Your Free Guide
to Internet Success
Claim your free guide to success in the age of the
Internet
|
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The World Wide Web is just a baby
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, claims today that the technology is merely in its infancy. It's almost 17 years since the first ever web site was published (6th August 1991), so you'd expect the web to be a spotty teenager.
The first British newspapers can be traced back to the 1620s, but they only really entered the "modern" world with colour printing in the 1990s, almost 400 years later. Who would have thought in 1620 that you would be able to print something in colour from a picture taken on the other side of the planet just a few hours later? So in age terms, 400 years on, newspapers have probably only recently entered adulthood themselves.
At any moment in history, people like to think they have all the answers, have solved all the problems and have advanced their technologies as far as they can go. Those first inventors of stone age tools probably were unable to predict the microchip. And so it is today; those of us heavily engaged with the Internet world like to think we are working with the latest technologies. Come back in 1,000 years and take a look...!
From the Stone Age to the Microchip
There is one problem, though. To get from stone age tools to the microchip took thousands of years; to get from hundreds of copies of flimsy black and white newspapers to their international production in colour took hundreds of years. But to go from an idea about hyperlinks to online shopping and downloadable products has taken less than 20 years. In other words, the development of Internet technologies is much more rapid.
So what does this mean for your business? It means that even though the web is in its infancy, you cannot afford to sit back and wait for it to mature. The changes that keep happening are taking place so rapidly that you need to keep up. Rather like a 5-year-old child nowadays - if they didn't mix with their friends and keep up to date on the world around them, they would stagnate into people who could not take part in society.
Your business is the same as that toddler. Take part, in full, in the Internet now and learn as much as you can every day about it. That way you will be able to grow with this infant. Stay on the sidelines and before you know it that child will have developed into something completely different and unpredictable - and your business won't know how to mix. Taking part with web technologies is no longer optional. Labels: future, internet, internet psychology
Readers' Comments:
Good conclusion, however, the comparison of the newspaper to the internet is a difficult one, because today, technology changes a lot faster than it did in the early 1900s. So, even though it is fairly new, I think it is safe to say the internet as a concept will reach adulthood very soon. However, like other forms of technology, I doubt the internet will every quit growing. You compare these forms of communication to a single adult, or child. I think it would be more apt to compare them to populations of species. The all populations eventually reach a decline (like newspaper) and even an extinction, like the telegraph. The evolution of the internet depends on where you look, some highly competitive environments have highly advanced concepts that they implement in their websites, whereas other, less competitive environments, will not be utilizing those concepts, and will run the risk of being left behind if their competitors adopt those concepts first.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Social networking may be in your genes
Some people are avid social networkers and build up huge numbers of "connections" and "friends" online. Take a look at Thomas Power, the Chairman of Ecademy, for instance. He has over 15,000 contacts in Ecademy and almost as many in LinkedIn. Does he really know all those people? If you think he's in a fix, consider Ron Bates - LinkedIn's top networker who has almost 40,000 connections.
Facebook appears to limit the number of friends. Steve Hofstetter, for instance, managed to amass over 200,000 friends, but was cutback by Facebook to a puny 5,000. Charlie Rosenbury reportedly had a similar reduction in his friends list. These limits are probably more to do with the loads on Facebook's servers than anything else. But it does raise the question, why do people have so many connections and friends online?
You would have thought, for instance, that with all the hype about online social networking that teenagers would be avid networkers. Indeed, the media coverage would have us believe that MySpace and so on are full of spotty youths. However, a recent report on teens and social media suggests otherwise.
Networking teens are already social
The research behind the report shows some interesting facts, according to Dr John M. Grohol. He points out that only 6 out of 10 teenagers who use the Internet have a social networking profile. But digging deeper into the statistics he reveals a more interesting fact.
The teenagers who are the most connected and active in online social networks are also the most socially active offline. In other words, online social networking is not perceived as different. These individuals are "naturally" social and do social things online and offline.
You would have thought that spending ages on Facebook, MySpace and so on, the online social networkers would not have time to spend with their friends offline. But it seems the reverse is true. The more that people network online, the more time they spend with "real" people.
It was fascinating yesterday when I sparked a debate in Ecademy about going for quantity rather than quality in the online contacts you have. Some people were dubious about going for raw numbers. However, my anecdotal evidence is that the more social you are, the more success you have in several areas of life, including business. No, there's no science in this, just a hunch.
But take a look back at Thomas Power's numbers. He has tens of thousands of online contacts. Yet he is one of the busiest offline networkers I know, attending dozens of meetings each month. So is he, like the research suggests, naturally social? Certainly.
The evidence is mounting that online social networking is merely an extension of our natural inclination to want to be with other people, just for the sake of being with other people. Those individuals who see social networking as something different or just for teens are missing out. If you like meeting people offline, you will love it online. And if you like people and you have thousands of online connections, you will like it even more, because you will take the time to meet them, since you are naturally social. Labels: internet psychology, social networking
Readers' Comments:
Graham - I think you're missing the word 'be'from your title!
Interesting post though. I've always wondered whether those people with thousands of Ecademy contacts actually get any useful leverage out of it!
Hi Rob
Thanks for spotting the typo - now corrected. Amazing how you can re-read something several times and still miss something obvious...!
Kind Regards
Graham
Really interesting post. I think it would be a really interesting discussion if we had data frm other countries also. I come from Greece were internet use now it is rising. So, what if we had a crosscultural analysis about social networking and how the culture affects parallel social networking in teenagers?
Thanks Maria. Yes I agree, I think this would be interesting as it would help web site owners to slightly adapt their offerings for individual cultural preferences - something they don't really do at the moment.
