Gillian Muessig put this eloquently and I’ll paraphrase: five years ago every internet journey began with a Google search. Now, many trips begin within a social network then migrate to a Google search when that’s necessary. So you might ask your Facebook friends to suggest a holiday destination or a web designer before you start Googling.

The effect of this is to shift some power away from we clever pants SEO people who understand how to build links, to the regular people who surf the web. In Gillian’s words, ‘your momma don’t link. She don’t know how’. But she knows how to Facebook.

Another strong thread in the conference was the flag-waving for Google Plus. A no-brainer, since G+ content goes straight into Google’s index. Some also say this content will enjoy privileged SEO status. In some areas I think this is likely.

Google already weights Twitter links favourably for “breaking news” topics. I can imagine them saying, we’re getting good quality tech content shared in Google Plus, so we’ll weight that for tech searches. If Google can persuade other communities to jump in, and the content is good quality, they’ll privilege that as well. They’ll use the SEO community as one of their communication channels.

See you on Google Plus.

A few words about the relative balance between SEO and SEM prompted by discussions at SMX Sydney.

There were two streams on the first day; SEO (Search Engine Optimisation; improving your site’s position in search engines) and SEM (Search Engine Marketing; pay per click ads on web sites and search engine results pages. Google’s AdWords is the leading example).

Gillian Muessig, the President of SEOmoz (gee she was good), cited research showing that 10 – 15% of clicks are generated by Search Engine Marketing ads but many companies spend all their search budget on it. In the majority of cases, companies are underspending on search engine optimisation.

Warren Dobe from the NAB delivered a powerful case study on the value of SEO. The NAB’s 12 month long SEO project has added 2 – 3 million visits per month to their traffic. Just good SEO strategy, properly implemented.

Brent Payne from BaldSEO (yeah, he’s bald; great piece of personal branding) talked about his involvement in doubling the traffic to Tribune newspapers two years running by the application of good SEO principals. The Tribune Company is America’s second largest newspaper group so we’re talking tens of millions of new visits every month and serious competitive advantage. BTW, Brent; here’s how to disable the history on your location bar so that your previous web site visits are not visible to the whole audience.

Moving right along; the keys to success were clearly described:

(1) Get buy-in from top-level executives and (2) Train the clients’ content creators and executives in SEO-friendly business practices. In Brent’s case, this involved telling newspaper editors that they could not do what they wanted if it contravened the SEO strategy they’d agreed to.

So given these successes, why are businesses loath to spend on SEO and happy to spend on SEM?

Well SEM spending, through AdWords say, is easily tracked and has an immediate effect. People click or they don’t. Your reports (brilliantly detailed reports) tell you which of your ads are sending what percentage of clients to the particular pages you specify. Businesses love that sh*t.

And then there’s SEO. Often needs changes in site structure so involves (shudder) the IT department. Might require changes to your Content Management System. Involves link-building which is time-intensive. Has a level of risk attached, since a wrong move could get your site penalised in the rankings. And, there be monsters; how do you separate the shysters from the reputable practitioners? Finally, it doesn’t work by itself. It’s going to require behavioural change and it’s going to involve content. Harsh.

But the pay-offs are substantial. Rule of thumb? I heard more than one person at SMX say 20% of your search budget should be SEO. It kind of depends where you are in the cycle; it should be more than 20% initially, but if you’re currently blowing everything on Google AdWords, you’re definitely doing it wrong.

Oh! Thanks to Stephan Spencer for the recommendation; I read and enjoyed Influence by Robert Cialdini.

Inevitably, the scoreboard will make way for a digital substitute that will swirl advertisements across a facsimile of the traditional display. When it does, they’ll be able to dispense with the six people that work there. But the progress of technology is uneven and it respects the entrenched interests in the hierarchy. Take for instance the prestigious position of ‘Selector’. A national selection panel choses each national team as it has since the bears were batting.

Why do we use such a subjective system? That system clearly favours older players over new. We know that overwhelmingly, performance declines as batsmen reach their mid-thirties, but selectors tend to keep people in the team once they’re there. Presumably because of personal attachments and bias. Science tells us that visual acuity declines with age, though some individuals are more affected than others. Reflexes also decline with age. Fortunately, nature has a way of informing us when this happens; cricket statistics.

It would be easy to imagine an algorithm that ranks batsmen and bowlers. This could be based on a ten match rolling average but be finessed to include career average and performance on different grounds. (Actually, comparing the current 10 match average and career average yields interesting analytics).

The worst performing batsman gets dropped every match (say). And the worst performing bowler gets dropped every match.

This system has the great advantage of removing all subjectivity; all favouritism. Forget all that stuff about ‘he’s a champion and a great score is just around the corner’. Institutionalise a regular turnover of personnel so that a team is not suddenly full of 38 year olds who lose form at the same time (looking at YOU, India).

You might say subjectivity is necessary to account for teamsmanship and I would say PHOOEY. You might say it’s necessary to allow character to be taken into account and I would say that it’s only a factor in unusual circumstances. Anyway, you might design a mechanism that allows the peer group to influence decisions in that area.

