Amplify The Voice of Your Customer

Touched by an alcoholic
Creative Commons License photo credit: the Comic Shop

Who is your customer? What do they want?

I want to think that my audience are people that are somewhat aware of marketing on the Internet. People that have a concept of longtail, social media, etc. I wonder what that person wants to see.

I think there is a lack of intermediate to advanced information on Search Marketing. Where do you go when you know the 101 but you aren’t ready to be a thought leader. I want to help lead your search for the information you actually need. But, I don’t really know what are the topics that you crave.

Right now I am listening to a phone call with Seth Godin and he is telling me that I need to be quick and I need to amplify the voice of my customer. So, you are my customer, tell me what you want to see.

I will write a post to answer your questions and link to you.

Leave a comment or e-mail me Carlos at 100DollarSEO.com

Stupid Comment Spamming

Yesterday I went in to moderate the comments on “SEO Standards Protect Site Owners” and I found the most amazingly stupid piece of comment spam. Someone had actually copied verbatim 3 sentences from the post and put a link in it to their site.

Generally I am all for furthering discussion, even if you are not creating new content. For example Eric Itzkowitz left the same comment on both Graywolf and SEOmoz. Eric makes a good enough point that it can bear repeating. Some people either lack Eric’s standards of self-censorship or believe that blog writers are very stupid.

Perhaps I would have let the comment slide if it had been plagiarizing someone other than me, or if they had at least stolen content from another post.

If you have no concrete strategy beyond dropping comment links then let me offer a few suggestions. You should fulfill 1 or more of the following conditions if you are dropping a link:

  • Say something so mind bogglingly brilliant that everyone want to know who you are.
  • Link to something valuable
  • Link to something informative
  • Link to something that furthers the discussion
  • Write something that is not plagiarizing the blogger you are commenting to

Search Standards Protect Site Owners

HTML CAN NOT DO THAT!!!1!!

Creative Commons License photo credit: Noah Sussman

Today there is a lot of coverage of SEO Standards. If you want a list of some recent articles visit this post at SEOmoz and Slightly Shady. I think that most of the people talking about standards are coming from the wrong position. They are largely talking about it from an additive angle - defining what SEO is. Keeping track of techniques and a risk matrix of what is safe or best practices would be prohibitive and quickly obsolete. Many of the detractors of standards bring up this point and that getting agreement would be difficult. Standards are intended to protect consumers so they should be consumer focused, not industry focused. I assume that most reputable companies can agree on certain points:

  • Monthly hand submission of your site to 100+ “search engines” is not SEO
  • Making a copy of a clients site that is put into a proprietary directory is a scam
  • Representing 1st position in Pay Per Click as SEO is unethical
  • Electronically misrepresenting the content of a clients site is potentially damaging
  • Breaking terms of service for search providers is considered potentially damaging
  • Search Optimization is in general focused on national, international, or niche search engines that produce a legitimate potential traffic stream: Google, Yahoo, Live, Biadu, Yahdex, Business.com, etc.

Standards should not be a monstrous task. Simply by openly compiling the services that people are offering that are blatantly not in a customers best interest we can help keep everyone honest.

Site owners are free to engage whatever tactics or providers they want, but we (as an industry) know what tactics are more damaging than helpful. You don’t have to worry about letting out secrets if you just focus on openly publicizing the things that we know are in the best interest of potential clients. Standards should be about disclosing the Red List of tactics not about hobbling the industry with a white list.

Fooling Around On The Internet

April Fools day is an interesting day for observation on the Internet. Many Internet companies are run by people with good senses of humor. So there are a wide variety of jokes that propagate every year. Some people just “get it” in terms of what the the Internet is, and some don’t.

Digg made a damaging error that many people make in addressing the Internet. The Internet is a carrier of information, it is not a channel for entertainment. While Digg’s attempt was funny, and well intentioned, it relied on making a technological change rather than an informational change. Pigeon Rank was effective because it spread amongst a certain group without disrupting the function of the site. As opposed to sites that pretend they have been hacked.

When sites interrupt the ability for people to actually use the site they end up with more angry/concerned e-mails than they do awareness of their pranks. Being fun is not as important as being functional. Last week Dreamhost crashed the Spunky cluster and many people became angry, because being down for several hours means more than just lost of instantaneous revenue.

Beyond the value that is lost in the moment, there is also value that is lost from customers that turn away and search spiders that do not see intended content. For most sites downtime is like roulette, a 1 in 16 chance that you spend the rest of the month with a major decrease in traffic. It is not the most likely occurrence, but you will be very unhappy if it happens on the wrong day.