Great article, very balanced and I love the information about teenagers, I think it is very true, if social online likely to be social offline. I can confirm Thomas is meeting people offline every day, and I am out at least 3 days meeting. Nothing really replaces building a close friendship face to face but the online does allow you to keep in touch and start relationships going.
Thank you, loved it, infact going to quote you at the Guildford Grow your own Business tomorrow!
Thanks for your kind words Penny. I think it's worthwhile reflecting that unique amongst the social networking sites is the mix of online and offline that Ecademy brings. Once all the hype about online social networking dies down and it becomes an "everyday" thing, this mix may well prove to be Ecademy's most significant benefit and is probably why it is a long-term survivor - and will be.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Joined-up marketing is essential online
BBC Radio FiveLive carried an interesting item on the news this morning from Sony BMG that they are making their entire back catalogue available as a "free to listen" service. Wow - that's great, you might think. But this is another example of how big business still has not understood the Internet.
What did I do on hearing the news? That's right, go to the Sony BMG web site in the UK and look for the service. Where is it? No idea. Maybe it's in their "news" section, I thought. No, nothing there either. Perhaps it's on their US site, rather than their UK site? Nope. Nothing there. What about their news section? First item in their news list is dated January 2005.
This is one of the world's "leading" entertainment industries. So where are they leading us? Up the garden path, that's for sure.
If your business is undertaking PR activities - such as going on national radio - you should make sure your web site is "in sync". Or you should set up a separate domain name or web page and plug that like crazy. For example, I speak to several chief executive leadership groups. I have built a special web page just for them; when I am doing any publicity work around the world of CEOs, I only direct them to one page - http://www.grahamjones.co.uk/ceo. That way, when they read or hear an interview directed at them, they go straight to the relevant information.
Sony BMG have either been "caught on the hop" by the BBC, perhaps covering the story in advance of when Sony BMG wanted to release it, or Sony BMG did not think that people listening to the radio would immediately go to their web site. Either way, it's a significant failing by this entertainment giant.
Businesses - particularly big firms - seem to think we live in distinct little worlds; online one minute, offline the next. They haven't yet worked out that we live in an "integrated" world. The consumers of Sony BMG music for instance, listen to it online, on their iPods, live at concerts, on CDs, down the pub, in the car, on a website - and so on. The same individuals consume music in a variety of ways.
The record industry is still stuck in the 1970s when people bought either an "LP" or a "cassette". The world has changed and big firms like Sony BMG have yet to notice. Labels: internet, internet marketing, speaking
Readers' Comments:
This is a classic case of a large company taking the "multiple markets" or "stakeholder" approach to communications, whilst forgetting that we're ultimately just one large market.
It reminds me of something Sky did a few years back. They wrote to me telling me that prices were going up. This, they told me was unavoidable due to increases in their costs, but they were throwing in a new channel - Sky Mix (which to this date I've still never watched).
The same week I read in the Telegraph that Sky were putting up prices, which I already knew of course. What it also said though was that this was to boost margins and shareholder returns, not to cut costs.
Of course, we all know that every single person with Sky TV is a beer swilling football fan who wouldn't go near a broadsheet, so there's no danger of the big secret getting out is there? Yeah right.
And of course, Radio 5 live listeners won't actually go on the internet and try and find free music will they? They're too busy listening to all the free music they download to even use a radio. Think again Sony!
I don't think it's just online marketing they need to join up - it's all of their marketing across the board.
Well said, Rob. Thanks for your comment - I agree, many big businesses need to get their act together. Some of them succeed in spite of themselves. Gosh, if they were organised, they'd be dangerous...!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Can u undrstnd this? U mst b < 8teen
Teenagers write more now than ever before. Just think about it; when you were a teenager you probably only wrote at school, doing your homework and then on thank-you letters your Mum made you write. All your other communication was spoken.
But things have changed significantly and dramatically. Nowadays, teenagers write vast amounts. Not only do they write at school, they also write text messages, email messages, notes in social networking groups, blog postings, forum entries and so on. Teenagers have never communicated so much in writing.
And that means it is going to have a real impact on all our futures. What's revealing, according to a new report on teenage attitudes to writing, is that teenagers do not perceive all this written communication they do as writing. To them it is all just chatting to people.
Different writing styles
Indeed, most teenagers have different writing styles - one for their person to person communications worlds and another for formal writing at school. But the subtle perceptual change that writing online isn't writing means that the words on this page will be thought of differently depending on your age. And that means virtually every business online is going to have to adapt. As those teenagers enter the jobs market, they are going to find a disconnect between the kind of writing that all businesses engage in and the type of writing they perceive as the online norm.
Businesses need to write more informally to engage younger people - not to dumb anything down in any way, but to actually connect with them. Otherwise they will pass you by, ignore the jobs you have on offer and set up in competition with your business, engaging all those other people who no longer see writing as writing.
Teenagers love writing online, the report shows; and the fact they have an audience is a significant motivator in encouraging them to write more. But because they don't perceive it as writing, the online writing they will do is bound to be different to what someone my age is used to.
Adapt or die
Written communication has been much slower to change than the spoken word, which evolves rapidly. Now that teenagers have made the switch in thinking as to what constitutes written communication you can expect to see much more rapid changes in text based materials. And that means your business must adapt; otherwise you will be speaking a foreign language in your own country. Labels: future, internet, internet psychology, social networking
Readers' Comments:
Thursday, April 24, 2008
A simple bit of psychology is all you need to be a blogger
Bloggers are not special people, though if you look at some blogs you might be amazed at the output of these individuals; when do they sleep? Some bloggers write several very long articles each day; others blog with loads of little posts throughout the day. It seems as though all they do is blog.
Blogging brings your business several benefits, such as search engine visibility and use by the media to help with your publicity. However, when faced with the barrage of blogging from prolific authors it is somewhat off-putting. Indeed, whenever I speak with audiences about blogging, the most frequent question I get asked is about how often do you "need" to blog and if blogging is a daily activity, how on earth do you get so organised to be able to do that?
