I love that phrase.
It's a sly statement, Like "reap what you sow," or kismet, karma, payback – words which define all of those delicious, rewarding moments in life rolled into two terse and slightly lewd syllables.
Like most lewd utterances, it is spoken when either things don't make sense or when they're total bullshit. In this case, I've decided that it's both.
Facebook is experiencing some blow back recently. Its failures are well documented right along with its successes. It's recent agreement to settle an FCC complaint about privacy points to one area of perennial concern with the social network's over ambitious data collection.
One faultline that intrigues me now is different from my previous gutter sniping, chiefly: a curious self-made conflict in its core revenue stream.
Facebook's main source of revenue is advertising. Leveraging its vast amount of user data, Facebook promises and delivers targeted advertisement to its clients. Pressured by the market, Facebook must consistently deliver higher ad revenues, quarter after quarter. But these ads are no different from their broadcast alternatives. Certainly, the demographics are sharper, but they're still a shot in the dark.
Businesses know that Facebook users who come to them voluntarily are much more desirable since they are pre-qualified customers, ready to engage. So why not let those interested come to the business' page and sign up, no ad expense involved?
More and more companies are doing just that. It's a great sign that some are realizing that fewer quality leads trump massive quanities of "likes" with no intention of folllowing up. Facebook seems to have erected an artificial price obstacle to raising its own ad revenue. The higher the rates, the more companies will simple rely on their own pages to connect to their audiences.
What does this mean to you? As you develop your mix of online media, you may be in the position to achieve two great goals in one step: increase the quality of your leads and decrease your Facebook advertising expense. The social media ad market is changing rapidly. An adword campaign may be overkill if you're looking for quality over quantity.
This March, Mahalo president Jason Rapp sent out a mass email to Mahalo staff noting that, based on Google's new changes, they will be reducing Mahalo staff headcount immediately by 10%.
When Google released a change in its algorithms to punish content farms earlier this year, our oft- beat up friends at Mahalo.com saw their business model implode.
This speaks volumes. It's current site entices users to "learn anything." Evidently, this does not include learning how to make content relevant and meaningful to users.
I'm not singling out Mahalo. Other content farms just don't issue press releases and weren't as transparent as Mahalo. So they get some cred that others like Demand and IBN don't.
What's intriguing about Mahalo's meltdown is how their business model and execution depended on another company's dominance. Much like Zynga's plan, they have one channel: Facebook. Would you hook your fortunes on one person, organization or company?
Apparently, Mahalo and others think it's a great idea. And they even have a wonderfully over-reaching philosophical statement to persuade us: Jason (Mahalo founder and CEO Jason Calacanis) writes:
“The web is moving from the home of journalism and writers to the domain of experts. Web 3.0 is the era of experts – not writers.”
Wow. Not only the whole internet but the entire fucking planet will learn from experts, not writers.
Writers, those pompous assholes who do things like write about stuff, especially about things they're experts about.
There are so many things wrong with that statement that I'm just going to let it sit there, in the corner, alone to think about what it's done. Idiots. I'm surprised Seth Godin hasn't jumped on this toxic meme and written a bullshit book on it by now.
I'm not sure when SEO started being so icky. I'm not sure when content farms reared their ill-formed heads. What I do know is that theirs is a universe of companies that revolve around one very shaky premise: quantity over quality. And that's about to end.
The evidence? The mature debate over white, grey and black hat techniques.
Oh, black hat operators. They are, without doubt, void of cyber-morals, ethics or common sense. I'm not here to argue if they are more legitimate than their monetized competitors like Best Buy, Bank of America or Wal-Mart since both game the system. The difference is that one group uses scurrilous techniques and the other uses a fat bank account.
Let's just admit that Black Hat operators are kinda scummy. The techniques range from the mundane porn site pop ups that start messing with your desktop to complex coding to fucking with the mechanics and structure of the internet itself.
Screwing with free-flowing data doesn't seem exactly bad in essence. But if we are to benefit from instant, endless accesss to data, we also buy into the veracity of that data - or at least the goodwill and intent of sharing that info. Sometimes that goes amok.
The common idea is that every keystroke last forever, for better or worse. Well, that's kinda true, and it freaks some people out (but doesn't stop them from logging keystroke after keystroke). Below is a stunning craigslist ad requesting a huge UNDO button for life:
I don't think that our bright, young future CEO's problems (shown above in blaring detail) start and end at immaturity.
CTRL+Z, why have you abandoned our grad students?