A simple piece of advice for all changes on your site: If it can break your user experience test it before going live.

Are You a Sellout?

Baby Tattos

According to a young woman I met this weekend you are, or will be. Everyone eventually gives up the long hard road to their dreams for the comfort of immediate reward. The real question is how much have you sold?

Search has 3 major players makers, rankers, and searchers

  • Makers build content: Bloggers, web designers, game makers, etc.
  • Rankers order content: Search engines, directories, social media hubs, or evangelists.
  • Searchers are the people who are looking for things.

Makers find success producing content that someone wants, Rankers are successful when they connect the Searchers to the right content. Searchers are the most limited by the system, but they can also put the other two out of business by changing where or how they search.

For Makers selling is a daily experience, they have a skill and someone is willing to pay for it. Makers have the ability to sellout searchers by making a mountain spammy content. Makers can also sell themselves out by taking on clients that undercut their own morals.

For Rankers selling out is easy. Google, Yahoo, and MSN started selling ads, so rank isn’t free. No matter how good your content is someone can buy the top real estate on the search. On the Social Media front there are people who sell their votes for popularity. Or you can just sell your endorsement.

Searchers are selling out when they allow themselves to accept low quality content, because they can’t find anything better. But this one I understand, when Rankers and Makers sellout they make searching so difficult that “good enough” quickly enters your search process.

Search Marketers are often a mix of the three types. Social Media & Paid Search are mainly Maker/Rankers and Organic Search is largely Searcher/Makers. Whatever combination of roles you play on the Internet you should be doing your best to keep high standards in your role.

Cashew Objectification

Lone Cashew

While attending a birthday party I overheard an interesting conversation between two of the participants. A man was telling, or trying to tell, a woman that you should avoid making things complicated. But in an attempt to say Eschew Obfuscation gave me my headline. He proved his point to me but confused the woman.

Keeping things simple is a lofty goal. I often try to explain what I do to people at parties, because if I can’t explain it simply no one will be particularly interested. Some things are very easy to explain in real world equivalents.

  • Your Title is like a nametag
  • Headers are how you introduce yourself
  • Content is what you say
  • Design is like the clothes you wear

Pretty simple right? You can even get into more complicated issues in a real world conversation.

  • Keyword stuffing is similar to people who say like every third word
  • Links are what other people say about you
  • Statistical inference is what I know about the people we know in common.

As I am getting deeper into the conversation I start to realize that the above board practices are all easy to explain. However, as I get to the part about SEO as game theory I realize that explaining things like cloaking, redirection, Markov Chains, and duplicate content not only challenge my attempts to use plain language — but also open me up to difficult questions.

The question is how many people are cheating? Being a good white hat means being very aware of the black hat techniques that you are avoiding. Because so much of the content on the Internet is made by amateurs search engines are lenient about low-level cheating.

Most of the concepts in Search Optimization are not complicated by themselves, it is the application that is such a delicate process.

Ducklings and Social Media

Baby ducks are amazing! They are cute, fluffy, and — I assume — crunchy. According to Taco Bell commercials a duckling could only be better if it were covered in cheese.

Beyond tasteless jokes ducklings have an amazing ability, imprinting. Ducks will literally attach themselves to the first large object they see. If you wear white shoes next to a hatching duck it will gladly follow anyone wearing white shoes for the rest of its life. Their imprinting ability is so strong that they will even imprint on things that their hatch mates(?) are following.

Viral content seems to follow similar rules. Someone just loves a piece of content and holds onto it, telling all their friends who follow along with the passing on. Like this:

Fluffy and Crunchy

“Come on guys lets go make a lolcatz joke

Part of it is timing and part of it is just this natural desire to be part of the crowd. But when all things are said and done I am tired of the same thing over and over and over… If you are creating anything currently that relies on a picture and the word FAIL then YOU, sir or madam, are an epic fail.

So a couple of rules:

  • At least try to come up with something new.
  • If you must copy someone else at least give some value add.
  • Don’t use the images from the original joke.

I’m not an unkind man I will accept base formulaic additions, like puns.

Epic Snail

Epic SNAIL - was that so hard? There have to be at least 30 words that rhyme with fail: kale, dale, pail, shale, or mail. I am tired of “unique business cards,” “Lolanythingz,” and “Fails.” Although, if you can Photoshop a machine that turns lolcats into unique business cards, I promise you that I will give you a thumbs up for that. Until then let the jokes die in peace.