Having a constant stream of blogging ideas is something I have written about at ProBlogger. But even if you do produce loads of ideas, how do you physically write them? After all there other competing demands on your time.
The answer is in the way your brain functions. The cells of your brain work by connecting to each other. However, they also need to know is this an important connection or not. If you only blog occasionally, your brain cells can't get to grips with this activity. They're not told that blogging is important. So, your brain assumes it isn't - and the result is you only blog occasionally, which is worthless.
Your brain strengthens the connections between brain cells when the relevant activity is important. So how does your brain get the message that something is important? Repetition. The more times you do something, the stronger those connections become between the relevant brain cells. When those connections are strong, the associated activity becomes easier and is more memorable.
So, the way to ensure you blog every day is to strengthen the neural pathways associated with blogging. To do this, set a time in your diary that you can definitely make every day for the next three weeks. Then, every day, without fail, write a blog entry at the specified time each day.
After three weeks, your brain's blogging pathway will have been strengthened by "habituation". In other words you have made it a habit and your brain won't be able to stop doing it. Make blogging a habit and it then becomes so much easier to do. The problem for most people is they give up blogging after a few attempts and they haven't laid down those strong neural pathways. It would be a bit like having you first driving lesson over and over and over again. You managed to learn to drive a car because you had several lessons in quick succession.
Do the same for blogging; make it a habit by repetition and you'll be amazed how easy it becomes to blog every day. You just have to be strict with yourself in the first three weeks. Labels: blogging, internet psychology
Readers' Comments:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Where do all the Internet profits go?
Billions of pounds is traded everyday here on the Internet - do you see any of it? Probably not much. If you do make money online you don't get those billions, I'm guessing. So who does?
Well, the vast majority of the money that is spent online goes to just a handful of companies - Google, Amazon, Ebay and Microsoft. Even Tesco, the leading British retailer, with its millions of pounds of income each week online is a minnow in comparison. So the rest of us, earning less than those millions each week, are the "also rans" of the Internet profit world.
That does not stop people dreaming about making millions online. The problem is for many they are just dreams; they do not turn their dreams into reality. There are endless ebooks and courses that promise a great deal - and offer very little. Dozens of "gurus" offer their advice on how to make more money online (me amongst them...!). However, the people making the real money don't offer their advice. The Googles and Ebays of the world don't tell us how they did it.
So I've been looking at what these businesses do to earn their billions; what do they do here on the Internet to make themselves so attractive? The answer is surprising. Ebay, Google and Amazon have all done the same thing to make themselves billions online - and that is one thing. They have ignored the Internet. That's right, the single common feature between these giants of online profits is that they have got their traffic and their business as a result of their "offline" activities. In other words they have set up a business where the Internet has merely been the delivery channel. This has enabled their focus to be on the business, not on the channel.
Most online businesses focus on the channel and not on being a business. That's the difference between the billionaires and the rest of us; we are all looking in the wrong place for that money. We are looking at the Internet when we should have a much wider perspective. Focus on running a business, rather than the Internet systems and technologies and you are much more likely to make more money out of the Internet.
If you'd like to hear more about this theme, I'll be discussing it tonight in a special one-hour live teleseminar with communications expert, David Festenstein. You can even get your question asked in the £47 call by going to askgrahamjones.co.uk and placing your query which I promise to answer during the call at 8pm, tonight, the 23rd April 2008. Labels: internet, internet marketing
Readers' Comments:
Promoting a site is not easy, experts are engaged for this process. However even you can do this now through Traffic Tactics. There are many techniques mentioned in Traffic Tactics ebook that outlines you step-by-step all the way to generate a lot of traffic online. This free e-book can be downloaded directly at http://traffictactics.com/book/download.asp without any opt-in process. You will also enjoy the optimization part for landing pages. Thanks Jeff.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Did you do anything for the "global" Earthday?
 Today is the worldwide (apparently) Earthday. You knew that this morning if you strolled along to Google to discover the logo had changed. In fact for every Earthday for the past seven years, Google has changed its logo in honour of Earthday.
The idea behind Earthday is to mobilise people to take action on the environment. But it is likely to have little impact. The day has had scant attention here in the UK and the British media hasn't rushed to cover the topic. And the reason why isn't hard to see.
All you need to do is visit the Earthday web site and you will see immediately that this so-called "global" day is really only taking place in the USA. It's rather like the "global series", which is a match between the USA and Canada. The American view of "worldwide" appears to mean it covers ALL of America...!
OK, I know, I'm being stereotypical. But, take a look at that Earthday web site. The phone number is a USA number and we are being urged to call our "representative" or "senator". But outside the USA, we don't have them. Equally, all the headlines at the bottom of the page are American, not global. Dig deeper into the site and you discover that there are international projects taking place and that over 1 billion people worldwide will be celebrating today's Earthday.
But, the immediate American focus of that front page means that instantly people elsewhere in the world think "this is not for me". In the fraction of a second people take to make their mind up about a web site, this one simply screams "I'm a page for Americans" - hence the rest of the world may look away.
You only have half a second to engage people and make them want to read more of your web site. If you are promoting a global environmental day and you want to attract international audiences, making your site so obviously American from the outset could work against you. Equally, if your web site needs to attract middle-aged builders or young women interested in knitting wools, make sure you site shouts out "this is for YOU". Attention spans are getting shorter and your site needs to make an immediate connection with your target audience.
Sadly, the Earthday site which has so much global potential signals it is only for Americans in that moment when people visit. Make sure your site sends out the appropriate signals for your target audience, otherwise you will lose business.
