Stephan Spencer on the CNET blog writes that "Search marketers and people involved in SEO must pay attention to the
importance of the new opportunities of blended search offers."

What is he talking about? Daquiris and frozen margs? No, he’s referring to the need to incorporate elements
like video, images, and blogs on an optimization campaign. As the Web expands beyond traditional pages, you’ve got to cover all your bases.

If you don’t have a nice Excel spreadsheet set up yet, now is the time.

Here is a cunning response to a Search Insider blog post on "blended SEO."

SEO is linguistics, and the use of those terms in all forms of a business’ digital marketing. Rather than studying the Google algo, SEOs should be studying the
vernacular of markets. Google is more than competent at giving you the
first page for any well researched high conversion / non-competitive
phase you place in any form of content.

Coding tricks in SEO are becoming more and more irrelevant as real
SEOs determine that this is about “sales/conversions” not “traffic” and
therefore ultimately “cultural linguistics.”

For a more efficient campaign, whether it be across cultures of nation and ethnicity, age, gender, or more narrowly defined social groups, it is necessary to go undercover and learn the lingo. Tagging a YouTube video of your latest spot as "wicked cool" may work in the Northeast, but not California. "Hella cool" might be more comprehensible. You’ll have to do the legwork and find out the British equivalent; I can’t be bothered.

Worth a bother, however, is an article on aimClear called The Respectable Social Media Marketing Evangelist that gives a good summary of the panel at Search Marketing Expo. With several experts residing, some of the ideas that came out of it are certainly valuable. Rob Key’s Rule #6 of social media marketing? Learn the linguistics. There’s that L-word again. It must be important…

Is Microsoft back in the game? If you asked this to someone from 1997 who had, probably accidentally, travelled 10 years into the future, they would look at you like you were from another planet. Or Europe. But in today’s day and age, of iPods and ad networks, Microsoft has been left yearning for some of the hot air that is slowly filling Bubble, Part II. Some wind beneath their wings, as Bette would say.

Facebook is it. No, that’s not me talking. In fact, if it weren’t for advertising and the (da DA!) new ad platform that they are rolling out on November 6 — with much fanfare — I would say, whoa, nelly. Social networking is cool and all, but it’s not going to solve all your problems. And its rapid growth, according to Datamonitor (via MarketingCharts) is going to plateau in 5 years.

So are they worth the $15 billion they were valued? Analysts said they just needed a number so that they could put a dollar sign to the percentage that Microsoft bought yesterday, reports the Times in the UK. The much-publicized deal will expand Microsoft’s ad deal to an international level – v.important because 60% of Facebook users apparently are non-US. And, of course, it gives them, not a leg up, but maybe an inch forward, in the race against Google for ad revenue. Much like a high-stakes game of "Mother, May I?"

So where will Facebook go? Public? They’ve been holding out, and probably will for some time. What will they do? Unveil the platform, and make every marketer go "ahhhh."

And what is the best way to spend $240 million? Are they gonna put their Google shoes on and go on a hiring frenzy? Perhaps this is the wrong question. What is the best way to spend $15 billion? This might get Mark Z. thinking.

The "S" in Sell stands for Success — not Sucker. But the real suckers here just might be Microsoft — check out Silicon Alley Insider’s post about the transaction.

As online advertising revenues increase (to more than $20 billion this year) the debate rages on about metrics and measurement. Today’s New York Times expores the topic in "How Many Site Hits? Depends Who’s Counting"

Nobody doubts that the figure will grow — particularly as advertisers
hone their techniques for aiming messages to particular consumers — but
the question remains how much the clashing traffic figures will hold
the market back.

What? Who’s clashing? Why, Nielsen/NetRatings, comScore, and the publisher, of course. For example, last month Forbes.com reported 11.6 million United States visitors. But the ratings firms only counted a measly 7.5 and 5.8 million.

“One of them can be right, or the other one is right, but they can’t
all be right." Well said, Jack Wakshlag, chief research officer at Turner
Broadcasting System. A wise man he is, says Yoda. (And he should know.)

So who’s lying? Like Will Farrell in the Dysfunctional Family, there are accusations flying everywhere. Some blame corporate software that blocks measurement of employees during work hours. Others say that groups of sites should or should not be used as a single entry. And what about international visitors? Do they count?

