Content Management News

Yesterday, Budweiser released a video on YouTube of two amature hockey teams surprised with pro treatment as screaming fans, cheerleaders and mascots attended their pick up game. This two minute spot is the extended version of their new ad premiering in Canada during the Super Bowl.

Compared to the other Super Bowl ad promos bouncing around the internet, this one seemly created an emotional connection with consumers that the other more gimmicky and "clever" ads, aren't delivering. But is this just another tired use of flash mobs in advertising?

Budweiser's marketing manager, Ben Seaton, says no.

"I'm not concerned that it will be labelled as another flash mob. That's not why we made it and that's not what it is. It's not the theme that makes it relatable and relevant. It's the fact that it is so touching and it's a great story."

As flash mobs are mainly considered the thing of the past, why this approach? According to Seaton, Budweiser are big fans of hockey and part of its marketing strategy is to help provide more excitement and give more guys the opportunity to experience the game. The team behind the ad asked themselves how they could go and honour those guys who dedicate their lives to recreational hockey and give them an experience they'll never forget. This is the result:

Ameer Khan was one of the players on the ice.

Some guy shows up to watch one of our regular League games and later calls our team rep to say they would like to do a documentary about beer league hockey and if we would be interested in playing an exhibition game. So we show up at Port Credit Arena still not sure what's going on. The producer says just play and enjoy the game.

After the 1st period we notice the Budweiser Zamboni. Then by the 2nd period there are mascots, play by play announcers and 500 screaming fans wearing our jerseys. The noise was insane, couldn’t even hear the refs whistle.

Rhys Howell, who saw the video as it made its rounds yesterday, said "When I first saw the Budweiser video I was choked up because I instantly thought about how awesome those guys must have felt. How awesome would I have felt if I was on that rink when it happened? I guess that's what Budweiser want me to think and they want me to love Budweiser for changing my life if only for a moment."

"One of the powers of this spot is that everyone dreams about playing in front of fans," comments Seaton. “So this has legs around the world. We've left it to the consumer and it is travelling quite well. We will drive traffic to see it during the Super Bowl and then put out new content, including a 4 minute behind the scene piece, every two or three days. The campaign will be supported through Facebook, Twitter and traditional digital marketing."

Though there is growing attention around this video (which is at nearly half a million views in less than 2 days), not everyone is convinced of this approach. Leigh Caldwell of Inon states:

If they'd done it eight years ago it would have been original, heart-warming and surprising. We'd have watched it over and over on that new "YouTube" thing and emailed it to our friends on AIM. In 2012, it's trite, obvious and more likely to lead to a bunch of quickly-edited parodies on YouTube than to any genuine affection. Anyone who doesn't already love hockey isn't going to be swept up in a magical storm of teary manly joy by this fluff.

Howell isn't convinced he will change his mind about the brand but believes by sharing the video, "some people could be converted to the Bud side and really that's all that was required of me."

For Khan, being a part of this moment will become a central part of his own story. "Budweiser has made an emotional connection with me that will last a lifetime. Everyone on twitter is saying it brought them to tears and cheers. From now on every Budweiser I have will have a story."

This is exactly what Seaton and the Budweiser team were hoping for. "I would love if every person who watched it would feel the same way. We created a bond with those guys on the ice. Hopefully, their story has created the bond with the consumer. If that's what they take away, it's a positive view of the brand. And that's all that we wanted."

Budweiser has never seen the type of media and consumer interest as they’ve had so far through this video. Internally this is already being touted as best practise for them and they credit the story, rather than the delivery.

The big question is did it work for you? Do you think marketers need to focus more on the story in their campaigns? Or was this execution better left for the 2009 marketing vaults?

With UK universities allowed to charge up to £9,000 for fees from this autumn, many institutions are likely to have ramped up their marketing in order to engage and attract students.

So how successful have they been in creating a presence on the main social networks?

16 -24 year olds are heavy users of social networks, so you’d expect universities to have been ‘socially active’ by generating and posting interesting, engaging content  (articles, images, video and audio) on their own websites, and then sharing it on social networks. 