PS. If you like comparing seemingly disparate concepts put one in the comments and I will write a post for you.

Does Context Affect Quality?

An excerpt from comments at Cornwall SEO March 7 - 11, 2008:

Carlos Del Rio:
The major weight of links and references are to things that are accessible, not exceptional. Pages that amass large amounts of links are often remarkable (comment worthy) content that is not on the high end of the value spectrum.

Lyndoman:
Carlos if something is remarkable then it’s on the high end of the value spectrum, you seem to be arguing with yourself…

Carlos del Rio:
…Few people get excited about amazing. They are more likely to tell everyone “the iPod has a cute new color,” because everyone can enjoy being the first to talk about something that everyone already knows about.

Lyndoman:
@Carlos, I am more interested in content than products. Comparing one product company with another is not the same as comparing content.

If you can tell me where all the people who get excited about mediocrity live, I have a picture of paint drying to show them, if you are right, they will love it.

Carlos del Rio:

It isn’t a group of people, it is a class of behavior. The things that we talk about or link are more likely to be unnecessary interesting information than complicated things.

For example if you read two news stories one about fish rain in Singapore and another about a heart valve made of Gore-tex you are more likely to share the fish story. Both are remarkable occurrences, but only one is highly transportable.

Exceptional usually loses to accessible.

Lyndoman:
@Carlos, well you raise an interesting point, and it’s a factor that if you study communication deep enough you have to address.

Dog bitten by Man Man bitten by dog [edited]” does not make an interesting story, but a human being has been injured. “Man bites dog”, far more newsworthy and yet a dog is less important.

What I think you are digging into are cultural factors which effect communication and should be taken into account when creating communication. However, most of us do it unconsciously, some of us make better communicators than others.

Some of of us can get more people to listen to us whilst others cannot. Low rent tabloid newspapers can hardly be called quality and yet they get a large readership. This is because in the tabloid world the stories are of high quality. “Bus found on Moon”, is a high quality tabloid story, although stick it in an encyclopedia and its quality soon drains away.

Context is everything.

So your examples of the heart valve and the fish rain can both be considered interesting high quality stories, but only to specific audiences who view it within the expected context.

Rupert Murdoch has become very wealthy on peddling trash, but it’s quality trash. And if you are a blogger, you are a writer, you are a publisher and the same rules apply.

Which brings us round to my original point, people are only interested in linking to quality.

It has been a couple of weeks, and I have let that interaction bubble in the back of my head. Is context everything? I can accept that, yes, context is everything. Does it change quality or value? No, context does not change anything but my expectations. Tabloids are still trash, I just expect less.

There is a band of quality that I expect in each area of life. I expect more from newspapers than I do from magazines. I think that USA Today is trash and I like Maxim, because they are held to different standards. But really, the value of their content to my life is not vastly different.

So I want to ask, honestly, what does context mean on the Internet?

Does innovation mean quality? Being funny and new gets lots of links right? It did for Stuff White People Like, right?

Well, yes and no. Stuff White People Like is an interesting look at context, it has been around for 3 month and has 90,000+ links and a book coming out in August. But compare that to Black People Love Us. Same game, making fun of stereotypes, since 2002. But BPLU only gets 13,000 links. Why?

Is there really that great of a difference in the quality of the two as satire? I don’t think so. Both sites are essentially the same shtick, but one is far more popular.

One of them is just much easier to talk about.

More on Understanding Customers

Continuing from the understanding customers post, today I am tackling a more complicated explanation of buying decisions.

The temperament description is a common introduction to the concept of how people engage information. However, companies like Future Now internally use a more complicated system — like the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator. MBTI splits each of the temperaments into 4 groups, for a total of 16 distinct personality types.

The basic structure of the MBTI asks the following questions:

  1. Do you prefer focusing internally vs. externally? (Extrovert or Introvert)
  2. Do you focus on raw data or interpretation? (iNtuitive or Sensing)
  3. Do you make decisions based on logic or circumstance? (Thinking or Feeling)
  4. Do you prefer making final decisions or leaving decisions open to change? (Judging or Perceiving)

The four Temperaments as described at Future Now:

The Spontaneous (”SP”; Sensing-Perceiving)
The Competitive (”NT”; iNtuitive-Thinking)
The Humanistic (”NF”; iNtuitive-Feeling)
The Methodical (”SJ”; Sensing-Judging)

Your type is your preference for interactions. You can take a 72-question test here to approximate your type, if you don’t already know. When you start to build a mental picture of these personalities you will get a sense of how they perform tasks differently. The hidden trap in the temperament framework is introducing context.

