Category Archives: Latest News

Jun 28

FTC Investigates Google

Posted on by

On June 24, Google confirmed their business was being investigated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Allegedly, the FTC is trying to gather information on Google’s search algorithms, updates, how they work, etc. This investigation isn’t the result of a particular crime or the opening of an official case, but has been encouraged by other organizations who are claiming foul play by the search giant.

Among the many accusations of Google are two claims I’d like to address: one is the claim that Google is a monopoly and is violating antitrust laws, and two is the claim that they give their own properties preferential treatment in search results.

As to the first point, I’m no lawyer but it seems that the purpose of antitrust laws is to protect the individual. If you live in an area with only one cable provider, then you know exactly how this feels. But Google isn’t dominating the search world because it’s bought out all it’s competition and/or staked out a geographical claim no one can tough; it’s dominating the search world because it’s been giving individuals what they’re looking for.

As to the second point, I don’t see any problem with Google giving itself preferential treatment in search results. Google is a business, not a public service. And not only that, Google is a biased business. Macy’s may have been telling people to go to Gimbels, but not just because they wanted to do something nice for their customers; they were trying to build their own business. Google doesn’t have any legal – or moral, for that matter – obligation to treat their competition equitably. If people don’t like that idea, there are other search engines they can use.

All in all, I doubt anything will come of these investigations. The FTC may have a few recommendations, or at very worse fine Google, but don’t expect to see any radical changes to Google or the online world.

 

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Jun 20

ICANN’s New Top-Level Domains Will Not Affect You

Posted on by

Unless you’re Steve Jobs, Larry Page, or some other CEO with an internationally recognizable brand – and if you are, I’m not really sure why you’re reading our little blog – you can ignore the recent announcement from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers concerning some new top-level domains.

Quick refresher: ICANN oversees the Internet and examples of top-level domains are .com, .org, .travel, etc.

Well, ICANN will start accepting applications for customized top-level domains at the beginning of 2012. This will allow big companies to get domains like .apple, .google, and .walmart. I’m assuming other companies will also be able to bid on domains like .money, .diet, and .cars.

There are two reasons why, if you’re reading this post, you don’t have to worry at all about these new top-level domains:

  1. The new top-level domains are going to cost at least $185,000. If you’ve got that kind of cash sitting around to invest in a TLD, please give us a call.
  2. Having a new, fancy, custom TLD will not really improve your business or online search results.

Consider the second point. Search for “travel” and see how many .travel sites come up – practically none. So would your pet supplies website benefit from the .petsupplies top-level domain? Probably not, and you’d be out $185,000.

So instead, keep taking a focused approach on your own website, providing quality content, and improving its organic search results. Don’t think that having the right top-level domain is going to make the difference between millions of dollars in revenue and a floundering business.

It well be interesting, however, to see how many businesses take up ICANN on this offer, how many choose not to , and if there are any battles for some more generic TLDs. Will Payless or Footlocker get the .shoes domain?

Or maybe we can all pool our money together and buy it out from under them.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Jun 14

Facebook May Be Worth More Than $100 Billion

Posted on by

Facebook will likely go public during the first quarter of 2012, and some are estimating its value at more than $100 billion.

Now, as you likely know, I’m no finance expert; I’m no stock market expert; I’m no IPO expert. And I’ve been trying to figure out how the social networking site is worth more than the whole GDP of Slovakia.

They’ve obviously got a bunch of computers and servers and office equipment; that’s got to be worth something. And Facebook does generate over a billion dollars in advertising revenue each year, which is nothing to scoff at.

So how is this website, which has no tangible product it’s selling, worth so much?

I would say it’s three things:

  • Influence
  • Network
  • Information

Facebook obviously has a lot of influence, not only in the social networking sphere but elsewhere (like when Mark Zuckerberg met with President Obama and other leaders). That sort of influence is worth a lot of money since it  can affect legislation, social norms, etc.

Facebook also has a huge network, allowing it to connect with millions of individuals almost instantly. In a world where who you know is just as important (if not more so) than what you know, being able to connect people so easily and efficiently brings with it a tremendous value.