As the deadline for most university applications was the middle of January, we thought now would be a good time to analyse this type of university social visibility. 

So we had a go at this using the weekly data that we collate in our social analytics database, examining the leading 20 Russell Group universities. 

First off, to give you an idea of the overall volume of activity, our data estimates that taken altogether there are roughly 207,900 links every week related to content on the websites of the Russell Group universities posted on Twitter, Facebook (likes, comments and shares), Linkedin, Google+ and social bookmarking sites StumbleUpon and Delicious. 

Here we’re talking about links to the universities’ own web pages which are Tweeted, liked, shared etc by users of the social sites we looked at (this average figure is based on the activity over  an eight week period leading up to mid-January).

Taking a closer look at Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Google+ we found that over the last three years, Facebook has been by far the most important in terms of generating links for the university sites we analysed, representing around 80% of all links.

Take a look at the full breakdown underneath (obviously as a relatively new site you would expect far fewer links on Google+. But bearing in mind Google’s recent Search Plus Your World announcement, this is likely to grow in importance now).

• Facebook: 80.25%.
• Twitter: 19.28%.
• LinkedIn:  0.11%.
• Google+: 0.35%.

Next, the list underneath shows how our data ranks the universities’ sites in terms of social visibility.

The visibility score we use here is based on the total number of links a web domain has scored on the six social sites, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Delicious and StumbleUpon, while accounting for different weightings we give to links on individual social sites.

Social visibility of Russell Group universities

1. University of Cambridge. Visibility score: 462,823.
2. University of Oxford: 442,758.
3. London School of Economics: 286,859.
4. Newcastle Uinversity: 186,184.
5. University College London: 176,202.
6. University of Warwick: 169,462.
7. University of Manchester: 143,186.
8. University of Edinburgh: 131,053.
9. Queens University Belfast: 118,137.
10. University of Glasgow: 72,211.
11. University of Bristol: 70,656.
12. University of Nottingham: 64,381.
13. University of Leeds: 63,802.
14. Imperial College London: 47,321.
15. Cardiff University: 46,053.
16. University of Southampton: 44,106.
17. King’s College London: 31,762.
18. University of Liverpool: 20,444.
19. University of Birmingham: 15,873.
20. University of Sheffield: 9,912.

What types of content are heavily shared? 

Well not surprisingly news page stories about new research studies and initiatives are quite common. While heavily shared links included software simulations, web cam images, jokes and podcasts.

Most universities are very active with numerous social network accounts serving different departments and groups.

Obviously much of the content is targeted at the current university population rather than prospective students, but it can provide some interesting insights to those wanting to know a little more about life at a particular institution. 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. That may very well describe 2012 for media companies.

As detailed in Econsultancy's 2012 Media Growth Trends report companies are optimistic about what they can accomplish this year, but they also face numerous challenges - the least of which is the prospect of deeper economic pain in Europe.

When it comes to internal challenges, the Media Growth Trends report, which was produced in conjunction with The Jordan, Edmiston Group, found that the biggest internal challenge to growth faced by companies today is talent acquisition. To thrive in highly-competitive markets, companies need to recruit the best and the brightest, but it's not easy.

Some of the hurdles companies most often cited:

• Creating offering attractive compensation packages. Money isn't everything here, but whether it's money or intangibles, it's not always easy to meet the expectations of the top recruits.
• Structural limitations which reduce the ability of new hires to effect change early on. For obvious reasons, it's nice to empower new employees to make a difference, but organisations aren't always structured for that.
• Skepticism around flexible work arrangements. Demands for telecommuting, for instance, are increasing, particularly amongst younger members of the workforce, but changing management attitudes about how the workplace operates can be difficult.

So how are companies dealing with these challenges? Some are wisely focusing on internal development. Sometimes it's an outright necessity. As one CEO surveyed noted, "there aren't enough" experts to recruit in some markets. Other companies are willing to make exceptions for certain kinds of recruits. One publisher reported making a greater effort to accommodate developers: "without the tech talent to put ideas into action, all the learning we’re getting from customers can’t help us."

