Techdirt's Insight Community

Techdirt, one of the sites I read several times a day is looking for bloggers to join their community of experts in technology, business and the internet to become a source of feedback and information.

Currently, it's in beta, so all you have to do is sign up, list your blog, recommend a few other blogs for them to look at and they'll contact you when they can. Techdirt's Insight Community should become a valuable resource for businesses, bloggers and tech-affecionados. Techdirt's corporate intelligence is one of the gold standards, like Hitwise, of information gathering on the web.

Of course, I signed up and recommended Garrett French, Natasha Robinson and Eric Mattson to be looked at by Techdirt.

If you havent already read their blogs, I highly recommend you do so. Add them to your RSS feeds... they're brilliant!

Defining Your Marketspace Through Keywords

When I first started to apply competitive intelligence methodologies to search, I had to find a way to define and determine the left and right limits of not only the search marketspace but justify those limits with the clients' goals. With this in mind, I developed a theory. Not a theory as it refers to speculation or an opinion, but a theory in the scientific sense of the word to mean:

• Something that will explain and predict future observations of phenomena
• Something that describes a significant amount of observations
• Something that has few unknown variables
• Something that is provisional... the hypothesis may never be proven, but it can be falsified

My theory is that the keywords chosen as the core keywords for natural search efforts define your unique marketspace. Alteration of those keywords invariably change the marketspace and could redefine your true competitors (companies that have comparable or identical products or services), keyword competitors (competitors that don't necessarily monetize those keywords but could be blogs, wikis or other information/ resource related sites) and outliers (those sites that show up for the keyword results but seem to be un-related or random).

For the application of the theory, I will point to some research I recently did. I was researching the keyword marketspace for a company that provides STD testing. During our discussions, they wanted to show up for the following keywords:

HPV, hepatitis, AIDS, hiv pcr, hiv pcr test, herpes igg, herpes igm, std symptom, herpes symptom, hepatitis symptom, chlamydia symptom, gonorrhea symptom, hiv symptom, syphilis symptom, planned parenthood, aids hotline, std hotline, ASHA std, CDC hiv

While these keywords are good keywords for general STD information, they don't reflect what they do. These keywords dont define the company well, if well ranked, they wouldn't drive qualified traffic and they seem to reflect a desire for information, rather than testing. For these keywords, the top 5 competitors for this keyword selection (the top 5 are defined as sites that show up more often - discounting rank - in the top 15 in Google

Competitor URL’s	SE Presence	Search Saturation
www.cdc.gov	46	6.96%
www.ashastd.org	29	4.39%
www.nlm.nih.gov	18	2.72%
en.wikipedia.org	16	2.42%
www.medhelp.org	13	1.97%

Notice that each of these sites reflect what I predicted. Each site is for information, education and reference. None of these sites actually do any STD testing. The result of this information showed me that some more keyword specificity was needed. What if the keywords were changed to reflect more "testing" and "screening" related keywords? How would that change the search marketspace? So, I took the following keywords and looked at the marketspace:

chlamydia test, herpes test, gonorrhea test, hepatitis test, syphilis test, HIV test, AIDs test, chlamydia testing, herpes testing, gonorrhea testing, hepatitis testing, syphilis testing, HIV testing, AIDs testing, chlamydia screening, herpes screening, gonorrhea screening, hepatitis screening, syphilis screening, HIV screening, AIDs screening, confidential std testing, std screening, std test, std testing

Obviously, these keywords are much more applicable to the site's purpose and the overall goals of the client. However, what I found was slightly different. The sites that had the highest presence weren't sites that offered testing.

Competitor URL’s	SE Presence	Search Saturation
www.cdc.gov	37	4.07%
www.labtestsonline.org	36	3.96%
www.webmd.com	26	2.86%
www.ahrq.gov	24	2.64%
www.fda.gov	24	2.64%

Again, more informational and resource oriented sites... even LabTestsOnline.org is a non-commercial, peer-reviewed site about lab tests. I hit a wall at this point. It looked like I had falsified my theory. While the search space changed because the keywords changed, it didn't change to the benefit of the user or the comapny who provided the STD testing.

It's at this point where I started looking at the sites that didn't dominate the search results. I started thinking that the CDC was such a powerful resource, it essentially overwhelmed the search intentions of the user and forced its way into the results. So, what I did was compared the sites from both keyword lists.

I found that in the first keyword list, where the focus was not on testing or screening, cumulatvely, the companies that offered STD testing accounted for less than 2% of the total search marketspace. Looking at the second, more "testing" oriented keywords, sites that offered STD testing occupied just over 9% of the keyword marketspace. This is significant enough not to happen by chance.

The result was that after looking at the entire marketspace, companies that offer STD testing, in general, dont use SEO as one of their strategies. The result of the research showed that there was a distinct vulnerability in this particular market that had yet to be exploited by a smart company. However, to get over the .gov and .org hurdle, they had to be explicit and specific in their keyword choices. Otherwise, they'd get bowled over by the CDC like almost every other STD testing company that did show up.

