Your Free Guide
to Internet Success
Claim your free guide to success in the age of the
Internet
|
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What journeys do your customers make?
Your customers are unlikely to arrive at your web site without having been somewhere else first; even if they are time travellers, like Dr Who, and they suddenly port themselves from outer space to your web pages, they will have been somewhere else first. Understanding how people got to your site can help you improve your business since it enables you to put signposts along the way for them.
Some marketing folks call this the "pathway" to your site or the "journey"; it doesn't matter what you call it, what's important is that you understand how people get to your site in the first place. I was speaking about this very topic this morning to a group of Chief Executives in the Midlands. I arrived back in my office to find a podcast from the Online Marketing Show, which opened in London Today.
The podcast included interviews with Chris Dobson, from Microsoft and James Elias from Google. Both of these leading figures from the Internet industry emphasised the need for Internet marketers to understand the "end to end" nature of getting customers. Find out where they start and how they get to the finish line - your shopping cart receipt page...!
When I speak with businesses I find that too few consider this. They think it is a simple one or two step procedure, such as a click on a Pay Per Click advert, or a click on a well ranked web page. But in order to gain more business you need to understand what the customer was doing before they found your advert or link. What was driving them? Understand that, and you can gain more business.
Thanks to Search Engine Optimisation and Pay Per Click, many businesses have been fooled into believing that in order to grow their business online they simply need to tweak their web pages or change their advertising in subtle ways to get more click throughs. Companies are spending inordinate amounts of time and a great deal of effort on the last part of the customer's journey. However, to gain more business, you need to think about the start of that journey or pathway.
In almost all cases that begins offline - not on the Internet. Few people make impulse purchases whilst surfing. They are online for a reason - to buy a product or service in your sector. But they started that journey offline - perhaps after reading a newspaper or article, or following a conversation with friends and colleagues. So, rather than concentrating on the online portion of the journey to your shopping cart, spend more time on the start of that pathway, in the offline space, and you will gain more business as a result. Labels: internet marketing, internet psychology, shopping, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends: 
Readers' Comments:
Friday, June 13, 2008
Assumption is your enemy when it comes to online business
People often assume things about the Internet, yet frequently those assumptions turn out to be incorrect. For instance, many business owners I meet assume, it seems, that email marketing is dead. Yet, despite the problems caused by spam, email marketing is still the most successful method of selling online. Another assumption appears to be that banning certain web sites at work will increase productivity, yet the reverse is true.
Today, though, I realised there was another set of assumptions being made that prevent organisations from benefiting from the power of the Internet. I was speaking at a conference of communications managers in the NHS. During the question and answer session at the end of my talk it became apparent that the NHS was being held back by assumptions that managers were making.
For instance, they thought that some of the suggestions I was making, such as using blogs to help communicate, were a great idea, but only usable in organisation with lots of money. They had assumed there was a cost involved - yet blogging can be free of charge. Similarly, they told me that some of the changes I was proposing for the way the NHS could use the Internet would never happen because Chief Executives in NHS Trusts wouldn't allow them. This was an assumption - as to was the notion that the minds of Chief Executives could not be changed.
In other words, these talented and hard working communications managers were holding back on their ability to gain from the Internet because of some assumptions and associated negative thinking. If you truly want to benefit from the Internet and get your message across, it's best to have an open mind. Don't assume, for instance, that Facebook is only for teenagers - it isn't; or that having multiple web sites is costly - it can be cheaper than hosting one web site. Assumptions like these are holding businesses back. Labels: internet, internet psychology, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Web design is not that important
Business owners who decide to set up a web site, or revamp an existing one, seem to always start by talking to web designers. The discussions then get focused on the look and "feel" of the site, colours and site structure. Apart from the fact that this takes the business owner away from considering customers, new research suggests that this is the wrong place to start.
For a long time I have been speaking about the fact that content is more important than design. Not only do web site users focus on the content, but so does Google. Yet, every online business I have ever dealt with has always started with design and only thought about content later, only to discover their web site structure which was carefully and expensively designed makes it difficult to include the new content.
The new study from the University of Vienna looked at our interaction with art. The research found that when we look at paintings we process the content in less than 10 milliseconds, but it takes a further 40ms before our brains receive the design features.
What this suggests is that we are psychologically primed to look for content first and then only concern ourselves with design after that. The art study showed that design is important. However, our primary attention is on the content.