Another way of recruiting talent that may become quite popular in 2012 is the acquihire. Many of the mid-to-large size companies were bullish on acquisitions prospects this year. Some, flush with cash thanks to recession-induced saving, are more than capable of making deals happen. With a growing number of startups formed in the past several years reaching a make-or-break point, we could start to see a flurry of young companies seeking an exit on realistic terms.

Acquihires, of course, aren't a perfect solution. Retaining the talent that comes through M&A can be tough (just ask AOL). So whether a company is recruiting via more traditional means or looking to acquire a company primarily for its talent, making sure that there's a satisfying environment for them is crucial to making such an acquisition successful.

This highlights perhaps one of key takeaway from the Media Growth Report: companies will have to be increasingly resourceful and willing to think outside the box to attract and retain the best of the best. From compensation packages to structural organisation to acquihires, finding and recruiting the right people will likely require a broader view of the market and far more thoughtfulness in 2012.

A few hours ago Apple held its much-anticipated education event in New York City, and as expected, announced a new offering that seeks to reinvent the textbook around the iPad.

Seeking to make textbooks more interactive, more durable, more searchable and more easily refreshable, iBooks 2 offers a "new textbook experience for the iPad." And boy is it pretty.

But putting looks aside, there is one big question everybody will be asking in the coming hours and days: does iBooks 2 really have the potential to revolutionise the textbook, making Apple the future of education in the process? The answer: probably not.

There are several key problems with iBooks 2:

• Not every student can afford an iPad, and schools are broke. The iPad is an incredible device for students, and 1.5m iPads are currently used in education. But not every parent can shell out hundreds of dollars or pounds for an iPad, and not every school has the funds to equip their students with them. Dead trees aren't dead, and cheaper tablet devices (likely based on Android) will have a big role in this market.
• iBooks 2 harks back to the CD-ROM era. Make no mistake about it, Apple is not "reinventing" the textbook. Rather, it is trying to take us back to the future, specifically the 1990s when interactive CD-ROMs were the next big thing in education. iBooks Author, which is used to compose iBooks 2 titles, is little more than HyperCard for the e-book/mobile app generation.
• iBooks 2 won't really make textbooks less expensive. This isn't about greed. Apple taking a double-digit percentage cut of gross revenue increases pressure on margins, and authoring interactive content is not cheap. The output from the iBooks 2 authoring process isn't reusable anywhere else (as in, you can't sell an iBooks 2 title through non-Apple channels), producing a less-than-optimal investment scenario for publishers.
• Publishers already offer app-like versions of textbooks. Initial textbook publishers on board for launch are Pearson, McGraw Hill and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. This is for good reason: being seen as jumping on the Apple bandwagon is usually a good thing. But it's worth noting that most of these publishers already offer app-like interactive versions of their textbooks directly to schools. In some cases, their licenses for schools cost less than the texbooks in the new section of the iBookstore, which are $14.99. Selling app-like versions, whether through Apple or other channels, is only possible of course because of the revenue from physical textbooks. So if iBooks 2 (or any other digital format) killed off the hardcover textbook, producing these apps and selling them on the cheap at a profit would be impossible.
• Apple doesn't seem to understand publishing. During its announcement, Apple kept referring to the fact that authors themselves can create interactive titles using iBooks Author, which is available for free download. But the authors of textbooks published by the big publishers don't compose their textbooks - the publishers do. Pointing this out may seem like nit-picking, but it hints at a fundamental naivety about the textbook publishing process on Apple's part.
• Apple is but one channel.  iBooks 2 is specific to one channel/device - the iPad. An important channel to be sure, but publishing is a multichannel world. It's hard to see the education industry standardising in any meaningful way around Apple hardware and software, meaning that publishers will be certainly be investing in making sure their content is available through all emerging channels, such as Android-based tablets.

At the end of the day, Apple's success with iBooks 2 will not be based on how "gorgeous" the texbooks on the iPad can be. It will be based on the ROI it delivers to publishers.

