Having already suggested that the Australian Advertising Industry is generally clueless about marketing their own services on the web I thought to monster a couple of other industries. So I had a look at the web sites of 50 West Australian wineries – about 15% of the industry. I checked each for sensible use of Title and Description tags, site maps, animation and links. Here are the findings:

Comment: Some pretty sites; 3 Drops, Moss Wood, Beckett’s Flat and Matilda Estate; shame no-one is seeing them. Honestly, what’s the point if you’re not getting traffic?

Some fine examples of animation kitsch too by the way. If you’re into that sort of thing (then you’re as sick as I am): Amberley Estate, Brookland Valley…

Although my analysis here does not give the whole picture, it suggests a lack of web marketing sophistication, both in the area of web strategy and search engine optimisation.

The larger businesses were only better than the small businesses in one respect; more traffic and more incoming links. They showed no greater online marketing skills.

Businesses can improve their web rankings with a few hours’ work. Much can be done by adding text content that includes the keywords that people type into Google. If you’re selling ‘grenache’, make sure you have a web page, Title and Description tags that mention ‘grenache’. Yell out if I’m going too fast.

Companies wanting to make the web a serious part of their marketing mix should develop a web strategy. This may focus on particular export markets, distribution channels or niche market segments. In almost every case, it will require the company to develop content that is relevant/entertaining/useful to the reader.

I ran the first Web Promotion SHOCK seminar yesterday and it was poorly attended.

Getting the marketing right is a process that almost always involves risk and failure. I remember a guy who got promoted at Colgate-Palmolive while I was working there. He’d launched a new product into test market. Got the formulation wrong, the packaging wrong and the advertising wrong. But the market research showed why it failed and the company then knew what to do. Risk, failure, knowledge.

In the case of my seminar, I believe I got the proposition wrong and the creative wrong, so I need to go back and do some more testing. I think I’ll do this with AdWords. But where I failed spectacularly was in my attempts to get some PR; promotion that has an editorial component, is unpaid and carries the implicit endorsement of a third party.

I spoke to the Breakfast DJ of a commercial radio station who said he’d be prepared to do an interview. Right demographic and all of that. He asked for an outline, so I sent him some suggested questions and how I would respond. It was light and entertaining stuff about Google and web promotion but I proposed to mention the seminar. He emailed me back saying this: “this is an ad and I will get my ass kicked by management”. He explained that because I was charging for the seminar, company policy deemed the content commercial. Obviously they don’t want to encourage that, given that they’re in the business of charging for advertising. So the interview did not take place.

I had a similar response from the local newspaper. This is commercial; can’t do a story.

Here’s what I don’t understand. Every radio station does interviews with authors. Authors are blatantly promoting their books. Commercially. What is the difference between an author promoting a book and a speaker promoting a talk? The policy that is currently in place gives free publicity to large book publishers many of whom have the capacity to pay for advertising but it withholds free air time from the whole speaking industry; small operators with precious little advertising budget. The clear intent is to make editorial comment unavailable in an effort to extract paid advertising. The listener misses out on good content and the radio network restricts itself to larger advertisers.

Ironically, our public television and radio network, the ABC, have exactly the same approach: free plugs for authors and nobody else. Of course they won’t take your money for commercial advertising. So the effect of our current media structure is to shut the commercial sector out of public discourse.

Society would be positively affected if the public media lightened up about commerce or the commercial media lightened up about editorial. I’m suggesting there is room for another media network; one that preferences good stories and good content, irrespective of commercial content. Create a media channel accessible to professional consultants and businesses. One that does not rule you out of public discourse because you charge money for a product or service.

Here is a problem; here is a solution. It costs money. Get over it.

Mischief. The first twelve Advertising Agency web sites I looked at are making no effort to attract web traffic. Either they have as much work as they want or they don’t believe that potential clients search the internet for advertising agencies. Maybe they rely on being in the Yellow Pages.

All sites run fancy Flash animation; none of them deprecate properly for people with JavaScript turned off. The full Flash sites are extremely annoying for users. Hit the Back button in your browser while visiting The Brand Agency, Campaign Palace or Naked and get thrown out of the site. Oh good, I get to look at that animation all over again!

