Google Further Blurring the Line Between Ads and Content

I guess the easiest way to leverage content owned by others is to have a partnership to syndicate their content with ads:

As a example, Warner Music has defined multiple video channels along themes like "rock music" or featuring the "Divas of Pop Music." A Web site owner can select a video channel and embed it on a section of the site dedicated to running Google AdSense ads. Visitors then can click to watch ad-supported videos within the video channel on sites running the ads.
...
The Google advertising system splits the resulting revenue three ways to the video content owner, the Web site publisher and Google. The exact revenue splits were not disclosed.

Google continues to profit from blurring the line between ads and content. The future of AdSense will look much more like a mesh of Google Related links, Google interesting items for you, and YouTube recently popular videos (with ads) than its current form today. And don't be surprised to see those ads offline, in video games, or on your cell phone (Eric Schmidt is on the Apple board).

Hidden Costs - Do You Have Ads on Your Business Cards?

Where ads look like content, or people are willing to pay for ads as content you can make a lot of money, but if your website is about marketing, and you heavily place ads on it there is no way to know how much that is going to cost you.

Your Blog is Your Business Card:

I disagree with Jason Calacanis about many things on many levels, but I think this quote is spot on

I make money building profitable businesses, not selling ads on my business card (and that's what I consider my blog to be).

Selling Yourself Short:

Good select targeted advertising can be interesting and add value, but most back-fill advertising networks do not provide enough context to add as much value as they take away. AdSense now lets you place their ads alongside competing ones, but should you?

One of my recent AdSense campaigns matched some blog related keywords, and the ad was getting over 5,000,000 impressions a day for under $40.00. And Google is getting a cut on that too!
Adsense on Blogs.

Does Your Optimization Factor in Invisible Costs?

What is one quality link worth? What is one reader worth? Due to limited market attention and the self reinforcing nature of networks anything that costs a few credibility points will have an increasing cost as time passes, but because it is a cost you don't see you may not be aware of it. If a reporter does not call you will you see that costs? How many other reporters may have called you but did not because you did not get mentioned in that first article? Did you miss out on business or life changing relationships or feedback because your site was too focused on the short term?

Anyone Can Steal Attention:

The cost may not matter now, but when you want to spread ideas it is going to be much harder to do if people do not already know an trust you. The guy who copied my about page (who even came off as a liar in his apology) is blogging about how his Alexa went up (temporarily) and how smart he thinks he is, but it makes me wonder When you have to steal to get exposure do you think it makes you look smart or worth trusting?

It is easy to lie or cheat or steal once or twice or to do it anonymously, but it gets much harder to do repeatedly to people you know. And you surround people who think and act like you do, so if your foundation is based on stealing you are fighting an uphill battle.

Perception is Reality:

It is not an issue of who is better than who, or even who is right or wrong - but do people trust you? Many current market leaders are there not because of amazing intellect or great work, but more because of slowly building trust and being around for a while.

Trust & Intense Relationships:

As Seth says

LinkedIn tends to make networks that are sprawling and weak. Web4 is about smaller, far more intense connections with trusted colleagues and their activities.

Imagine violently emotional feelings that make it hard to walk or talk or do anything. People that make you cry or laugh so hard it hurts. To get in those types of relationships people have to trust you. Some people get there from a few lucky home runs, but most people build that trust slowly over time.

Using Affiliates to Lower Your Risk Profile

If you have a strong brand and do not want to risk your brand image or search rankings you can still employ aggressive marketing techniques by using them on white label sites or affiliate accounts. Most people who use white label sites leave footprints that make it easy to associate the site with the main company. The good thing about using affiliates instead of a white label site is that just about everyone has spammy affiliates. Think of how many spammy AdSense sites you have seen...those are Google's affiliates.

You can sign up to be your affiliate and track your performance just like the performance of other affiliates. You can also sign up with different affiliate ID numbers for different websites or marketing methods. As long as your program is well integrated into the web a couple spammy affiliates are not going to make Google want to nuke everyone who is using your affiliate program, plus it can give you more leeway when doing things like bidding on competing keywords, etc. If one of your affiliate sites gets blocked from buying a keyword or removed from the index you still can use the same (or similar) technique(s) on other affiliate sites.

