I’ll start with my wish list, and you can add to it.

1. I’d like to be able to select a date and have the ability to view the posts from a given time period. Right now, we have to keep clicking “older posts” or something similar. Are they kidding? What if we’re sick in bed for a week and don’t have time to check the social scene? (Apparently, Facebook is launching this. Yay!)
2. I want to be able to organize my LinkedIn page without restrictions. No, I don’t expect to have control over ad placements, but I would like to pretty up and customize my own content. I wouldn’t change their basic formats, but wouldn’t it be cool to display our creativity and uniqueness?
3. How about some creative developers coming up with an app that allows us to access ALL our sites in one format? Not just the sites they choose, but the ones we want?
4. Why must social media sites restrict us to a specific number of posts a day? As long as we’re not spamming, why should they care? If we post too much, our followers can choose to unfollow or de-friend us. Isn’t that the free market way?
5. I want to be able to organize my Twitter followers in any way I choose. Maybe I’ll try it alphabetically first. Or maybe I’ll segment my list like I do in Tweetdeck—by keyword. How cumbersome is it now to keep scrolling down to see our earlier followers? Once you get into the thousands, forget it!

OK, I’ll pause here. YOUR turn. Go for it! Let’s tell them what we want.

By now, most marketers have heard that Google+ rolled out Pages, a way for brands to use the social network. The reaction among Team MarketingProfs was a little something like this: “Meh.”

It’s not that we don’t like Google+ or that we aren’t excited to develop a MarketingProfs presence on the site. The announcement just seemed to fall a bit flat. Maybe it’s because the initial G+ hype has died down. Maybe it’s because many of our circles have more tumbleweeds than engaged users. But this announcement didn’t have us as excited as I first imagined the branded pages rollout would be.

I sent Ann Handley a Skype message seeking her opinion on the launch. Her response was: “I’m not really sure how I feel about it yet.”

So, being the social marketers that we are, we decided to ask our Twitter community:

And, of course, they responded in force! Their reactions could best be divided into two camps.

Group 1: Reasonably excited and curious

Group 2: Meh

So, marketers, tell us! How do you feel about Google+ Pages? Have you already launched your branded page? Are you in the “excited and curious” group or the “meh” group? Why?

Chime in right down there in the comments section or jump on Twitter and use the hashtag #googlebiz to join the conversation.

P.S.  We’re now on Google+.

The global economy may be a wreck, but data volumes keep advancing. In fact, there is so much information competing for our limited attention, companies are increasingly turning to compute power and algorithms to make sense of the madness.

The human brain has its own methods for dealing with information overload. For example, think about millions of daily input the human eye receives and how it transmits and coordinates information with our brain. A task as simple as stepping a shallow flight of stairs takes incredible information processing. Of course, not all received data points are relevant to the task of walking a stairwell, and thus the brain must decide which data to process and which to ignore. And with our visual systems bombarded with sensory input from the time we wake until we sleep, it’s amazing the brain can do it all.

But the brain can’t do it all—especially not with the onslaught of data and information exploding at exponential rates. We need what author Rick Bookstaber calls “artificial filters,” computers and algorithms to help sort through mountains of data and present the best options. These algorithms are programmed with decision logic to find needles in haystacks, ultimately presenting us with more relevant choices in an ocean of data abundance.

Algorithms are at work all around us. Google’s PageRank presents us relevant results—in real time—captured from web server farms across the globe. Match.com sorts through millions of profiles, seeking compatible profiles for subscribers. And Facebook shows us friends we should “like.”

But algorithmic programming can go too far. As humans are more and more inundated with information, there’s a danger in turning over too much “pre-cognitive” work to algorithms. When we have computers sort friends we would “like”, pick the most relevant advertisements or best travel deals, and choose ideal dating partners for us, there’s a danger in missing the completely unexpected discovery, or the most unlikely correlation of negative one. And even as algorithms “watch” and process our online behavior and learn what makes us tick, there’s still a high possibility that results presented will be far and away from what we might consider “the best choice.”

With a data flood approaching, there’s a temptation to let algorithms do more and more of our pre-processing cognitive work. And if we continue to let algorithms “sort and choose” for us – we should be extremely careful to understand who’s designing these algorithms and how they decide. Perhaps it’s cynical to suggest otherwise, but in regards to algorithms we should always ask ourselves, are we really getting the best choice, or getting the choice that someone or some company has ultimately designed for us?

Question:
Rick Bookstaber makes the case that personalized filters may ultimately reduce human freedom. He says, “If filtering is part of thinking, then taking over the filtering also takes over how we think.” Are there dangers in too much personalized filtering?

Better get busy! Google has already grown to 25 million-plus users in only a few weeks, and it could be opening the floodgates to brands soon. (Ford is already test-driving its business page.) No one knows for sure, but I believe that, with its financial muscle and market power, Google+ will emerge as the leading social platform for business once it fully integrates its search and other tools (Gmail, Chrome, etc.).

So, you need to hedge your bets by getting involved in G+. But that doesn’t mean you need to put all your eggs in this basket or spend all your waking hours on G+. There are ways you can manage your time and use G+ selectively and strategically.

Below are seven examples of maximizing Google+ (efficiently), based on my last few weeks of working on the new platform.

1. Think rifle shot vs. shotgun: Avoid the temptation to use G+ like another broadcast medium, as many do on Twitter, or duplicate what you’re doing on other platforms. Use G+ to supplement your other channels. What are you missing from your other channels? What can Google+ provide, keeping in mind some of the unique features? What will your key audiences be looking for from G+ that they’re not getting from Facebook or Twitter?

2. Start small: Start with 100 to 200 people to follow (or fewer) instead of thousands— high quality people (the usual industry leaders and influencers, but also other people you want to connect with on deeper levels). Invite select users like potential clients and highly regarded business colleagues—even those not tech savvy. You’re going to provide them a guide or two to get started and be their shepherd into G+, which gives you an (early adopter) edge if you execute right.  Put them in select Circles, and start thinking about how you’ll share with them. (Tip: use a URL shortener and add your G+ URL to your profiles and email signature; mine is http://gplus.to/markivey)

3. Strategize your Circles: The beauty of Google+ is how easily you can add people to follow in your Circles, and manage those for maximum efficiency. You can shoot out something to a large group, select a small to midsize group of friends, or even focus on just one person. So, it’s almost like tweeting (large group), blogging (your readers) and emailing (1:1 correspondence).

