potential use of the Internet to support the very principles I was fighting to keep alive. At the least, it would have made the fight a fair one in terms of open public conversation.

That's the power of the Net, empowering people from all walks of life to magnify their collective voices a thousand times over. The Net will always have highly revered figureheads for whom many take a collective bow. But the very nature of 2.0 communities means dissenters are guaranteed a seat at the table; if they are not offered a seat they can simply create one, sit down, and start talking.

I look forward to this election cycle as a showcase for the future direction of social media's capabilities, power and reach. Hillary's using the Net in a powerful fashion; and look at what conservative Mike Huckabee did by tapping the Internet superstar Chuck Norris in an effort to win over youngsters more likely to lean Democrat.

The people are speaking, every day and every second. And every message, every comment, every single blog entry has the capability to be the next shot heard 'round the world.

Community Manager: who wears the hat?

onlineprguy — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:44:00 -0800

As I look at social media participation from a personal and professional angle, it's clear an enormous amount of time is spent maintaining and growing relationships online. It's this time, focus and energy commitment that's causing the explosion of the community manager as a full-time position within both agencies and corporations.

When agencies recommend social strategies to clients, it must be defined clearly from the outset who will be doing most of the social media legwork given this is typically no small task.

It's helpful to first define the role of community manager a bit further:

A community manager advocates for customers. At the same time, he or she advocates for his own company, products and services. I see the community manager role as similar to the way an account exec supports both his clients, and his internal agency creative teams, during any given project.

Secondly a community manager needs savvy online communications skills, and the ability to enter into conversations and shape/manage conversations while using social media best practices.

A community manager should also specialize in information gathering and feedback: He or she is on the front lines, continually interacting with consumers. The question is, what is done with this valuable primary data? It should be synthesized and conveyed back through an organization to ensure ongoing process and product improvements are implemented, and the customer's opinion actually counts.

At agencies and corporations alike, this function of community manager (now a rapidly growing Facebook group) falls well within the skills of an online PR pro or communications specialist.

The key is to set clear guidelines between both agency and organization at the outset of a relationship, so all parties are clear on who does what as social media becomes an increasingly important part of savvy firms' marketing mixes.

Optiem weekly post roundup

onlineprguy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:00 -0800

Optiem's blogging weekly roundup:

Director of Technology Brent McLean offers advice on email standards, and the social media newsroom for which we are developing for several clients.

Director of emerging technologies David Mead questions whether Facebook is too social, as well as BrightCove's move away from user-generated content.

Megan Hauer, director of Digital and Media content, launches her foray into the Twitter realm, and what that means for social media.

Chief firm strategist Clyde Miles gives a primer in URL dos and don'ts.

Creative Director Paul Fresty inspires clients to take risks and stand out.

Our new Pay-Per-Click specialist Patrick McNulty jumps into the blogosphere with his take on online marketing metrics.

And I blog about RSS killing the TV news star.

Busy week at Optiem, as usual.

Hillary 2.0: Online PR in action

onlineprguy — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:00:00 -0800

Note: I endorse no candidate nor party on this blog, nor do I intend to: I simply comment on online PR & social media practices as they unfold, wherever they unfold.

Now my ramblings: Both Bill and Hillary are no dummies. They can work the press and the public through skill, experience and polish not seen anywhere else in American politics in recent years.

But, many journalists are quite pissed at what they perceive as Hillary avoiding the media and instead using her website to get her message directly to the people.

Hillary certainly knows she needs traditional media to achieve her campaign goals and ultimately win the election; however she also appears to realizes a key tenant of online PR.

Everyone is a publisher.

Hillary does continually put out news. She's doing so through her Hillary Hub. She's taking control of her message, and harnessing the power of online PR to put her message directly in front of the people - no media gatekeepers needed.

Journalists are miffed, and rightly so - they are losing that gatekeeper power they once held so tightly. That power continuing to erode, as social media and online PR take a center stage in this election cycle as never before.

Is this bad for democracy? Not in my opinion - her message travels across the Net and thus hits everyone she's targeting or seeking her news. Is this bad for journalists? Yes. They are circumvented in this process, and have to wonder about things like YouTube debates further using social media to facilitate campaign coverage. Versus the old model where we all got our news from network TV or the daily papers.

Some candidates are better adopting social media than others, as I cover in my analysis of social media news centers.

Hillary, are you avoiding tough media questions? That's for the pundits to fight out. Are you using online PR in a way never before seen in the history of American politics? Yes.

Journalists now have to accept the fact they no longer control content, news and opinion. They are but a piece of the pie - a pie increasingly offering more slices dedicated to social media and direct-to-consumer conversation.

So what's the value of traditional journalism and real reporting? Call Hillary out on news she puts out through her site. Question the policies she proposes in your columns and editorial pages. Take her to task.

But don't bitch about any candidate's ability to control media and message as never before: If you really want to complain - blame Al Gore for inventing the Internet.

What's exciting about insurance?

onlineprguy — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:08:00 -0800

Nothing. That's why we've created this series here. Check out the first episode and get caught up at MayTheBestWin's YouTube Channel.

Want to go viral? Add Chuck.

onlineprguy — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:49:00 -0800

NBC's product placement overkill

onlineprguy — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:11:00 -0800

NBC's 30 Rock sitcom is part of a pretty strong Thursday night lineup. But use of blatant product placements makes for a pretty weak marketing strategy.

In last night's episode, Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) and Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) take a moment to discuss how great Verizon phones are. Fey's character mentions how people should rush out to a retailer right now and buy a Verizon phone; then she turns to the camera and says, "Can we have our money now?"

Interruption marketing (let's not kid ourselves; that's exactly what product placement is) colliding with weak writing makes for bad advertising. I'd bet Fey, as clever and accomplished as she is, felt dumb delivering that line. This is from a show bragging their episodes are still new, and not affected by the writers' strike.

30 Rock has used product placements before, just not in such a blatant and poorly executed fashion. I hope the show stops using this tactic; it was annoying, distracting, and in poor taste.

Top 10 signs you are an Online PR blogging geek

onlineprguy — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:33:00 -0800

Today I was joking with friends at work about how my blog is indexed more frequently than a client's blog we're managing. Probably a conversation that wouldn't be super-funny to our client, but it prompted a humorous internal conversation:

How do you know you are a true online PR blogging geek? Here are some signs:

You check your blog's Google analytics - two times a day or more.
While you love Firefox's SEO plugins, you are all about Flock's social browser; you also agree with the statement: Once you go Flock, you never go back.
You consider anyone still using IE, other than for testing purposes, a total nerd. (versus geek, I guess, which is cooler. Maybe).
You twitter about the fact that you are twittering.
A common bar pickup line you use is, "hey baby, did you see who commented on my last post?"
You care more about your blogroll than your wedding invitation list (for more, see my posts tagged: "fast route to divorce").
When chatting with a prospective date online, and are asked for a pic, you reply with your blog's URL.
You find yourself using "API" in casual conversation.
You sit back and smile with satisfaction over your excellent use of keywords and anchor text in your posts.
Finally: You relate to any or all of the above.

None of this is bad - well, the relationship advice (or lack of) is nothing to follow - but Online PR pros getting excited about blogging is a good thing for our profession and our clients. Passion translates into results.