The iPad is an attractive channel for textbook publishers (as it is to all publishers) but you aren't going to see major textbook publishers putting their eggs in one basket.

From a pure product standpoint, iBooks 2 may be impressive, but from a commercial perspective, in a few years it will probably still be remembered as one of Steve Jobs' last pet projects.

As this year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) came to an end, the shiny, light-weight, thin gadgets were packed away and the technology industry took a step back to evaluate which ground-breaking development will really make a difference to consumer’s everyday lives.

While the in-car technology, digital health devices, ultrabooks and smartphones will all undoubtedly impact and improve our lives, it was the connected TVs that created the greatest buzz.

Back in the UK, this week also saw the BBC release its iPlayer viewing figures for December 2011 across connected TVs, mobile and tablet devices.

The broadcaster revealed that 7m BBC programmes were watched on the iPlayer via connected TV sets, up 1,000% year on year.

BBC iPlayer’s general manager David Danker said that the growth of audience viewing across TVs, mobile and tablets was “outpacing” that of the PC.

Various other research revealed that at the end of 2011 there were 82m connected TVs in homes worldwide and by 2016 that number is predicted to reach 892m.

Connected TVs have long been touted as the next ‘big’ thing but has predominantly been the home for catch-up viewing.

In last year’s Adjust Your Set and IAB research, marketers voted “watching catch-up TV” as the most frequent activity on connected TVs. But this could be about to change.

This year’s CES show allowed the various technology manufacturers to showcase the future of smart TVs and even games consoles, such as Microsoft’s Kinect, revealed a future of touch and voice control for the TV set.

With the latest technology innovation, increase in cloud services and faster internet speeds, audiences have greater freedom in the type of content distributed into their homes and the screens they watch it on.

However, while the technology may have arrived, the content propositions are still in their infancy. Broadcasters will continue to distribute scheduled programmes and catch-up services, but connected TVs will really come into their own when brands develop complimentary content.

As 2011 showed, the amount of money spent on online video advertising increased and 68% of marketers in 2012 intend to boost their budget in this platform, according to a report by Break Media. 

As YouTube continues to push professionally produced channels, the shift toward online spend across internet-enabled devices will increase. Connected TVs will become, not only the centre of the connected-home, but a strong influence over advertising budgets for brands.

The gap between a consumer’s first exposure to a brand and their final purchasing decision has shrunk.

While CES 2012 showcased the technology to make this happen,  to instantly convert a consumer’s internet in a traditional TV ad to a purchase on a companion device, we’re still waiting for brands to develop the content strategies to bring that journey to life.  

With the advancement of digital innovation in display ad targeting and personalization, it is now possible for advertisers to optimise their display campaigns in real time, based on their internal business data.  

Tying advertisers' own internal data with their display campaigns is a pot of gold that few advertisers have fully tapped.

Here are some best practices for increasing online sales by using information you already have...

We’ve seen first hand how first party data serves as a major success factor in performance display marketing campaigns and we believe this should be an added tool for advertisers in their 2012 campaigns, as it enhances targeting accuracy.

Below are the reasons why and how advertisers should develop their display ad campaigns, including creative and media bids, on first party data.

What is first Party data retargeting?

First party data is information shared by the advertiser with their performance display providers, such as data collected from their website analytics platforms, CRM systems and business analysis tools.

How is this different to third party data?

Third party data, such as behavioural or contextual information, is collected by retargeting providers or other third parties off-site and helps advertisers better understand a potential user’s interest for targeting purposes.  

Conversely, first party data is extracted to better target returning customers by leveraging data that the advertiser already has about past purchases and product interest.

How does first party data enhance campaign performance?

While optimising campaigns based on off-site behavioral data is a valuable and effective targeting method, the campaign can be further enhanced by combining third party retargeting with the advertiser's own segmentations based on first party data.  

When targeting is based on third party data only, both existing and potential audiences are approached in the same way. Meanwhile, advertisers’ known and valued customers are falling through the cracks and not effectively targeted to encourage return customers to convert.

This translates into advertisers allotting their budget to CPC or CPM campaigns, paying for banners that are not entirely relevant or accurate, given that current customers are being targeted in the same way as a “blind target”.