Spend some time to get this right. I’d suggest 8 to 12 Circles for starters. This might include different ones for your personal interests, friends/family, close business contacts, corporate clients, early adopters, influencers, “loose ties,” and so on. You need to define the Circles that make sense for you for maximum effectiveness. You can add more as you go. Carri Bugbee, a social media consultant, says she “creates circles based upon both geography and careers/interests. Most people will be in at least 2 circles of mine, if not more.”

One note: G+ is much easier than Facebook to control who you’re posting to, so you’re not overloading your important business contacts with all your marketing or personal posts.

4. Go deep: The key is to share only relevant, segmented posts that appeal to each group. G+ people are 2 to 3 times more likely to share within specific circles than in public, so I focus on creating and working with small groups, say by reaching out with a question to key people. For example, I’m helping my wife launch a new gluten-free Asian food business, and I called on my Circles for feedback. I also queried a small group about this story. You can also launch a questionnaire or poll. Do you have a new product, or want to help a client get feedback on certain features or issues?

The point is to  forget broadcasting;  think of developing fewer, deeper relationships, using more personal, targeted approaches.

For instance, Mari Smith, a social media marketing strategist with a large following, only posts two or three times a day on G+, compared to once an hour on Twitter, and several times a day on Facebook. The result is deeper, “tremendous engagement” and, interestingly, “more immediate responses than most other social networks,” she says.

5. Manage the noise: I put “loud” posters who I still want to keep any eye on (ex: Robert Scoble, Guy Kawasaki) in separate circles. I also “mute” conversations that quickly get out of hand and distract me with constant email reminders. (You can also turn them off completely.)

6. Interact: I follow about 8 or 10 people very closely and keep my eye on another dozen or so people. The rest I just check on (in my “stream”) once or so a day.  When someone says something interesting, I try to leave a comment or give it a 1+ (equal to a Facebook “like”). Do this selectively to build and connect  with your community, generate new connections and get added into the right groups/Circles. The key to managing this is limiting your sources, know what you’re looking for and being able to skim quickly and cut through the noise.

7.  Schedule your time, stay organized: Avoid getting sucked into G+ like any platform, set a time limit—say 30 to 40 minutes early morning and late day. Develop an editorial calendar and stick to it. Be clear on your objectives and goals each day, so you can stay focused. About once or twice a week go through your Circles and weed out the weak players (yes, it’s a little like a garden) by uncircling them.

Evaluate your strategy once a week. If it’s not working, make changes. Smart users like brand strategist Gaynelle Grover use Chrome’s extensions (ex: G+Me and Golden View) to make it easier to skim posts.

This is basically my approach to G+, but it is changing as I delve deeper and the platform evolves. Be sure to experiment with G+ to see what’s going to work for you. Explore “Hangouts” (live video conferencing chats) and “Huddles” (group messaging features. Try different types of interactive techniques and questions, posting different times of the week and day, and so on. Schedule in a little fun. (OK, forget the “schedule. Just go for it!)

See you online!

Did I mention she’s a hardcore Facebook user? Who doesn’t see the value in yet another social network? Who doesn’t get the point of why she should care? In terms of her skepticism, she was worse than the most hard-shelled CEO.

Google+ is the new kid on the block, of course. What’s the skinny for marketers? We offered some thoughts on that here.

Also, check out this video. It tells the the story of Google+ cleanly and simply, and I think sums it up nicely for anyone … be they 14 or 40. To put this video in some context, here are Google+ usage numbers from Experian Hitwise, for the week ending July 23:

• Google+ received more than 1.79M total visits the week ending July 23, 2011—a decrease of 3% vs. the previous week (July 16). The site received 1.86M total visits the previous week.
• The average time spent on the site was down as well by 10% from 5 minutes and 50 seconds to 5 minutes and 15 seconds.
• Among the top 50 Upstream sites, 59% of Upstream traffic to Google+ last week came from other Google properties. Google.com accounted for 37% of Upstream traffic to the site. Gmail accounted 15.59%, a 9% increase from previous week.
• 40% of Upstream traffic to Google+ last week came from Search Engines (8% increase). Email provided the 2nd largest amount of Upstream traffic accounting for 19%.
• 59% of visits to Google+ are from males, that is a 4% increase from previous week (4 weeks ending July 23).
• Among age demos, 33% of visits are from users age 25 to 34.

Brands aren’t actually allowed on Google+ yet, but some (like Ford Motor Company) are already anticipating it. So—shiny new toy or significant new social network? Or both? You decide:

Want to learn more about all aspects of social media and how they’ll help to grow and strengthen your marketing efforts?  Check out MarketingProfs University’s course Social Media Marketing Fast Track:  a 17-class course available on-demand now!  Receive $354 in free course bonuses when you register today!

All things considered, Steve Rubel went so far as to suggest, following David’s comment on this thread, that Twitter could be in 2011 what MySpace was in 2010 ,and in my opinion, the reason is simply the early adoption of G+ by Twitter 10%-ers.

That 10% being the 10% of people who drive 90% of activity on Twitter.

For most “normal” people, G+ is something they may have heard of on the news, but never ever tried out. Chances are it will take more than six months to see mass adoption (perhaps less now that Ashton is on there!), so the dependency on Twitter to retain the early adopters RIGHT NOW is so, so crucial.

If, because of its simplicity, Twitter loses that 10% of early adopters and influencers to G+, then there is little left to sustain the volume. Sure, the advertiser-fueled broadcasters, such as Mashable and TechCrunch, will need to stick with Twitter for the foreseeable future, that’s where the volume is at the moment after all, but what would be the value of broadcasting to an audience diluted by a lack of influencer’s to whom this content is largely aimed?

So where are the 10% and just how quickly is G+ growing? The map below gives you some idea of its reach in only these early 2 weeks. Figures even forecast 10 million users within 2 weeks, all of which, crucially, was whilst G+ was under invite-only conditions.

Paul Allen’s statistics suggest the following growth:

• On July 4  Google + had 1.7 million users in limited field trial.
• On July 10,  Google + reaches a user base of  7.3 million users (350% increase in 6 days).
• On July 12, Google+ reached 9.5 million new users (2.2 million added in just 32 to 34 hours).
• Projected numbers by July 16 are estimated at 20 million (if they keep the invite button available).

So, what can Twitter do to halt the adoption of G+ by its core users? Any ideas?

Listening effectively to your customers can be a very insightful experience. The better you are at listening; the better you can understand your customers’ wants and needs. Do you wonder what your customers are saying about your product or service across the web?