Have You Created Linkbait Recently?

It seems everyone is writing an article about linkbait right now. Hi Todd, Rand, and Nick!

All the articles are great stuff, and today is a great day to get started with linkbait. It can seem a bit overwhelming off the start, but if you try a few times just about any creative person can make the Digg homepage in well under a month. A friend of mine started a Digg account less than 2 weeks ago and makes the homepage almost every day now. And even Forbes is getting into link baiting.

Search Engine Marketing and Lateral Thinking Skills

Joe Sinkwitz, also known as Cygnus, has a great post explaining how the polarized view of SEO is quite naive and inaccurate in nature. Rather than explaining SEO as black or white, a more accurate representation of the SEO market is those who can think laterally, and those who can not.

A lateral thinking SEO will do what makes sense within the explained rules, but will then say to him or herself "I'm in a competitive industry" and/or "This is not an established brand", and then follow up with a very important "What can I do that will set myself apart within a search engine's algorithm?" If you dumb down what a search engine is to the level of a single database with a single data table, and a couple hundred fields, then it is easier to see what is happening. At any given point of time in an algorithm's evolution (yes, they evolved, get over it…from bubblesort no less!) certain variables are going to be weighed more heavily than others, and some that fall into certain ranges are going to be treated as red-flags.

Go read Joe's post.

Where Did Lateral Thinking Come From?

Edward De Bono coined the term lateral thinking. There is a Wikipedia article and are numerous books on the subject as well.

How Does Lateral Thinking Apply to SEO?

Common SEO lateral thinking questions:

  • why the hell is that crappy site ranking (and how can I replicate the results with limited risk or effort)

  • how did they get that sweet link (and how can I get similar sweet links)
  • how can I make that person (or group) want to link to me (and would it be worth the associated costs)
  • how can I write a second page on this topic without looking like a spammer
  • is this person naive enough to link at me if I flame them? (and if I wanted to could I get that story and link equity to spread beyond that)
  • when, how, and who should I ask for feedback on this project
  • do I have enough brand equity to where I can be a bit more aggressive without adding much risk to my marketing
  • would this link lead to secondary citations
  • how can I leverage this news coverage to lead to more links
  • would this link buy pass a hand check
  • will more aggressive spammers find this and be able to replicate it? (if so, how long will it be before this site has its outbound link authority nuked?)
  • does this page have enough authority to keep ranking even if I alter its format or purpose?
  • how might people react if I buy this keyword
  • how can I ensure this powerful page linking to me stays in the search index without looking like a spammer
  • if I buy their stuff and leave a testimonial would they be willing to link at my site
  • if I factor in the value of the testimonial link, is the site design still expensive?
  • how can I spin a story so it spreads as far as possible
  • how can I put a unique spin on something that is already spreading
  • would posting this undermine my credibility more than it would boost my link authority
  • is it worth getting this site more exposure, or will doing so drastically alter the risk reward ratio in a negative way
  • is this site worth more as a link source, a credibility source, or a direct income stream? or how should I optimally mix those?
  • do I have enough authority to make this local site a statewide or nationwide one? if no, what would be the cost of building that authority
  • how can I relate my site to this more profitable subject without looking like a spammer

Linguistics vs Profits:

It doesn't really matter weather or not you are a spammer. What matters is public perception, cost (in terms of time, money, happiness, opportunity, and attention), and the risk reward ratio of any action.

There are spots out there where you can get free high value links. There are spots where you can do $2 a month link buys for trusted links that do not look like link buys. There are spots that you can publish content to that will rank nearly immediately.

Everything associated with SEO is margin based. What are the risks and what are the opportunity costs if I do x? If you employ lateral thinking skills your margins are typically going to be better than someone who does not.

How Many Stakeholders Does Your Site Have?