And that’s not even taking into account the cookie-deleters –not to be confused with the cookie-eaters.

clipped from

VERIFY YOUR FREE G MA I L ACCOUNT NOW !!!

Dear   
G ma
il Account Owner,

     This message is from Gmail messaging center to all Gmail free account owners and premium account owners. We are currently upgrading our data base and e-mail account center. We are deleting all unused Gmail account to create more space for new accounts.

 

   To prevent your account from closing you will have to update it below so that we will know that it’s a present used account.

 

CONFIRM YOUR IDENTITY BELOW

• Gma
  il! ID : ……….
• Password : ………..
•  
• Date of Birth : ……
•  
• Country or Territory : ………..

      Enter the letter from the Security Image  : ……..                     
859304

Warning!!!  Account owner that refuses to update his or her account within Seven days of receiving this warning will lose his or her account permanently.

Thank you for using Gmail !

I just got this email from Gmail, or at least someone named deviantartstarlove.amanda@gmail.com. (Giving me ideas for a new porn name, at least.) Asking for personal information and so on, so of course a red flag went off immediately. Darn spam, I thought.

And from gmail, no less. My trusted source for many a month! I’ll have to start using Facebook messaging instead of personal email, I thought. And wiki message boards instead of work email.

Really? Has it come to that yet? Email has become outdated for some, a pain the arse for others, and just plain ugly. It’s not just phishing, spoofing, and spam anymore. It’s the inefficiencies of one-way communication – no matter how fast it purports to be – and the one-dimensional nature of the sender and recipients.

But social networking sites are starting to change all that. As a direct competitor to email, they are still struggling, but features that they offer are beginning to look mighty nice to email users. Kind of like when all the ladies suddenly sprouted red lips in Pleasantville and the men just didn’t know what to do. And now the tables are turning, and email provider’s are trying to "steal some of social networking’s thunder" by adding features, like Yahoo’s Friend Finder.

Roger Matus writes:

Well — with all the advertising revenue at stake — I am not shocked
that the big email providers, such as Yahoo, Google, AOL, and
Microsoft’s HOTmail,  plan to add social networking features.  Imagine
reading an email from a friend and being able to find out instantly if
he/she is available for an IM chat, left an "away message," has
uploaded a video, or is planning a big event.

Will this make email sexy again, asked the Wall Street Journal.      Was it ever?

The latest in
video is not Adotube’s
in-stream rollover ads, nor Ooyala’s
embedded wizardry. It’s not even Google’s brand-spanking new fingerprinting
system for YouTube videos – though it was about time. But we’re getting
closer. All the talk about local search, or even more personalized
search, as being the wave of the future, leads us in a certain direction.
People are going online to find what they want, and if a well-placed, relevant advertisement
comes their way while they’re on the hunt, they’ll pay attention.

In addition,
although we’re seeing a unique consumer-led customization of goods and services
that incorporates different brands, we still appreciate continuity and
compatibility of our choices. If I, for example, had the opportunity to
streamline my working life by using the same brand for all my applications,
instead of the current hodgepodge of tools, I would hop on that bus faster than
you can say “monopoly.” And as we know, Google has become a strong name as a brand, through
very little marketing effort of its own.

A door is
opening that involves local search, geographical targeting, online video, and
Google. As Reuters reports, Google Earth has added video.
Microsoft and Yahoo already have systems in place for linking websites, photo,
and video to their mapping programs, but Google holds the big gun of YouTube,
the largest source of online video.

Producers can
now “peg” videos set in specific locations to maps in Google Earth. The first
use of this would obviously be in tourism, because you could look up a certain
location of interest and immediately find information about it as a vacation
spot. We’re not sold by textual descriptions of the seafood buffet at a
Mediterranean resort or a traveler review of a fun horseback ride in Cabo.
We’re sold by photographs of a Bali sunset or a video of an African safari.

But the
possibilities are endless. What if, the next time you Google-earthed your house
(admit it, you do it) you found a clever video spot on a new restaurant that
just opened up around the corner? You’d take a peek in on your way home from work, I bet. And that’s exactly what they’re hoping.