An example of context:

I am an ENFP — Extrovert Intuitive Feeling Perceiver. But in my work life I do a lot of research, and I create strategies. Meaning that I spend 6-8 hours per day being a Thinker. So according to the temperament system part of the day I have a Competitive approach and the rest of the day I am Humanistic. To complicate matters even more I was raised in a family that, for various reasons, was low-detail, meaning that results are more important than process. I rarely deviate from a Perceiving mindset; “plan for change” is one of my mottos. Consequently I often finish my transaction process from a Spontaneous mode.

Since you can’t pin down every individual you want to create buying environments that satisfy as many mindsets as possible. You never know when your visitor will switch from one buying mode to another, and they do often switch.

Take a minute to look at your offers. Do you support your visitor changing their goal? Can someone easily, one click, switch for research to transaction? From transaction to upgrade? From testimonial to specifications?

Maximizing your conversions is not always the single path to action. Often maximum volume comes from creating many interconnected paths, one-step at a time.

Internet Transactions - Customer Types

Continuing from Landing Page Types, I am going to cover customer types. Customers are more complicated than the landing pages, because there are many factors that create the mindset of each visitor.

I think the Eisenbergs have a reasonable approach to thinking about your customers. They use a modified Kiersey-Bates scale, separating people into four groups. There are many ways of splitting up personalities; but for the purpose of designing you will find the best value in models that are based on behavior. Because it is simple and behavioral I will use the same terms as the Eisenbergs:

  • Humanistic – people who connect through human story, driven by emotions.
  • Methodical – people who connect through logic, driven by information.
  • Competitive – people who connect through comparison, driven by a mix of emotion and timing.
  • Spontaneous – people who connect through immediate interactions, driven by a mix of emotion and information.

Your first challenge is think, truthfully, about whom your product is serving. If you are selling point and shoot digital cameras your customer is different than if you are selling a high-end digital SLR camera. But remember, temperaments are more of an indicator of style than need.

Humanistic buyers are the ones that care if people like a product. They are the most likely to be swayed by testimonials. Often they are concerned with ease of use and product support. You can improve your conversions with this type by displaying how you stand behind your products, or by telling them who you are.

Methodical buyers are the people who care about specs. They want to make a logical decision about a product’s relative value. They are also most likely to be price conscious, because they research to find a good value. Methodicals are more likely to gravitate toward things that can be researched and found to be the best option; they are the type of people who will spend a month researching before buying. You can better connect to Methodical buyers by offering them information.

Competitive buyers are the ones that are most likely to be early adopter or pre-sale buyers. Why you ask? Because they are competitive, they want to be the first to have something. They are also the buyers that are most likely drawn toward high-end products — if you can’t be first, be best. There are quite clearly two types of Competitive buyers, those that are feature driven and those that are benefit driven. Improving your conversions with Competitive buyers means selling brands that have social cache, or building your brand cache.

Spontaneous buyers are, I think, the most interesting temperament. These buyers are driven by impulse; they are most likely to engage time based messaging. Selling to Spontaneous buyers is often contingent on giving them enough information to support their decision. Converting a Spontaneous visitor into a customer can be as simple as offering a sale. It can be difficult to convert a Spontaneous buyer if you are offering something that they can get in a store, and have today. Shipping policies and incentive programs are good ways to target Spontaneous buyers.

Your next question to ask is: why is this person shopping online? Each of the temperaments uses the Internet in a different way.

Competitive and Methodical buyers are very likely doing research. They are also the buyers that are most concerned with features. These people come looking for the information to satisfy their desires, giving them more information than your competitors is one way to build their loyalty.

Humanistic and Competitive buyers are more likely to know what they want. The benefits driven Competitives buy based on branding so are less likely to need additional information. Humanistic buyers are most likely to be doing offline research, by asking friends and family or hearing a review from a trusted source. So these people come knowing what they want and your job is to reinforce their decision.

Spontaneous buyers are the most likely to be browsing, in part because they are generally curious people. Turning Spontaneous visitors into buyers means inciting an immediate desire, because they are the users who will take immediate action. Focus on features and on time.

I don’t think that the above descriptions are perfect; they leave out many of the supporting characteristics that contribute to decisions, like desire for process vs. completion, extroversion vs. introversion, or access to alternative buying channels. I want to address how short-term motivation affects each temperaments process, but that is too complicated for this post. So, for now, I will leave the description as is.