Labels: future, internet marketing, internet psychology, politics
Readers' Comments:
Spot on Graham. Although of course it wouldn't take much for another government to create its own Earthday website with some local contacts on it would it?
However, as is well documented in your blog, our government doesn't have a clue about the internet. In fact some of the stories you've posted on here about the government are more laughable than the one you posted on 1st April (which itself was very good)! Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
As if that's not enough, our lot don't really understand the environment either. All they see it as is another excuse for taxing us for doing certain things such as driving, not recycling etc. All stick and no carrot.
As a little aside I read at the weekend that they want to close around 1,700 GP surgeries to be replaced by regional "super surgeries". Yes, that's right, the same government that wants us to travel less wants us to travel further to see a doctor, so we either drive and pollute more, or we go on public transport whilst ill and spread our germs to all and sundry.
Great joined-up thinking.
This is exactly the same experience I had when visiting the side yesterday, Graham.
There has been no talk about the Earth Day in media here in Iceland and when I checked the website, I got that same feeling, Americans only. That "Call your Senator" did that for me.
ps. One correction. World wide is not ALL America, only ALL North America (excluding maybe Mexico) ;)
Monday, April 21, 2008
How much time should you spend online?
Phil Calvert is a marketing expert who encourages everyone to market themselves "live" at seminars and other events. But he also says that blogging is the equivalent of live marketing because it places you in front of a large audience.
Indeed at an Ecademy event he explained to the 250-strong audience that social media of all kinds were now essential to anyone doing business. He went on to say that he is involved in over 30 different social networking groups and leads 50 different clubs on Ecademy. So it poses the question, when does Phil find time to do any work?
One person said to me at this event that she was far too busy working to do so much online social networking, blogging and group activities. So can you do too much online? How much time should you spend online compared with actually running your business?
Well, here's the rub. People like Phil have realised that the online world is the real world. People who claim that they are too busy running their business to do social networking are still thinking there is some kind of separation between the Internet and the "real world". But there isn't.
Online and offline have now merged; few people aged under 25 understand why older people think there is some kind of barrier between the two. To them, the Internet is "where it is at" because - well, just because.
In the good old days of business - the 1990s - there used to be armies of sales staff who travelled up and down the motorways simply knocking on doors and seeing people. Then, back in the office, there were account managers, who spent all day on the phone, simply chatting to customers making sure all was OK. There were also client liaison officers whose task was to keep people happy, that's all. Indeed, back in those good old days, bank managers spent most of their days just meeting customers, chatting with them and taking them out to lunch.
Then along came the Internet and businesses saw a way of saving cash. Sell everything online, they thought, and we can dispense with half our sale staff, we can manage all the accounts using some kind of online database and a couple of clerical people and we can have an Internet controlled call centre somewhere cheap, so we can get rid of all those client liaison people. Whoopee, we'll be rich, they thought.
But along with the savings businesses have made as a result of Internet technology, there has also come a cost. All those sales staff, account managers and client liaison staff did a hugely important job - relationship building. As relationships dwindle, so does loyalty and businesses now have to constantly get new customers.
Online, now, thanks to social networking, blogging and so on, you can build and maintain relationships. The tools of Web 2.0 have replaced those endless streams of sales calls and account management meetings with clients. So, those companies who see social media as something that is a time waster for their business are rather missing the point. What Phil Calvert does is not a waste of time, rather it is essential for the success of any modern business. All those social networking engagements build relationships - just like the sales calls of the past.
If you see the divide between the online world and the "real world" you are unlikely to think that social networking or online clubs are the way to go; indeed you will see them as an unnecessary intrusion into your time. Younger people, in particular, expect online social networking and if your business does not do it - and you've dispensed with those older ways of relationship building - well, you can probably say goodbye to your business fairly soon.
Extensive online social networking is no longer a "nice to have", as Phil Calvert has shown, it is an essential activity. Either that, or re-employ all those sales teams and account managers. Which is more expensive? Extra staff, or a few hours online each week? You decide. Labels: blogging, future, internet, internet marketing, internet psychology
Readers' Comments:
Great post, Graham. I find it amazing how people think the internet is so different from the real world. It is the real world.
I often get the question what it takes to run a successful business on the internet. And I explain to them that it's exactly the same is you need to run a successful business elsewhere, good products, good service and the right location (which on the Internet is under the right search terms on the search engines).
This is an excellent post and I have to agree 110% with you about online communities narrowing the gap between old and young. I own an online community of business professionals and I had not though about this point looking at my community it is reflective of your observations.
See http://www.marzar.com it is different from ecademy and you can share files in groups or distribute them to the community.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Old-fashioned PR brings search engine benefits
A new study of online behaviour confirms that good old-fashioned public relations is essential in getting search engine results that people actually click on. The research, conducted by the search engine marketing firm, iProspect, reveals a significant "click behaviour" which every online business owner needs to take notice of.
The study looked into the impact of "blended" search results. Up until relatively recently, search engines like Google only presented search results from web sites. Now, when you search on the main Google page it "blends in" search results from its news service, the image search, blog search and so on. In other words, the results you get are no longer just from plain, ordinary web sites.
News is king
The iProspect analysis shows that 36% of searchers click on a news result. However, if the searchers only looked in the news section, than a mere 10% click on a link. What this shows is the fact that if you get your company in the news, you'll appear on the main Google results page and you will get more clicks by doing so. Importantly, the study revealed that news results are "the most clicked on" results in blended search. In other words, if you are not in the news, you are significantly reducing your chance of getting clicked on when your company appears in a Google search result. In order to get on the Google search results and get clicked by more people you simply must be in the news.
At one of the keynote talks I give about the Internet I concentrate on the need to use offline public relations to gain online benefits. This new study adds a new twist to what I have been saying. Not only does public relations get you better search engine ranking, but it also means you get more click throughs to information about you.