When the news first came out that Facebook was opening up to third-party web application developers, all hell broke loose.

And as CNET noted:

Now that third-party companies and developers can create custom
applications for Facebook members to add to their profiles, building
"Facebook apps" has become a top priority for many Web
companies–particularly smaller ones looking to make it big by
capitalizing on Facebook’s large and loyal user base.

And then, Google followed suit. Even Apple is rumored to be opening up the iPhone to outside developers.

Is it getting out of control? How open is too open? Sure, it’s opening the floodgate to new and perhaps innovative – if not at least mildly amusing – ideas, but my god people. How many of them do we need? Five thousand and counting? And let’s be careful with our definitions, too. Are they really all applications, or just fun playthings?

Michael Parekh says, "If one makes a distinction between applications and widgets, how would
one break down a list of Facebook’s top ten or top twenty applications
into "useful" applications and "fun" widgets?"

For answers, attend VideoEgg’s AppCamp on October 20th.

A study released at ANA today noted that the most significant obstacles to digital media are insufficient
metrics (62%), lack of organization support (51%) and lack of
experience (59%) in new media.

Clients want to hear, "yea, sure, we’ve done this before. and it totally worked." Unfortunately, that is not always the case with the agency. But what about the individual? Is new media really so new for everybody? And how does this tie in to the industry’s quest for new faces – with a slightly seasoned smile, of course?

From the archives of Mediapost’s Online Spin – "To Attract New Talent, the Industry Needs to Change"

People hear that advertising is a rough business and that the
opportunities are limited, but that’s not the case anymore. The same
excitement and energy that was bringing people to the Internet in the
late ’90s is here again, but coupled with sanity and a strong business
sense. It’s a great time to get that message out and attract quality
talent. Our industry needs to start thinking about how to do so. We
need to spend a little more time talking to other people rather than
continuing to talk to ourselves.

And from another post, this one by Dave Morgan about the shift from traditional to digital: "When offline media fully transforms into digital media, what will happen to its talent? [...] As media digitizes, fragments and moves closer to the consumer–as the
media world becomes more “open source” akin to what we’ve seen happen
in the software industry–so will the talent."

The demand is there. Plug in "online" or "digital marketing" into craigslist -albeit the bay area listings- even just under the category of marketing/advertising/pr jobs, and you get hundreds of hits. The question is, how much experience is really ideal for these types of jobs?

Many of the requirements seem vague: 1+ years of demonstrated success in a position requiring strong analytical and quantitative skills, project management experience, interpersonal skills, leadership, etc. You know the drill. You’ve written or answered so many of these types of job descriptions that it almost becomes comical. The only thing that matters is – are they going to have enough know-how that training/hand-holding can be minimized, but not enough experience to be considered mid to upper-level?

The good news for employers was that online marketing is still a relatively new phenomenon. But as the industry grows and revenues increase, you’re going to get these young whippersnappers who maybe worked for Google for 8 months and are now considered clever veterans of the online world. Algorithmic secrets, SEO-dustballs, and spider-friendly treats are hidden deep in the pockets of their ripped designer jeans. They’re no comp sci grads, or web analysts. They may not have known what Web 2.0 was a year ago. But now that they do – does that really make them qualified? Or, like Amish teenagers, do they need a more traditional upbringing in order to ultimately make the right decisions?

Hard to find: 85 percent of surveyed companies said they are having either a "very
difficult" time or a "somewhat difficult" time finding qualified
applicants for open positions, says a Bernhart Associates report.

Don’t
even ask what accent I’m attempting to imitate here. (It’s the catch-all
‘foreign’ accent that Americans use for a spectrum of languages and nationalities.
French, Indian, Taiwanese. We get confused.)

But
the issue here is that the States is, in fact, the hub of online social
networks. At a recent conference on beauty (again, don’t ask) in Paris, I was trying to
explain to some locals that there is an entire bullet point that might be
missing in their marketing and communications strategy. Note that this was not
in an effort to help them but rather in defense of our own plans to use online
channels in addition to print; we were getting condescending looks from the
super-expert PR
professionals when we couldn’t produce a VIP list of the top journalists in
their country. So I started busting out words like “brand advocates” and “SEO”
and “blog.” They looked at me like I’d suggested a big bowl of Corn Pops with soymilk as an afternoon snack.