In contrast, first party data provides visibility to customers’ previous behavioural patterns that is used to create more personalized, dynamic ads that increase chances for conversion.  

For example, advertisers can simultaneously personalise their campaign to different types of existing customers as well as target new customers.

Here’s an example:

Imagine a top tier fashion etailer looking to sell a wide selection of high-margin products such as a cashmere sweater in the men’s clothing section and black boots in the shoe section to an extended and existing customer base.

The target audience for each of these products is significantly different. Traditionally, this etailer would launch a CPM display campaign that is essentially a “blind” campaign with one-message fits all approach for no specific target audience.  

The industry performance average for this type of general campaign amounts to a mere 0.1% CTR. Is this the most results oriented campaign this e-tailer can launch?

The answer is no. With the help of first party data retargeting, this etailer could tie its campaign to the company's business goals and tangible customer information already in its hands.

In turn, the provider would optimise the campaign so that each new potential customer would be exposed to the most effective message and the most relevant high-margin products according to the customer segment they belong to.

Additionally, media bids per impression would also reflect the value of the customer segment of each user and play a role in deciding the cost per conversion.

The impact

Our customers who have defined their campaign goal as increasing the percentage of new customers' sales out of their total sales are seeing over 25% of sales originating from new customers.

Other customers who focused on high margin products have increased these high-margin products' share from the total conversions of their website.

Bottom line: once your display campaign is optimised on a granular level to reach and convert your target segments, you can be certain that your online ad display spend is truly maximized.

Best practices for your 2012 ad campaign

Define your marketing goals

First party data retargeting is a very catered approach to ad campaigns, which necessitates very catered performance goals. Before embarking on a campaign you should clearly specify the goals you would like to accomplish through the campaign.  

For example, are you interested in reaching new users or increasing the revenues of existing customers?

Other elements to consider should include product choice such as whether it would be more effective to push specific product categories whose margins are higher or to target specific customer segments such as business customers amongst your website visitors.

In tandem, review both your current and future goals for expansion as campaigns can support both acquisition and retention goals.

Increase your data volume

Align your marketing goals with your data. For example, In order to be able to target a display campaign for your selected customer or visitor segments, you should be able to identify those segments as they enter your website and in turn, share the information with a trusted partner (such as yours truly).

Consider using a partner to make the most of data

To gain the full value of your data, partner with a provider specializing in campaign optimization that can help you integrate first party data into your campaign goals and strategy.

These partners should help align website data gathered via analytics solutions as well as CRM data for online display campaigns. 

Such an alignment should impact the campaign’s creative content, such as products and messaging, which should be tailored to fit the user segment.

When it comes to media buy, each bid per impression should reflect predicted revenue for that impression (based on data on the segment or the product displayed).  

As for campaign management, campaign frequency and recency should also reflect the value and preferences of each segment.

Use insights gained from on-going website optimization and DR efforts

A quick way to jumpstart a first-party data retargeting display campaign is to "recycle” effective segmentations and messages previously developed for Direct-Response efforts (such as email marketing).

Track your campaign

Since retargeting campaigns are closely aligned with your internal segmentation and relationship data, it is easier than most display campaigns to gauge the impact and performance of the retargeting campaign on each of the targeted segments.

For example, has the share of sales by the target segment increased from the total sales? Are there additional segments that should be targeted? Did the campaign generate more high-margin or low-margin product sales?

These metrics and conclusions should guide your future first party data retargeting efforts.

Community is a word used all too often in the social marketing world, but what does it mean exactly?

What are the different kinds of community that companies are building or assisting online, and how do they contribute to business goals?

We discuss the answers with DJ Waldow, the author of Econsultancy's new series of reports on the topic.

The first report, Starting a Community, is available now to Bronze members and above.

First, can you describe what "community building" means?

Sure, but first, let me be clear about what I mean when I say "online community."

Essentially, an online community is the 2012 version of a chat room or forum of the late 20th century. Social networking sites like the Big Four (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+) are today's main online communities.