With the rise, and seemingly universal adoption, of social media among consumers, businesses can now listen in on conversations regarding their products and services—if they have the right tools. Although you cannot control these discussions, you can monitor them and respond accordingly.

Here are five free tools to include in your social media listening tool belt:
1. Social Mention: A site that offers real-time social media search and analysis. It’s very easy to use and features the most common indicators of social media activity (strength, sentiment, passion, and reach).
2. RSS Reader: Sign up for a free RSS reader, such as Google Reader. Then use the Google Blogs search option, and search blog directory sites, such as Technorati and Blog Catalog, for blogs that are relevant to your product or service. When you find what you are looking for, simply subscribe by clicking on the RSS feed and adding it to your reader.
3. Search.twitter.com: Here you can search for keywords or phrases and view those mentions (up to two weeks) as they occur on Twitter. Once you find relevant keywords you can subscribe via RSS feed, add to your reader, and stay alerted when these mentions happen in real time.
4. Online surveys and polls: Online survey tools can be an invaluable resource for listening. Embedding a survey or poll directly into your website or blog engages your audience and gives them a voice. You can also launch a survey or poll directly into Facebook and Twitter, giving your business a focused listening platform.
5. Google alerts: Google alerts allows you to set up search queries for keywords which Google will then email you whenever it indexes those keywords. A good idea to start with is to set up alerts for your company name, relevant products, and your website URL.

This may seem like a lot to jump into—so try not to get overwhelmed. It can be a real challenge to monitor everything at first so take it in strides and find what works best for you. Once you get your “listening headquarters” all set up, you will find it hard to turn off.

Listening to what people say can teach you a lot about what you are doing right, and perhaps more importantly, what you are doing wrong. In any case, your current and potential customers will likely appreciate the fact that you are indeed listening.

Jason Miller is a social media marketing manager at Zoomerang.

For more info about free online tools, check out Take 10: How to Monitor Conversations With Free Online Tools.

I suspect a lot of people in the UK have never heard of Post Rank—or at the very least have rarely used the service beyond tinkering. But for more than three years, this has been the bread and butter of blog analytics for both me and the clients I have built and serviced blogs for.

In short, Post Rank attributes a value to each social gesture that a reader may perform on your blog. So, if you look on the left of this blog, there is a list of posts which have attracted a score depending on their popularity. Retweets score differently to bookmarks, comments receive a different score to Facebook shares, and so on. The hugely important distinction to make, is that whilst the values do not necessarily mean anything in any financial or volume-based context we may already be familiar with, the system allows us to set targets and assess something that we are all looking at: attention and authority.

Any post can be widely read—but if nobody re-tweets it, is it in any way influential on that topic? In the same way that Facebook Likes, Retweets, Diggs and so on each represent a modern day “vote” of favor to a piece of content, Post Rank allows you to collate all these votes and provides you with the intelligence to shape your content plan to ensure that it is relevant more often than not, and in being relevant, stands much more chance of being re-posted (and seen) elsewhere.

I have developed over time, a methodology of posting content by very specific content categories (based on conversation monitoring), which is then measured against a Post Rank score for each category of post. Depending on the score of each post, we accurately know what type of content is most responded-to by the audience and can therefore post more content of this type—whatever it is.

Social Search Engine Results Pages

But what does this have to do with the future of search? Look at where search has gone over the last few years and the overwhelming focus has been on addressing the volumes of social content on the web.

• Universal search introduces video (typically from YouTube) and images alongside standard search engine results pages (SERPs).
• Google’s Caffeine update places more influence on delicious (among other things).
• Real-time tweets for popular topics appear alongside “static” SERPs.
• The Google avatar of friends in your network who have shared content that appear in SERPs are visible.

And so on …

The point is, that without any doubt, google’s issue has been one of attributing human “votes” to content. Post Rank fills this gap.

Take a look at its Google Reader filter below, and you can begin to see just how Post Rank’s system can provide such huge feedback on human votes of confidence in content.

I can now filter my Google Reader content according to what Post Rank has been able to determine are Good, Great or Best (or all) score. This means, it is giving me a score based on the human voted-for scores of content that is out there on the web.

Google Reader is giving me the most relevant content as judged by the interactions/votes of my peers and indeed the myriad people who have also “voted” for this content by sharing, rating and bookmarking it.

Granted, it may not be the most recent (and I have to admit, I don’t know how frequent post rank indexes the content, but it seems pretty instant).

A Ready-Made Human Recommendation System

So, in Post Rank, it would appear that Google is acquiring a ready-made system that provides the much-lauded human attribution of search relevance. What it will look like, maybe the above graphic gives us some clues, but I just hope they maintain the service as-is and not let it disappear like they did with Jaiku. Post Rank, please tell us one way or the other!

It’s not hard to see why many in this field feel that way. We often get ignored by the media, with pitches and calls unanswered. Clients think what we do is easy and that all you have to do to get coverage is be good friends with a reporter or producer.

Ours is not an easy field, and it’s hard to gain respect … from media and from clients. Some of the lack of respect may, unfortunately, be justified because many in PR act less than professionally. I cringe when I hear friends in the media tell stories about PR people who call constantly, never taking no for an answer, and lying, begging or crying to convince a reporter to use a story or interview a client. I’ve heard too many stories about PR people who are then unresponsive when a reporter finally does call for information. And, of course, there are more stories about poorly written news releases.

Those of us in PR who do conduct ourselves professionally often have to work even harder to prove ourselves because of the badwill caused by the PR hacks and untrained/unsupervised junior people.

One would think that one of the biggest and oldest PR agencies in the nation would have high standards for all aspects of the work it does—especially in terms of ethics. That’s why it’s disheartening to read that Burson-Marsteller has seriously breached the ethics of our profession.

It’s come out today that Burson-Marsteller has been waging a smear campaign against Google, on behalf of its client Facebook. USA Today earlier had reported that Burson was trying to convince media people to write negative stories about privacy concerns with a Google Gmail product called Social Circle. Evidently, this has been going on for several days, without Burson saying who was actually behind the negative assertions. The information Burson was spreading for Facebook has, in fact, turned out to be false.

I don’t care one bit whether the assertions about Google are true. It is 100% wrong and unethical to try to plant stories in the media without disclosing where they are coming from. The extremely highly-paid bigwigs at Burson should know better, and they should have ensured that their middle managers know and adhere to a basic code of ethics.

