Marketing Pilgrim Published: "Will Social Kill the Search Star? [Opinion]" plus 4 more |
- Will Social Kill the Search Star? [Opinion]
- Google Gives New Look To Place Pages
- Premature Socialization: Google+ Introduced To All But Used By Only Select Few
- Insurance Emails Click While Technology Emails Lag
- Clickthroughs Are Still the Most Used Marketing Metric
| Will Social Kill the Search Star? [Opinion] Posted: 29 Jun 2011 07:03 AM PDT
That may be the truth but I say so what? Whether Google is wildly successful with Google+ or it's a gargantuan pile of dung, the fact remains that Google is a search company at its core and it may be starting to lose its way. If that happens then there will be a void that will be hard to fill and there is something to be concerned about. Honestly, before my eyes were diverted to the Google+ furor, I was more impressed yesterday with what I discovered using Google's simple service called "What Do You Love?" The reason was because for the first time Google made it easy to see just how many facets of my personal and business life are impacted by Google products and services. None of these are overtly social either and guess what? I could care less if they were. They were about being productive and helping me do things on my own. They were about independence. You see, I am an admitted contrarian on the whole social play. I am not to the point of saying it is useless or anything that radical. In fact, I think there is a very important role that the social web can play in many lives. I just think that this idea that it is the central role and the most critical component of everything is completely overstated and, in fact, a dangerous line of thinking. Dangerous? Really, Frank? A bit alarmist now aren't you? If you think so, then sure, you are entitled to your opinion. Here's my take though. People are naturally sheep. They want to be led around because it's easy. When things get easy then they can just throw their minds and their lives into cruise control and go. They think that's cool but it's really quite scary. Why? Because much like muscles, the brain can atrophy. Being herded by social cues will make many people to be too reliant on others opinions thus making it harder to form their own. That's a very bad thing. This is where search is so important. Before I go any further, I realize that using Google in search is asking for an opinion of sorts because results are sifted and presented by the algorithmic whims of Google. What's different about this result set though is this. First, I have to actively reach out and figure out what it is exactly that I am looking for. Second, I have no relationship with the algorithm so there is no social awkwardness involved when I feel that what was presented to me is wrong. Third, I am forced to think more deeply about things. Fourth, and I believe most important, is that I am getting data from somewhere outside of my social sphere. Why is that good? It's because this social group is likely to have similar tastes and visions of the world thus actually restricting growth potentially because the common ground that makes us friends limits the playing field on which to run. This last one is really important because being comfortable in anything can be the most damaging thing to ever happen to a person. If you are surrounded by a group of social contacts that are your 'friends' because of common interests and other similarities then your chances of being exposed to anything that is outside of that group are severely limited for most people. Daring ones will break out of their circles to expand their horizons but they will also be distanced from that group on many levels because they dared to think outside the group's box. So this need for social cues to influence everything, including how we search for information and attempt to grow through personal quests for knowledge acquisition, is actually limiting our exposure to bigger (and possibly better) ideas or options. It's here that Google plays an important role in keeping us all sharp. We need areas of autonomy or independence that aren't reliant on a group's influence. We need this to grow and get better. Google provides that outlet for now. My fear, however, is that this need to be more social by Google is going to take them off track and we may lose one of the areas where we can be more of an individual online. I am concerned that this quest for some kind of social 'relevance' is going to make Google a less potent search engine. I think that social cues are going to limit options rather than expand them in many cases. I truly fear that people will be less independent and even more dependent. It's this group think mindset that leads to an entitlement mindset that creates lazy people. Once you get to that point it only gets worse from there. I'll be real honest here and I would ask you to be the same. You see, I love my friends. I respect who they are and what they like. I appreciate them as individuals. But as with anything healthy there should be limits and boundaries. I don't always want or need their opinions to make decisions. In fact, I seek opinions outside of my circles often because it keeps me on my toes. Being able to search for something and being given information free of that influence is important. It keeps me grounded. So where am I going with all of this? Honestly, I don't know. It's too early to tell anything about Google, social and search. I'll let the 'experts' fight it out and make their reputations off opinions about things they have not yet seen. What I can say is that I am not interested in being all social all the time. I don't think it's healthy. Apparently though it's lucrative so that's what matters to the likes of Google and Facebook. Fortunately, I have a choice to participate or not and to what level. If we place so much weight on social signals that things start to be overly influenced by those who are 'playing the game' this will end badly. I fear that we could all start to slide to the lowest common denominator and thus become mind numbingly lame in the process. Am I right? I hope not. What's your opinion? Just be sure to not ask your friends before you comment
|
| Google Gives New Look To Place Pages Posted: 28 Jun 2011 09:02 PM PDT Google is playing with a lot of things at the moment. Google+ is one. Now it looks like Google Place pages are receiving a facelift as well. All of this is likely in preparation for the rolling thunder roll out of Google+. Here's the new look. Personally, I like it.