They are places where people gather, virtually, to share ideas, gather information, and voice their opinion around a common topic. Community building is the process of growing, developing, and nurturing these virtual gathering places.

In this first part, we get introduced to some of the benefits of building a community. What would you say is the most common goal?

As you'll read in the Starting a Community report,the benefits of community building are plentiful.

If I had to pick the most common goal of building a community, it would have to be engaging with current customers by providing a place to offer support and customer service.

Online communities can foster an environment for your customers to bond with each other, to share ideas and experiences, to sing your praises, and to commiserate over what they do not like.

Ideally, this turns your customers into advocates.

You've talked about customer engagement, but what about more directly revenue related activities?

As I said, there are many benefits of building a strong online community. Lead generation can certainly be another positive outcome.

We'll go into more detail on how to leverage your community for feedback, support, and of course sales, in a future report.

Suffice to say, a well-run online community can definitely be used to increase leads and...dare I say, sell!

What's the number one way in which companies stumble in the early days of community building?

The biggest "stumble" early on is usually is the result of community moderators (administrators) trying to keep too much control.

It's one thing to moderate and keep the community on track, ensure there are no personal attacks, etc. However, there is a fine line between being involved and being overbearing.

Once the community members feel like the administrator has taken over, the online community is in a risky place, one that can be seen as self-serving.

Remember, the community is not about you, it's all about the members.

Taking a look ahead, what does the rest of this series on community building cover?

In future reports, we'll be digging into ways to engage, grow, and leverage your community.

Specifically, we'll share some tips and tricks to carry on conversations across multiple platforms, discuss how email marketing can be the digital glue of online communities, and detail how to use your community to gather feedback, offer support, and sell!

Tell us about your experience with community building...

Well, first off, I'm a very social person by nature. I think that's one of the keys to community building / social media participation in general.

You have to like (love!) people. I mean, online communities are all about people, so if you don't love people, well ... you get the point.

Prior to starting out on my own, I held the title of Director of Community for Blue Sky Factory, an Email Service Provider. In the capacity of Director of Community, I was in charge of all of our social media efforts including building, growing, nurturing, and selling to our online communities.

SEO practitioners don’t typically share their operational methods. Our sector is reliant on gaining competitive advantage through hoarding methods and techniques for just long enough to benefit from them, and then sharing them to gain some love and respect as a bonus.

This also extends to methods for displaying SEO data and visualising performance. For instance, search agencies never willingly allow their reports to be seen by their competitors.

Therefore, I want to break rank somewhat and present three interesting ways to display SEO data and information, methods that I’ve not seen others use out there and that are increasingly becoming standards within my own companies.

The SEO TreeMap

The SEO TreeMap is a method of visualising a site’s SEO performance from 30,000 feet, making it immediately obvious which search terms or search term categories you excel within natural search and where you perhaps need to work harder.

The visualisation is built up from a comprehensive taxonomy, whereby all relevant search terms are first hierarchically categorised.

For instance, the keyword ‘flights to Spain’ is added to a category called ‘Spain’, within which we would also put ‘flight to Madrid’, ‘flights to Barcelona’ and all other relevant terms and their variations.

The keyword ‘Cyprus flight deals’ would be placed in the ‘Cyprus’ category. And so on, with increasing complexity as you dig deeper and deeper into your search term universe.

Once you have a fairly comprehensive taxonomy, you can then use search volume data from Google (or any other method of search term quantification) to build an SEO TreeMap chart like the one below.

The entire rectangle represents ‘audience size’, i.e. the total number of searches made per month against your keyword universe within the major search engines.

In the example below this adds up to 2.2m searches each month for keywords relevant to the website in question, i.e. the total rectangle represents 2.2m searches.

The many rectangles within the overall rectangle, i.e. the nested rectangles, then break down this number of searches into categories and sub-categories.

The categories and subcategories house continent, country and city destination search terms. Drilling into these rectangles would reveal the keywords that each group is actually composed of.

