• unilogou. Powered by Blogger.

    Showing posts with label search engine. Show all posts
    Showing posts with label search engine. Show all posts

    Monday, 8 August 2016

    How Google Analytics ruined marketing

    Posted By: Uni logo - 03:50:00

    Marketers in the high-tech world who use phrases such as “social media marketing,” “Facebook marketing” and “content marketing” do not understand the basic difference between marketing strategies, marketing channels and marketing content. And Google Analytics is to blame.
    In the just over 10 years since the release of the platform in November 2005, too many tech marketers now ignore the difference between strategies and channels, favor digital channels that often deliver lower returns than traditional channels and think that direct responses are the only useful ROI metric.
    And all of that is wrong.

    No one ever said “television marketing”

    Imagine that it is the 1990s and I want to reach the people who watch “Friends” on television. I would have these three available strategies out of the five that comprise the traditional Promotion Mix:
    • Advertising
    • Publicity (in the form of a product placement)
    • Direct marketing (in the form of a direct-response infomercial)
    I could run an advertisement during an episode of “Friends.” I could pay NBC to have the coffee house hold an event that would feature my product in an episode. I could hire a “Friends” actor to appear in an infomercial that would air directly after an episode. And so on.
    Now, none of this would be “television marketing” because “television marketing” is not a “thing.” “Television” is a marketing channel, not a marketing strategy. If I choose to advertise on television, “advertising” is the strategy, the advertisement itself is the content and “television” is the channel over which I transmit the advertisement.
    In the same way, “Facebook marketing,” “social media marketing” and “content marketing” are not “things.” “Facebook” is a marketing channel. “Social media” is a collection of marketing channels. “Content” is a tactic, not a strategy. “Content” is produced in the execution of strategies such as advertising, SEO and publicity. Here are two examples.
    If a tech marketer creates a video and spreads it on Facebook, here is what he is doing:
    • Strategy = Advertising (one of the parts of the traditional Promotion Mix)
    • Content = The video itself
    • Channel = Facebook
    If someone creates informational material that aims to rank highly in Google search results, here is what he is doing:
    • Strategy = SEO (which may need to be added to a new, modern Promotion Mix)
    • Content = The blog post
    • Channel = The company’s blog/Google search results
    Why is this important? The terms that we use reflect the assumptions that underlie our approaches to marketing — and bad assumptions lead to bad marketing at best, and spam at worst. This is what I believe that Mark Ritson meant when he wrote his recent, controversial Marketing Week column stating that marketers need real marketing qualifications.
    After all — and as I think Ritson was implying — too many online marketers do not know basic principles such as the few that I have mentioned so far. And it was the introduction of Google Analytics that led to these poor assumptions and this bad terminology today.

    The traditional marketing analytics buckets

    Marketing campaigns have always involved the creation of a message, the insertion of that message into a piece of content and the transmission of that content over a channel to an audience.
    And as I wrote in my prior, much-discussed TechCrunch column that discussed how too many marketers in the tech world do not understand basic marketing terminology and practices, that overall process occurs within the strategic frameworks of the five “buckets” within the Promotion Mix (“promotion” is one of the four Ps in product marketing): direct marketing, advertising, sales promotion, personal selling and publicity.
    In this lengthy tutorial on integrating traditional and online marketing on Moz, I described how each of these “buckets” has pros and cons, as well as best practices:

    In the same way, “Facebook marketing,” “social media marketing” and “content marketing” are not “things.” “Facebook” is a marketing channel. “Social media” is a collection of marketing channels. “Content” is a tactic, not a strategy. “Content” is produced in the execution of strategies such as advertising, SEO and publicity. Here are two examples.
    If a tech marketer creates a video and spreads it on Facebook, here is what he is doing:
    • Strategy = Advertising (one of the parts of the traditional Promotion Mix)
    • Content = The video itself
    • Channel = Facebook
    If someone creates informational material that aims to rank highly in Google search results, here is what he is doing:
    • Strategy = SEO (which may need to be added to a new, modern Promotion Mix)
    • Content = The blog post
    • Channel = The company’s blog/Google search results
    Why is this important? The terms that we use reflect the assumptions that underlie our approaches to marketing — and bad assumptions lead to bad marketing at best, and spam at worst. This is what I believe that Mark Ritson meant when he wrote his recent, controversial Marketing Week column stating that marketers need real marketing qualifications.
    After all — and as I think Ritson was implying — too many online marketers do not know basic principles such as the few that I have mentioned so far. And it was the introduction of Google Analytics that led to these poor assumptions and this bad terminology today.