To be clear, when I talk about black hat operators, I'm not talking about phishing or doppleganger sites or just straight out security breaches. I'm talking about a company that (or individual who) has based its operations on dubious -- and often illegal -- practices. These practices aren't just dubious, they're a modus operandi.
An example? Check this shit out:
So what's the impact? Think of space junk. Each year, more destruis slams into more debris creating more detruis. This downward spiral is an apt analogy to how search engine-focused marketing will, quite simply, become self-destructive and irrelevant.
How can I trust that the information when I search on how, say to avoid black hat techniques is true; written with authority and not a machine generated article?
Of course, our black hat brethren don't do this because it's fun (it's a lot of work, apparently). They do it for the money, meaning click throughs. Google is implicit in this behaviour. I know, not very popular to hear, but they are.
If AdSense is the driving factor here, no matter Google's search algorithms, deception will pay heavily, and the checks will bear Google's name.
I think the best advice I ever received was from my Professor, Michael Wood who looked me clearly in my grad student eyes and told me that I didn't "have to kill a a bad idea, it will die all by itself."
And so, I now apply this to SEO, black hats, grey hats and the general SEO craze.
If the above is being discussed openly, do you think you seriously stand a chance of attaining your coveted #1 ranking on Google? Let's just say no and avoid a conflict, OK?
The number one reason that SEO efforts fail is that they sell a bill of goods that is based on extensive, expensive and erroneous SEO tactics.
Content becomes secondary to keyword density and keyword frequency. Words such "service," "quality," and most of all, "competence and skill" are not part of this mix since the simpletons who do SEO research have decided that no one searches on these words.
They assume, in essence, that you are an idiot who will click the first thing in front of you, regardless of your intent. It's quite insulting on many levels. It assumes that you are a monkey with a keyboard. It assumes that you have no cognitive skills. It assumes that you don't care about the quality of your information.
So, over all, you're an idiot and the self-appointed "SEO gurus" are laughing about you over their lattes.
Play That Funky Music, White Boy.
Find out what the hell I'm talking about.
iTunes Burnout
Just how bad is the music industry's business plan? This bad.
It's kinda hard to have sympathy for music labels. The pit bull RIAA won no PR contests and the prosecution of Napster resulted in heavy fines to... no one. Talk about a grudge. At that point, you'd think that the suits would realize that digital distribution and freemium models were the way to go. Not so much.
Spotify has forced their hand, delivering everything, costing nothing and running laps around other services. Essentially, Spotify allows access to most every song ever. The bells and whistles are impressive: share on Facebook with friends your play lists, manage your existing hard-drive based collection, discover new music and well, just get your groove on with very little effort. It makes LimeWire and the good 'ole P2P days look like hard work.
It's kinda like eating an ice cream cone and then deciding you want sprinkles on it, too. You can read my insane rantings on social media pretty much everywhere on this site but I'm going to refocus on the juncture of music, social networks and a grand disregard for what has come before. Apple's iTunes was groundbreaking. And it rightfully deserves that adjective. It moved music from atoms to bits and cut distribution to zero. Woohoo.
It's hard to argue that music
isn't one of the most communal experiences around. We compare, rate,
bond with others over it. Hell, we use it in religion, commerce and
sex. So you'd think that the current social media craze would have
welcomed music into its icky tentacles. You'd be wrong.
Music industry execs seem to have this great fear of sharing their product with their audience. I firmly believe that if they could, they'd start producing vinyl again just 'cause.
It's refreshing seeing Luddites have cold water thrown on them. Spotify does just that. Instant, free access to any track you've been humming in your head. Share with friends on the fly. Make a play list or find the album that track came from. Mobile access? Done. Wifi signal abandon you? No prob. The beauty of Spotify is that it has created the perfect social media app without even mentioning that it's a social media map. The ease of use is flawless. The content is, by far, much more interesting than your friend's cat pictures.
It's the opposite of social media. Instead of being the recipient of what people think you might like, Spotify allows you to state what you like and push it outward towards your circles – not be pulled into others' interests. None of this is mutually exclusive. Google+ (“G+” for those in the know, like a G6) serves as the new platform instead of the API heavy Facebook. Why, exactly, do I need to “allow” apps to access my entire life history on Facebook? Really. Why? Do I get to see Facebook's balance sheets and demographics? Seems like that would be a fair trade.
OK, see the point is that social media is changing quicker than anyone can imagine.
The social media market is unsegmented and based on one business model: Facebook's. Wildly successful, draconian and intrusive Facebook. Like any good monopoly, there are a lot of very scary smart people figuring out how to reinvent Facebook's planet.
Diversify.