(Click image for larger version)

Now for the clever bit. The colour of each nested rectangle shows you how well you rank (in aggregate) for the keywords within each category. Red means your rankings are poor, green means your rankings are great, and of course coloured gradations in between identify gradations of performance between those extremes.

In practice, therefore, you’d look for the biggest red rectangle to identify where you really need to work much harder because your rankings are very poor, practically making you invisible for those keywords.

In our example this would be keywords in the ‘Qatar’ group. The fact that this keyword group performs far worse than any other might suggest that there are technical problems with the Qatar page/s.

A big orange or yellowy-green rectangle would represent a great candidate group of keywords to undergo some quick-wins work as it would identify a voluminous opportunity that isn’t far from being in money-making ranking positions.

The visualisation above therefore uses relative rectangle sizes to represent opportunity sizes (number of physical searches people make out there) with the colours showing how well you rank against that audience.

This gives you immediate and easily consumable insight into you performance. Furthermore, with the right data inputs you could change the SEO TreeMap to show even more meaningful information.

For example, the size of each rectangle could represent commercial opportunity (e.g. how much each keyword and category of keyword is worth to you in actual monetary terms) with the colours again showing how well you perform.

Alternatively, the rectangles could represent the size of the opportunity for each search term category and the colour could show link weight, which would immediately show you which parts of the site are getting more or less of their fair share of link juice from your link building campaigns.

A quarterly review of performance taking a three month old SEO TreeMap and a current one may quite possibly be the most effective way of determining very quickly how your SEO performance may have changed during that period.

To build a SEO TreeMap you need to engage a tiling algorithm, it isn’t something you can just create in Excel unfortunately. Type ‘treemapping software’ into Google for some options, or engage with the One platform from Hydra where SEO TreeMaps are a standard and automatable reporting template.

The SEO Scatter

While the SEO TreeMap is great at providing immediate high level insight into your natural search performance to help deliver a rapid SEO SWOT, it works best as a visualisation method for groups of keywords and sites in their entirety.

This is great because sometimes (and for some people in some organisations) you just need some aggregation to help make big decisions or illustrate general performance, particularly if your keyword universe is thousands or millions of search terms.

Where it is less effective is in identifying which of your specific search terms represent the best opportunity for increasing clicks or revenue with the least effort. 

This is where the SEO Scatter comes in. Below you’ll see one in action.

The X axis gives you Google search volume, the Y axis your search engine ranking, and keywords are then plotted against those data sets.

Therefore what you’d look for as an optimiser is search terms that are searched for a lot (keywords/nodes plotted furthest to the right) but where your rankings are poor (keywords/nodes towards the bottom).

(Click image for larger version)

This can tell you where the least pressure could be applied for the biggest visibility in the search engine results pages. A node far to the right that has a ranking position of between seven and 20 could be moved up the rankings relatively easily with some content tweaking and link building, and the SEO Scatter can show you quickly and easily which keywords those might be.

A third, fourth and even fifth dimension in the SEO Scatter is possible by utilising the size, colour and shape of each plotted node to show even more information.

In the above example, nodes do not only have a X-Y placement, they also have a colour, so utilising a traffic light method. Green represents keywords where the associated page has no technical SEO issues, amber represents the existence of technical issues, and red identifies critical show stopping deficiencies.

Just like the SEO TreeMap, you can change the X and Y axes, nodal shapes and nodal colours to show you precisely what you need to see to make real decisions. For example, you could illustrate:

• Keyword profitability versus rank position.
• PPC keyword performance vs SEO keyword performance.
• Keyword rankings vs SEO investment.
• Keyword rankings vs associated page latency.
• Keyword rankings vs whether the associated page suffers from duplication or not.
• Keyword rankings vs content quantity.

The possibilities with the SEO Scatter for not only presenting insightful data but also discovering deficiencies in your SEO strategy are far reaching.

The SEO Race Line

SEO is a competitive sport. To win, you need to be performing better than those competing against you for the rankings that you want.

To that end it’s incredibly useful, and insightful, to illustrate your SEO performance relative to everyone else in your space. An effective way of doing that is with what we call a SEO Race Line.