None of the sites have Title tags that include any reference to ‘advertising’, ‘media’ or ‘marketing’. This is part of the reason why none of their sites are found when you type “advertising agency” into Google.

None of the sites have Description tags. Which means that when you type ‘saatchi‘ into Google it tells you this about the company:

Saatchi & Saatchi PR in Romania has been appointed by Alpha Bank, a leading name in the financial sector, to handle its PR account. READ MORE > … Compelling content for English-speaking people interested in Romanian bank Public Relations – alas, I’m one of the few …

Saatchi’s site was broken when I visited; none of the links worked. I tried IE and Firefox and re-downloaded Flash but still nothing. I emailed their webmaster. Waiting on a response. Update: links now working.

When you type GPYR into Google it tells you this about the company:
home; about us · work · services · tools · contact us · brand partners · careers. George Patterson Y&R is Australia’s newest (and oldest) advertising agency …

‘Wunderman‘ gives you this:
Welcome to Wunderman : Welcome to the site for Wunderman, the original direct marketing agency. To get our conversation… Welcome, welcome. Should be called Doorman, not Wunderman.

Clearly none of the agencies understand that you can control the way Google presents your search result. Many of the sites don’t work if you omit the www; this can be fixed with a simple re-direct. And it seems none of them know how to get a full Flash site properly indexed by Google, thereby increasing web traffic. I digress.

DDB have a one page site that allows you only an email link. Times are tough. The design of many sites, such as BMF and Clemenger has not been updated in years. The gratuitous use of sound is particularly 1990s.

JWT, Grey and Singleton Ogilvy make up the twelve.

It’s as if they created their sites before Google was invented.

Oh! Found one traditional agency who know what they’re doing: Marketforce use the words “marketing” and “advertising” in their Title tag and have written one Description tag. As a result, they come up at #12 when you search for “Advertising Agency”. A bit of tweaking would put them in the top couple.

I’m running some half-day seminars on web promotion shortly in Perth. If you’d like to pre-register, give me a yell.

The Fortified Sustainability Project; it should have been a warning that they might not come up with brilliant names.

The business of re-naming fortifieds that have used Spanish, Portuguese and Hungarian names for over a hundred years has begun – sherry and tokay are to be renamed apera and topaque. I read about it in The Age in an article by Lisa Port, who will shortly have to find herself a new surname.

Other names that were considered (I”m not making them up):

For sherry – Solzay, Solperi, Aperire, Alphrette

For tokay – Millifera, Russet, Muscadelle, Allirea

‘Millifera’ sounds like bacteria and ‘russet’ like something dogs get.

Naming by committee is problematic. In the case of ‘apera’ they’ve tried to allude to aperitifs, to position the wine as a pre-dinner drink. ‘Topaque’ just sounds like an awkward imitation of tokay; the “let’s just cross our fingers and hope they don’t notice” approach. Ironic that the Chairman of the Project, Colin Campbell, said they wanted names that “would invigorate those products because obviously we’re not looking to just sustain the sales, we’re looking to increase sales”.

He said they were looking for new names which are exciting, emotive and switch people on. Well let me belatedly volunteer a few of those:

Sherry: Spank, Viola, Gothic, Cheek, Curve
Tokay: Toast, Trick, Trouble

Because they’re not invented names you probably wouldn’t get a trade mark; do you desperately need a trademark? Champagne never had one.

And if you absolutely had to have the security of a trademark, could you not be a little more adventurous? What about Shhhh or Sh~*~? I haven’t decided whether that last question mark is part of the name.

The New World wine community has been completely done over by the Europeans. If the New World had cooperated and created international replacement names they could have seriously challenged in these categories. As it is, each country will determine their own replacement names and export marketing is doomed by fragmentation.

I don’t think a replacement name has been decided on for port. On current form, they’ll invent a short word that sounds like port with a European note: Fort or Forti.

But that does not deliver on “exciting, emotive and switch people on”. Trial. Quiet. Lounge. 100. Duel.

Perhaps you’ve been listening to Rupert Murdoch’s Boyer Lectures? He has an awful voice but he says a lot of sensible things – as you can imagine, he has the benefit of an unusually wide perspective. His dislike of elites and authority mark him as an Australian; his enthusiasm for change explains why he lives where he does.