    The traditional marketing analytics buckets

    Marketing campaigns have always involved the creation of a message, the insertion of that message into a piece of content and the transmission of that content over a channel to an audience.
    And as I wrote in my prior, much-discussed TechCrunch column that discussed how too many marketers in the tech world do not understand basic marketing terminology and practices, that overall process occurs within the strategic frameworks of the five “buckets” within the Promotion Mix (“promotion” is one of the four Ps in product marketing): direct marketing, advertising, sales promotion, personal selling and publicity.
    In this lengthy tutorial on integrating traditional and online marketing on Moz, I described how each of these “buckets” has pros and cons, as well as best practices:
    Here’s a direct marketing example. Say that one writes advertising copy to generate direct-response leads. That same copy will often deliver similar results — subject to specific, individual format restrictions of each channel — across platforms, including direct mail, email, Facebook ads and Google AdWords, because human nature does not change.
    There is no “digital marketing” and “traditional marketing.” There is only marketing — just ask Campbell’s, which has now consolidated all offline and online work under the CMO.

    Google Analytics changed the buckets

    According to W3TECHS, Google Analytics is used by 55 percent of all websites and has a traffic analysis tool market share of 83 percent. More than half of those websites use GA as their only source of marketing data.
    Google transformed the marketing industry. However, the introduction and widespread adoption of GA pushed marketers to change their focus from the strategy to the channel (this is a screenshot from an old client of mine back when I was a consultant):

    Thursday, 4 August 2016

    Google to surface critic reviews and best-of list inclusions for bars and restaurants

    Posted By: Uni logo - 13:32:00

    Google announced an interesting little tweak to its search results today that will highlight reviews from reputable critics and best-of list inclusions for bars and restaurants when you search in the Google app.
    Say you are looking for a fancy place to eat in New York. Google already gives you plenty of information about any given restaurant, including when it’s the busiest and what other eaters thought about it.
    Now, however, instead of having to rely on amateurs, you will also see reviews from Michelin, Zagat, and other reputable publishers (I guess Zagat’s reviews are also crowdsourced, though its reviewers tend to be somewhat self-selected).
    2016-08-04_1126
    In addition, you’ll also see if a certain place is on a best-of list. Google is getting this data from the likes of Serious Eats, Eater and others.
    For now, this new feature is only available in the Google app for Android and iOS. It would be nice to also see this information on the desktop, too, but it’s likely only a matter of time before it’ll be available there.
    While there is plenty of value in using crowdsourced reviews, it’s also hard to beat the likes of Pete Wells and the Michelin Guide when it comes to deciding where to spent your hard-earned money on a that $400 prix fixe dinner.

    Tuesday, 2 August 2016

    Google’s AMP project expands beyond news

    Posted By: Uni logo - 14:04:00

    Six months after launching AMP for news stories in its mobile search results, Google today announced the next step for the project: moving AMP beyond news and bringing it to other mobile sites, too.
    Just like with the rollout of AMP pages for news sites, Google is launching a demo site today that will allow you to test what this experience is like and give developers the opportunity to fine-tune AMP support for their sites before it rolls out this feature to all users.
    Rudy Galfi, a product manager on the AMP team, told me that the team believes that after the successful rollout of AMP for news sites, it is now “ready for more.”
    There are already over 150 million AMP documents from over 650,000 domains in Google’s index and, as Galfi told me, the company has seen a lot of non-news sites adopt the format, too, even though these pages weren’t easily available to users yet.
    Back in June, Google partnered with eBay to bring AMP support to that company’s mobile pages, but the new demo site features AMP pages from the likes of Squarespace, Reddit, Flipkart, TripAdvisor, Disney, Genius, Food Network, Instructables, Drugs.com, the NFL and others. So if you search for “card tricks” on the demo site, for example, you will probably see a few instant-loading results from Instructables with the standard AMP lightning bolt symbol next to them. The same goes for lyrics, recipes and other content.
    While a lot of the early work on AMP focused on news sites, the format itself works well for other kinds of content, as well. Still, the team is working on better support for e-commerce sites and how to better handle forms, for example.
    The average AMP page currently loads four times faster than non-AMP pages. Median load times are under one second. Galfi stressed that there is no ranking change here, so having AMP pages available shouldn’t change a page’s ranking on the search results page. As a user, though, I’m far more inclined to tap on an AMP page when I see one in my search results than on a non-AMP page. At this point, after all, most mobile sites are cluttered with slow-loading ads (and maybe even roadblock ads). While AMP features support for ads (and paywalls), those ads load significantly faster and don’t really interrupt the browsing experience.
    A Google spokesperson told me that AMP support for non-news sites in Google’s mobile search results should roll out beyond the preview site in the coming months, but there is no clear time frame yet. If you want to give the preview a try, head over to g.co/ampdemo on a mobile device and search for some Taylor Swift lyrics.
    AmpBlueLinksDemo_v3_garciarobert

    Copyright © 2016 Uni logo™ is a registered trademark.

    Designed by Unilogou. Hosted on Blogger Platform.