Anyone Doing Political SEO?

Most the attempts at political SEO I have seen this year have been grassroots GoogleBombing or half-thought out campaigns asking fans to comment online (and the occasional robotic sounding request for viral content creation).

Obama was estimated to have spent over $2 million on Google ads, and Google political ad man Peter Greenberger claims that limited and inconsistent search ad spend hurt Hillary Clinton, going so far as saying

The McCain campaign was the savviest among the Republican presidential primary campaigns. We think it's not a coincidence that the two savviest primary campaigns with Google are the winning ones.

How well rounded was their search engine marketing? How savvy were they with Google? Were they doing organic search optimization as well? Does anyone know a SEO working for one of their teams? Are any SEOs working for other political candidates like the Senators or members of the House of Representatives?

Decisively Average


Seth Godin recently published a post about the dead zone between being real and being polished: "It's the banal stuff in the middle that people don't read. And yet, 95% of what I see is precisely in the dead spot of the middle zone. "

I firmly try to stay in the "real" category (largely because I can't tolerate the polished up fake stuff), though someone sent me an anonymous email today telling me I need to polish it up

You know a lot, but

  • it needs to be made far simpler for laymen
  • cut back on the jargon
  • skip the rare profanity. It’s is a real turn off for traditional people
  • you could take a more professional picture

If I tried to take their advice I would end up with a watered down brand in the dead zone. Years ago one of my mentors gave me this advice

I think the best brands, the best sites have a large portion of their founders personality in them. Never be afraid to be yourself, after all there are 1/2 billion people on the www, not all of them have to agree with you. Concentrate on the ones that share your views, concentrate on making their experience the very best it can be, the rest forget them.

Or to put it another way, the best sites say - this is what we do, this is how we do it, if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Interviews & News

I got mentioned in the media 3 or 4 times last week and just finished my last interview (at least for a while). It is hard when you get used to doing interviews with friends or talking to the media because it is easy to be unprepared for the other. With reporters you have to be guarded because they often aim for a misquote because that sounds more interesting, whereas you can be really open with friends.

Anita Campbell recently interviewed me about SEO and business stuff on the Open Forum, and Augusto Ellacuriaga interviewed me about SEO on his Spanish SEO blog.

Kim Krause Berg recently interviewed Sugarrae.

In Leonard Klaatu's article about Bassackwards Business Model he mentioned me a bunch, but did not interview me...he didn't need to though as I think he understood my philosophy and strategy, perhaps better than I do. :)

On Search Engine Land I wrote tips on how to rank a new site quickly.

If you are going to SES please support Todd Malicoat's IM Charity Party on the 18th. I won't be attending SES, but I should be at the IM Charity Party for an hour or two.

David Mihm did a great rundown of SMX local and mobile.

Microsoft Live Search upgraded their webmaster tools, so if you want to dig into details but were afraid to give Google any more data this is a great opportunity. Rand recently interviewed Live's Nathan Buggia.

Amazon's Mechanical Turk fully launched. It has to be good for a lot of creative publishing ideas...the most obvious are spamming opportunities, but I have not tested the upper limit of quality yet. Have you?

Google is showing more data about when and how they customize and personalize search results...claiming greater transparency. Meanwhile, they have begun blocking some automated rank checkers and sending bad data to users of their API.

Zappos is practicing the ugly anti-marketing art of line extension, by selling laptops. Did you know that before ketchup Heinz was a leader in the pickles market?

Emotionally Engage or Enrage

I just got done talking with a pretty sharp reporter about some SEO stuff. He had done far more research than most reporters I talk to, but still had one big misconception about the field of SEO...thinking it was largely about mechanical processes, hidden text, and other such tricks.

Market research, site structure, and on page optimization are important. Doing them well can double or triple the earnings of a site, but when you get into the big fields where people are deeply passionate or interested links are needed to win. And those links are often a reflection of our emotions.

When you look at your site do you find anything that is emotionally engaging? enraging?

As the web gets more efficient and search engines gather more data, those who evoke emotional responses will keep gaining marketshare while bland webmasters fall quietly into the abyss.

Buying & Selling Websites

On Sitepoint Clinton Lee wrote a 6 page high quality web site valuation guide.

The New York Times recently published a great article about flipping websites, quoting my buddy Peter Davis.

Shane Pike recently blogged about selling one of his sites to Internet Brands. The site he sold was the one that let him quit his job. I gave him some tips on how to build traffic and increase monetization during a 15 minute chat at Elite Retreat in December of 2006. He quickly took my advice to heart and is a richer man for it. Here is his revenue graph from that site

But where he really made a killing was when he found investment bankers to help him sell on a nice multiple of that

If you believe your site could sell for more than $100,000, you’re throwing money away if you don’t use an experienced broker or investment banking firm to help you sell it. Because they’re much more adept than you at running an efficient process, finding potential buyers, and maximizing the bids from those buyers, they make up their fee many times over.