Rupert was optimistic about newspapers. He understands that newspapers are a brand, that they are about trust and that their oxygen is the reader. Using that brand, he argues, News Corp will deliver relevant information in whatever technology format is appropriate. Spot on.

Much hand-wringing by journalists nonetheless about the death of journalism now that the Rivers of Gold (classified advertising), are flowing to the Internet. The old newspaper business model said, we will provide the reader with journalism and companies will pay for advertising so they can access those readers. But readers now search Internet databases; a far better system for the classifieds buyer. Simultaneously, the Internet is competing with newspapers for eyeballs. What is to be done?

What newspapers have is credibility, so they should look to use this competitive advantage in subject areas which are perceived as valuable. Where credibility is currently lacking.

This is most feasible in areas where newspapers have not traditionally trodden. Take Search Engine Optimisation for example; a subject close to my economic heart. The web is full of SEO experts, all giving away free content and trying to up-sell you into subscriptions. The problem is, you don’t buy a subscription unless you have a high level of trust. You with me? Would I pay $100 a year for the opinion of one expert? Hmmm. Would I pay $500 for a subscription to the Wall Street Journal’s Best in SEO? If it has 20 contributors and a WSJ banner, I probably would.

Would people pay $100 for a subscription to the Sydney Morning Herald’s Guide to Selling on the Internet? Many would. Would business people pay $500 for the New York Times’ Internet Networking subscription? Yes. The Economist’s Web Marketing? The Guardian’s Internet Relationships? The Mirror’s Best Bargains?

Newspapers should be looking at the e-book market and turning some of those products into premium, branded subscriptions. They should develop new products which deliver expert content in technical and specialist areas. You can’t justify charging for ‘news’ or ‘opinion’ or ‘business’ because they are established as free info but anything new is fair game. Industry specific subscriptions will also work if the content is extensive.

Your mainstream publication then carries normal articles plus pointers to Subscription Only articles, both on the web and in printed form. Newspaper management are not used to new products. They’re used to the monolithic publication. But the splintering of news into specialist subscription publications is a logical response to losing your advertisers. In effect, the newspaper could become the Editor of the Internet.

Crikey and others have written about the lack of direction at Coles.

Here are some suggestions, without the benefit of any market research information.

1. Use social software and market research to solicit the best ideas from the shop floor. Coles employees skew young and are comfortable with this technology already but they are not engaged with the challenge. Every store has people with good ideas who (I suspect) have never been asked their opinion. Let staff rate each others’ ideas and reward the best ones. You have the biggest workforce in Australia. If they want you to succeed, you will.

2. My hunch is that Coles should be re-positioned as LOCAL, generating pride at store level as to their separate identity; re-stating COLES as COLES ARMADALE, COLES MOSMAN PARK etc. Stores would source and promote locally grown produce and provide opportunities for in-store community advocacy. There will be substantial goodwill in ‘giving Coles back to the community’. It’s more about the people than shiny new stores and stock levels.

3. Coles Fruit & Veg should lead a deep restructuring of the farming industry; explaining food quality and wastage issues to consumers. Conspicuous, closer links with farmers.

4. Run a high-profile campaign in the short term called ‘Turning Coles Around’ in which you promote your desire for public feedback. Suggestion boxes on every checkout. Create www.turningcolesaround.com.au, publishing staff and customer suggestions. Making Coles an underdog is a strategy that will work very well in Australian culture.

My preferred café is closed over the holiday season so I’ve been visiting the slightly less fashionable one down the street. It’s run by a Turkish lady and her business partner. They’ve bought this place at considerable financial risk. Business is less than hoped for, in spite of the fact that she cooks very well and they make good coffee. The place is an old house; large. Ugly. No other word for it.

Today, after asking some questions about her clientele, I gave her some unsolicited marketing advice on how to improve business.

1. Remove ugly signage

2. Work your strengths

The strongest area is the side path along the left hand side of the building; dappled light, intimate but barely noticeable from the street. There are about 8 tables for two behind the two front ones.

I suggested she needs to draw attention to this area by creating a bamboo wall (say) from the front of the house to the street, so that the path is the same width all the way. Re-orient the tables and chairs so they face the same way as the ones down the back; that will exaggerate the visual connection.

