Let’s talk about online reputation management for a minute. The most important rule about protecting your reputation is to carefully examine who you are protecting it from. Only slightly less important, is determining whether any normal person would believe the accusation.

Admittedly, I’m more versed in Mu-shu than Kung Fu. I’ll also preface this by saying that I don’t want to spark a martial arts debate. Having said this, no one who read the ninja’s post (I can’t believe I just typed that) believes that an unarmed man defeated a whole temple full of monks who practice Kung Fu all day.

So, the monks are now ready to do battle. And how do Kung Fu masters do battle in 2007? They hire a lawyer, of course:

"The so-called defeat is purely fabricated, and we demand the Internet user to apologize to the whole nation for the wrongs he or she did," the Beijing News said, citing a notice announced by a lawyer for the Shaolin monks.

I’m sure the desired result was for this group to be taken seriously. Instead, I can’t help but laugh at the shear idea of a bunch of monks sitting behind their lawyer’s table in a crowded courtroom.

So what’s the right way to handle an inaccurate post that affects your online reputation?

1. Contact the Webmaster personally to explain the situation and request an updated post with the proper information. Ultimately, bloggers want lots of readers and a pat on the back for scooping a story. If you cater to their ego by helping them to get the story right, there is a better chance that they will update the post. Pick up a phone and call him/her if you can. Like any disagreement, a friendly conversation goes a long way. Hat-tip, Andy Beal.

2. Comment on the blog post to set the record straight. This should only be attempted if option one does not work. RSS feeds don’t show the actual comments, so it makes more sense to have accurate information within the post. But if your requests are denied and go unanswered, write an accurate version and post in comments. If there are certain portions of a story that are correct, be certain to point them out. For example, with our Kung Fu dilemma, maybe the whole clan was defeated, but instead of the ninja being unarmed, he showed up with some kind of super-weapon. Your version will be more respected if you give credit for providing an accurate portrayal if you are able to see the other side of the argument. Be honest about your identity and give readers an opportunity to contact you if they would like more information.

3. Post a rebuttal on your own blog. Again, this action is appropriate if the first two options are unsuccessful. An honest, fair assessment of the situation with full disclosure on your own blog is better than nothing. Make sure to include your contact information.

4. Don’t lose your head. Filing legal action is rarely the proper first step. The goal is to bury the story, not draw more attention to it. While the post might be temporarily contained to one rogue blogger, bringing in the lawyers is a great way to make a mountain out of a moll hill on a national and even global level. After all, do you think I really pay attention to Japanese ninja blogs on a daily basis?

If none of those options work, you can always “sweep the leg.”

Labels: blogging, online reputation management

I’ve not been AT&T’s biggest fan over the last few months. IMO, they’ve been greedy, uncaring and they are guilty of not putting their customers first. But I’ll give them this, they have insight and they understand the potential of technology. And it appears that they have for a long time. Check out their “You Will” campaign from 1993:

I recall feeling very inspired by this campaign when it first aired. Part of it was the music in the background and a savvy ad agency. Mostly, it was the fact that technology was moving at a dizzying rate and the possibilities were absolutely endless. This is a company who appeared to be at the forefront, and would be able to deliver on services that would my make life easier and better.

They still have an opportunity to lead the charge with new technology to enhance personal and professional communication. So why don’t they inspire me anymore? Is it because I’ve seen all that technology can do? Far from it. Is it because there are more competitors out there who can deliver more efficiently? Close, but no.

It’s because AT&T is greedy, uncaring and don’t put their customers first. And that means that it doesn’t matter what they can promise or deliver. That makes me not WANT them to succeed. I want the smaller companies to find their niche and chip away at their armor. I want consumers to find ways to make it easier to vote with their feet and go to another supplier. And I want other innovators to get to new technologies first so that AT&T remembers why they have an opportunity to develop new technologies…their customers.

The lesson here? When you don't put customers first, you become less "likable." And that means those accomplishments are worth much less.

Hat tip, Ted.

I really enjoyed this post from Mike Yanke regarding the “The SEO Reputation Problem” session at SES. This might be in part to the fact that it justified the dozens of conversations that I had to have while working at “KeywordSourcedMall Interactive.”