Shortly after one team adopts this system, which I would call Solomon, (after the famous West Indian batsman who threw out Ian Meckiff in the Tied Test), the rest would quickly follow. In the case of Australia, you’d dispense with five selectors. They cost more than scoreboard attendants.

A footnote:
The slow ritual of the twelfth men carrying the drinks is gone; replaced by dudes on Segways with giant Gatorade inflatable bottles strapped to their backs. It’s as out of place as the cameramen scurrying on to the field like intruding insects. It’s as vulgar as the visual assault of the sponsor’s logo on every vertical surface and the grass the game is played on. Who killed off the stodges of yesteryear and replaced them with commercial administrators bereft of style and spine? And where are those administrators when infestations of drunken nobs ruin the atmosphere for those unfortunates near them? Sitting in the Members’ Pavilion? Had I the power I would have evicted a hundred or so drunks, to the satisfaction of the thousands seated around us. Nice people, Australians, but they should learn how to behave in public.

Photo: thepurpleempire

The site is owned by property developer Finbar but the question is, what should be done with it? That gentleman Ken McKay and I have put together a concept for Finbar’s consideration. Along the way we’ve had input and advice from a number of Perth’s most experienced media people. You know who you are.

People administering sports have often spent their lifetimes in the sport, just like business people spend a lifetime in the business. The reason for engaging an independent consultant is identical. Perspective. Working 9 – 5, you just get too close to it. A good marketing strategist will say things to you like, ‘actually, people don’t give a shit about that’, or ‘perhaps we should mention that in your advertising’. And if they’re good, they’ll ask you stuff before they suggest stuff.

Here’s what prompted this post: I watched a video (don’t click it yet) that if I were marketing basketball, I would have sent out to every player, coach and coach’s mother on my database. Because it sums up the reasons you’d go to a game of basketball.

So much of marketing is Point of Difference. Why is going to a basketball match different to a cricket match or a swimming meet? I think this video says something about that. It’s a crowd thing.

Basketball: Get Excited.

ICANN has agreed to introduce new generic top level domains (gTLDs). The names will be almost without restriction.

The new domains ain’t cheap. When applications open in January, you’ll fork out $185,000 to apply. And then you’ll go through 9 – 20 months of bureaucratic bullshit before you can trade. I hope you know what you’re doing.

Currently in Australia, we use .com or .com.au and almost never, 20 others. I’ve spoken to a few people who say, no big deal; .com is entrenched; look at .info; nothing will change. I disagree.

Let’s break this up a bit.

First, the easy one. The adult industry will largely migrate to .xxx. This is a scam and a bloody scandal. ICM Registry, who will administer .xxx, possess over 900,000 pre-registrations. Almost all of them are non-adult industry companies wanting to stop others bringing their brand into disrepute. It’s extortion and should never have been allowed.

Second, domain name registrars like GoDaddy will look to secure geographic gTLDs; countries, counties and cities. But they’ll need the support of relevant governments to get approval. I think most will cut a deal. There’ll be strong demand too. If you’re only doing business in Texas, a .texas address says it all.

Category 3 is domain names with non-latin characters (IDNs) and these will become strongly established where people speak funny.

There’s also provision for ‘community-based designations’ where you cater for a community you can demonstrate links to. Ethnic groups, professional bodies, lobby groups… can’t see strong demand there but might be wrong.

Now the fifth category is the most interesting from a marketing viewpoint. Corporates will shell out for new gTLDs partly because the price ensures they’ll be rare and therefore symbols of substance. More important though, they allow for more memorable URLs. So Hilton will use Singapore.Hilton, Berlin.Hilton… BMW will use 7series.bmw etc and Ikea will use ikea.catalog. Think about that last one. Ikea should buy .catalog, not just .ikea.

Advertisers will harness the novelty and format to surprise and amuse their audiences. They’ll also integrate slogans with URLs. Frinstance:

com.coke

omg.toblerone

The new format lets you surround your brand with verbs, nouns and exclamatories. But you’ll only succeed with these if you’re wrapping your brand in a big, tasty ad campaign.

Within a year or so of the changes I think .com will be undermined as the default suffix and the use of corporate gTLDs will be common in mainstream media. That connection between domains and advertising will in turn influence how big brands form their slogans.

There’s a final category I didn’t discuss: interesting, new, invented generic domains.

I have some ideas for these; have you got any play money?

The gTLD Guidebook for Applicants.

Man on Mars? A visit to an asteroid? Actually a Woman on Mars would be a better proposition; would generate more public discussion.

I kind of doubt those projects will generate massive public interest. Anyway, what about some other options?

Here is verbatim, the NASA mission statement:

To improve life here, to extend life to there, to find life beyond.

If you look at NASA’s future missions, you’ll see they are all about exploration; the second and third parts of the statement. Their current missions (and there are a lot) are all about the physical nature of the cosmos and our planet. They lead to more knowledge and technology; not necessarily improvements in life.

My definition of improvement of life includes health, safety, opportunities and relationships (interested in how NASA currently defines it).