Social media strategies need to be flexible enough to accommodate a sea change in this form of corporate communication. I don't mean to slam Facebook – I use it everyday – but it is becoming one of many social media sites I use. Why? Because I really don't get any benefit from the site most of the time. I'm thrilled that you got a new puppy, or car, or home or disease but it's not putting any change in my bank as a business. What Spotify signifies is that the control of content; the depth of quality content and the ease of use of that content is what matters most as we move to Socialized Media.
How did this get made?
We’ve all had them. Ideas, which, at first blush, seemed brilliant. Slowly they turn on us like crazy boyfriends. They undermine our efforts, lie outright and even cheat on us. Soon, they're spending all their time online and we're weeping into a bottle of cheap wine.
It’s a lot like life.
Here are some simple errors to avoid when creating good corporate communications:
Disingenuous Communications
"...due to unexpected call volume…”
or
“Our new $10.00 service fee is to serve you better.”
Really? You can't judge your call volume by now? Perhaps that $10 fee will get you some new employees.
Why not just advertise that you don't know what the hell you're doing?
Why do companies hide behind this not-so-clever word play? I dunno but it pisses me off. The net effect is to further entrench my deep mistrust of the company at best. Bank of America: heed my words.
Show (don’t tell) your customers that you get it and offer the truth. Communicate that you’re swamped and that you under-hired.
Describe why that new fee is necessary. People have large tolerances when they’re told the truth.
Same goes for the astonishing power of an apology. Airlines, take note. You wouldn’t be faced with federal regulations if you were just honest and nice about it, dicks.
Jumping Under the Train
Your mother knew it: would you jump off a bridge if everyone else did?
OK, fine, some of us would have jumped, but that's another story about anti-depressants.
Some call it “competitiveness,” I call it stupid. If your competitor offers a service that you don’t, do you simply copy it or do you build off of their work and offer a different, superior service?
A pure example of this dominates e-commerce.
Small companies that employ massive content management systems (CMSs) to run what is essentially a mom n’ pop business. Land’s End runs Magento to offer thousands of products in an understandable way. More power to you if you need that much software muscle, but I’m guessing you don’t.
What you do put into place is a massive, unending need for content.
Stifling your Creativity
How’s that market research going for you? Did it really take all that money and time to discover that black was preferred to purple? Really?
Trust your gut as a communication professional. If you have a well-thought-out and clear idea of how your material can make a statement, then do it. Don’t be afraid of your own creativity. This is where ad agencies fail and individuals succeed. We’re not worried about losing your account. We don’t have it yet.
Content as Commodity
Let’s get something perfectly clear: content creation is hard, complex work. That huge sucking sound you hear when you open your browser is the need for clear, concise and compelling language. I know that I’ve discussed this in detail on this site, but it’s really getting under my skin.
Copywriters and editors spend years honing their skills which are based on some very expensive education. The voracious need of content makes companies work in counter-intuitive ways. Led by market force instead of forward looking ideas, content-heavy sites find that the only way to sell their goods profitably is to reduce the cost of their content – content that drives sales. I’m not talking about sweaters here but business services that make up the majority of online sales sites. OK, and sweaters, too.
How many times have you seen “comprehensive integrated solutions designed to maximize throughput and lessen click-through-fall-off?” Wha? Fir realz? Don't offer me $.01 per word. I'm not Charles Dickens.
It's going to take a lot of gems to make this shit dazzle.
Bedazzling a Huge Pile of Crap
Remember that 80s commercial? The one where you affix rhinestones to otherwise ratty jeans? Yeah, that one. I’m officially renaming Web 2.0, HTML5 and SEO as the new “The Bedazzler.”
There, I said it.
I love innovation. I’m eternally grateful for GPS for directing my scattered brain to places I need to be. Cell phones? Genius. Google Voice? How did I live without this? But, really, if I see a site overhaul RFP that has “rounded corners” and Flash as its main objectives in the brief I’m not signing the contract. I might even laugh.
Clients who instruct me to look at “these web sites; we want kinda like that on our site” experience the same type of blank stare.
Design and language work hand in hand. It’s information architecture and it’s similar to building a kit car. If you copy a flawed kit, your car won’t run either. Stop copying others’ work. It’s just stupid and rude.
And one last thing:
Proofread Your Copy
Just do it. Trust me on this one. Errors are embarrassing. And we all have them.
"Your joking on your numbers, right? Their not right."
You give the audience the power of determining if you meant it or if you’re just dumb. I’m sure that you can do many things well, but maybe catching typos isn’t one of them. Hire a copywriter. We know what we're doing.
