Google

UBM Tech aims at agency business now

Been up to my eyeballs developing content and conversation over at the new launched ARM Connected Community (check it out, lots of cool stuff) so I've been negligent on posting the past couple of weeks.  Then UBM Tech goes and starts blowing up the PR Agency industry earlier this week and it's probably time to do a spot analysis.


 As reported in BtoB Media this week, UBM Tech's Create unit is designed to cut out the middle man in marketing services (meaning agencies and third party creative services) and provide soup-to-nuts communication chains between the companies that pay them and the customers of those companies.  In other words, you want to guarantee you will show up in a UBM Tech publication news story? Then talk to one of their sales agents.  And be prepared to pay through the nose because you will be buying event services, graphic and video services, content creation services and a bunch of other stuff.


 “Historically our customers thought of us as merely a media company,” said Scott Mozarsky, president of UBM Tech. “They bought events or some form of display advertising from us. [Now] more customers are recognizing that we can do things that they didn't realize. We're able to offer our customers programs that run across paid, owned and earned media,” 


UBM Tech has said they are not bypassing agencies, only creating a new way for agencies to work with them, but agencies primarily coordinate multiple sources of content and creative to find the best price for the client.  If UBM wants all of that work for themselves, what's the point in having an agency.


We at Footwasher Media think it's a great idea for UBM Tech because now it will capture every marketing budget dollar and cut out every potential competition ... in the short term.  However, we think this will prove disastrous in the long term for UBM.


Doing a buy at UBM has been, for some time, the most expensive proposition around, and they could demand that kind of money because they have been the top dog for some time.  But there was still some competition among journalism operations.  UBM Tech has already said it has, in essence, left the journalism game (although still pointing to the fact that they have well respected journalists on staff). But they are a "marketing services" company now and, therefore, a lot of what they do doesn't fall under the traditional term of journalism, and the pesky ethics that come with it.  The UBM Tech journalists are, effectively, insulated from the money making side of the business, but they are given marching orders regarding where they need to be and when to gather information.  And that is primarily wrapped around UBM events.


In the meantime, there are lots of respected journalists that have left UBM and traditional media and are now working directly for the companies that UBM is courting, because their marketing budgets are the only ones big enough to afford the Create unit's services.  This is where the disaster is brewing.


As more companies find they can create the same or even better content, and then deliver it on their own media, they are going to wonder why they ever needed UBM. 


Guess what? That's already happening.  I've talked to marketing decision makers at several companies with big budgets using UBM Tech services and they are making plans to dump UBM in favor of in-house programs.  That's where on the long run, this decision is not going to be good for UBM.


UBM Tech management isn't to be castigated for these decisions.  They are giving their sponsors/clients exactly what they have been asking for a decade... complete control over the message, and a little fudging on the ethics of real content engagement.  The old warning, "be careful what you wish for because you might get it," is playing out right now.  The sponsors financing these changes are discovering that it might not be giving them what they want, which is real sales growth from marketing.


Why that growth isn't happening derives from Google's "Zero Point of Truth" concept, and we will get to that in a near-future post.  But I've told you what we are thinking at Footwasher, now. Let's hear from you, especially you in the agency world.  What do you think about UBM Tech's encroachment on your business?  How would you play ball with them?  Have you found getting into UBM media harder or have you just given up?  And maybe we should hear from the UBM media competitors who might be likely to gain from this decision: how are you going to change your model to deal with this?


Your customers aren't searching for you: An Interview with Douglas Alexander

The content that matters is not about you. It's about the problems your customers are trying to solve.

Over the past few weeks I'm mentioned the changes in search technology from Google (Hummingbird) and how it will affect both B2B media and marketing.  I've also touched on google's concept of the Zero Moment of Decision (ZMOD), the moment when a customer actually decides to Google a company or product to make a purchase decision (which is actually long after the decision has been made).


Today, however, I sat down with a good friend by the name of Douglas Alexander, who told me a very interesting story about his product search and selection process.  You may recognize Douglas's name from reading EBN, Electronic Purchasing Strategies or any number of component engineering and design publications.  He's currently writing what may become the definitive educational book on component engineering.


I published the audio from the discussion on my Spreaker page, linked below, but let me give you a brief overview:


Douglas rarely goes to a company website or does a Google search for companies or products.  His purchase decision has very little to do with SEO and everything to do with concepts and questions.  This is not a new way of doing things.  If you are a marketer in the technology field, you need to understand that all the marketing collateral, white papers and web advertising is doing very little for your company to gain new customers. The content that matters is not about you.  It's about the problems your customers are trying to solve.  


