December 2006

You have until Sunday night to vote in the 2006 Search Blog Awards. Be sure to vote for your favorite. Since we’re too new here and not on it yet, here are a few of my favorites that I voted for:

SEO Blog of the Year: SEOMoz
Search News Blog: Search Engine Watch
Best Search Marketing / Contextual Ad Blog: ProBlogger.net
Best Link Building Blog: StuntDubl
Best Search Agency Resource Blog: SEOMoz
Best Search Engine Blogger of 2006 SEO Black Hat
Best Affiliate Marketing Blog: ShoeMoney
Best Web 2.0 Blog: TechCrunch

If you’re missing any of these on your must read list, you’re missing out on some great stuff.

The launch strategy that PayPerPost.com utilized was one I haven’t seen before. They started their services requiring no disclosure from bloggers being paid to write. This created quite a controversy and a lot of buzz around the company. From this they gained a lot of publicity and press in a very short time span. After the initial buzz died down and competing services launched that were requiring disclosure, they immediately jumped on the bandwagon and now require disclosure. They have also created DisclosurePolicy.org to promote transparency in blogging, which is taking this farce a little too far.

I don’t know if this was their initial strategy, but I have a feeling it was. When all the negative publicity was bouncing around the blogosphere, the word was that the founders were welcoming it all. If so it demonstrates a whole new launch strategy….make something stupid and be a little evil for the publicity, then try and patch it later so you look like guardians of freedom. Go check out ReviewMe instead if you’re going to use anything. Guarding your reputation is an important facet of this industry, and when people find out you are bribing people for good reviews in might come back and haunt you.

There is a discussion at WebmasterWorld titled It’s Official: Google Discounting Reciprocal Link Exchanges and there has been quite a bit of buzz going around about this story. I’ve seen multiple comments about Google “officially” discounting reciprocal linking and so on. I’m not sure why all the discussion is about reciprocal linking. The post from the Google Webmaster Central blog that they are discussing isn’t about reciprocal linking, it’s about how they are trying to detect paid links algorithmically and new ways to build link popularity by using link bait. Reciprocal links have long been discounted and have not been a mainstream SEO technique in a very long time, unless you’re one of these geniuses.

Link bait is a great link building tool, however I don’t see that much potential beyond the tech world. It will be few and far between when a company can write a great article or build a cool AJAX tool on grass seed that will be on the front page of digg. Manipulation of social networking sites will only continue to grow. Will Google start to discount links from these networks as well? Soon enough the only links that will count for anything are going to come from YouTube, Sun, and other Google partners.

• 2006 Weblog Awards - Last day to vote!
• HelloCowboy.com aquires Workboxers.com - Both good reads
• Google Becomes a Registrar
• Google Testing Logo in AdSense
• TechCrunch UK Crashed and Burned?
• AT&T Test Ads with Directory Assistance - That’s annoying
• Monster.com Overstates Earnings by $272,000,000 - Um, get some accountants maybe
• From rubber tubes to ringtones and poker - interesting move

I’m working on a long post on PPC arbitrage this weekend. Stay tuned!

An article from yesterdays Washington Post details an investigation into viral marketing. The basis of the story is “advocacy” groups are not happy with marketers using such methods to portray an unbiased opinion of their products and services.

As the practice has taken hold over the past several years, some advocacy groups have questioned whether marketers are using such tactics to dupe consumers into believing they are getting unbiased information.

What exactly are these advocacy groups advocating for anyway? There are some companies and individuals out there completely misleading the public with claims on what their products can do (get rich quick schemes come to mind first), but these have been and are allowed to continue to run without any outcry from advocacy groups. “As Seen On TV”…??? Yea right, are you kidding me? Companies run these ads because they work, however the laws in this area are so loose they can easily get away with it.

Let’s look at viral marketing compared to traditional marketing. With viral marketing, the majority of the time these ads don’t make any false or misleading assumptions and any individuals promoting it are normally not compensated. Certainly there is a natural pressure to speak positively about a product or company simply for being included (or for the free products), however this doesn’t seem as nearly as bad as some of the false advertising we see on a regular basis. Even with the free products the consumers are free to comment and portray the product however they like. In traditional advertising, the companies marketing department has complete control over the entire campaign, start to finish, and can say whatever they like. After the initial launch in word of mouth marketing the control lies with the consumer. When the consumers catch on, these campaigns can and certainly have backfired (Sony) or they can spread and show outstanding returns (Mentos, Dove). How many times have we heard that the online world is moving toward communities and social interaction with Web 2.0? Word of mouth marketing accomplishes this difficult feat.

Do advocacy groups need to be concentrating on the viral marketing phenomenon? Not yet in my opinion. This type of marketing will certainly proliferate and start to cross the line into a gray area, but it is a wonderful marketing tool that when done properly will be a useful tool in any companies marketing package. Advocacy groups should work on their bigger problems before attempting to tackle such a blurry concept as viral marketing.