Fraser Seitel, a respected PR practitioner and counselor, had this to say in Ragan’s PR Report: “Good, solid, substantial firms, like these, should conduct themselves ethically above board. If Facebook has problems with Google, then it should have the confidence and decency to express the reasons why, from the mouth of a Facebook executive. Sneaking around, conducting negative research, surreptitiously placing anonymous hit pieces, based on one-sided bias, is normally associated with PR bottom feeders in Washington and L.A., not respected firms like Burson.”

The PRSA (not one of my favorite trade groups) has a code of ethics that frowns upon such behavior. A comment in one of the PR trade journals today quotes PRSA Chairman Rosanna Fiske as saying only 14 of the 2,200 Burson employees are PRSA members and therefore subject to its code of conduct.

Hogwash! As one of the biggest PR agencies around, Burson has an obligation on many fronts, including to the PR profession as a whole, to uphold high ethical standards. This behavior is what one might expect of a “hack” PR shop or a K Street lobbying firm in DC, pulling stuff out of its bag of political dirty tricks.

Shame on Burson Marsteller for putting a stain on the Public Relations profession! You, of all agencies, should know better.

No doubt, we’ll be hearing more about this as the story unfolds and gets spun. But the damage is done, and now here’s another reason we get no respect. Because when a shop like Burson pulls crap like this, maybe we simply don’t deserve the respect we so crave.

Sure, we occasionally read original content based on an original thought or study results that cast a new light on previous perceptions or a new technology in town. But, realistically, how much content can marketing writers and publishers contribute to social media and publishing without sounding redundant? Is there anything new under the sun anymore?

Now, before you jump down my throat and tell me I’m nuts, let’s do an experiment. Enter the following in your browser search bar:
“Does your website build trust?”

What do you get? In Google, I got about 12,200,000 results that include the following organic listings on the first page alone:

• 47 Simple Ways to Build Trust in Your Website or Blog
  Some major points: Make it personal; website design is first impression; use appropriate language (i.e. to your segments); use good grammar; never lie to make money …
  
• Build trust: the most important online value
  Some major points: Write in simple language; be personal; update content often; professional-looking graphics …
• 40 Ways to Build Trust in Your Brand on Social Media
  Some major points: Create meaningful and thought-provoking content; no hard selling
• 11 Reasons Customers Don’t Trust Your Web Site
  Some major points: Each typo a user finds puts another ding into your credibility; keep your website as fresh and up to date as possible; don’t use buzz words …
• 15 Ways To Build Trust In Your Website
  Some major points: An attractive website displays professionalism; adding personal flare; add new content whenever you have the chance,…

Are you bored yet?

I suppose if you’re new to a topic, then reading the same points in each article is comforting. At least, that way, you can assume the information is credible. But, what if you’re looking for something NEW—something refreshing on the same topic? Then, this can become a frustrating experience.

So, here are my questions for the content creators:

• How do you write fresh marketing content?
• Do you think fresh content matters?
• Where do you get fresh ideas that haven’t been rehashed a million times?

Oh, and one more thing … I did a search on Google: “Rehashing: The New Boring Marketing Concept,” and guess what? Nothing came up —yet.

• Predictive Typing: As you type, a prediction is made of what you are seeking.
• Instant Results: As you type, the results appear. Every new character updates the search results instantly.

The end result that Google promises is 10% faster searches. Google states the average search takes 25 seconds — 9 to enter in the query, less than one for Google to process and display the results, and 15 seconds for the user to decide and select a link. So shaving off 2.5 seconds is considerably faster. Is it true? Try it out yourself and watch a live presentation of Google Instant in action.

Technically speaking, the predictive type and “instant results” aren’t new technologies. Bing and Yahoo both rolled out predictive type solutions to their search input field several months ago. Apple has had an instant results in its search results drop-down box, which it dubs “live search”. In other words, as you type, it produces “live” search results.

What is new, however, is the combination and scale of these technologies. Google has applied these technologies — predictive and live results — to the world’s information. In other words, you can scan billions of potential results instantly while you type. Rather than typing the full search term, hitting return, and waiting (however briefly), you now get results “instantly” updated as each new character is typed.

5 Ways How Google Instant Changes the Game for Search Marketers

There are several critical implications that need to be considered by search marketers.

1. Brevity is the soul of wit: Search engine users now have a reason to reduce their attention time even further — instant results as you type. Keep your copy brief, to the point, and able to grab their attention. If a searcher can’t scan and find what they are seeking, they are only one keystroke away from an entire new search results page of options.
2. Impression counts may increase: If results, both organic and sponsored, are updated and presented as the user types, what is considered an impression? Is an impression the milliseconds between typing words, or is it a pause greater than 1 second in typing, or is it a movement of the mouse? Google provides some guidance on this: 1) the person types a query into the search box and either presses the Enter key or clicks on the “Search” button (just like it has been historically); 2) the person starts to type their query, sees a results page displayed and clicks anywhere on that page (i.e. it registers an impression when the user selects a link from that page); and 3) the person stops typing and the results are displayed for three seconds or more, implying the searcher is scanning the results page. Regardless, we advise all search marketers to monitor their AdWords accounts closely in the next few weeks.
3. Your competition list just got longer: No longer is your competition the other websites that rank for your target or niche keyphrase term, like “tankless water heater“. Rather, it is also the shorter phrases, like “tankless” and “tankless water” that now also appear as the user types in their full search phrase. Each phrase presents a new layer of competition for you to now consider. In other words, your success with “long tail keywords” is now being challenged by the shorter tail keywords that precede it.
4. Predictive search = keyword research: Don’t know if you should focus your campaign on “steakhouse” vs. “steak houses” vs. “steak house”? Look to predictive search. The term that appears first is probably the most common search result, and the one you should consider targeting.
5. Real-time is the new fast: Web users will soon expect all websites to be as responsive as Google. In other words, a 2 second load time is probably 1.5 seconds too long. Your search strategy should include considerations for ongoing load-time and performance tests to ensure the page consistently loads in a snap.

What do you think of the new Google Instant results? How are you changing your search strategy to respond to this significant change?

David Felfoldi is the chief experience officer and founder of Sherpa! Web Studios, a search-friendly web design and development firm based in Atlanta, Georgia. His goal is to make the Web a better experience, including for people who write emails in all capital letters.

But wait, there’s more!

While social media is an important element to business marketing and PR, it’s not a replacement for additional, proven forms of promotion. With its low cost, easy barrier-to-entry and seemingly widespread reach, it’s tempting to think social media can replace other forms of marketing. But it’s important to remember that social media in and of itself isn’t a marketing or PR strategy: It’s but one promotional tool in the smart business marketing toolbox.