You have to collaborate with your customers to be found

Much marketing strategy in almost every industry is sheer guesswork and, in the past, that was the best you could do. Hummingbird changes that. The web is now more collaborative then competitive and your content strategy must have an element of collaboration in it.

The major update in the Google search algorithm, Hummingbird, is not only going to affect the SEO/SEM profession and the online media industry, as I wrote about last week.  It's going to have a major effect on branded content development within corporations.


As things were under the old search technology, the branded content movement put current and former advertisers in direct competition with the media supporting their industry for audience engagement.  A reader could put in a few keywords and would find links to both media and corporation content and the reader would have to guess at which was the most appropriate.  That won't work anymore.


As I have been saying for several months, keywords mean nothing now.  The context of the searcher means everything.  Google has been collecting data on users for over a decade now and the Hummingbird algorithm takes all of that into account, along with the data of each user's sphere of influence that ranges from family members to everyplace they may have worked.  The contextual web we've been talking about for several years is here.  Time to get with the new paradigm (and I highly recommend you pick up "The Age of Context" by Scoble and Israel as soon as possible).


So when a searcher types in a word in the search bar, Google isn't going to be looking for that word.  It's going to be looking at that word on the basis of what the searcher has looked for in the past, what has been shared/liked/plussed, what has been discussed, what has been dwelt on for several minutes and then responded to.  Searchers are not going to be typing in corporate messages, or tag lines or product names in the beginning.  They are going to be moved to concepts.  Similarly, if an online publication keeps it's content from being readily available on the web, the searcher isn't going to find it, as I said last week.  The searcher is going to find the content that the publisher (be it media group or corporation) makes available widely and with knowledge of what the market is searching for.


I realize this is a very hard concept to get.  A company I'm advising right now about content development gave me a list of subjects they want to make content about. I asked them how they knew the customers wanted to know about these subjects.  "We have no way of knowing that," was the reply.  This same company had been given an overall grade of C in a study on the best uses of social media.  They are using every single, potential avenue for pushing out content, but they are not taking advantage of the measurement tools to adapt their content to what their audience wants.  In some cases, they don't even have the options to comment or share content available to their audience, which means they actually don't know what the audience wants.


Much marketing strategy in almost every industry is sheer guesswork and, in the past, that was the best you could do.  Hummingbird changes that.  The web is now more collaborative than competitive and your content strategy must have an element of collaboration in it.  You have to start paying attention to the context of your customer base because one of your competitors is going to figure that out really soon and is going to bury you.  


Google's Hummingbird is giving SEO GERD

Have you noticed that your web traffic seems to have fallen in the past month?  If not, you're lucky.  If so, don't blame Google's major overhaul of it's search algorithm, "Hummingbird." Blame your content instead.  And if you're and SEO expert, this might help.


 As I've said about previous upgrades, Panda and Penguin, Hummingbird is less concerned with keywords as it is with context.  But the first two are focused on the engagement searchers have with content.  Hummingbird is all about context.


(I find this remarkably coincidental that The Age of Context, by Robert Scoble and Shel Israel came out this month in time for this announcement from Google.  Well Played guys.) 


So what does "all this context stuff" have to do with you?  Here's a brief explanation from Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineLand.com.


"Hummingbird should better focus on the meaning behind the words. It may better understand the actual location of your home, if you’ve shared that with Google. It might understand that “place” means you want a brick-and-mortar store. It might get that “iPhone 5s” is a particular type of electronic device carried by certain stores. Knowing all these meanings may help Google go beyond just finding pages with matching words.


In particular, Google said that Hummingbird is paying more attention to each word in a query, ensuring that the whole query — the whole sentence or conversation or meaning — is taken into account, rather than particular words. The goal is that pages matching the meaning do better, rather than pages matching just a few words."


Now, when you are talking about iPhones and big consumer issues, it might be easier to find information, right?  If we're talking about something like CAE design tools, it's a different story, right? Nope.


This morning I decided to do a search using the new capabilities.  I cleared the history and cookies in Chrome.  Then I initiated voice search on my computer and asked, "What are the best tools for designing microprocessors?"  After I got the results I asked a second question. "Where can I find the best tools for designing microprocessors."


What do you think the answers were?  Did it come up with links to the number one design automation vendor Synopsys?  Nope? How about any of the other top five vendors? Nope.


Number one was www.drdobbs.com, a magazine.  Number two was ARM, Ltd.  That was followed by a couple of academic sites, and then Texas Instruments.  To find the first reference to a design tool vendor I had to go to the second page (Synopsys) and gave up looking after the 4th page (Atmel was the only company mentioned there).


Do you see the problem? 