But perhaps the most valuable asset Facebook has is all of the information – pictures, e-mail addresses, phone numbers,and status updates, as well as favorite music, books, movies, etc. Everything you’ve ever told it, it knows about you; and with that knowledge it can create a fairly accurate profile of you – what you like, what you dislike, even what products or services you may potentially be interested in buying.

So all of that being said, is Facebook worth $100 billion? Given the fact that the social media behemoth can influence, network, and personalize better than anything else out there – for more than 500 million people – I would say “Yes.”

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Jun 07

Google Tries Social Networking, Again

Posted on by

Google has a long history of failed social media attempts – perhaps most prominent are Google Wave and Google Buzz. Google recently announced +1, but it’s too soon to tell how that is going to work out.

They were late to the social networking party, mostly because they were concerned about other ventures (like creating the world’s largest search engine) but also because of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who admitted that he messed up when it came to Google’s social networking strategy. From a business perspective, they have missed out on a lot of potential opportunity – but it’s not like the company is hurting all that much because of it.

I mean, I use Google to search and many of its tools, and I used Facebook and Twitter for social networking. I need Google to create a social network as much as I need Facebook to create a search engine.

And even though Google just launched +1, it doesn’t mean they’re not still exploring additional options.

Google recently acquired PostRank, which is an analytic tool for social media. It tracks the kind of online discussion a link is getting, and it’s likely Google will start implementing some of that data into their overall search results (similar to what Bing has already been doing with Facebook). Schmidt has also invested into a tool called Backplane, which is a platform geared toward specific interests like sports and music. (Lady Gaga has also invested in the project.)

Google will likely be using these tools to create a more personalized search experience and more tailored results. And with all the money, resources, and mind power the people at Google have, one of these forays into social media is bound to work eventually.

So we’ll all just have to sit back and watch, and then do our best to utilize those opportunities when they present themselves.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
May 24

The Need (or Not) for “Social Media Experts”

Posted on by

On Monday, Peter Shankman of HARO wrote an article titled “Why I Will Never, Ever Hire A ‘Social Media Expert‘”. Feel free to read the whole thing, but the crux of the article is this: most people who call themselves “Social Media Experts” are idiots and much of what they do is just common sense.

Today, SEOmoz.org wrote a rebuttal of sorts — picking apart why the article was “entirely false.” You can read that whole one as well, but his point comes down to this: while there are plenty of people who, as soon as they get a few Twitter followers, call themselves “Social Media Experts”, data shows that talented, experienced individuals can bring a tremendous amount of value to a company through social media efforts.

In essence, they agree on a lot of points — although you can argue which writer presents his argument better. While Shankman was obviously coming from an emotional standpoint (i.e. ranting), Rand defended the need for social media experts from a more empirical place. I think they both see the need and value in social media, although they obviously have different opinions about how one should go about it.

All of that being said, I want to bring attention to a very good point brought up by Shankman:

It’s also about brevity. You know what the majority of people calling themselves social media experts can’t do, among other things? THEY CAN’T WRITE. The number of “experts” out there who can’t string a simple sentence together astounds me. Guess what — if we have about three seconds to get our message across to a new customer, you know what’s going to do it?

Not Twitter followers. Not Facebook fans. Not Foursquare check-ins – NO. What’s going to do it is GOOD WRITING, END OF STORY. Good writing is brevity, and brevity is marketing. Want to lose me as a customer, forever, guaranteed? Have a grammar error on any form of outward communication.

As a writer, this really hit home for me. Content really is king, on so many levels. No only is content important from a strictly SEO perspective (what Google’s robots are reading) but also from a human perspective. Customers need to be able to understand the ideas and message you’re trying to convey. If you use Twitter, you need to be able to intelligently express yourself in fewer than 140 characters (“intelligently” meaning “without juvenile abbreviations or indecipherable spam”).