For anyone running an online business this suggests that your planning and organisation of a web site must start with content - only once you have the content organised and in shape should you worry about design. That means when starting a new web site, or updating an existing one, your first port of call should be a copywriter, not a designer. Labels: internet, internet marketing, internet psychology, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
Graham
I agree with you that content is king and that not enough effort gets focused there but I don't really agree that the art experiment is all that relevant.
The brain will always process the content of a picture quickly (eg Mona Lisa = moody looking woman with long hair!) but if I saw your website for 10 miliseconds, could I make an informed decision about the 'content' (in this case meaning words)in that time? Surely not. And that's no reflection on your site - I think your content's great. But with a website, surely one's understanding of the content will lag behind that of the style, for minutes - the complete opposite of the art experiment.
So there will be a few seconds or minutes when people's perception of your site is based largely on the design. Granted though, the proof of the pudding will be in your content, but the design does play a part in projecting a professional, credible image and encouraging people to read on (the Jakob Nielsen example on yesterday's post is a prime bad example of this!)
You also mention site structure as something which most people discuss at the early stages. I think structure SHOULD be discussed at the outset. It's more a function of the content than it is of the design in my opinion. I'm currently in the middle of a user-centred redesign of our site and the research stage of that has shown that people want to know they're in the right place, or can get there easily if not. They take a keen interest in looking at what else you do by looking at what links you have. They might not click on any of those links - they just like to know what else you do, as this forms part of their perception of you.
Needless to say, the site structure's also important for when people do follow links too, as they need to be able to find other relevant information quickly and easily and avoid anything irrelevant.
I agree though, forget the colour schemes, fonts and all that until your content's in place. The design should serve the content, not the other way around and even the flashiest design won't salvage bad content.
Rob, thanks for your comment which adds useful material to my post. I agree site structure is important, but I do tend to get people to focus on the content more, simply because once they start thinking of structure their mind wanders into what that structure will look like and they are off down the design avenue again.
I'm confident, though, that the art research would be applicable to the web. You can show people a web site for a fraction of a second and they can tell you quite accurately what it was about - if it has words on it. We appear to process the words first, then look at how those words are organised in terms of design afterwards.
Even so, I agree content and design are an integrated mix, but if people just focus on design and forget the content, they are missing out an essential component.
Hi, I have to agree with the user above. The research here isn't applicable. Content and pattern recognition is different in media. In web design (and print design) the psychology is about making people decide they want to read and the content is about making people read.
In an art gallery you can process what the image is (human, sheep, landscape) in design you would only process it as a web page. that design HAS to draw you to content. There are many studies that show layout affects readability.
Understanding of content comes much after.
This association does seem like a non-sequitur. As you state, 'being confident' has nothing to do with research into web design which shows how people recognize patterns and recognize layout.
Thanks for your comment Lee-Jon. However, I disagree. Readability is clearly affected by layout, that's true. Research on newspaper layouts, for instance, and on book layouts, has shown what you say to be the case. However, readability and understanding are deeper processes that come after what I'm talking about.
The decision about wanting to read something has to come from the content, not the design. Otherwise we would all end up reading all sorts of stuff that we like the look of, but which is not relevant to our needs. Remember that text is stored as patterns so we are using pattern recognition to work out the content.
Furthermore, there are several badly designed web sites which get millions of readers and make millions of dollars for their owners. The readers are content focused, clearly.
It is, inevitably, a mix between content and design. However, several studies point to the fact that content is processed before design; indeed that has been the case in print, long before the web came along.
Though your conclusion is sound, believe that your art example is misused.
Images are much more different than text. I doubt that people would ever glance at a huge block of text in 10 milliseconds tell you the topic of the text. They could however tell you that it is indeed text, and a large block of it, and probably if it was left or right justified. But they couldn't tell you what the topic was.
I believe that it works for images because of our ancient need to use sight to spot threats, we can quickly tell you what something is, but we don't get into the complexities of the matter until our reflexes designate it as 'mostly harmless', or 'potentially dangerous' once we get through that then we look into the details.
For paintings that translates into identifying trees and faces. For websites, that involves credibility... visually. I remember several instances where I clicked away from a website of a fairly reputable company because i thought it was some internet poker website or made by a 10 year old, only to discover months or years later that it was reputable.
These people probably never actually considered the design and how it would affect the visitors.
But your conclusion is correct. Ultimately, design doesn't make for success, content does. Many of these horribly designed pages later got recommended to me purely for their content. However, the amount that design affects your website's popularity will mostly depend on your audience.