Each site has unique goals, audiences, and desired actions from each audience. By creating content and ideas that are formatted around filling the needs of the various stakeholders you lower your risk profile and increase your profit potential.

Common Stakeholders in Every Site:

  • content creators

  • customers
  • suppliers
  • site members
  • bloggers
  • mainstream media
  • topical experts
  • other high authority link sources or publicity sources
  • search engines

Content creators: Those who format your content and ideas can make or break your site. Small changes in formatting or packaging can be the difference between being one of billions of web pages and being an industry standard resource. Publish a few well received link baits on a site that is generally geared toward conversion and suddenly you have an authoritative top ranked site that converts like crazy.

Customers: Every site aims to sell something... products, services, market position, a way of thinking, etc. Customers can also do your marketing for you if they firmly believe in your product or service, but that doesn't typically happen until AFTER you have customers. A site that does not convert customers is without purpose, but you also have to address many other audiences to be able to afford market exposure to potential customers.

Suppliers: As you gain exposure you have leverage over suppliers. The more they need you the better your prices will be. This is the reason you can get a gallon jar of pickles at Wal Mart for $3. Given that many types of online marketing are highly measurable and profits may be driven off of thin margins, having a thicker margin than newer competitors creates a strong barrier to entry.

Site Members: People who believe in your value proposition or enjoying your website may help recruit others to participate on your site, may provide feedback on how to make your site or business more streamlined or better, and may help create content that you can leverage for profit. Site members may also advocate your way of thinking or your community in other communities they participate in.

Bloggers: To many of us it is our source of power, a sense of empathy, or perhaps a large chunk of our personal identity. Bloggers like to hear the sound of their keyboard clicking, and the first guy with the story gets the links. Many more people write blogs than there are stories to spread or critical thinkers. Get covered by a market leading blogger and get dozens of links.

Mainstream Media: As more and more people create information there is more information than there is time to consume it, thus many of us use trusted guides / brands / companies to act as news gatherers or proxies for the value of something. Sites which are mentioned in the media tend to be trusted more by many other authoritative sources.

Topical Experts: Each industry also has topical experts who speak for their industry. Many of them will have big egos. You can reach them a variety of ways, but interviewing them or letting them participate early in your idea is an easier way to reach them than to try to sell them on how great your are.

Other High Authority Link Sources or Publicity Sources: People in related fields, fields deeply tied to the web, people tied to traditional power sources or human rights, and other offline authorities can also shape how people act online.

Search Engines: Search engines are distributed ad networks which need to scrape content to show ads against. They prefer to feel that they are in control, and like to use bloggers, media, and other authorities as proxies for the value and trustworthiness of content from a particular source.

Google's Parallel Stories

Google is exceptional at telling different stories to and about different groups of people, and leveraging each group for profit.

For example, Google sells its technology to the media as being uniquely democratic, largely because we are trained that democracy is a word which is an estimation for things that are good. Yet when Google goes to court over their index they will state that their index is a subset of the web and is not designed to be a reflection of the web. Two unique stories for two different audiences.

Search marketing is the most effective type of advertising in the world. SEOs are scum who are at fault when our search technology does not work. Two unique stories for two different audiences.

Content and ads should be clearly separated. If you merge them you are being deceptive. Unless of course you are using AdSense to monetize your site. Two unique stories for two different audiences.

Google also is great at making their marketing look like content. For example, if they want to get young kids indoctrinated on using their software, system, and services what better way could they do it than to package it as being for education?

Topical Experts:

Topical experts become known as experts not only because they know their stuff well, but also because they are good at addressing the needs of many stakeholders. Look how well Danny Sullivan addresses so many audiences.

What Audiences do You Reach?

You do not get to be a market maker without being a market manipulator. It is hard to manipulate markets unless you come up with creative ways to meet the needs of and leverage profit from many stakeholders. What key audiences does your site and competing sites have? Do you address all of them? If not, what could you do to address them?