Most business I speak with are using search engine optimisation or pay per click as their central strategies to improve their online business. This new data from iProspect shows that this is a weak strategy. The strongest results are going to come from having public relations as your central focus for improving your online business.
You must be in the Top 10
And there's on other important point. The iProspect study showed that 68% of people never go beyond the front page of Google. And guess where the news results end up? That's right - they make the front page of a blended search result, whereas other more "ordinary" web sites get relegated to secondary pages. But the study showed something even more revealing. Four out of ten people said that if the company was mentioned on the first page of Google results they thought the company was a "leader in its field".
So, to be seen as a leader, to get the clicks you want, you have to be on the front page. No news there then. But to be on the front page, you need to be "in the news". And if you are "in the news" you'll get more clicks than for an "ordinary" web site. So, call that PR agency now - you need them much, much more than you thought. There's only one problem - in my experience, few PR agencies actually understand online public relations. Oh dear. Labels: blogging, internet, internet marketing, speaking
Readers' Comments:
Thanks Graham. A really interesting article - I agree that SEO is much strengthened by good PR. In some ways a news story, or PR generated link, is almost like an impersonal referral. The referrer has authority of opinion because they are a journalist. PR remains an important part of the marketing mix, even in a Web 2.0 world.
PS: spotted a typo. "Now news there then" I assume should be "No news there then" in the final para.
Thanks Neil, typo corrected...!
Thanks for reminding us all, Graham! This is especially true from the SEM ( Search Engine Marketing) point of view!
Now i will have to get myself in the news! Hm..mmmm........mmmm !
That's not going to be easy! :-(
Need to think about it!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Internet marketers miss the target by miles
Marketing gurus tell as all the time that we need to really focus on our market; they say that "niche" marketing is even more important these days than ever before. Online, people expect to be able to find products and services that are directly targeted at them.
 Strange then, that a recent study of Internet users reveals that the majority of those aged over 55 feel that the content available online is mostly targeted at young people. Indeed, the study shows us that not only do these "oldies" feel that the content is wrong, but they also dislike much of the design of web sites because they are generally too youthful.
What's wrong with that, you might think. Well, several things. For a start, statistics collated by Pew Internet, the leading research company on human-Internet experiences, shows us that seven out of ten people over the age of 50 use the Internet. For those aged younger than this, there are eight out of ten regular users. In other words, the proportion of "oldies" using the Internet is roughly the same as the youngsters.
This implies that most Internet marketers are missing a trick. Older people are clearly feeling "left out" by many web sites. That means lower sales for online businesses and the possibility that competitors will see this market gap and proceed to fill it.
Internet marketers miss a trick
There's another problem for Internet marketers; the world's population is ageing. According to a United Nations report on ageing, the numbers of people aged over 50 is set to double between now and 2050. In other words, for anyone running an online business this is a growing market.
So just imagine, for a moment, that you run a record company. Typically youthful in approach, your web site is bound to be young looking and targeted at young people. That puts off the over 50s, it seems from the recent study. But guess what; the over 50s are happy to pay for music - the younger population expects it for free. If the music industry targeted their web sites to older people, they'd probably make more money online.
The research showing that older people are disenfranchised by the lack of content and design targeted at them should be a wake-up call to online businesses that they need to focus and target much more than they are doing. To dismiss the "older" Internet users could be financial ruin for many businesses. Perhaps it is time to look at your online business and see if it needs re-shaping towards the older Internet user. We focus on youth too much online. Labels: future, internet, internet marketing
Readers' Comments:
Monday, April 14, 2008
Now the BBC fails to understand the Internet
The BBC has been pioneering the use of the Internet for several years. It has invested huge amounts of cash in its new media strategy and is seen as having real leadership position for the way it has incorporated the Internet into what was a rather fuddy-duddy organisation.
Now, though, it has started openly censoring user contributions to its web site. The Radio 2 presenter Sarah Kennedy has made several gaffes on-air, some of which have drawn public criticism. Audience members had made their feelings known on the BBC web site; but not any longer. The BBC has now announced that user contributions about Sarah Kennedy are banned.
At first sight this appears to make sense. After all, you would want to protect your employee and your investment in them. You might think that the negative views are minority positions anyway and so they shouldn't be given an unfair hearing. There again, if you were the BBC, you might not want your own web site to contain negative material about your organisation.
It's a new world online
Welcome to the new world BBC. We are going to have to live in a world where we do carry negative material about ourselves and our businesses on our own web sites. Audiences expect it; no longer is the biased, one-sided, overtly "promotional" view of a company or organisation acceptable. People now expect honesty and openness. Censoring the views of your audience is red rag to a bull, these days.
If the BBC had thought for a second they may have realised that online it is not possible to censor views. You might ban them from your own web site - upsetting your audience in the process - but you can't make those views go away. There are already a couple of anti-Sarah Kennedy groups on Facebook and a search amongst blogs finds a huge array of negative criticism of her - not much positive.
In the past we could have "buried" such negativity. People may have written and complained or phoned in with their criticisms, but the "public" would never have known. Organisations and companies have been able to sweep under the carpet all the negativity about their business for centuries.
Not any more. Even if you ban such negativity from your web site, it will surface and be made very public, very quickly. Businesses will avoid that situation if they accept negativity on their own web site. Transparency is the new order of the day - online you avoid that at your peril. Labels: blogging, internet psychology, social networking, user-generated
Readers' Comments:
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Gosh...! Politicians do the right thing for the Internet
European politicians don't always have a good reputation. They are perceived as a bunch of people who just chat, cost money and don't have any real powers. But they have made a decision which will be significant as far as the Internet is concerned.