As far as the process goes... it is irrelevant what comes first. Under the assumption that your content will be relevant, there are two ways you can begin the website building process. Linearly (from what the visitor will see/think first to the point when they close their window) or Goal oriented, (why, ultimately, are they here?). Every good designer should take their final design and think about it both ways, because their users will approach it from these two ways (new users will be linear, returning users will be direct/goal oriented)
Also, you forget one key conclusion that could be interpreted from the Art example. People focus on pretty pictures first because we pick up on images first (face... rock), and we focus on complex things like content second, because more complex things like design features second.(assuming design features include why x girl in x painting is sad, and the careful composition of the clouds)
Kat, thanks for your comment. I'm glad we agree. You make some useful points. However, research from as far back as the 1960s shows we can recognise words pretty quickly. Indeed, assuming all the words are in context we can recognise around eight words in 50ms, meaning we can actually see the words before the design. Your face recognition example is interesting because studies of babies show they can differentiate between different faces before they can see properly. It appears they are seeking specific items of facial content - namely eye positions and relative distance to mouth. They cannot see the "design" features of a face, but can see the "content". Even in facial recognition, content appears to come before design. We appear to be able to recognise words much faster than the art study showed we recognise design features. So I'm sure that we are primed for content first, then design second. Indeed, your evolutionary point is about content, not design.
This is all good stuff and everybody is right. Perhaps this is because of semantics. 'Design' is not about pretty pictures and colours, which are clearly can be secondary to 'content'. A better word to describe that process would be 'decoration'. 'Design' is something else.
In the human face example the actual 'design' is key - it is the arrangement of the content (eyes, nose etc) that allow us to recognise it as a face, to be able to read it and not see random organs. In the art gallery, the 'design' is actually the gallery.
Design is the presentation that allows us to see the context of the content.
This is why so may websites fail: many web designers are only interested in features, many graphic designers are only interested in decoration and many copyrighters are only interesting in wonderful prose.
'Design' is the whole.
Unfortunately it is not a linear process. Structure, content and context need to be begun as one, together.
Ayd, thanks for your comment; I agree wholeheartedly. However, I think non-designer business owners think that the "decoration" is the important thing, when clearly it is only part of the story. And I suspect for good web designers they can't get the right brief to do the "whole thing" because their clients are so focused on the decorative aspects.
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
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
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...!
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
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
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!
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
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
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 :-)
Monday, October 01, 2007
Viewpoint Business hits the airwaves
Viewpoint Business is a brand new, regular radio programme about the world of business to help you in your business world. It is presented by me and Jeremy Jacobs; the idea is that we interview a couple of people each week who can add to your business if you listen to their ideas. But as business people ourselves, Jeremy and I discuss what the interviewees have said and relate it to our own business experiences. In other words it's a bit like a couple of business people having a chat over some business information they have heard. You can eavesdrop.
The programme can be heard by connecting to the streaming audio version at Viewpoint Business, or you can download an MP3 version if you wish.
Business guru Geoff Burch is our feature interview this week. Listen to the programme and you will find out what you need to do to really connect with your customers. Labels: internet, internet marketing, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Internet advertising rule book to be torn up
Online advertisers are still trying to get to grips with "pay per click" advertising, such as Google AdWords. Considerable numbers of people spend large amounts of money on pay per click advertising with little if any return. The auction model for things like Google AdWords is complex and requires considerable attention to detail in order to get it right. It is much more complex than traditional advertising in newspapers and magazines which was largely using a "fixed price" model.
However, just as you might be getting used to pay per click, a new advertising model is being developed and it is going to arrive sooner than you might think. For several years good businesses have analysed their "cost per action". In other words they know exactly how much it cost their company to gain each new customer or sell each product. Indeed, if you don't know that your business is poorly controlled.
Some online advertising agencies have suggested that cost per action advertising will become the main method of internet advertising. In this system, you only pay if the specified action takes place. So, for instance, say you have an advert for an ebook, you would only pay if someone bought the ebook, not just clicked on your advertisement. At the moment you could pay for thousands of people who click on your advert, even if they don't buy from you.
Sounds great doesn't it? It beats newspaper advertising hands down and traditional pay per click. You would immediately know which kind of advertising was effective and you could experiment without any cost. Plus, it would eliminate "click fraud", whereby automated systems or competitors click on your pay per click adverts just to spend your money!