I’ve argued in the previous article that the key achievement of NASA is the development of an extraordinary organisational culture. How can we best deploy that to advantage?

I believe there should be a project to infuse into other organisations aspects of the NASA culture. That would be an improvement in the realm of relationships. It could of course be done as a management consultancy which would generate its own revenue.

NASA has great systems expertise. A project to create a better functioning global information system would lay the foundations for eventual internationalisation of our economies. I’m talking about hooking up all databases so that, for example, criminals can’t exploit national boundaries to their advantage. So that businesses don’t have an advantage in systems integration over governments. So that we collect the same information in Africa as we do in Australia. That could improve all aspects of life.

What about eliminating hunger? Now there’s a problem that affects your world view. Certainly fits within my definition of improving life.

What about a project that collects sociological research and proposes the structure of our next society? Say you were going to send a large number of people into space. How would you structure that society so that it was sustainable, had only productive conflict and was free of violence and crime? Having worked that out, how do you introduce that into our existing structures? Should we not aim to improve our social cohesion?

Eliminate corruption; increase happiness, alleviate poverty. Scientific disciplines could be brought to bear on these issues in a coordinated fashion. Much has been learned in the social sciences. We can apply that knowledge but we need better leadership.

So how to resource this?

About 3,000 NASA employees have just received redundancy notices. What a waste. All those highly motivated, highly trained people now without a team. They are used to being inspired. The proposition of a ‘normal job’ must be very unappealing.

Give them a deadline, give them a project, pay their salaries for a year and see what they come up with. If you’re an unemployed NASA staffer, drop me a line.

I can’t help but think you people have missed the point.

My project was not about American leadership in the world. America is not the big picture.

Consider these consequences:

1. You met the objectives. And they were very big objectives. The Space Station may be the most important laboratory ever built.
2. You ran over-budget. This proves only that the initial budgeting was wrong. Cost overruns should not have been a surprise. It’s not like you’ve done this before and flexibility comes at a price.
3. You learned how to properly manage incredibly complicated technical projects involving thousands of people.



But none of the above is the main thing.

The shuttle program was a shining example of international cooperation. There is in that the hint of the end of nationalism.

But just as important: if you watched my last mission you saw how lit up NASA people were by what they were doing; how proud and cooperative and committed they were.

That is the take-out. That is the main thing. You showed how to work together. You showed what makes a team and how to generate trust within an organisation. That’s what you need to take from my project and spread around.

Here are some of the factors:

• A clear vision and clear objectives
• Everyone thought the objectives were important.
• Respect for individual capabilities and judgements. Anyone on my project could stop the launch by saying ‘I don’t think so’.
• Management knew their stuff and had the respect of subordinates.
• Salaries were moderate. Very senior technicians were as well paid as managers. 


The lessons are obvious. Start re-structuring your institutions.

The photo is quite flattering compared to the actual poster in which Tony Barber looks old and unwell though with good teeth. I know that’s ageist; perhaps the ANZ is targeting older customers who yearn for the days of ‘Great Temptation’. There may be a financial theme there.

The poster trumpets ‘Australia’s most awarded bank’. I’m not sure how they work that out; it doesn’t say over what period of time and it doesn’t say which awards.

Now if it were true, how should the bank promote such a thing? Well. They’ve gone for an ageing quiz show host nursing a trophy engraved with, “Australia’s Most Awarded Bank”.

Where did they get this trophy? I’m thinking it didn’t come from an awards night where they tally up all the results then present the “Australia’s Most Awarded Bank Trophy” at the end. I’m thinking they made it up. Tell me I’m wrong, ANZ. You’ve fabricated a trophy for the purposes of visually representing an unsubstantiated claim. Did you engrave it yourself or just Photoshop it?

If you’ve won any awards, it’s not for ethical advertising. It’s probably for treating your customers like idiots.

Except it’s not on television. It’s a T-Mobile ad showing exclusively on the Internet – 13 million views so far. This is not a small scale viral campaign; it’s a big-budget commercial that will not air on TV. Well actually, it WILL air on TV but as editorial. It’ll be shown on current affairs programmes and panel shows. Won’t cost the advertiser a red cent.

And the television industry should be shaking in their boots. Since the bears were bad, the coolest ads were on TV. The effect of that was to drag up the perceived cool of the medium; the best ads were on TV. But now, for the first time since the 1950s, the coolest ads air on the internet.

Why is this happening? Partly for these reasons: it’s free to advertise, longer ads, less censorship, and the capacity for interactivity, but more because the viewers are responding better to that media. They have invested effort in finding it. They have something at stake.

I recently heard Duane Varan at XMediaLab Perth talking about some of his research.

In an interactive environment, people presented with a difficult choice (choose between watching a beer ad, a cola ad or a niteclub ad) are more invested in their decision and subsequently are more positively disposed towards the ad. It’s the same on the Internet; I’ve found it because I’m clever or I have wonderful contacts. That makes me more receptive to the message. The ads work better on the Internet than they do on TV.

The TV industry is losing ad revenue at the top end of the market. That’s a dangerous trend, unlikely to be reversed. The sooner they get their converged asses together, the better.