The European Parliament has voted out proposals to ban persistent "file sharers" from the Internet. Several European governments and huge pressure from the record industry led to arguments in favour of banning file sharers from having accounts with Internet Service Providers. But the European politicians narrowly threw out those notions because they conflicted with the Europe-wide stance on personal freedom.
Now as someone who used to work in the record industry, I'm convinced of the need for musicians and artistes to be paid for their creative work and their entertainment. But as I said last year when writing about buying music online, the record industry is rather like King Canute - expecting the problem to go away. It won't. They have to accept that selling recorded music is no longer an option for them; they have to find other ways of making money from music.
The European politicians have noted that. Also, they realised that it's not actually possible to ban anyone from an account with an ISP. They can set up another identity and carry on as normal. Even if they cannot create a new "self", they can use someone else's Internet connection to download music.
So although the politicians voted out the proposals on "freedom" grounds, it recognises the fact that what the phonographic industry and national governments want is complete nonsense. Even though the European decision has no legal status, it sends a signal to those wanting the bans that they need to think again. First step, perhaps, would be for the music industry and national governments to try to understand the Internet and the psychology behind why young people in particular are never likely to want to pay for music. Labels: internet, politics, social networking
Readers' Comments:
"But the European politicians narrowly threw out those notions because they conflicted with the Europe-wide stance on personal freedom".
I think I need to lie down!
Welcome news though Graham.
I hope so because it was also noticed by me. Thanks for sharing these information.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Don't belive everything experts tell you about the Internet
Apparently a study by researchers shows that if you search for "suicide" you are more likely to find material pro than anti. Mental health campaigners are now calling for "something to be done", says a report of the research at the BBC web site.
The original research was conducted by psychiatrists - three of whom, no less, were professors. So they must be experts in their subject. So, let's check; just go to Google, type in "suicide" and you get over 66m results - wow! But take a look at the first five - all of them are either objective, such as the Wikipedia entry, or trying to present a balanced or positive view.
People rarely look beyond the first five results on Google. They may look at the adverts - and you can see that the sponsored results are from people like The Samaritans, hardly "pro" suicide. So how come the "expert" researchers came up with their "results"?
Well they were doing something that Internet users don't do. They were looking for the most frequently occurring sites across four different search engines. The research shows, it seems, that the three most indexed sites across different search engines were all pro suicide. So, it sounds as though the search engines are presenting a biased view of suicide sites.
What the researchers didn't do, it seems, is what Internet users do. Search on Google, look at the first handful of results, then search again on Google with a different phrase if they can't find what they want, repeating the search on Google with a further phrase if they still don't discover anything useful. Only then do they resort to alternative search engines.
So whilst I'm not doubting the "frequency" result which these scientists discovered about suicide web sites, the conclusions people are drawing from their study only makes sense if you don't know how people behave online. Once you take into account online search behaviour, the results are pretty meaningless. Besides which, the first page of Google results are almost entirely positive and supportive - hardly pro-suicide. An individual would have to be really serious about their own demise to search for something negative. The casual searcher won't face the negative information the health campaigners are worried about. Labels: internet, internet psychology
Readers' Comments:
Further to my report of this BMJ study, I notice another psychologist has criticised the study for being poor. See: PsychCentral
You only see what you want to see. If you are really suicidal, will you be typing in "suicide" or "how can I kill myself"? Those who type in suicide are maybe people looking for info, studies or assistance as family or friends to someone suicidal. My guess is that those who really are suicidal, are going to be looking for methods, a "DIY suicide guide". And they won't click any anti-suicide links because they are not looking for that and don't want to see that.
Hallelujah! Good to see some people criticising this 'research'.
The research is flawed, as I explain at length in this blog post http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-suicide-prevention-charities-are.html
Anyone with any knowledge of search and search behaviour could point out numerous, extremely basic, problems with the methodology.
What is worse is that charities and government have it within their power to counteract these websites. Blaming people like ISPs is an abdication of responsibility.
This reminds me of that ad that ran in America:
Kids in trench coats shoot up school.
Washington's response? Ban trench coats.
It beggars belief that these so called experts aren't grasping the opportunity afforded by the Internet to reach out to suicidal people.
Perhaps they should have asked what are people really looking for - a way to kill themselves or a glimmer of hope and some help to end their suffering rather than their life?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Banning Facebook will be counter-productive for businesses
A new report for the recruitment industry reveals a massive increase in the number of companies that are banning the use of Facebook at work. The survey shows that seven out of ten companies now have banning orders in place to prevent their staff from using Facebook. That's double the number of companies compared with the same time last year.
Bosses are worried that their staff will become distracted from their work. So, rather than make the work more interesting and stimulating, those bosses are resorting to overt control of their employees. Hardly the right way to motivate and gain commitment.
For years, British business in particular has been beset with an "us and them", "bosses vs workers" culture. That divide has caused the collapse of some companies and has seen others face industrial disputes year in, year out. Togetherness, teamwork, all being on the same side - well, say the British bosses, that's namby pamby. The trouble is that study after study shows that a co-operative, free-style culture leads to greater productivity.
So, the banning of Facebook in businesses could well have the reverse effect that company bosses are hoping to achieve. It could demotivate staff from trying to do well for their boss. It could lead them to finding other social networking sites the bosses haven't heard of yet, so can't ban. This distraction in itself could lead to more chaos in the workplace than leaving Facebook available.
But, the biggest problem that British businesses will face is in actually recruiting and retaining younger members of staff. New graduates and people under the age of around 22 actually expect Facebook to be available; they can't believe you can run a business without some use of social networking. So if you ban it they will think you are a bunch of old fuddy-duddies and won't want to work for you. It's worthwhile remembering that recent studies have shown that people under the age of 25 even think email is "for old people".