Unequivocal Proof of Effective SEO & Marketing Techniques

I saw an email today with the subject line of PROVEN Adsense Templates, but given Google's recent change of TOS how can they be proven? And what are they proven to do? Are they optimized for earnings so much that they cut into the site's authority or linkworthiness? This template is probably proven
www.stormloader.com/members/nadoftop/40.html
but also is useless to people visiting the site.

If your site design looks similar to designs of sites that were optimized for earnings first will people think lowly of your site because of the information quality of similar sites?

Yesterday one of my AdSense sites made about $500. The same site made $600 a month just over 6 months ago, and it is still growing quickly, does not look like an obvious AdSense site, and is still gets many organic citations. Is that proven? Well to me it is, but there would be no reason to put that URL out there as an example site unless I was trying to use that for self promotion. I probably could bump that same site to $700 a day if I maximized its current earning potential, but that would be at the expense of future earnings.

The idea of proof in marketing techniques is silly because invariably consumer habits and markets shift. Read some old articles about making money from banners and I bet the author will sound short-sighted.

SEO can change even quicker than content formatting strategies, and there is a sea of outdated facts to swim through on the path to learning SEO. In something like SEO a technique may only be effective because it is rarely used, and by the time everyone knows to do it the relative value of manipulating that variable is reduced to where the ROI is nowhere near as good as it once was, and if excessive manipulation of one variable becomes so important to your strategy

  • Might search engines discount sites with similar footprints if that footprint is generally associated with low information quality?

  • Might a former signal of quality be turned into a signal of low quality used for demotion?
  • Might pushing too far on some fronts cost you the ability to pick up other signs of quality?
  • Might you be missing easy opportunities to create legitimate value in your marketplace by filling market needs that have gone unserved if you spend too much time thinking about market manipulation from an algorithmic perspective?

Some people using outdated techniques will ask to know everything you do and call your stuff rubbish if you don't share it (some guy going by the name of DomainDrivers recently did this on my blog here and then pitched similar self-promotional stuff on LED Digest), but why be specific beyond the point of being useful? One of the biggest problems with Internet marketing in general is that we read one article at a time, and until you have some experience and a solid framework set up you think one idea is the key. And then you read the next article and suddenly that is the most important thing.

People like the idea of neutrality and the idea of proof, but ultimately beyond self promotional purposes those words rarely have much value. If you are too systematic in your marketing you miss understanding some of the synergistic opportunities created by your brand and market position. If you optimize for any one aspect too much then you increase short term earnings at the expense of your long-term profit potential. Effective optimization is realizing that there are many stakeholders in your site, and creating cost effective ways to as many of them as you can.

Unless someone is a great friend helping another friend you won't get told exactly where to do exactly what works at a set price. The reasons are many fold:

  • every market is unique

  • every site is unique
  • we all know markets shift
  • if there is an exact known cheap formula and it is exactly shared we reduce our work to the value of commodity workers in 3rd world countries, who we soon will be competing with... as an example, I have had offers for some of my high ranking domains from people who I was almost certain were low waged and in third world countries
  • how can we justify charging our clients some rate for our work then sharing everything we did together with all their competitors?
  • the whole reason many techniques work is that few people use or abuse them relative to how often they occur as natural parts of the web. share all your tricks and secrets and all you do is push yourself toward becoming a commodity.
  • the whole reason reciprocal links diminished in value and effectiveness because the technique has been abused and is generally associated with low information quality
  • any real website with a real brand should have some intrinsic value associated with it that is not easy for competitors to duplicate
  • you can push frameworks of thinking and observed general algorithmic trends, but there is never a point in giving exact details of everything you do on one specific site unless your goal is to get media coverage for your own brand and/or that site and use THAT as a competitive advantage.

The value of any web page or idea is next to nothing until you add marketing experience and context to it. The web is a series of incomplete thoughts. All information is biased. And almost all of it is self promotional in nature, especially if it is packaged as proven or formatted as facts.