Google has all of these floating individual elements that are being primed to somehow fit into the grand socialization of the once mighty search engine. Is this the beginning of the end? Will social kill the search star?
|
| Premature Socialization: Google+ Introduced To All But Used By Only Select Few Posted: 28 Jun 2011 04:34 PM PDT Google is telling everyone that their new project, Google +, is the new way to do social. We're going to have to take their word for it since the project is being rolled out in a field trial by invitation only in a technique called rolling thunder according to Wired. In fine Internet fashion, however, that hasn't stopped everyone from trying to compare it to Facebook, make fun of its name and make bold predictions about how it will or will not work. Rather than get involved in this silliness how about we just give you the series of videos that Google produced for their blog post to explain this new social thing. Make of it what you will. THE OVERVIEW CIRCLES SPARKS HANGOUTS INSTANT UPLOAD HUDDLE So there you go. Read about each element at the Google blog or gawk at the myriad articles trying to predict the future of Google+. There will be plenty of time for analysis and speculation when it actually has some traction. Right now, though, it's just a Wave of speculation. Oooops, I bet Google hopes it isn't that. Maybe all the buzz about Google+ will die down. Oooops again. Google and Buzz didn't get along in the past. How about we all get in a circle and wait until something actually happens.
|
| Insurance Emails Click While Technology Emails Lag Posted: 28 Jun 2011 12:04 PM PDT
A new study by Harte-Hanks shows that overall delivery rates are at 95% for 2010, slightly up from 2009 and unsubscribes are down to .19%. When it comes to the all important open and click, it varies by industry. Overall, open rates dropped to 17% from 26%, but Harte-Hanks says this might not be an accurate depiction of the facts. They say that many emails only report as "open" once the images have been downloaded, but many people will skip the images, rather than deal with the potential for a virus or simply because it's an unnecessary step. Click rates averaged 3%, which was in line with 2009. When you break it down by industry, you can see that our health and welfare is of utmost importance. Both insurance and pharmaceutical have the highest click rates, while technology barely shows up as a blip on the graph. My guess would be that tech buyers are too tech savvy to go with a boring email click. It's likely they're following through online or through a mobile app. Harte-Hanks surmises the problem is a reliance on trade show mailing lists which doesn't demonstrate a specific interest in a company. The keys to email success? Highly-targeted, customized emails, sent to properly vetted customers on a regular, but not too frequent basis. Couldn't be simpler, right? "Source: Harte-Hanks Postfuture Index™ Email Response Metrics 2009-2010, 2011."
|
| Clickthroughs Are Still the Most Used Marketing Metric Posted: 28 Jun 2011 11:19 AM PDT
So what is? eMarketer has seven answers in their new book, "Digital Impact: The Two Secrets to Online Marketing Success." Written by eMarketer CEO and co-founder Geoff Ramsey and Vipin Mayar, EVP of McCann Worldgroup, the book states that there are seven types of metrics, that if mastered, will give you a clear picture of how you're doing. Let's take a closer look at a couple of them. Qualified Reach, or Qualified Visits With this metric, you don't just count heads, you count heads that performed a specific action. This is for all those people who think they're king of the hill because they have 10,000 Facebook fans or 50,000 Twitter followers. If half of those followers are spammers trying to sell you, they're not worth counting. Same for all the dead accounts or the folks who followed you on Facebook for a coupon then promptly hid your feed. By counting only those folks who followed a link, or shared a piece of content, you're getting a much truer picture of the effectiveness of your campaign. Engagement Score Like qualified reach, engagement isn't about showing up, it's about what you do when you get there. The easiest way to measure engagement is to look at the time spent on site and bounce rates. If the majority of people who hit your site leave a few seconds later, your content needs to be tweaked. If you post videos, are people watching them through to the end? Are they using the mobile app that they downloaded from your company? Getting consumers to come to you is one thing, but keeping them is another. Engagement score is how you measure that kind of success. Also included on eMarketer's list is brand perception lift, efficiency metrics, end action rate and the ever popular ROI. All of these are excellent tools for not only measuring success, but for helping you plan future campaigns. For those with less manpower, money or just getting started, concentrate on qualified reach. Choose your qualifying action, then focus your efforts on getting that number to rise. Do a good job there and the rest will follow.
|
. 
No comments:
Post a Comment