There is an added problem; around half of current university students do not expect to be employed when they graduate. Not because they won't get a job - but because they don't want one. They want to work for themselves, running their own businesses. And guess what, those businesses will use social networking successfully.
British bosses who ban Facebook are slamming the door in the face of the very people who could help their companies survive the major commercial changes ahead. Labels: future, internet, internet psychology, social networking
Readers' Comments:
Great post, Graham. I just made a comment over on your Facebook imported Note too.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. I think all businesses owe it to themselves to assign staff members to at least research more about social media, Facebook in particular, and explore new ways of doing business online.
Actually, one of the many things Facebook is becoming for me is my giant, dynamic, organic rolodex. I couldn't live without it!
And, I'm thinking we'll soon relate to people without a Facebook Profile/Page the same as we do/did to people without faxes, email addresses, cell phone numbers... stuck in the dark ages. :D
Intriguing observations Graham.
I'd like to offer a related thought. I wonder how much the banning is really a knee-jerk reaction with employers following press stories without thinking through the consequences of their actions?
Years ago it was ‘No personal phone calls’. Then with the advent of the internet it became ‘No personal emails’. More recently, ‘No instant messaging (eg: MSN/Skype)’ and ‘No texting’. Fear of the unknown perhaps? Fear of technology we don’t understand or use ourselves?
In practice restrictions like these are often imposed by responsible employers to ensure their staff do not steal time for which they are paid to work. Personnel handbooks make clear that non-business activities should be avoided during the working day but in reality as long as no one takes liberties, no one makes a fuss.
The same rules should simply be applied to posting, emailing and communicating on social networks as this is no different really. And we must remember that Facebook is just one such site out of over 600 such sites that currently exist in the UK - and there are new ones every day.
Total bans on accessing one or more such sites will be as counter-productive as would be confiscating all mobile phones from staff to prevent them reading and sending personal text messages.
In 'my world' in the same way that some clients now text info to their accountants, so there is an increasing cross-over between work and social networking sites. This further complicates the position too. I tend to think of them as simply online networking sites. In so far as we look to generate referrals, introductions and work from our networking activities we have to explore how to make the most of these online facilities too.
Graham
I think we both did a post about this last year. Kent County Council caused a stir by banning Facebook.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The rule of reciprocity is alive and well on the Internet
 Imagine you are at a business meeting where you know no-one. You have arrived, slightly nervous because you are alone. You wander over to the coffee table where another guest at the meeting is pouring themselves a caffeine-laden cup. As they do so they turn to you and say "would you like a cup?". You say, yes and they pour you a coffee, ask you if you take milk and sugar and then pass the cup to you with a smile. What do you think? Almost certainly you react positively - "what a nice person", or "how kind".
Later on in the day, you feel almost duty bound to do something in return - perhaps saving them a seat at the lunch table, or offering them some bread to have with their meal. You have reciprocated. The "rule of reciprocity" suggests that when someone does something positive towards us, we feel compelled to do something in return.
You can see this in operation - often badly executed though - on many web sites. "We'll send your a free report, if you give us your email address." It's a reciprocal arrangement, but is often thrust down our throats, rather like the coffee pouring individual saying, "here's your coffee, now what are you going to give me?".
The real reason reciprocity works is because it is gentle. Online in many web sites it is far from this. That's why social networking works better. You form some online friendships, gradually revealing more to each other, then one offers the other something without asking for return or favour. But the recipient feels they have to do something in return. In other words, a more friendly basis for the "free report" offer is likely to bring longer term, more solid gain.
That's because we will be providing such potentially lucrative sales material to people who now trust us. They have done that because we have built relationships with them. Indeed, as a recent article on the basis of friendship explained in Psychology Today, we test our friends by offering slightly more information about ourselves and seeing if it is reciprocated. If people tell us a bit more, we realise they want to be friendly. So we reveal slightly more and if it is returned, our friendship deepens.
It's the same online; in social networking sites you can see people gradually revealing more about themselves. As they do so, they get more comments, connections and so on. They deepen their relationship with these people and the same old routine carries on, as though these people really were in the "real world".
What happens online in terms of how we relate to each other is no different to the way it works offline. The problem is that things like "Internet Marketing" have been given a bad name because some people have heard of the rule of reciprocity and executed it in a rather "in your face" way. You can surely use reciprocity online to your business advantage. But do it the gentle way you would when meeting people for the first time, just like offering them a coffee at a business event.
Labels: internet marketing, internet psychology, social networking
Readers' Comments:
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Take care - blogging can kill you
Russell Shaw was a prolific blogger on technology subjects. I say "was" because, sadly, Roger died of a heart attack a few weeks ago at the age of 60. Marc Orchant, a blogger with the publishing giants ZDNet also passed away recently at just 50 years old, also from a heart attack.
The similarity between these two men and their untimely deaths has not passed the mainstream media unnoticed. The New York Times, for instance, linked the deaths to the stress of blogging in a 24/7 world. It's true that stress is a fundamental cause of heart disease and early death. And if you are a prolific blogger, eager to be the first with the news or any comment, desperate to please your audience, then you could well be increasing your stress levels and making fatal illness more likely.
A Blogger Personality?
But, there is a significant link between personality and heart disease as well. The go-getting, dynamic, always in a rush kind of individual is the most likely to have serious heart trouble. And my guess is that prolific, always "there" bloggers are likely to be those "Type A" personalities who succumb to the stress induced heart trouble. Sad as it may seem, but if blogging didn't exist, the people who get stressed out by it would have found some other activity to match their personality type.
Yet there is a way you can blog a lot, keep your readers happy and avoid the stress of being "on the go" the whole time. Routine. Every year some person or other reaches 110 years old and they are asked their secret to a long life by some hapless TV reporter who has no idea how to really connect with "old people". Every time I've heard them, these old'uns say the same sort of thing: they did the same things every day.