Specifically:

When you combine a client who’s never been properly coached on the results they can expect with an agency that has no idea what to promise other than “as much traffic as possible”, a recipe is in place for at best poor results and at worst, the potential for a fraudulent business relationship.

SO, if you sell SEM, do your due diligence to make sure you can deliver (and hopefully exceed) what your client expects. Be honest, upfront and realistic about costs and timeframes.


If you are planning to buy search marketing services, have a quantifiable goal that you expect to achieve, and be prepared to pay a fair price for it. Understand that this isn't magic. It's a partnership that requires thought and insight from both you and your consultant.

First of all, I’m telling Noah about the flood when I say that the data is skewed beyond recognition. If one portion of the target market is using Alexa’s toolbar, then their data completely alienates the other 99.9999999999% of the population who realize that the toolbar has little to no value to the user as compared to other browser companion applications. Okay, maybe now I’M exaggerating numbers a bit, but no credible statistician would risk his/her reputation on Alexa figures. So why does Alexa continue to get any traction?

Simple. Because every once in a while, a CEO, CMO or VP of Marketing learns about Alexa and turns to their Online Marketing Manager to ask, “Why is [insert competitor Web site here] above us in Alexa’s rank?”

Below are 5 ways to reply to questions about Alexa:

1. “I actually started working on our Alexa ranking a few months ago until I read about how flawed their data is. Alexa admits that their data is far from perfect, and does not seem to have anything in the pipeline that suggests they plan to improve their credibility problem.”

2. “The sample actually only measures Reach and Page Views, which does not dictate site satisfaction. For example, according to Alexa, YouTube has a higher ranking than Google. Obviously, no one believes that YouTube is more popular than Google. However; Google’s success metric is exiting their site, and YouTube is concerned with users watching video after video. That means Traffic Rank is not only flawed from a data collection standpoint, but their methodology for goal measurement is also inaccurate.

3. “I was going to start that process, but I couldn’t find any credible articles showing that an increase in Alexa ranking attributed an increase in order, leads or revenue.”

4. “We can be above our competitor very easily. I’ll just need an annual online budget earmark of about $100,000 to market to SEOs, Web & Software Developers, and Gamers. They make up a disproportionate amount of Alexa’s audience, regardless if they are our audience.

5. “Actually, for around $50,000, we can get some data that actually means something with a HitWise subscription. Would it interest you to know how we match up to all of our competitors, where our traffic lives and breathes, what publications they read, etc?”

Unless something remarkable occurs, this is the last time I plan to give any time to Alexa. I beg of you to do the same.

Labels: Alexa, Traffic Rank, Web site performance

And in more bad news for AOL, they dropped 9.5% in customer satisfaction. In other news, the sun is hot.

Let’s assume a marketer plans on supplementing a poor Quality Score with an unrealistically high maximum Cost per Click (CPC) price. That person must prepare to have his/her bluff called. Instead of measuring cost per click, Google will measure the MAXIMUM bid price. So, average cost per click could potentially increase dramatically. This apparently will only affect the ads positioned above organic results…at least for now.

Who Wins?

• Big budget marketers who will own paid impressions—Look for a flattening of the paid search marketplace, as the big boys scrap it out at positions 1–3.
• Yahoo, MSN, Ask & Shopping Engines—Despite a much lower market share in the search space, these media are going to become much more affordable. I also wouldn’t be surprised if it changes the search landscape, making Google a more big-brand option and Yahoo, MSN & Ask catering to more small business.
• Top Organic Placements—A Top 10 ranking will be more important than ever. Especially when value is determined by paid search cost equivalents.
• Search Engine Optimizers—If you’ve read that SEO is dead, Adwords just brought it back to life. See above.

Who Loses?

• Marketers with smaller budgets—They will have a more difficult time competing for top position, and will find much lower click-through rates as their creatives are moved to positions 4+. Look for an increased respect for the long tail, and gravitation to other search engines.
• Ad Agencies on performance-based agreements—Many advertising agencies and SEM shops charge clients a flat rate for a certain amount of leads/conversions each month. Expect those to be renegotiated…quickly. IMO, even branded terms are not exempt from modification depending on their level of competition.