Listen to Your Site

If you have a site which equally covers 4 parallel areas and you put the same amount of content up for each area odds are that one area will drastically outperform all the others. I have a 1,000 page AdSense site which gets about 100 ad clicks a day on the most profitable page of the site, while the site as a whole averages about 1 click a page. The reason one section will drastically outperform the others is not just due to how well that section is integrated into the web, but also due to what types of sites you are competing against. For example, many large corporations still do not get SEO, and in certain high margin verticals (especially with certain high paying keyword modifiers) the top ranked results are dominated by cheesy spam pages. It is going to be easier to outrank the cheesy spam than to carve out marketshare in results dominated by legitimate authoritative sites.

After you get the base of your site up listen to the feedback the search engines provide. They will tell you what they think your site is about and what sections they think have enough authority to merit a top ranked position.

And while this advice can sound like it is geared exclusively toward spammy AdSense sites, the same type of market feedback, if tracked, can be applied to improving lead quality for smaller ecommerce sites. Every market has gaps in it. If you create a base of real content and listen to your site you will find enough easy opportunity to create a revenue stream which builds up a profit stream that allows you to invest in building up the authority of your domain for more competitive queries.

Defensible Traffic & Reliable Income Streams

A paradox to SEO and Internet marketing is that the less your sites need to rely on search engines the more search engines need to rely on your site, and the more reliable your rankings will be. Andy Hagans posted a quiz about defensible traffic sources, which is a way of testing how stable your income is. After you have a few years experience on the web, forward income stability becomes far more important than how much you are making from a project right now, especially as you transition from an SEO mentality to a CEO mentality.

Canary in the Coal Mine vs Boy Who Cried Wolf

Back in September I posted that I thought it was somewhat sketchy for Google to recommend there photo search when a person searched for Istockphoto and got flamed for it. Recently Blake Ross, the creator of Firefox, said similar. Because of Blake's market position, the exact same story was credible, important, spread, and is something Matt Cutts needed to make multiple blog posts about.

Based on the credibility and market position of an author certain stories may be important, or may be worthless. Even completely true stories may still cut at your credibility if you don't later reference them again to remind the dismissive parties of how their thought process changed over time.

The media is largely owned by conglomerates tied to banks, geared toward selling ads and their business agendas, manipulated every day, but most authorities would like people to blindly trust the media as a representation of truth, even as that same media wraps self serving messages in a self-aggrandizing article that dismisses their competition.

Search is also a topic that is easy to love, but SEO has been painted as a scourge on the web. Any authority or authority based system has to pretend that they hate market manipulators to justify their own legitimacy, market position, and how they got where they are.

SEO is largely based on speculation and predicting market trends that most people do not see, so it is easy to be seen as having little credibility, so long as your brand is focused on SEO, even if you are 100% correct. At least one board member of a major search engine has called me for investing advice, though I guess it would be a bad idea to blog any specifics on that.

It is quite ironic that the main reason this site was worthy of press attention is because I was sued by an unethical business, and I can even get interviews published in the London Times as an expert on Black Hat SEO largely because I own the matching domain. But even after about an hour of talking, showing highlights of how search engines pay for much of the spam, and how they don't stop paying for it even after they catch it, all I could get was a few sweet soundbytes like:

"Who is and who isn't a black hat is dependent on what Google says is black hat," said Wall. "They would certainly class me as a black hat."

Nice.

And then you remember that stories need to sell ads. To do that they exposure. To do that they have to be controversial. They have to be pitched, sold, and then the matching facts have to be collected. Rarely is there ever enough column space to risk challenging conventional wisdom if you can be controversial and conventional at the same time.

Knowing that the whole polarized black hat vs white hat garbage was going to get more and more self serving press was probably smart marketing, but is it SEO? And, if a site that cost me a half a day and under $100 gets me featured as content in the London Times (with an HTML link) is that efficient marketing?

A year and a half ago I predicted that Google would eventually create an automated commodities trading platform where they could leverage their pure data. Since then Google has leveraged their market position and used predatory pricing to become a large payment processor. Just about anything without a brand will eventually be commoditized by cheaper communications, search, more efficient markets, and other forms of automation that are good enough. Google has already won the web. Don't be surprised if you see Google Checkout offline in 2008.

Pages