Two important things to remember in business marketing today are integration and interaction. Don’t abandon something that’s been working for you and your business just because social media is the hot new thing on the block. Integrate your online and offline campaigns, and integrate cohesive online campaigns across social networks  to get the most bang for your buck, enhancing all current efforts and maximizing reach in a way never before possible. Interaction is also important (talk with, not at) to engage audiences and make them feel an emotional connection to your company, brand or product. Prospects are much more likely to listen to you and follow what you’re doing if they feel that you care about them and that they’re important to your business.

For example, say you’ve always had an email newsletter in which you send out special offers to subscribers. Help to increase your subscriber base through “sneak peeks” into your newsletter content by sharing snippets or teasers across other social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter. Or post a survey or poll on your Facebook and share the results in your newsletter, again  reaching and encouraging new subscribers (and rewarding existing subscribers) with content reserved especially for them.

Another example : Most companies have always had speaking opportunities or event networking (even attendance of trade shows) on their marketing/PR “to do” list. Take these opportunities a step further by again involving not only the physical, offline audience that’s at the show, but also the online audience pre- and post-event. For example, say you’re speaking on the topic of franchise ownership. Post a pre-event survey across Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and/or your blog that asks your fans and followers if they’ve ever owned a franchise and if so, what their biggest challenges were. Incorporate these answers into your presentation at the show, giving credit where you can.  (If someone knows you’re going to mention them, they’re more likely to watch/listen and tell others to do the same). Or if you’re just attending or exhibiting at a conference, ask show attendees to stop and share their experiences or tips for others. Record their insights with a hand held camera (such as a Flip), edit into a compelling and helpful video when you return and post it on your blog with additional resources post-event. Tie these resources back to your website, or Facebook fan page, and promote on Twitter … again, back to integration.

One of the best marketing efforts has always been to have third-party, positive testimonies about your business or products. Whether it’s a customer, a reporter, an industry guru, a partner or an analyst, accolades from others hold more credibility than you standing on your own soapbox (or starring in your own ad). This traditional element to marketing is still incredibly important and can become a much  more powerful program with a social media element. For example, in the past, you might have interviewed a customer and asked them to sign off on a case study, which you’d then post to your website or in a sales kit. With social media tools, the case study can become so much more than words on a page; you can make them come to life as a much more intriguing story by including video, interactive comments from viewers, and more. “Case studies” can come in the form of an ongoing story, perhaps different chapters in an weekly video series, or the opportunity to interact with followers/prospects by asking them to join a Facebook event or Twitter chat where they can ask questions directly of the customer in the story. This gives them the opportunity to not just read your slick, well-written case study, but to engage with your case study subject and ask questions, a testament in and of itself that you truly do have happy customers that you trust to answer live questions about their experiences in working with you, or using your products.

The point is  social media in marketing can enhance your efforts and make them more interesting, interactive and memorable. But social media in and of itself doesn’t replace traditional efforts. Both are important for success today. Learn how to integrate them both for your best success yet.

Mainstream news outlets use the web heavily to supplement (or in some cases, overshadow) their broadcast or print counterparts, but the fact remains, tech writers were there long before the masses showed up. Tech journalists (and the technologies they bring into the spotlight) maintain an enormous advantage when it comes to share of voice online. And tech news isn’t just fighting general news for marketshare, it heavily influences what news outlets are now choosing for their top stories. Just look at Apple and the pending announcement of their new tablet computer. This isn’t just a trending topic on Twitter, it’s also mentioned as a top story on CNN, USA Today, and elevator screens across the country.

The implication? When possible, it is extremely important to time your PR efforts carefully so you are not competing for attention from the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Apple.

Obviously breaking news about the latest gadgets or operating system cannot always be predicted. These companies tend to be quite secretive about such matters. But that being said, there is still a great deal of predictions that can be made and implemented into an editorial calendar meant for brands you represent. Apple often schedules its conferences and Google is beginning to do so as well to build anticipation for their upcoming products. They don’t reveal the topic of discussion, but you will know when something big is coming. Additionally, conferences like the Consumer Electronics Show, E3, or SXSW are all scheduled far in advance. These events make web conversations soar, and they absolutely steal the spotlight from other categories of news in social media and mainstream blogs.

Do not plan your PR efforts in a vacuum.

Obviously not all campaigns can be shifted over a week or two, but when it is possible to have some flexibility with launch dates make sure you’re planning for maximum share of voice. Here are a tactics to help maximize your story vs. being crowded out by the tech crowd:

1. Create an evolving calendar which maps out known future conferences, announcements, etc. Keep launch dates away from those events.
2. Watch for spikes in tech news using free/paid monitoring tools. If you see something that might develop into a big story in a week or two, try to see if you can shift your launch to sooner or later.
3. Watch who you pitch based on current news. If the brand you represent is also going after tech bloggers or mainstream blogs that also cover tech news, you are much more likely to be ignored.
4. If possible try to latch onto pending tech news. This will only work with a certain type of product, but if your product/brand can ride the way of upcoming tech news, help it do so (but don’t get  yourself sued).
5. Select your channels carefully. Even traditional vehicles like newspapers are gobble up tech news these days, but if you do see a looming tech story on horizon, examine what places you might be able to have conversations that will be least likely to carry chatter about the latest nifty gadget from Cupertino.