I
did get a glimmer of recognition at the mention of social network, and I began
to think that perhaps the intricate offline social networks that many Europeans
maintain had snuck online. But then they grinned widely and said, “What
is…online forum?” like it was the answer to Final Jeopardy.

Almost,
Thierry. Almost.

And
then I realized. DUH. Although Facebook may be working on translating its
service into non-English languages, it’s still our name, our local news and
politics, our inside jokes. Although one-third of MySpace and Facebook users
are outside of North America, they still do
not compete with local online social networks.

Here’s
a quick translation.

• In France, they have the Skyrock Network, which has 9.4 million unique visits in August, four times more than MySpace France.
• In the U.K., it’s Bebo.
• In Japan, Mixi.jp. leads the pack.
• In Germany, MySpace is still der Nummer einz but StudiVZ.de is not far behind.

And none of these are standing still. The days of passport
travel within the EU have long been over, and the country-specific social
networks are looking to pan out throughout the EU, with more portals opening up
in new countries and new languages every day.

So
will U.S.-based social networks expand globally? In an article on Social
Nets and their Global Struggle, Scott Roxborough (Cologne) and
Charles Masters (Paris), along with several
others from Brussels, New
York, and Beijing concluded that

For U.S.-based Web 2.0 companies…going
global means more than just translating content. To attract  international traffic, a site needs
to adapt its service to the local culture.

Here’s another
Duh, from Bob Ivins at comScore: "As MySpace’s European success shows,
language is an important factor. Being able to develop local-language pages has
allowed [MySpace] to attract traffic from a number of European countries."

Canada
is a cinch.   But – what about China?

Colleague steal the last half a Pringle from your tube? Here are some numbers to crunch on, as Q3 closes and we run head-on into the last quarter of 2007.

• Internet advertising revenue hit a record $9.993
  billion in the first half of 2007, up 26.4% from the year-earlier period. –B2B on the IAB/PWC study released Thursday.
• Internet ad spend will account for 9.5% of the total in 2009.
• Sunny forecast of 29.9% growth this year (up from 28.6% three months ago) and
  85% growth between 2006 and 2009 (up from 82%). –ZenithOptimedia (via Mediapost)
• Driven by the surge in online video and local
  search, but supported by steady growth in the segments of display, classified and
  the rest of search.

However, due to the housing slump and credit issues, the overall ad outlook has actually decreased.

The new projection
of 2.5%, from the previous of 3.3%, is a total downer for
traditional ad agencies.

A study done by Jordan Edmiston Group, noting
also that third-quarter mergers-and-acquisitions media action was "clouded by credit market disruption and concerns for a potential
advertising and broader economic slowdown."

Another catalyst for depression, when compared to the hot M&A action in online and marketing services sectors.

Ryan Phillipe has also reported feeling depressed about his split with Reese Witherspoon, especially when he compared himself to the hot action she’s getting from Jake Gyllenhaal.

Oh wait, maybe not. I guess celebrity relationships aren’t nearly as predictable as the fabulous online media industry.

Two hundred and twenty million users can’t be wrong - Skype is useful and therefore popular. However, 220 million non-paying users can also be a huge burden, particularly when the price paid for the company back in 2005 was a whopping $2.6 billion.

Have Skype services been able to cover that amount? Not remotely, reports the WSJ. In the last quarter, it contributed just $90 million to eBay’s total haul of $1.83 billion. This, according to the journal, constitutes “a bust.” EBay is claiming responsibility for its actions to investors and will take a $1.4 billion third-quarter charge related to Skype.

So what is it that failed? Skype’s business model or its relationship with its parent company? Both. Skype doesn’t charge for calls made over the Internet, and it charges very little for Internet to land-line or cell phone calls. While that model builds tremendous user loyalty, it won’t generate huge business until Skype corners the Web phone market.

The future of calling is on cell phones, not PCs, and Skype won’t be able to penetrate that market unless eBay shells out multi-billions to build a wireless network.

Would they? Could they? I doubt it. Google will beat them to it, and they’d best steer clear of telephones and stay busy doing what they do best: online retail. Leave the integration of the two to the next generation of teenagers.