Keywords have virtually no value in modern search, unless, of course, you are ready to use them in advertising programs that you pay Google for.  Customers that deal with you regularly might find you in searches, but customers who don't are never going to see you.


Dr. Dobbs Journal shows up first because the content it has is the best source of answers to the question I asked.  ARM comes in second (and good for them) because it's also a place to go to answer that question.  For you to make the best use of search technology, you have to be darn sure of what kind of questions your customers are asking, and then have the right answers for them.  How do you do that? Find someone who isn't drinking your Kool-aid to research and write content that will show up in the searches.


Call us at Footwasher Media.  That's what we do. 

Sergey Brin's marriage show weakness in journalists ethics

The first tenet of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is "Seek truth and report it." Speculation is not truth.

I got into an interesting discussion on journalistic integrity regarding the reporting on Google founder Sergey Brin's impending divorce and I thought I'd layout my position here for an open discussion.


 The story was initially reported by Liz Gannes of www.AllthingsD.com, got picked up by Techmeme and found its way to my eyes through a report by Rob Hof at Forbes that was in my Facebook feed.  I commented that it was not something I consider newsworthy and even Rob seemed apologetic about doing the piece.  (Note: I have known Rob professionally for many years and consider him a preeminent business and tech journalist).


 



27bits-glass-tmagArticle
Sergy Brin



My comment was followed by several folks who defended the story as being newsworthy.  So I felt I had to actually read the story I didn't want to read and found this in Rob's piece:


"While some reports have tried to draw business issues from the situation, a reported prenuptial agreement means there probably won’t be much if any impact on Google if they ultimately divorce. So the main reason it’s of interest is that it comes as a shock to people in Silicon Valley and the tech community, where Brin and Wojcicki are quite well-known." 


This was similar to Gannes report and it's the reason that respected publications like AllthingsD should have immediately ignored the story.


The first tenet of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is "Seek truth and report it."  Speculation is not truth.  That the divorce might affect the Google stock was speculation.  The additional report that Brin was involved romantically with another employee was also speculation.  Speculation belongs in gossip columns and internet publications that claim to be journalistic.  As soon as the meat of a story turns out to be only personal and speculative, good journalists and publications should walk away


So this coverage violates the first tenet of journalism ethics.


The second tenet of the code is "Minimize harm."  Once this story broke, Google's stock plummeted.  Many people lost money.  Most would call that harm.  If it had not been reported, no harm would have been done, at least by journalists.


So this story violates the second tenet.


The third tenet is "Act independently."  Rob reported the story because other journalist were reporting it.  They were reporting it because Techmeme was reporting it.  That's not a good enough reason to violate the first two tenets, in my book.  The old adage, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you need to jump off a bridge," comes to mind.  Acting independently means thinking it through, not following the crowd.


So this story violates the third ethical tenet.


The fourth and final tenet is "Be accountable." The reason I received from several defenders of the story was that it was engaging.  The Techmeme coverage was trending.  It brings eyeballs to the site.  That means it was financially advantageous for publications to cover it. Follow the money.


To me that's a grand slam, violating all four tenets.


Why am I so incensed about this? Right now journalists have he lowest trust rating in recorded history.  People don't believe they have integrity.  I know that isn't the case but it's hard to defend my tribe when stuff like this happens.


Good content is about building trust.  Content strategies in corporations fail because they don't understand that you just can't push out marketing collateral and think that it's fooling the market.  If journalists fall into the trap of pushing out content the same as corporations, we are all screwed.


When media was controlled by a few corporations, this might be acceptable. but the market has more opportunities to turn off corporate messages... and journalists, than ever before.  We need to understand that.


The Footwasher Media webinar on this subject has two more sessions on September 12 and 26.  Signup here if you want to find out how to make your content trustworthy and engaging, save your budget and make all your marketing efforts work better.


The social web is not what you think it is. It probably never was.

My Brit pal and partner in "crime," Peter van der Sluijs just did a brief post on whether "old web is dying."  His post was actually referencing a similar piece by his social media consultant Brendan Cooper waxing wistful over the death of the freewheeling (and free) social web.


There have been several much more hyperbolic articles on this over the past few months (and I've been waiting for the right push.  This was it.) about how Google and Facebook are doomed; about the corporational takeover of the web; about how it's all falling apart, blah, blah, blah.  It was actually nice to read a couple of reasonable view about how things are changing.  I especially liked Peter's pithy assessment:


"It’s easy to hyperventilate about the next big thing and whether or not Blogs / Twitter / Facebook are too yesterday for words.  If you do that, you miss the big picture."