He said…
There’s not many new social sites/tools/applications that come along that make me say ‘Whoa!’ (actually I said ‘Oh shit!’), but Google Sidewiki definitely did. Basically, it makes any page on the Internet become social by letting you comment on the content there, as well as what others have left. The potential ramifications of this are staggering, and after using it a bit over the last few days, here’s what I like and dislike:
What I like: I love the idea of being about to quickly and easily comment on any page I want. And the commenting process is MUCH easier with Sidewiki than compared to leaving comments on blogs. And I love that I can mark the text/content that I’m commenting on, and that portion of the page is highlighted when you view my comment.
What I dislike: There are a couple of big problems I see with Sidewiki. First, who is moderating the comments left? Is there ANY ability built-in to oversee comments? If a competitor posts factually incorrect information on your company’s website, what recourse do you have in having it removed? Any?
Second, this means any page can now be commented on, even if the owner purposely did not want you to have that ability. Case in point, Seth Godin has long refused to allow comments on his blog. Now he has no choice, Sidewiki users can comment there to their heart’s content. Should they be able to?
I think the bottom line is that Sidewiki is too big to ignore. Companies will have to pay attention to Sidewiki, and I have started advising my clients to add Sidewiki to their browsers and start monitoring their sites for Sidewiki comments. This is just another sign that you can’t ignore feedback from your online customers. This is just the start, similar functionality will no doubt soon be built into Facebook and other sites.
The best way to deal with this if you are a concerned company is to actively monitor your sites for Sidewiki mentions, and respond to any comments. In fact it might not be a bad idea to be proactive and leave comments welcoming readers, if no one has left a comment on your sites yet.
She said…
While I had the same reaction as Mack, it wasn’t in a good way. I think my visceral reaction is one of a traditional marketer who has put WAY too much blood, sweat and tears into many a website. Even as a blogger, I don’t think Sidewiki is “cool” or great for “user generated content” (that’s what comments are for, right?). That said, I haven’t played with it a bunch other than claiming my website/blog.
As marketers we write or select just the right copy for our websites, and then it goes through legal (in some cases) and is finally uploaded to the website. Everything has a purpose and a home.
Now, with Sidewiki any Tom, Dick, Harry, Tina, Doris or Harriet can come along and highlight something on an organization’s website and leave a comment via Sidewiki. That comment might be nice and helpful or it could be spam or it could just be misinformation left with good intent.
Think about a pharmaceutical company. What if someone leaves a comment stating that they are taking slightly more than the prescribed amount and it’s working out great for them? What if someone follows that advice and is harmed?
Having worked for technology companies for many moons, I can tell you a lot of website content is technologically specific (of, course). If someone were to leave a Sidewiki comment with bad technical advice that someone else follows it could potentially lead to bodily harm, electrical fires, failures, etc.
What are the legal ramifications of these scenarios? And like Mack asked…who’s moderating?
Yes, yes. I get it… Freedom of Speech, this is the best thing since Internet sliced bread, this *IS* Web 3.0, etc. But, really…is it? If you’re a company, you can’t opt-out, but you can claim your site THROUGH Google’s Webmaster Tools (slick on their part, eh?). The best you can do is then leave a comment in the Sidewiki for everyone to see (it will remain on the top of the Sidewiki) with a message you want to present as an organization.
From a “social” perspective I have questions too. If you could delete Sidewiki comments, would that be considered bad social form? Like deleting a comment from a blog? What if a competitor left a comment?
If you are an organization (or know one) that isn’t budging when it comes to social media, I have a feeling Sidewiki will force you to learn how to become social really fast!
First things first, go claim your site or have whoever runs your website do it.
I see only negatives here… Enlighten me with the business positives?
P.S. One more thing I dislike about Sidewiki…it really slows down my browser (due to searching for Sidewiki comments no doubt).

Bob’s quote really struck a chord with me because it’s a simple reality that many organizations are either overlooking or ignoring today. People are starting to view the Google search bar as their URL entry box. Instead of typing “www.zappos.com” people are simply typing the world “Zappos” into a search form. An excellent piece on ReadWriteWeb provides further insight into this rising habit.
What this means for companies is that their homepages should no longer be considered the most highly trafficked resource for people looking for their product. Consumers are becoming savvier, and an unfortunate consequence (for brands) is that people are more likely to trust third party resources vs. the brand themselves.
Because consumers are no longer spending as much time on the tightly controlled environment that brands build themselves, companies, more than ever, need to be fully aware of the search results that are sharing space with them and hopefully taking steps to make those neighbors ones that raise the value of their real estate.

Is Google the Big Winner Here?
Does the above situation translate into a need for all of a brand’s paid listings to pop up when users search for them? To Google’s dismay…not necessarily. A brands biggest concern should not be that their competitors sites are popping up in paid listings next to theirs, their biggest concern should be the negative pages that show up in the results organically. Those are the listings that are much less in Google’s control and more in the hands of consumers/brands.
Shopping for groceries is a great example of the above. You go down the canned food isle. You see that there are diced tomatoes being sold by Dole and Del Monte. They are both about the same price, size, and are located on the same shelf. If you don’t have a preference, you’ll end up just randomly picking one. Next time, you’ll pick the other. Now let’s say the situation is slightly different. You walk through the same isle and on the way to the tomatoes you see a small sign on a now empty shelf that says “Del Monte canned peas have been recalled due to a case of E-Coli.” The peas probably have nothing to do with the tomatoes you want to buy, but odds are when you get to the tomato shelf, your decision on which tomatoes to buy is no longer a 50/50 split.
But my tomatoes don’t have E-Coli!
There are great brands with great products. So much time, money, and resources are put into creating those products and then getting those products into the hands of consumers. That effort should not diminish when the product changes hands.
Just because there are people who are writing about your product on Yelp and GetSatisfaction, doesn’t mean you have to sit back and watch your search results get contaminated. No one is barred from producing content on the web. A brand has just as much right to talk about their great qualities and respond to those who disagree.
It may not be possible for a small team to compete with the entire voice of the internet, but it can definitely help. People want to engage with the brands they use. If an irritated customer posts a review on a site it may get a handful of comments, but if a representative of a brand posts something, it will be dramatically more populated. Those subsequent comments may not all be positive, but they all lead to an initial thread in which a brand got to voice its honest thoughts and show that it took an interest. A thread which in many situations will show up higher on a search results page than a very negative post that has just a few responses.
Reacting to others isn’t the lone remedy either. Creating great content around your product in pivotal to your organic search success. A big part of Google’s secret formula for organic search is traffic. If you build it (something great), they will come. The better something is, the more traffic it gets, the closer it will rest to your ideal search results.
So a microsite isn’t enough?
The key takeaway here is that when planning out budgets for consumer facing entities, the microsite simply cannot take the full budget anymore. The microsite certainly serves a purpose (as does investing in SEO to bring it higher up), but the majority of brand/consumer interactions are taking place in the domain of the consumer’s choosing. Subsequently the brand has no other choice but to focus a larger chunk of its efforts to optimize the content being created by their consumers and their critics.

Author and speaker Nicholas Carr recently wrote in the Atlantic Monthly how the use of technology has altered the way he absorbs and processes information. In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr makes the case that by consuming most of his information via a computer screen vs. the printed medium he’s “not thinking the way (he) used to think,” and perhaps even “remapping (his) neural circuitry.”