Here's an example:

Interpreting this is simple. The X axis plots your SEO visibility as a percentage of all possible impressions you could secure if you ranked on page one, position one for every keyword you care about, so your site will essentially be plotted between zero and that maximum number, i.e. representing 100% visibility (100% total impressions).

Against that scale you plot your site and each competitor to see how far ahead or behind you are relative to the group.

In addition, The SEO Race Line can also accommodate a further dimension as you can add some useful data for each competitor.

For example, data representing number of pages in each competitor site, number and quality of inbound links, and other SEO health scores could be added below each logo for information purposes.

As SEOs, you’ll know how important it is to consider SERPs as a competitive battleground. Every ranking that your competitors have above you is at your commercial expense, so you should at least have one charting option to help illustrate what you’re working towards and who is in your way!.

Final thoughts

SEOs spend a huge amount of time painstakingly ensuring they are up to date with the latest algorithmic changes, as well as the mania of the actual task of optimisation itself, but little attention is given to what comes after, i.e. presenting the results in interesting, innovative and ultimately strikingly useful ways.

SEOs need to remember that their job isn’t done until someone can very quickly see the results and therefore appreciate all the hard work!

Social commerce company Reevoo has released research that suggests bad reviews are good for business.

The company found that 68% of consumers trust reviews more when they see both good and bad scores, while 30% suspect censorship or faked reviews when they don’t see anything negative at all.

Not only this, but shoppers who go out of their way to read bad reviews convert 67% more than the average consumer.

Reevoo CEO and founder Richard Anson said that though this may seem counter-intuitive, negative user-generated content is actually one of the most effective conversion tools. 

This is because shoppers who seek out bad reviews are highly engaged with their pre-purchase research, viewing almost four times as many products as the average visitor to a site, and staying considerably longer.

The company discovered that three times as many consumers actively seek out and read negative user-generated content as look for positive content: negative reviews are even more popular than 'most recent reviews', or 'reviews from people like me'.  

Figures quoted are from data collected across Reevoo’s network of 150 UK and international partners and from Reevoo.com, the company’s consumer website, as well as from independent consumer surveys.

The results contrast with a study last year, which found that reading between one and three negative reviews would deter the majority of customers, though much depends on whether there are any good reviews to outweight thr bad.

In the battle for the future of the tablet market, Amazon - with the Kindle Fire, may be a top contender for the lead row. But another retailer, Barnes & Noble (B&N), isn't ceding anything to its etail rival.

Yesterday, it announced that customers who pony up $120 for a one-year subscription to the digital version of PEOPLE Magazine will receive a $50 discount on the NOOK Tablet, bringing its price down to that of the Kindle Fire ($199). Customers who purchase a $240 annual subscription to the New York Times (NYT) can have a NOOK Simple Touch for free, or a NOOK Color tablet for $99.

B&N's logic is straightforward: when it comes to the e-reader/tablet space, the real money is not in selling devices; it's in selling content. If the retailer can lure consumers in with free or cheaper devices, it can establish a relationship with them that should be quite profitable over the long haul as customers use their devices to purchase content.

Sweetening the deal for B&N is the fact that, according to paidContent, the bookseller isn't subsidising the discounts and giveaways on its own. paidContent's Laura Hazard Owen says: "It is our understanding that Time Inc. (NYSE: TWX) and Barnes & Noble are sharing the cost of the discounted Nook Tablet that comes with the Nook People subscription". 

While the New York Times is silent on the subject, it wouldn't be surprising if the daily was willing to put some skin in the game given that an annual NYT subscription on the NOOK costs $240.

Needless to say, it wouldn't be surprising to see Amazon jump in and run a similar promotion of its own. What is intriguing, however, is the possibility that some publishers might eventually get into the device game themselves.

Last year, word broke that the Philadelphia Media Network was planning to do just that, but it was unclear that it made sense for such a publisher. It might not make sense for any publisher, but now that some are apparently willing to help device markers move their e-readers and tablets, it isn't a stretch to think that a major might eventually take the plunge and see if there's an opportunity to be had on its own.