Well, a little while ago Google announced it was beta-testing cost per action advertising - though it has now renamed it "pay per action", just to confuse us all. Some coverage of their press announcement occurred, but as it was only a beta test, it did not attract major headlines. However, last week Google Vice President Marissa Mayer told a conference that "pay per action" was the Holy Grail that Google was aiming for.
However, amongst all the announcement and conference discussion is the notion that this is a long way away, that it is something that is in the distant future. Don't believe it. Google can already do it. Within Google AdWords you can already get information on the cost of getting each order or each customer. Combine that with Google Analytics and you have a simple way of measuring cost per action.
So why is Google suggesting it's a long way off? Probably for two reasons. Firstly, if they switched to this now, they would lose money. Few businesses know their cost per action, therefore they would have poor advertising leading to few actions (just the same as AdWords now) and Google's income would plummet. So, Google needs to be part of the education process that helps businesses improve their control systems.
The second reason is they want to find out if the market is ready. They are flying a kite to see which way it goes. The technological issues behind cost per action are minimal and easily solved. The fact that most businesses will be unable to generate any income from this kind of advertising is a serious problem for companies like Google most of whose entire income is made up from people who are unable or unwilling to understand advertising. Do that and you will significantly improve your current pay per click campaigns - and you will be in pole position when pay per action becomes commonplace, which will be sooner than you think. Labels: future, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
Monday, August 13, 2007
People want to connect with an expert
Anyone reading your web site wants to believe that they have connected with the "experts". They want to be reassured they are dealing with people who really know their stuff and that they are not in touch with some fake.
For this reason you need to establish your expertise in several ways. Firstly, your site needs to look authoritative - clean design, single focus etc. Secondly you ought to find ways of establishing your expertise offline. That means people will associate your name with your topic, thus enhancing your reputation. When they come to view your web site they will know you are the expert.
The way I do this is with Expert Sources. Journalists looking for an expert to quote go to this web site to find someone. If you are listed there, you stand a chance of being quoted in several media outlets.
Today, for instance, you will find that I appear in The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail. I provided background for an article in The Sun and I have appeared on BBC Radio Five Live and on BBC Radio Two.
I say this, not to impress, but to point out how easy it is to get significant media coverage if you are willing to answer journalist's questions and you get yourself listed as an expert, you too will find that this builds credibility for your web site.
And if you are worried about speaking to the media, get advice from my favourite experts. Either go to Media First or to Alan Stevens, the Media Coach. Labels: blogging, internet, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Want to know even more about the Internet? Ask your children
Children know much more about things than we give them credit for. You will find plenty of books advising parents on how to protect their children when they are using the Internet. But few of these books, or the articles you read on online protection of children, tell you it is the parents who need to know more than their children.
Earlier this week I spoke to a large group of children at the annual Quaker Summer Youth Event. My task was to help them be safe online. But it was apparent that they knew more than many adults about online safety. I asked them whether or not they would do something, like make their personal details available online. Who would be foolish enough to do that was the chorus of replies I received. Well adults would. That's why identity fraud is so easy.
Adults like to think they know more than children, but often it is not the case. A few years back I visited one of the UK's growing group of high tech schools and discovered that seven-year-olds there were dab hands at PowerPoint presentations, surfing the Internet and selecting appropriate information. As the head teacher told me the children were often teaching their parents.
Now it seems that Microsoft is bidding to help schools become even more high tech. But as the BBC TV programme Click points out all of the software and services that the children are getting used to are - hey presto - Microsoft ones.
Like banks that try to acquire students, they know that if you "get them young" you keep many of them for life. Building high tech schools is a fantastic idea, but allowing them to be put together by a single commercial supplier might not be a good suggestion. It will mean that the Internet of the future will be a Microsoft led one, rather than at the moment a Google led one. Ho hum, the battle goes on....! Labels: future, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Future of work destroyed by European legislators
Futurists are convinced that the future of employment is in "portfolio" careers, with people hopping from job to job. Add to that a huge increase in self employment over the past decade and you can see that the future of work is based on individuals, rather than corporations. Indeed, I made this point last week in this blog on future employment trends.
However, European legislators appear determined to prevent this all from happening. They are proposing that the whole concept of freelancing is banned. What they want is that anyone who works for a company will be deemed as an employee - even if that's a one-off piece of work for a very short period of time.
