seo

Two results for December already!

December 8, 2010 By Dan Thornton

Having written about how I was going to work flat out in December, it’s nice to be able to share a couple of examples of it working already.

Firstly – I’m pleased to say that a recent pitch has been successful, and I’ve now got a couple of new clients to work with. Happily news of my availability appears to be resulting in a steady growth in demand for my services – which is brilliant news both for me and my bank manager. And a big part of that has been down to the fantastic response by a group of wonderful people I’ve had the pleasure of connecting with over the years – your assistance continues to be invaluable, and without naming you individually, I just wanted to say a big thank you for all your support and more!

While I’m thanking people – every blog comment, link to my sites, reweet, like on Facebook, @ message, DM, recommendation to a social bookmarking site etc – these are hugely appreciated and they all have an effect on me personally as well as helping to improve everything I’m doing – so thanks to everyone reading this, whether it’s on the site, via RSS, a social network….

Secondly – I’ve been thinking a lot about the potential concerns clients may have, and finding solutions for them. One potential concern might be that by hiring what is essentially me on my lonesome, they might encounter some risks if I get abducted by aliens, or that I might not be able to offer the range of services that a larger, full-service operation might be able to provide.

So, I’m pleased to say I’ve been speaking to a small number of the very best people I know in various areas. That means that I’m not only able to plug-in respected experts to cover in the event of an emergency, but I can also offer project-managed delivery of various additional services, whether it’s a design for a social media profile, or a complete website or mobile application build. So you really can go from nothing to a complete website, social media presence, and have content supplied whilst only ever dealing with one person!

Not a bad start for the month!

Consumers pay less, and publishers starting to diversify?

April 19, 2010 By Dan Thornton

The changing nature of publishing, and particularly digital publishing, has been highlighted in a couple of stories today on the amount that consumers are willing to spend on media online, and the moves by U.S. publisher Hearst to acquire a different type of business.

The consumer study was KPMG’s Media & Entertainment Barometer, which, as Paid Content highlighted, showed that the time spent with both traditional and digital media over the last six months had increased.

But the actual amount being spent had decreased – traditional media dropped from £9.19 per month to £7.46, and digital media dropped from £1.99 to £0.98. And although more people favoured offline access, those that opted for online went for on-demand availability, the availability of free content, and the fact they’re already in front of a screen.

But obviously the study has taken place during/towards the tail end of a global recession, so I was a little surprised not to see that mentioned in over reports. It would have been interested to see the trend pre-recession to see what was happening. And to have seen a mention of other forms of media beyond newspapers and magazines.

But it seems one U.S. publisher is trying to adapt pretty quickly – I was a bit surprised to read that Hearst is looking to buy SEO and Marketing company iCrossing for around $375 million.

Most of the discussion so far has been around Hearst bringing search engine marketing in-house, along with social media marketing, measurement and analytics. But that seems like a hefty investment in internal knowledge by acquisition – particularly as iCrossing has around 550 employees and two UK offices (Disclosure – iCrossing have provided SEO work to both Bauer Media and Absolute Radio at various times, and I’ve occasionally worked directly with them.)

The other potential outcome is a Hearst-owned iCrossing still working for external clients such as Travelocity, Coca-Cola and Toyota. But will brands still feel comfortable booking their marketing and SEO work through a company which has a vested interest in the properties of one media owner?

Without knowing the plans, and what Hearst currently spends purely on digital marketing, it’s hard to make a definitive statement on what it likely to be the outcome, but I think it’s worth discussing because it’s a very definite move from a big media company to acquire an entirely new revenue stream for a media company. And if it’s a battle to get consumers to pay for digital content, it’s much less of a struggle to persuade companies to pay to reach consumers via search or social networks – the two main sources of online referrals.

Is this the start of a merge between content and marketing for media owners, much as product retailers have begun to produce their own content as part of their own marketing?