For a writer like Carr, “the Web has been a godsend.” He can now easily research topics with the click of a mouse, and spend minutes instead of hours in the library. He no longer needs to read tomes of information to find the “telltale fact or pithy quote” needed to support an argument. In a sense, the efficiency of internet search technologies brings many benefits including more productivity (due to better and faster access to information), however there are downsides as well.

By “tripping from link to link,” capturing bits of information here and there, and constantly scanning internet news and information, Carr finds that he’s losing the ability to concentrate and stay focused on longer pieces of writing. In the article, Carr interviews friends and other professionals who constantly use the computer. These associates report that they’re also having difficulty reading articles of more than 2-3 paragraphs and often find they’re skimming more than deeply reading.

Dr. Gary Small is a Professor of Psychiatry & Bio-behavioral Sciences, and Director of the UCLA Center on Aging. He is also the author of “iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind.” Via letter to the editor of Atlantic Monthly, Dr. Small agreed with Nicholas Carr’s observations.

He writes, “The average young person spends more than eight hours each day using technology (computers, PDAs, TV, videos), and much less time engaging in direct social contact. Our UCLA brain-scanning studies are showing that such repeated exposure to technology alters brain circuitry, and young developing brains (which usually have the greatest exposure) are the most vulnerable. Instead of the traditional generation gap, we are witnessing the beginning of a brain gap that separates digital natives, born into 24/7 technology, and digital immigrants, who came to computers and other digital technology as adults.”

In the letter to the editor, Dr. Small continues, “Today, video-game brain, Internet addiction, and other technology side effects appear to be suppressing frontal-lobe executive skills and our ability to communicate face-to-face. Instead, our brains are developing circuitry for online social networking and are adapting to a new multitasking technology culture.”

So, our brains are “re-wiring” and adapting to how we’re using technologies, but this begs the question; “Is this rewiring of our brains a positive change?”

I found Dr. Small’s letter to the editor very intriguing and thus I contacted him for a few follow up questions.

When asked about the effects of too much technology on the brain, Dr. Small said, “Tech users may increase their hand-eye coordination, peripheral vision and reaction time. Research has found that surgeons who regularly play video games make fewer errors in the operating room. Potential negative effects include increased frequency of errors from multi-tasking, worsening of attention, the risk of technology addiction, and a decline in face-to-face human contact abilities.”
Many of us are well down the path of too much technology usage. We’re addicted to our Blackberries, inboxes, PSPs, and YouTube. What if we deem the costs outweigh the benefits? What if we want to stop? Is the rewiring of our brains reversible?

“The brain is malleable at any age so we can continue to rewire our brains in ways that improve our lives,” Dr. Small says. “The best approach is to make sure that we are spending enough time off-line, both with other people and on our own. The lure of technology can present a daily challenge for many people so scheduling regular breaks and learning ways to reduce stress and increase focus are helpful too.”

Questions:
* Do you find that constant use of technology is changing the way you think? Positively or negatively?
* Have you noticed a dramatic shift in your online vs. offline reading?
* Technology is surely making us more efficient, but with too much technology are we also training our minds to be more “robotic”?
* In the Atlantic Monthly article, the founders of Google have suggested that humanity would be better off if we had “all the world’s information directly attached to (the) brain” via interface or implant and of course, supplied by Google. How much technology is too much? When will we know when we’ve crossed “the line” between benefit and harm?
Related post: Are Web 2.0 Tools Dumbing Us Down?

Direct Link to File

Show length 23:28

00:52 Christopher Penn is alive, political lists, websites and content management systems

03:34 Superbowl Observations, Miller Ad rocks, a bad year for ads

07:09 Sports Slogan Squatting, 19-0 Perfect Season Jinx, More on Sports Marketing

09:05 Meatball Sundae contest winners

09:27 Bending the blog arrow of time, Google Sandbox?

11:12 Killer Wordpress plugins: aLinks, Popularity Contest and Search Meter by Alex King, Google Sitemap tool

13:55 What are Google Sitemaps?

16:10 my oovoo day event, come talk to us, bring any questions or just chat, best day is Monday at noon. First 5 to sign and tell me get a free coffee card

18:48 Chris’ Super Tuesday Video gets picked up by CNN, the sleeping giants of media awaken, blatant plug for The M Show, and yes – podcasting is back!

The MoC theme song is called Mellow G by Fonkmasters from the Podsafe Music Network

And what I mean by that — which I explained at great length to the attendees — was if someone were to Google you or your company name, would you be first up (almost like going to bat) in ranking? The higher your ranking, the higher your global presence.
So the more you use social media (blogs, podcasts, YouTube, SecondLife) and social networking (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter), the better off you will be in getting attention to your business via the Internet.
I did a test on my claimed territory which is “global small business” and it came up second. Not bad considering first is a small business directory — not a person or a business. Then, I did a test on “Laurel Delaney” and guess who’s up first? My company.
Go ahead … Google yourself to see whether you have a strong global presence because if you do, the more influential you are in the world marketplace. If you don’t, better get working on the next social media opportunity.

What’s so special about logging on in the morning before school? Well, he figured out how to optimize his KinzCash earning power. You see, has to wait 8 hours between jobs so he can earn KinzCash in the morning and then take another job in the afternoon. He’s a well oiled KinzCash earning machine, so of course my daughter wants to play too, but she can barely read right now.
Instead of letting her sleep in, he wakes her up so she can earn some KinzCash and this means she needs to use my wife’s laptop. He helps her boot it up and log on to her Webkinz account. By the time he leaves for school, she is still online but she now lost her helper and needs to turn to my wife for support.
Unfortunately for Mary, her iPod is also attached so it can be charged for the day. Not only is it getting in my daughter’s way, but as usual, it keeps popping up iTunes to let her know about all the good updates she needs. She can’t unplug it because she needs to charge it, but my young daughter doesn’t understand why this popup ad for iTunes (that’s what it really is) is ruining her playtime.
So, who wins in the end between iPods and Webkinz? The iPod wins but not after my wife is sufficiently annoyed with iTunes. Besides, we count the time she spends on Webkinz as TV time and enough was enough.
However, before the iPod/Webkinz battle is finished, I found my wife sitting at the kitchen table with a phone book (yes, she had the waste of a paper weight in her well-manicured fingers) in her hands.
“Mary, what are you doing with a phone book?” I asked not realizing a power struggle is raging in my den.
“I’m looking for a gym nearby so our daughter can try a new gym. Oh wait, here I found it. Can you wait a sec hon?” she answered back as she went to dial the phone. “Hi, I’m looking to sign up my daughter for a gym…err, what? You aren’t a gym? Oh, I’m sorry I have the wrong number.”
“Mary, why don’t you just Google it (note proper use of the word) instead of wasting your time with that novel?”
“I can’t. Oh wait a second, I dialed the wrong number. Here it goes. ‘Yes, hi, my daughter would like to take a test class to see if she likes your gym…. No, she isn’t 6 yet, but wait isn’t this the same gym that Jane Smith takes a class?… No?… Oh, that’s a different location. Do you have the number for that location? Great. Thanks.’” Mary finally hangs up the phone and quietly curses the phone book.
“See I told you, you should have Googled it. Why did you waste your time with…” Before, I can finish my question that would have ended sarcastically, Mary interrupts and yells….
“Look, I can’t use my laptop because your daughter is on Webkinz and she needs help. Plus, every two minutes iTunes pops up over her screen which drives her crazy. She can’t minimize it and it continues to pop up to let me know about some new song I could care less about. So, don’t come downstairs to tell me to Google it. We’ve got Webkinz, iPods, and Yellow Pages…”
Oh my….
Eric