Because if you can’t, you aren’t really much of an expert at all.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
May 17

Facebook Claims High Ground, Relatively Speaking

Posted on by

Last week, The Daily Beast broke the story about Facebook hiring a PR firm to smear Google. Meant to be a secret, Facebook worked with Burson-Marsteller to generate this negative buzz about Google. When the plot was discovered, a Facebook spokesman cited two reasons for the scheme:

first, [Facebook] believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns

This reason would be hilarious if it weren’t so ridiculous. The idea that Facebook is going to present itself as a company that cares about privacy – especially while they concurrently fight a proposed California bill that would require online business to offer an opt-out option when it comes to tracking information – is mind-numbing.

That’s not the real issue. The real issue is:

second, and perhaps more important, Facebook resents Google’s attempts to use Facebook data in its own social-networking service.

In other words, Facebook is mad that Google has been using Facebook’s data – the data they’ve carefully and shamelessly gathered over the past seven years. It’s their own data that they’ve procured through somewhat-deceitful measures, and they’re not about to let some other online giant use that information.

Facebook doesn’t care about privacy concerns or connecting people or promoting the principles of social networking. While there are employees of the social media giant who likely feel this way, Facebook is a business and is more concerned about protecting their assets. And the biggest asset Facebook has is its users’ information.

I can’t necessarily fault Facebook for that. With a business based on user data, allowing other companies to take and use that data for their own purposes isn’t good business. It would be like a scientists doing all the research and gathering all the data, and then having some company capitalize on and use that data without properly compensating the scientist.

Of course, in this example the scientist is more like a mad scientist whose research is possible through deceptive fine print and the ignorance of his subjects, but it’s his research nonetheless.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
May 09

Apple overprices their products; becomes world’s most valuable brand

Posted on by

I’ve written before about Apple’s marketing strategy (which boils down to selling an overpriced, slightly-above-average product, only to belittle it as a shoddy and sub-par product when they release the marginally better version a year later). It seems their business model has led to them pass Google and become the world’s most valuable brand.

There’s something to be said for increasing prices of products. To take a bit from the article:

“Apple is breaking the rules in terms of its pricing model,” [Peter Walshe, global brands director of Millward Brown] told Reuters by telephone. “It’s doing what luxury brands do, where the higher price the brand is, the more it seems to underpin and reinforce the desire.”

Simply put, if this new gadget costs me $1000, not only does that prove how awesome and valuable the product is, but it puts me in a class above all those “poories” who don’t have an extra G note sitting around to waste on something frivolous. The quality of the product and its ability to serve a specific function in my life are secondary; the most important thing is that I’ve got something no one else has and it cost me a fortune.

This isn’t a new idea; companies have been slapping exorbitant price tags on products forever – calling them “name brand” or “designer” or some other nonsense. Those $500 jeans aren’t made out of special fabric; and while they likely fit you better, what you’re really paying for is the brand recognition that comes from having that label on your denim.

Which is exactly why Apple is now the world’s most valuable brand. The Apple brand is not only ubiquitous, but is presented as a designer brand. We’re not talking about Wal-mart, whose brand is focused on low prices and saving people money. We’re talking about Apple, whose brand is focused on elitism and status.

All of this is why branding is an important part of any business. This isn’t to say that product quality or customer service or other aspects of business aren’t important; it’s only to say that branding can have a huge impact on the value of your business.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
May 03

Make sure your internet access is secure

Posted on by
Protect your internet connection by taking the appropriate steps.

Image by Sean Hobson

I don’t really know how hackers work. I don’t know what information or access they need to tap into your computer. I don’t know what systems they use to get into your data or use your Internet connection.

I do know, however, that it doesn’t take a hacker to connect to a wireless router that isn’t password protected. And, as it turns out, an unprotected Internet connection could end up costing you a few thousand dollars – as may be the case for a few Utah residents accused of downloading videos illegally.

While this case is related to downloading pornography, the same principles could apply for any illegally downloaded content. The company or institution which owns that content could come after you for stealing their content. These individuals claim innocence, but even if they didn’t download anything illegally it’s possible someone else used their Internet connection to do so.

