Marketing Pilgrim Published: "Does Google Only Listen If the New York Times Calls Them Out?" plus 1 more

---

Does Google Only Listen If the New York Times Calls Them Out? Posted: 06 Sep 2011 06:56 AM PDT Yesterday the New York Times ran an article that addresses what is becoming a rather serious issue in the local online marketing space. The issue is around just how easy it is for someone to get a Google Places listing tagged as "Permanently Closed". Now, in a world where there was respect and decency this shouldn't be that big a deal but we are talking about the Internet here. If there is a way for someone to make a buck or prevent someone from making a buck by exploiting a hole in an open system like Google Places you can bet there will be those who will do it and even smile when they do. The article reads In recent months, plenty of perfectly healthy businesses across the country have expired — sometimes for hours, other times for weeks — though only in the online realm cataloged and curated by Google. The reason is that it is surprisingly easy to report a business as closed in Google Places, the search giant's version of the local Yellow Pages. On Google Places, a typical listing has the address of a business, a description provided by the owner and links to photos, reviews and Google Maps. It also has a section titled "Report a problem" and one of the problems to report is "this place is permanently closed." If enough users click it, the business is labeled "reportedly closed" and later, pending a review by Google, "permanently closed." Google was tight-lipped about its review methods and would not discuss them. The Times goes on to basically call out Google's system and what many perceive as their simple lack of caring about the issue. It is pointed out that even the remedy that Google offers for the situation is inconsistent in its success. The owner of a closed business, and customers who know better, can click on a button marked "not true," which appears by all "reportedly closed" and "permanently closed" listings. In some instances, owners say, a business will "open" shortly thereafter. But other owners, like Ms. Cowan, say that the button doesn't work, or that it takes a week to have any effect. Still others say that immediately after clicking the "not true" button, their business is immediately "closed" again. Some local search experts were quoted in the article that recounted one of the funnier things a search marketer has done to make a point. Mike Blumenthal reported Google's headquarters as being closed. His actions, described below, at least got some attention from Mountain View. In mid-August, a search consultant and blogger named Mike Blumenthal was so rankled by what he considered Google's cavalier attitude to closings on Google that he committed an act of online disobedience: He "closed" Google's offices in Mountain View, Calif. For a brief period, Google itself was "reportedly closed," according to Places. "I did it to point out how annoying this is when it happens," he said. On Aug. 15, Mr. Blumenthal posted a screen shot of Google's Places page "reportedly closed," noting that it took just two people — him and a friend — to pull off this stunt. It seemed to get the company's attention. At least one change to closings on Places has already been made. Since late August, a business that is newly tagged "permanently closed," receives an alert via e-mail from Google, informing the business owner of the change. So will this result in Google finally acting as if it has some responsibility in making sure that yet another one their systems isn't being gamed regularly? We all know what happens to search results and Google's "battle" with spam. Now the same gamesmanship is happening in Google Places. Google better get it's act together on this one especially if the Places listings will in some way be incorporated into Google+ as part of their business offering. There has been no confirmation that this will even be the case but it would make sense especially since Google's recent whitewashing of these Place page listings indicates they may be preparing to populate these pages in a way that fits the whole social fabric they are trying to knit together through Google+. So what does Google have to say about all of this? Well, the New York Times certainly must have their ear because a post today on their Lat Long blog says the following About two weeks ago, news in the blogosphere made us aware that abuse — such as "place closed" spam labels — was occurring. And since then, we've been working on improvements to the system to prevent any malicious or incorrect labeling. These improvements will be implemented in the coming days. We know that accurate listings on Google Maps are an important tool for many business owners. We take reports of spam and abuse very seriously and do our best to ensure the accuracy of a listing before updating it. That being said, we apologize to both business owners and users for any frustration this recent issue of spam labeling has caused, and we're committed to making sure that users and potential customers continue to have the most up-to-date and accurate information possible. Wow, Google, those are some very pretty and comforting words. Nice try. Until there is some action taken that is real (how about providing some real support to these businesses if they are so important?) this is an empty gesture. We'll wait and see what exactly is done in the "the coming days" then see if this is something you are really concerned about or just paying lip service to. Sorry to sound so cynical, Google, but why does it take an article in the New York Times to make you take action on something that you have known about for far longer than just these past few weeks?

Mobile Evolving as After Click Actions Increase Posted: 06 Sep 2011 05:55 AM PDT The mobile Internet continues to grow which means that marketers are going to have more and more to keep pace with on a daily basis. It's not as if there wasn't enough already for marketers to pay attention to, learn and apply but if you are not used to this pace by now you never will be. Millennial Media has published their 2nd quarter S.M.A.R.T. report which is made more interesting by the fact that this is their 50th edition which implies some chance for depth regarding this evolving space. Now keep in mind, Millennial is a mobile advertising platform. Their customers are the basis of these results. Just keep this all in mind. First they look at mobile by region. No surprise that Asia leads the way. They have been ahead of the rest of the world with mobile device use for quite some time. The next bit of data from the report shows just how people are using smartphones both on the go and around the house. I find that I use my Android device around the house more and more because it's convenient. Notice I didn't say easier. Sometimes my frustration with not being able to easily do something on the small screen makes me go to the laptop but, for the most part, that phone is on my person and being used. Lastly, and for marketers most important, is a look at what people do after they click on a mobile ad. Compare these numbers to what happened just 2 short years ago and one can see the evolution of the space. But is it evolving quick enough? While getting someone to click on an ad is a victory of sorts it's simply the first step toward what everyone is looking for; the conversion. When the clickthrough doesn't result in a sale of some sort marketers then go into the branding, exposure, "there really is value there, honest!" defense which is fun to watch. The end game is sales and anything else is seen as a hollow victory. So where are you with mobile as a marketer? What are the most important areas you are discovering as places for success and those with difficulties? How much time, effort and your resources are you putting toward this growing space? Pilgrim's Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!