After a few turns they end up in the garden. They backtrack, apologize for their ignorance and ask you again for directions. You give them what you believe are even clearer instructions.
They head off. They still end up in the garden. They are getting a bit desperate at this stage.
A neighbor is working in his garden and smiles knowingly. He shouts some instructions about how to find the toilet. The guest hurries back into your house and, following the neighbours’ instructions, quickly finds the toilet. Later that night, the guest mentions the kind neighbour that they talked to in the garden. “Oh, you met Mr. Google, did you? We’d never find anything in this house without Mr. Google.”
In many situations it is easier to find something on a Web site by using the public Google search engine than by using the site’s own search engine. This is an incredible situation.
Think about it. Google, which indexes 12 billion pages, is doing a better job than, for example, a search engine that indexes 12,000.
This situation says less about the excellence of Google and more about the poor state of information management in many organizations. A great many organizations simply don’t professionally manage their information. They simply store it. All that is about to change.
It is about to change because Google is worth $150 billion. The stock market knows about value, particularly future value. The stock market is telling us that Google is one of the most valuable companies in the world. It believes Google is doing something that has great present-and particularly-future value.
What Google is doing is managing information in a way that makes it fast and easy to find what you need. Why is this important? Because, these days, before making key decisions, people are increasingly going to the Web to become better informed.
Information is becoming increasingly critical to the success of the organization. It’s just that most organizations have not recognized this, and have therefore not put proper information management structures in place. So what will the information manager of the future look like?
Their primary focus will not be on the information itself. It will not be on how to create, edit and publish content, although these are all important activities. No. The Web will radically change how we manage information, because for the first time we can systematically measure its impact.
Information management will focus on the result. It will ask the question, “What was the person trying to do and did our information help them do it easily and quickly?” They say that actions speak louder than words. Well, the future is about
managing the actions that result from words.
In other words: The success of Google proves that if you manage content professionally, tremendous value is delivered.

MAY 12, 2017 – BUSINESSWIRE. Mountain View-based search giant Google Inc. today announced they’ve acquired the internet for the astounding sum of $2,455.5 billion in cash. The deal had been rumored in various search blogs since the beginning of the year and was now confirmed by the company’s CEO. “This is in line with our vision to make information more accessible to end users,” says Eric Schmidt. “With the acquisition, we can increase the speed of indexing as everything will already be on our servers by the time it’s published.”
In a conference call earlier today, Larry Page explained the strategy behind the acquisition. “We realized it’s not very cost-effective to buy the internet in smaller portions.” During the past two decades, Google had acquired YouTube for $1.65, DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, AOL for $12.5 billion, and last year, Microsoft for the record sum of $120 billion.
Questioned on the first steps the company would take integrating the internet onto their servers, Eric Schmidt announced immediate plans to redirect Yahoo.com to Google’s own search engine. “From an end user perspective, having two search engines is just bad usability, and [causes confusion]–.”

More:

Accompanying Google’s acquisition revelation, privacy groups today released a paper criticizing the move. However, Larry Page argues that privacy is improved by Google’s acquisition, explaining that “[the] main privacy issues for users today are data leaks to third parties. By eliminating all third parties, we closed this hole.”

Read Philipp’s very funny, and freakishly real, full vision here.
Follow up: Heebie Sudoku asks, “Why doesn’t Google buy Wikipedia?”
Hat tip: Greg Verdino.

The search business of Yahoo!, Walt Disney Co., Lycos Inc., LookSmart Ltd. and Findwhat.com Inc., which is now known as MIVA Inc. were also included in the lawsuit. As defined by Google, click fraud “implies deliberate deception. Our aim in fighting invalid clicks is broader and includes clicks that we suspect may have been deceptive or malicious, as well as clicks that we deem invalid for other reasons, such as accidental double clicking on an ad”.
Some marketers claim that click fraud is a real problem and that as much as 30% of clicks are not reliable (noticed I used that term). However, that was based on a study from MarketingExperiments.com that examined three Google campaigns with alleged click fraud between 8% and 30%. So, should you care? Answer: it depends on how your search campaigns are evaluated.
First of all, nobody wants to pay for wasted clicks, especially ones that are fraudulent and since you pay for search on a cost per click basis, the wasted expenses add up. However, are you using post-click conversion tracking? Let’s take a look at the two possible scenarios:
Just tracking clicks to your website or page – then you should care a lot because the only method for evaluating success is how many clicks did you drive to your site. However, you have much deeper marketing issues. Are you tracking email subs – add a conversion tracking to that page. Are your trying to get sales – you need a conversion tracking code in your shopping cart.
Tracking sales, enrollments, applications, etc – I wouldn’t care that much because you should be worried about ROI. Is search meeting your cost per actions/sales? Yes? Go find some other problem to deal with. If not, check your creative, landing page, and bid management strategy first then look at fraud.
Look, I’ve been buying search since 1999 and I NEVER worried about click fraud. Sure, I might have been overpaying for clicks, but search was my best performing component of my ad campaigns. It consistently was my lowest CPA (cost per acquisition) and had my highest conversion rates from clicks. Did I have a problem? I don’t know and I didn’t care. Like you I had MUCH bigger problems to deal with and I had much worse performing buys that needed my attention.
Click fraud a problem? Sure, but if that’s the most important problem you have to deal with, then you are a marketing genius.
PardonMyFrench,
Eric
www.ericfrenchman.com