3. Garden full of furniture; house full of plants

We should visually join the inside of the premises (which are quite friendly) to the outdoor area. Because of the tinted window it’s not clear that there is seating in there. So remove the tinting.

4. Atmosphere is not necessarily expensive

The predominant view walking past the premises is this white wall. Note ugly pipes:

But look closer; there are colourful flowers on the ground:

These need to be put on blocks so that they are eye level or at least cover the pipes. This and an understated wall feature higher up will do the trick. The owner likes gardening. I told her to go crazy. Tiny vase on each table. Visible flowers in that front area will add massive appeal at practically no cost.

I’ll update via the comments if she implements and advise of the results.

From the Department of I Told You So, Google’s Lively has got the boot and Second Life continues to lose corporate traction. Reuters and Avastar have abandoned the platform. Quarter three in Second Life saw negative growth.

Business was interested in Second Life because it was a new interface and it was growing quickly. There will be interest again when there is a jump in the user experience or user numbers. Platform stability would also be a bonus. User numbers will grow only when there is a less demanding interface. Any bonehead can use Facebook.

Second Life’s legacy is significant; the compelling experience of virtual sex, the astonishing creativity of user-generated content in architecture and fashion, the rapid bonding powers of anonymous friendship…

It will continue to be interesting for at least two reasons; the education sector’s on-going search for a more engaging remote education experience and the governance issues surrounding virtual world environments as open as this. The most recent uproar in Second Life was over the pricing of certain types of islands, OpenSpace Sims but it is part of a long history of governance failures.

Linden Lab, who run Second Life, have complete authority but the passion of users who invest time in personal creativity and run virtual businesses makes law-making a very tough management task. I’ll never forget my first interaction with a Second Life entrepreneur; FURIOUS that someone had accidentally built over a virtual boundary, costing him (I calculated) around 20 cents an hour in revenue for a small number of hours. He was ready to rip someone’s head off.

The ego and significance that accrues in the virtual environment makes this a fascinating sandbox for modelling real-world decision-making. If LL work out how to make popular decisions in this environment, they will have learned something very valuable.

Photo by Miabella Foxley.

FREE. More than any other word, this word gives marketing a bad name. The most recent example to cross my virtual desk was a ‘Sponsor Update’ from WebProNews, a source of huge volumes of Search Engine Optimisation information; small portions of it useful. A ‘free’ offer for Brad Callen‘s book, SEO Mindset: The Real Secrets To Getting #1 Google Rankings For Whatever Keywords You Want, Whenever You Want. Also cures cancer.

If you have to pay postage and handling, it’s not free Brad. If the book is free for those who pick it up in Podunk, Idaho, great. Say that it is a FREE PICK-UP in Podunk. If it’s free with an Amway Toilet Bowl Cleaner it’s a FREE WITH offer.

By the way, you say that the book has a value of $97. Have you sold it to people you don’t know for $97? Because otherwise you are scamming me. You say you are offering almost $470 worth of other products also ‘totally free’. They may be fantastic value but they are not ‘totally free’.

The marketing profession (American Marketing Association, Australian Marketing Institute – I’d link to them but their website doesn’t work) should delineate FREE, FREE PICK UP and FREE WITH. They should set parameters for establishing the value of a product that is not retailed. The practice of calling things free when they’re not and the practice of inventing ridiculously high values for your products should be the subject of industry attention and scorn.

You make us all look bad, Brad. Check your mindset.

The City of Perth is contributing $200,000 to the Christmas Pageant. But they want their pound of flesh. Naming rights. Trouble is, there are already two other sponsors. No problem, we’ll just call it “The RAC Channel 7 Christmas Pageant with the City of Perth”. I’m not making it up. That’s what they say the event will be known as.

Now, you know, and I know, the public is not going to call it that. It has been “The Christmas Pageant” since Jesus was a boy. Well, the 1970′s anyway.

It’s a great example of the quid pro quo mentality of modern sponsorship. Sure we’ll kick in some money; WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN? Very Christmas-spirited of them.

In this case though, by insisting on a naming rights appendix, they just make their event look ridiculous.

Perhaps they should drop the words ‘Christmas Pageant’ altogether and just list the sponsors?