That, in a nutshell, has been the problem with most social web approaches.  The frustration about the web for too many marketers and communicators is that it doesn't seem to return the same kind of results as traditional mass marketing.  They want hundreds of thousands of new customers to buy their stuff.  In some cases, when the company pours a bunch of money into a full fledged marketing program, they do get results.  The promise of the social web, however, was that it would cost much, if anything to get the kind of results a million-dollar ad campaign would get.


The problem is -- and I keep saying this -- is that the social web is not a mass marketing platform.  Some people get lots of readers on their blogs.  Those people are actually really good communicators that have an expertise in an area that a lot of people care about.  But if you don't get the same kind of following that Robert Scoble gets it doesn't mean blogging is dead.  It means either you don't write well and/or you are writing about something that not a lot of people care about. It can also mean that the few people that read what you write don't know how or don't like to share content.


The social web is, primarily, a tool to reach people that matter in your world with information that matters to them.  If you don't know what matters to them, you are not going to be successful.  That applies not just to blogging but to Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Google+, Pinterest and every other platform.  There are people and companies out there being very successful with all of the "old web" stuff.  There just aren't that many.  That so many are unsuccessful is not an indication that the social web has failed.


To do it right requires getting out of your comfort zone and letting other people talk about you, then listening to what they say and making adjustments as necessary.


Here's an example of an experiment I did in blogging.  I built a free site to write about local politics.  I sent a link to three or four influential people who started following what I wrote.  They, in turn told a few others.  Within a year I had 12 regular readers.


Big deal, you say?  The readers included three members of the city council, two county supervisors, 4 senior executives of major corporations in town and my original group.  At the end of that first year, I would regularly get invited to functions that I've never been invited to and the movers and shakers in town started asking my opinion on policy.  Last year, I was asked to move my blog to a media site and was recently told that my posts are one of the most read and most engaged sections of the site.


I have never tried to get a large audience because my experiment was not about "how many" but "who". That's a big part of the big picture Peter was talking about.  Engagement and dialog with the right people the keys to successful social media.  Whether Google and Facebook survive is absolutely irrelevant.  You can be successful with any platform as long as you keep that im mind.

There's media, then there's media, part 5

We've looked at content for purchase content, owned content and social content in the previous posts and we're getting close to the end of our series.  Today we look at the reality and difficulty of earned content.


This is why earned media is so valuable.


The chart indicates relative costs and effort that go into the various forms of content and how Media scale.002 the market audience views those various forms. Paid content (advertising) is the most expensive of all media and requires the least amount of effort but is the least trustworthy.  Owned content costs less and takes about more effort but us not viewed with the same level of suspicion, generally because there is a level of human contact involved.  Social content takes more effort but even less cost than owned because you can do it even without a website. Social begins to cross the trust barrier because objective third parties may have the opportunity to state their position... if social is done right.  Most of the time it isn't, which is why it is still in the untrustworthy realm.


Earned content alone resides primarily in the trustworthy realm.  Even people who don't trust the press will refer to a magazine, newspaper, broadcast on online site for information before they will visit a corporate site or advertisement.  As we have said in previous posts, press releases are not earned content, nor are rewritten press releases even if they are published.  The best they can be are owned and owned isn't trustworthy.


Earned content is the most valuable of all content in your communications arsenal.  You don't produce it, you don't control it and you pay relatively nothing for it.  Earned content is created by journalists, no one else.  It is as objective as a human being can be, it is independent, it is the most trusted of all, and it takes enormous effort and/or time for it to become reality because it require developing trusted relationships with the third party journalists.


However, because you can't control it, it can't be considered a strategic effort.  A press release that goes through the marketing effort is packed with cliches, buzzwords and superlatives and, with some luck, may include a nugget or two of information interesting to a journalist.  It may or may not stay in his files or floating in the back of his head until he has enough information to put together an interesting story.  Or it may or may not get rewritten into a small blurb on his publication.  In the least, the publication may just post the release in it's entirety.  You won't know what will happen for sure until you see it published.  It is hard to build a strategic plan with all that uncertainty, but why is it so hard?


Because most companies and publicists really don't understand how a journalist's mind works.  Most companies are nose-deep in their own marketing committee discussions and cannot see beyond their own messaging.  They may think they have looked at all the possibilities and come up with something unique, but the journalist they are trying to reach really does see more than the marketers do.  And even with their perspective, most of them are just taking educated guesses as to what the reality is, simply because they have far too much information to process and not enough time to do more than they already are. 


So while earned media is the most valuable content you can get for your company, it can be harder to find than gold in the Sierras, which is why so many companies never even attempt to make a decent effort to get it.


 That doesn't mean, however, that getting it cannot become a strategic effort.  And that's what we will talk about next.