Should you stop linking to Wikipedia? (Black Hole SEO)

September 12, 2008 By Dan Thornton

I’m not a huge fan of ‘Black Hat’ SEO (i.e. bending the rules, or breaking them to game SEO), but I do like to be aware of what goes on. And a recent discussion on ‘Black Hole SEO’ struck a chord with me outside of simple search engine optimisation, so I thought it was worth flagging to the wider world (that readers TheWayoftheWeb, anyway!).

Basically it refers to sites which are large enough to have authority across topics, which then ensure all links are internal, or ‘no-follow’ links (meaning they give no authority in Google ranking). There’s been discussion about ‘no-follow’ since it’s introduction, mainly around whether a blog comment should result in a legitmate link, or whether it discourages spammers to make them no-follow.

But this is far more worrying, as it essentially means large sites are following the example of Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia has so much content and authority, we all boost the site rankings by linking to it. But when it needs external information it rewrites it, and links to it internally, or links out with a ‘no follow’. You still get a traffic boost, but no ranking advantage.

There’s more on SEOblackhat, and they use examples from mainstream media, including the New York Times and Business Week. Daily Blog Tips has an open discussion on whether to boost your own sites in this method, while SEOBlackHat gives a ‘how-to‘ guide.

But noone has looked at the ethical debate around this, as far as I’m aware, which is what I’d like to do. I have sympathy for Wikipedia as a reference work limiting external links in this way, although I do question whether it’s the correct approach, as it essentially limits the reward of any site putting time and effort into creating something valuable on the subject.

But I seriously question the likes of Mainstream Media (MSM) or sites like Digg etc for doing it – these are organisations which make a profit from the content they display, and the position they occupy within search rankings. As ‘link journalism‘ begins to rise, and more people are recognising smaller blogs and websites as relevant within their field, it’s only right that they should receive the reward for their efforts, whether from recognition or financial reward.

And in the long term it has serious implications for these sites – if they rely on people providing content to enable a wide range of topics, internal rankings, and high search results, then they need the content provided. If hundreds or thousands or people who provide this content start to become disillusioned because they aren’t getting the recognition or reward for their efforts, will they start to rebel by removing content, embedding code, or starting to copyright their work and charge MSM?

Will we end up with an internet which is based around paying to be able to link to someone, rather than rewarding them by sending them PR and traffic?

I can understand why large sites do have the content available for internal linking, and this is to be expected. But as I write this I’m becoming more and more convinced that by not rewarding external sites when they are linked, is akin to stealing.

(Disclosure: I work across various titles for Bauer Media, and as far as I’m involved, and aware of, external links are encouraged, and are ‘do-follow’.)

Do you agree? Or do you think it’s nothing to worry about? And if you’re a ‘do-follow’ advocate, what action would you suggest to counteract these seo black holes?

The future is still in your hands…

September 18, 2007 By Dan Thornton

Leading on from my previous pos t…

I’ve been having an interesting discussion on a Facebook group for journalism. A discussion began around the topic “Should newspapers provide new media training”.

From there it dovetailed into new vs old media. The interesting thing was seeing bloggers, professional journalists, and a founder of the Fox News Channel all in the discussion.

The crux of my argument would be that newspapers and publishers should offer training in both new and old media, and that you’d be foolish not to take advantage of both. if nothing else, you might have a slight rethink about the way you work, and make a slight improvement in your writing or search engine optimisation. On the other hand, it could spark someone revolutionary.

I don’t think you should ignore new, or old, media, and if you do, then you’re missing out. There is going to be a place for print, TV and radio for a long time yet, and the formal training of ‘old’ media could help improve the work of countless internet writers, just as the ‘new’ media training could help a lot of writing become more searchable, and findable.

Although I tend to ignore most of the rules for fun on this blog, I have no doubt that the excitement of seeing my name in print, and my efforts to become a better print journalist, have been me more able to structure and write on and offline to a reasonable level of quality. Just as new and old media can, and should co-exist, so should old and new media training. Treat all your knowledge as another thing to keep in your toolbox, and you’ll be far more capable of more jobs. And after all, isn’t one of the main journalistic qualities supposed to be the desire to know why everything is happening?