For example, this whole process started when I received an unsolicited bid for the site. Before all was said and done, though, my representatives had secured not just one, but two final bids that were ten times that initial offer. I couldn’t have gotten half that on my own.

Paying Competitors to Beat You & Steal Marketshare

Because of the low cost of online distribution a company can quickly grow from being one of your affiliates, to one of your leading sales channels, to being the leading competitor. And once they grow into a destination you can't just cut them off without hurting your customers or your brand, as Ryanair will soon find out.

The strategy of starting off with a harmless consumer focused service that can spread far and wide is what allowed Google to create a system where its leading competitors paid Google to market the Google brand across the leading web properties. It is the same set up that benefits new bloggers...most companies don't see them as competitors until after they dominate the market.

In a recent interview Microsoft's Brad Goldberg said:

Today, if you look at search behavior, search actually isn’t good around verticals. In many respects it is not in the economic interest of a lot of vertical sites to expose more and more of their content to search engines because then they risk being aggregated in terms of traffic.

At some point Google will reach a logical upper limit. Google OneBox is encroaching on many large verticals, and Google merchant search is not far behind.

At the other end of the spectrum, many marketing companies offer to help you get traffic cheaper than you can get it from Google, but only at the expense of creating competition subsidized by your own pocketbook! Years ago Article Insider was selling traffic for pennies a click, but you had to buy years worth of clicks upfront, and then when they published your content the clicks you were buying were below the fold while they placed Google AdSense ads above the fold - so if you wanted real exposure you were stuck paying Google anyhow. More recently John Andrews pointed out a new Marchex strategy where publishers pay Marchex to develop a domain name that offers them low cost traffic, at least temporarily.

By “partnering” with Marchex, these small business men have handed over a portion of their web presence to a company that has invested heavily in their own market. Marchex acquired — and prepped for local business success — a collection of domains like DentalCareIssaquah.com. Today that domain is offered to this dental practice, but tomorrow when they stop paying Marchex’s preferred rate, that domain will indeed be offered to the next bidder. Thanks to Issaqua Dental’s continuing investment in Marchex, that hyperlocal domain owned by Marches has increasing asset value in that local market. Clearly Marchex is a competitor. What a great business strategy! Compete with local small businesses while marketing yourself as their partner, collecting a share of their revenues!

If you are going to make a big online marketing investment make sure your site has reached the point of diminishing returns before looking elsewhere. And make sure that when you look elsewhere you are not diminishing your longterm returns by subsidizing a new market competitor.

Social Media Free For All Pages

It is fun to watch Tamar Weinberg and John Andrews write about social media. Largely because they are both firm in their beliefs, and they believe polar opposites. Tamar's piece covering the definition of social media marketers is uplifting and paints social media as friendships to be won rather than games to be played and people to be fooled. But bots and ad networks are amoral, and they control the production of much of the free content.

John's view of social media is a bit more cynical - highlighting quotes like this one:

In an age when most major media outlets are providing outrage-of-the-hour content, one should not be surprised that the community built around that is also comprised of illogical, emotionally charged drivel flavored with a smattering of generally useless regurgitated trivia posing as genuine information.

Digg is full of fake profiles, and so is MySpace. Early promoters of social media ask if it is becoming a vast wasteland. But at the core the questions nobody is asking are

Some animals are smart, but assuming a user is real why would they spend hours a day on a general purpose social media site unless they were getting something out of it? Entertainment has value, but trading votes gets old on day #2 (at the latest)! How low must a person value their time (or how poor must their self image and identity be) for them to spend so much time on sites painted by a collage of spam? If they are poor they are probably easy to buy off, so social media is just another way to buy exposure.

The news companies are fighting back against the free content by turning newspapers into something Jerry Springer would write, with a few advertorials sprinkled in to help offset lower ad revenues. A recent survey revealed "Nearly one in five (19 percent) of senior marketers admit their organizations bought ads on a news site in exchange for a news story."

It is hard to create a destination, become an icon, or build a brand if you are stuck on a large anonymous network. And spending too much time on such a network can warp your perception of reality by showing you the nasty side of anonymity. Add in a bit of desperate attention whoring coupled with endless reams of free recycled content and you have the perfect storm for creating The Tragedy of the Commons.