Since Google’s revenue only grew 58% last quarter, this might give them an added boost. Let’s not forget that they dropped AdSense on several arbitrage sites in June/July. This move will help them make up for that lost revenue.

Hat tip to Rick Farago and Jon Revill.

Labels: bid positioning, Google AdWords, paid search

Now, I’ve never made any secret of my dislike for Alexa. My issue is related to the integrity of their data. And unfortunately, I have a similar concern with Quantcast. Specifically, they collect their data through some of their partners, as well as the sites themselves. So, where Alexa relies solely on the users to drive traffic numbers (causing an obvious skew); Quantcast requests site data in order to refine their results. Far from perfect, but at least they admit it. So, there's at least an upside.

This got be thinking about ratings in general. Forget the Internet for a minute. TV, radio, newspaper, outdoor advertising, etc. all rely on rate cards derived from measurements that are inherently flawed.

• TV rankings are often based on sweeps week, where networks change times of shows and put their best foot forward. Certainly not a representation of every week.
• Arbitron relies on a user-generated written diary to track shows. I can’t imagine how this is truly accurate.
• Newspapers rely on circulation and readership, which certainly doesn’t measure whether or not the reader looks at your half page ad in the middle of the finance section.
• Billboards measure an average of daily estimated circulation. Is that with or without the omnipresent chance of a traffic snarl?

But we use it…often without question. I’m not saying that I have a better way of getting numbers, but every traditional media planner/buyer has to know deep down that this isn’t accurate. Regardless, we quietly “share the lie.”

Maybe we “interactive folks” are spoiled from Web analytics and HitWise-type information, but we need a second measurement to keep traditional media accountable. The next time that hungry media rep starts pitching their fantastic numbers, ask them to put their money where their mouth is, and use a redirecting vanity URL in your creative. Challenge them with something spectacular (i.e. generous PPA, value add banners on their Web site, etc.)

At the end of the campaign, the only thing that matters is the results for the client, not the claims of Neilson, Arbitron, etc.

Labels: Quantcast, ratings, traditional media

When Google Universal Search rolled out, my initial thought was that it would change click-through rates on top organic and paid search positions. This was based on throwing off the original flow of the page. And this plugin does the same thing. Instead of seeing the expected #1 position, the user gets Wazap results. So, there’s a much better chance of click-through.

My only complaint with this particular extension is that it is limited to the game names. So if instead of typing “Tomb Raider,” I typed, “Lara Croft,” then it doesn’t work. So there is a semantic limitation without an easy work-around.

How many other vertical search engines are doing this? I certainly could see one for Thomas Register or even a Technorati offering a similar type of tool to capitalize on their specialized target market.

Disclaimer: J.P. Sherman, Director of Marketing for Wazap, is a former MSA member.

You have a lot to learn about customer service.

The fundamental part of owning a business (be it online or brick and mortar) is the ability to actually do business with a customer. There are still companies who live in the dark ages and rely on your crappy service, and I wish they would grow a pair and get a real merchant account.

Companies that use PayPal as their only way of receiving revenue lose money everyday because many customers cannot process transactions (especially if you have to add a credit card).

In addition, many vendors have their PayPal accounts locked down and cannot access monies which they have legally earned! Most small businesses using PayPal need every cent to cover expenses. Imagine not being able to access your checking account for a week, and you’ll start getting the picture.

I’m not sure how many of your clients’ customers are in a B2B environment, but my guess that I’m not the only one. There is nothing more frustrating than going through a Web site’s entire conversion funnel, only to be denied purchase because your antiquated attempt at eCommerce has yet to catch up with the rest of the civilized world. It’s the equivalent of a 65-year-old being denied entry to a Rated R movie because he/she doesn’t have an I.D.

This week, your clients were denied $1,285 because an otherwise satisfied customer physically could not complete a transaction under your system.

My hope is that anyone who has a choice will vote with their feet.

If anyone has suggestions for small business, merchant account alternatives (other than PayPal), I’d appreciate your comments.