While a less-secure connection may take some hacking to access, a non-secure connection (like one without a password) takes no work to access. A wireless connection without a password could be accessed by anyone, meaning that porn (in this example) could have been downloaded by a neighbor, someone passing by, or anyone else who was near your router. Of course, when the law suit comes and the records are pulled, they only know that the download happened via your Internet connection.

The first step is to protect your computer and your Internet connection with a password. There are additional steps you can take to secure your Internet connection. It’s also important to make sure that any visitors to your home (or, perhaps, children living at your residence) who access the Internet know about the potential consequences of downloading content illegally.

So protect yourself, take the necessary steps, and ensure you’re not hit with huge legal fees or a several-thousand-dollar bill for something you didn’t do.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Apr 19

Glenn Beck allegedly steals content, just like every other news show and blog

Posted on by

There have been some recent accusations that Glenn Beck stole online content from various sources without appropriate attribution, passing the content off as his own. This would be news if it didn’t already happen all the time.

I spent more than three years in the news magazine/newspaper publishing world before leaving the soul-sucking journalism industry for something much more stable. In my experience, big, major, corporate news sites (traditional newspapers, network news, cable news, etc.) and (although, to a lesser degree) high-traffic news websites despise small, independent websites and blogs – and the feeling is mutual. The biggest reason is because each group accuses the other of stealing, re-purposing, and otherwise yoinking their content.

National news sites and television programs often feel they’re above citing their sources – especially when that source is a blogger they believe is living in his parent’s basement. And bloggers sometimes don’t bother citing major news outlets, assuming they will never notice and wouldn’t really care.

So regardless of how you feel about Glenn Beck – even if you feel he’s a political puppet who unabashedly preys on people’s fears and emotional responses to promote a specific political agenda, all while using his “entertainer” persona (which he’s perpetuated since his wacky-morning-radio-DJ days) to defend his abrasive discourse so he can sleep at night with a clear conscience – there’s no reason to single him out.

If he’s guilty of stealing content, the issue definitely needs to be dealt with. But anyone who has a blog or a website should know there’s a good chance they will eventually have content stolen, and what to do about it. It’s just part of the online world we now live in.

So instead of worrying about who stole from whom, bloggers, writers, journalists, pundits, reporters, and readers should take a moment of pause to think “Is this story true? Where did they get their information? Is it a reputable source? Is there any background information? Has this been covered elsewhere?” before moving on. That way, if one of these news sources is being less than honest, people will already be out there searching for the truth.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Apr 12

Google To Start Implementing Users’ Blocked Sites

Posted on by

A few months ago, Google launched a new Chrome extension which would allow users to block specific websites from their own search results. The announcement included the statement:

we will study the resulting feedback and explore using it as a potential ranking signal for our search results.

Well, this week they announced:

we are beginning to incorporate data about the sites that users block into our algorithms.

All of this has been coupled with the recent Panda update, which has targeted content farms and other low-quality sites – many of which have already seen a significant decline in their search results. Google is going to begin implementing this update worldwide, and will also likely increase its use of user feedback (in relation to blocked sites).

So what should the average online business owner – especially one that relied on article marketing – do? At PMI, we’re still exploring and considering options, and if you’ve talked to your coach recently about this update they’ve given you great, actionable advice.

But for anyone else out there who may be wondering what to do, consider this:

Google’s goal for all of this is to increase the prevalence of quality content. The sites most affected by the update are those which were producing poor content, designed more for search engines than for human users. So, our natural response should be a personal commitment to create higher-quality content.

For the next few weeks and months, it will be very common to have submissions to various article directories declined. They are being much more careful about what they publish. So if you’re being turned down for a while, don’t take it personally. And because of that, you may want to focus your efforts elsewhere for a while.

However, if six months from now you’re submitting content that’s still being rejected, the problem may be that you’re just not creating quality content. This may mean you need to take some more time in developing your articles, or possibly outsource it to a professional writer.

Don’t do anything brash; just keep updated on what’s going on and we’ll help you moving forward.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)