At best most large social media sites are an Amway-like pyramid scheme. Sure you can count uniques, but what's the point? Social media sites are a transitory vehicle used by newbies hoping to gain status and recognition, while professionals use them for marketing and link generation. Those who realize the game rarely waste time on social media sites beyond satisfying the criteria needed to manipulate them to achieve their goals.

The only difference between most social media sites and a traditional free for all page is votes. As social network spamming programs get cheaper and bots get smarter look for that difference to narrow.

Which is Worth More: SEO.ME or SEO.CO.NZ?

When the .ME landrush began I thought it would be possible to get a couple fun names like SEO.ME and QUIZ.ME for about $200 each. Boy was I wrong! Look at these .ME domain auction prices...

I have seen far better .info (and sometimes .net and .org) names with far more resonance go for prices far below these prices. Many international CCTLD names are dirt cheap. It is hard to find an online market more saturated than the search engine optimization field, and yet SEO.CO.NZ is already well ranked in Google New Zealand for SEO while having a buy it now price of $10,000 NZD, which amounts to $7,251.78 USD.

The .ME prices bode well for strong launches of future extensions like .web and .blog...but most new extensions will be at best marginal successes, especially given that Google is not likely to trust most of them.

Google Insights for Search

Google recently added search volume estimates to their keyword tool. They also recently launched Google Trends, Google Hot Trends, Google Trends for Websites, and the Google Ad Planner. And now Google hits the competitive research market with yet another product - Google Insights for Search

Insights for Search shows the following search data

  • relative keyword search trends for keywords (and A/B comparisons between keywords)
  • top related keywords and hottest rising related keywords
  • category based top keywords and category based hottest rising searches (and overall top 10 rising searches)
  • category based keyword search volume trends, and the relative growth of a keyword compared to its category
  • countries, states, and cities where a keyword query is popular
  • you can also mash up many data points, like celebrity searches in New York in the last 30 days

Keywords are weighted such that their top volume day is anchored at 100, and other days are represented as a relative percentage of that search volume.

Just like their Google Trends tool, by default Google Insights for Search defaults to the broad matched version of a keyword, so a word like credit will show more volume than credit cards, even though credit cards gets more search volume (because terms like credit cards and credit reports count as search volume for the word credit). Credit vs credit cards pictured below:

This type of tool can also be used to see how related some generic concepts are to more specific related concepts, and how much news coverage and marketplace changes move the relative importance of different keywords in a marketplace. Public relations experts will be able to use graphs like the following to say "hey our brand is catching up with the market leader."

Rather than brand lift and PR lift being an abstract concept, we can compare brands in real time and see which markets resonate with our brands and marketing. When marketing is working *really* well you can consider boosting early success in the most receptive markets via offline advertising, social interaction, and live events. If I wanted to hold an offline seminar guess what state is most receptive to my brand? The one I live in. That's pretty cool. :)

And the problem with such tools? It is easy for me to lose days or weeks playing with them. What are your favorite search data tools? What creative ways do you use them?

Robots.txt vs Rel=Nofollow vs Meta Robots Nofollow

I was just fixing up our Robots.txt tutorial today, and figured that I should blog this as well. From Eric Enge's interview of Matt Cutts I created the following chart. Please note that Matt did not say they are more likely to ban you for using rel=nofollow, but they have on multiple occasions stated that they treat issues differently if they think it was an accident done by an ignorant person or a malicious attempt to spam their search engine by a known SEO (in language that is more rosy than what I just wrote).

Crawled by Googlebot?
Appears in Index?
Consumes PageRank
Risks? Waste?
robots.txt no If document is linked to, it may appear URL only, or with data from links or trusted third party data sources like the ODP yes

People can look at your robots.txt file to see what content you do not want indexed. Many new launches are discovered by people watching for changes in a robots.txt file.

Using wildcards incorrectly can be expensive!

robots meta noindex tag yes no yes, but can pass on much of its PageRank by linking to other pages

Links on a noindex page are still crawled by search spiders even if the page does not appear in the search results (unless they are used in conjunction with nofollow on that page).

Page using robots meta nofollow (1 row below) in conjunction with noindex do accumulate PageRank, but do not pass it on to other pages.

robots meta nofollow tag destination page only crawled if linked to from other documents destination page only appears if linked to from other documents no, PageRank not passed to destination If you are pushing significant PageRank into a page and do not allow PageRank to flow out from that page you may waste significant link equity.
link rel=nofollow destination page only crawled if linked to from other documents destination page only appears if linked to from other documents no, PageRank not passed to destination If you are doing something borderline spammy and are using nofollow on internal links to sculpt PageRank then you look more like an SEO and are more likely to be penalized by a Google engineer for "search spam"

If you want to download the chart as an image here you go http://www.seobook.com/images/robotstxtgrid.png

Pages