My Auntie Flo lived until she was 90 - and you could tell the time of day and the day of the week by her activities. Washing on Monday morning, ironing on Monday afternoon; cupboard cleaning on Friday morning, shopping on Friday afternoon. Routine kept her going.
Blogging routine has hidden benefits
I get asked how I manage to keep blogging. Routine. It means I can blog regularly, without getting stressed about it. In fact, knowing that I have a set time to write my blog relieves the stress of worrying about it. True, I might have to adapt my routine to accommodate travel and so on, but generally I stick to it.
But the routine means I always have something to write. Rather than sitting at my PC facing a blank screen and wondering - and getting stressed out, I just sit at the appropriate time in my routine and type away on the subject that I have already pre-planned.
True, it may not stop me getting a heart attack, but I'm confident it will help. And as every doctor will tell you, fear of getting ill is often the pre-cursor to illness. Confidence you are well, often means you stay well. So I can type away, stress free. If you are blogging and you get worried or concerned about it in any way, you need to review what you are doing. Take stock, set up a routine for blogging and have a file for ideas so that you can face your computer without stress. If you don't do this, the New York Times will tell you that your life is in danger. Labels: blogging, internet, internet psychology
Readers' Comments:
Thanks for the reminder Graham. I made reference to the deaths here
Looks like being a B+ is preferable to being an A.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Don't call your blog a blog....!
Blogging is little more than what we have all done for years down the pub - chatting to people. A blog allows you to hold conversation with your readers and chat away, just like the "real world".
For businesses this can be a bonus; it can help spread "word of mouth" about your products and services. And as you know, "word of mouth" advertising is the most powerful. Several surveys show that we respect what our trusted contacts say about other products and services they have used. If they like it, so will we.
For the past few years many businesses have been experimenting with blogs to see if it can have an impact on their income. Indeed, I have encouraged several people to write blogs to boost their own business; yet many of them come back to me and complain they haven't made any money online using blogging.
 Now, new research on "social shopping" shows us why. The study shows that blogs are the least respected source of information on products and services you can find. As ever, the research finds we respect "people like ourselves" more than anyone to give us credible information about business products and services. We also trust analysts and academics a great deal. But as the graph shows, we detest bloggers. Interestingly, previous studies have always put the CEO of a company at the bottom of the list of credibility. Now, bloggers have pipped them to the post as the "least trusted" people.
So, the reason why many people don't make money from blogging is because their blog, well, it is a blog. Many blogs look the same, using templates; they all have the same features; and many are poorly written. Blogs scream "Hey, I'm a blog...!" - and that's the last thing you need to do if you want to be trusted, this research suggests.
I make money from writing these articles because people read them and pay me for consultancy work or speaking engagements. But this blog doesn't look too much like a blog; yes I admit it has a lot of blogging features, but it looks more like a web site - plus I haven't called it a blog. Maybe that's why I make money from blogging and some people I know don't. They've called their set of articles a blog - and that is the big turn-off.
So, if you want to make money from blogging - and you can - don't call your blog a blog. Indeed, this study has suggested that I need to revamp this site so it looks even less like a blog. Watch this space...! Labels: blogging, internet, internet marketing, internet psychology, social networking, speaking
Readers' Comments:
Interesting. I started writing a comment, but it came so long that I changed it into a new post on my blog. You can view it on http://blog.scope.is/marketing_safari/2008/04/do-you-trust-a.html
Thanks for your comment. If anyone is doubtful as to whether they should look at the link above - don't be, it's a great article well worth reading.
Graham you said Blogging is little more than what we have all done for years down the pub - chatting to people.
I would suggest that bloggers themselves are more than that, they are the ones down the pub that seem to have an opinion on everything! We who reply are the ones having a conversation :-)
Friday, April 04, 2008
Here we go again - another Government Internet blunder
Let's get this straight - sexual offences are abhorrent; I am in no way a defender of people who have committed sex crimes. As a psychologist, though, I'm aware that many of them are victims themselves, having been abused as children. But the Government rightly wants to clamp down on sexual offences.
But their latest "initiative" is just laughable; it clearly demonstrates, as if we needed any more evidence, that they do not understand the Internet at all. What they want is for sexual offenders to tell the authorities what their email address is. Then the authorities will contact places like Facebook and they will ban these email addresses. The idea is that it will prevent sexual offenders from preying on people online.
Apart from the fact that around 60% of all sexual offences are committed within families, the notion that you will reduce sexual crime by banning email addresses is plain nonsense. A criminal will happily give the authorities their email address and within seconds have a new one. The authorities will then ban the "official" email address while the offender carries on using another one.
"Aha", says the Government, "we've thought of that". Well tosh; they haven't. They claim that anyone who gives a false email address will face five years in jail. But how will they find out that an offender is using a second email address? They won't, until that person is prosecuted for any subsequent crime.
Once again, the Government is making itself a complete laughing stock when it comes to Internet policy. The problem we have is that as society is increasingly run online, we desperately need a Government that understands the world of the Internet. But there again, they've never understood the "real worl |
Good conclusion, however, the comparison of the newspaper to the internet is a difficult one, because today, technology changes a lot faster than it did in the early 1900s. So, even though it is fairly new, I think it is safe to say the internet as a concept will reach adulthood very soon. However, like other forms of technology, I doubt the internet will every quit growing. You compare these forms of communication to a single adult, or child. I think it would be more apt to compare them to populations of species. The all populations eventually reach a decline (like newspaper) and even an extinction, like the telegraph. The evolution of the internet depends on where you look, some highly competitive environments have highly advanced concepts that they implement in their websites, whereas other, less competitive environments, will not be utilizing those concepts, and will run the risk of being left behind if their competitors adopt those concepts first.