For example, if you are a web designer and you produce web sites for several companies, under the new proposals you will have to be employed by each firm. Similarly, if you are a professional speaker like me, every engagement will be deemed to be employment. The same will happen to freelance writers who produce material for various newspapers; instead of being able to bash their keyboards for themselves, each article they write will be for a separate employment contract.
The prospect of this proposed change is a nightmare. Huge amounts of bureaucracy will be created, lawyers will have a field day dealing with all the extra contracts and the only people who will lose out will be consumers who'll ultimately end up footing the bill.
So what has all this to do with the Internet? Well, the Internet provides a way out of this nonsense. The European proposals only affect companies that operate within Europe; but the Internet provides freelancers with a global marketplace. You can work for people in Australia or America on a freelance basis and the European Commission won't be able to do a thing.
This is what is so amazing about legislators. Here we have a technology that enables people to circumvent proposed legal changes. Yet the European Commission, with all its experts, have been unable to spot it. As the rest of us are busy using modern technologies, such as Web 2.0 features like blogging and social networks, the legislators are beavering away as though the Internet hasn't yet been invented. While we all look to the future, they are clearly living in the past. Labels: future, internet, speaking
Add this story to:
| BlinkList
|
BlogMarks
|
del.icio.us
|
Digg
|
Furl
|
Google
|
LinkRoll
|
Lycos
|
|
ma.gnolia
|
Netscape
|
Newsvine
|
Ning
|
reddit
|
Simpy
|
Spurl
|
Squidoo
|
Wink
|
Email this story to your friends:
Readers' Comments:
We already have this legislation in the UK. One of the first things New Labour did was to introduce what has become known as IR35. It was the reason I gave up freelancing and formed my own company of which I am an employee thus "bypassing" this idiot legislation.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Internet Marketers don't have secrets
How annoyed do you get seeing another web site offering you "Internet Marketing Secrets"? How upset do you get opening that email providing you with "Secrets of the Online Gurus"? And how frustrated are you when you read such "secrets" to find they are the same old stuff you already knew?
Let's get things straight at the outset here: there are no "secrets". This is especially true in the online world where anyone publishing true "secrets" would soon find their information blasted throughout the Internet within minutes. So here's my "secret" - ignore anything that says it is a "secret". After all, why would I tell you an Internet marketing "secret"? Surely, if it were truly a secret I'd keep it to myself so that I could capitalise upon it and other marketers couldn't benefit. By revealing such "secrets" any marketer would be shooting themselves in the foot.
So what do all these Internet Marketing Secrets really tell us? Well, other than a few technological methods, not a lot that business people didn't already know. All you have to do to succeed online is find your target audience, build a relationship with them, find out what they want and sell it to them at the highest price they are prepared to pay. That's it; it's worked offline for centuries and it now works online very well indeed.
I was reminded of the simplicity of good Internet marketing when I gave a talk on Strategic Internet Marketing in Birmingham yesterday. One member of the audience came up to me afterwards and said they found my speech very interesting as it had helped them realise that all they had to do online was what they had been doing offline successfull |
Graham
I agree with you that content is king and that not enough effort gets focused there but I don't really agree that the art experiment is all that relevant.
The brain will always process the content of a picture quickly (eg Mona Lisa = moody looking woman with long hair!) but if I saw your website for 10 miliseconds, could I make an informed decision about the 'content' (in this case meaning words)in that time? Surely not. And that's no reflection on your site - I think your content's great. But with a website, surely one's understanding of the content will lag behind that of the style, for minutes - the complete opposite of the art experiment.
So there will be a few seconds or minutes when people's perception of your site is based largely on the design. Granted though, the proof of the pudding will be in your content, but the design does play a part in projecting a professional, credible image and encouraging people to read on (the Jakob Nielsen example on yesterday's post is a prime bad example of this!)
You also mention site structure as something which most people discuss at the early stages. I think structure SHOULD be discussed at the outset. It's more a function of the content than it is of the design in my opinion. I'm currently in the middle of a user-centred redesign of our site and the research stage of that has shown that people want to know they're in the right place, or can get there easily if not. They take a keen interest in looking at what else you do by looking at what links you have. They might not click on any of those links - they just like to know what else you do, as this forms part of their perception of you.
Needless to say, the site structure's also important for when people do follow links too, as they need to be able to find other relevant information quickly and easily and avoid anything irrelevant.
I agree though, forget the colour schemes, fonts and all that until your content's in place. The design should serve the content, not the other way around and even the flashiest design won't salvage bad content.