When we use the checklist: Do these results provide any predictive power? Yes, they describe and identify both a vulnerability and a hurdle. Do these results take into account a significant observable size of data? Yes, the first one takes into account over 600 data points and the second on takes over 900 data points into consideration. Are the unknown variables known? Not really, unless I had access to Google's algorithm and a few PhD's... then I might be able to identify the variables, but the good thing is that these variables are all constant. The variables only change when the algorithms of the search engines change. Lastly, was the theory falsified? No, the data just wasn't where we expected it to be.

I would enjoy any and all feedback, this is something that I've thought about for a long time... and subjecting it to my peers for scrutiny will only make it better.

Perception Blindness and Competitive Intelligence Methodologies

For those of you who know me, you know that Michael Shermer is one of my heroes. Ever since I read his book "Why People Believe Weird Things", I realized how much of my life I had spent being a pattern seeking animal. I loved science, but never took it to be much more than a series of facts or theories. In fact, I couldnt even define "theory" very well.

It is due in part of Shermer and the Skeptic Society and Magazine that I live and breathe evidence. I need evidence in life and evidence in my work. Analytics seem to me a perfect example in marketing that evidence is needed. Before I do that, I wanted to show you a video... and you must watch this before you read on... from Michael Shermer's talk at TED - (it's short... less than 3 minutes).



Did you watch that? Did you miss it? Did you see it?

Perceptual Blindness hits all analytics readers at some point or another. Often times, when I'm speaking to a client about competitive intelligence, they think that it's a "thing" that I do. In reality, it's a process... like science is a process. Competitive Intelligence is a methodology and a way to process information in order to make predictions about something. Often times, it's about M&A's... in my line of work, it's about looking at an existing strategy of a selected sample of companies who dominate a keyword marketspace and determining what they're doing and potentially, what they're going to do... then comparing that against the goals of the client and the trends of the industry and making recommendations.

Simply put, it's multivariate research and statistics with evidence guided intuition and theory... and this is the important part - It has to be measurable. Perception blindness occurs when the analyst goes into the research with more than just the goals of the clients. The client often has their own expectations of what you can do, or what the industry is like. I used to tell people that "you know your business, I know your business online". It's two different animals.

One of my old clients wanted me to do an intelligence report on some of their competitors. They gave me a list of competitors and I went to work. When I finished it and presented it, they were impressed, they loved it and all was good. However, I had a nagging feeling in the back of my head. I felt that I had missed something. When I got back to work, I used a program we developed called the "competitive analysis baseline reporting tool". While it was a fairly simple scraper and easy to program through an excel macro... the reporting capability was, in my opinion, very powerful. I found that looking through their online competition, only one of the competitors they mentioned even had a presence (from a search engine marketing perspective). As soon as I found who their online competitors were, I was able to do some more research, report it, and the result was a 20-40% increase in all of their benchmark analytics. If I hadn't done that, if I hadn't recognized my own perception blindness, I wouldn't have done everything I possibly could to help that client.

In the future, I will be talking more about perception blindness in analytics and how to avoid some common mistakes.

For now, if you liked the 3 minute clip... here's the entire lecture from Michael Shermer from TED. It's brilliant.

MarketSmart Interactive Closes Its Doors

For the past two years, I worked for a single company with three names: Keyword Ranking, WebSourced and lastly, MarketSmart Interactive. On Friday, 5 Jan 07, MSI closed its doors for the last time. People like Garrett French, Andy Beal and Stephen Ward (all of them are amazingly smart and talented people that I have no end of respect for) have posted on its closing and its effects on them.

From MSI's peak in 2005, where we had more than 150 people, to December 06, when the company had about 30 total employees, we've all had some very hard times. Without going into some of the details of the problems with MSI (which are all well known), 21 people... 21 amazing, talented, smart, creative people lost their jobs. I however, have been rolled over into our sister company MarketSmart Advertising - MSA along with 8 other talented people.

On an emotional level, I've poured my heart and soul into MSI, I've been told by dozens of people about the writing on the wall... MSI was doomed to fail... some very talented people from MSA gave everything to save it, but in the end, it hemhorraged out and it was the best decision to remove the feeding tube and let it go. I feel guilty that so many good people, people that made me grow personally and professionally are out of a job, relieved that I still have a job, but it's pretty hard. I have nothing but faith in MSA, and their leaders and their people... they seem like a great bunch of people and I'm excited for the new opportunity, but it's always tough to transition and I'll always remember the great people at MSI. Stephen Ward says it brilliantly.

"It’s a harsh truth that being employed is like being alive. It’s ultimately a temporary condition that nobody likes to see brought to an end. I’m not suggesting that anybody has died, of course, but it’s difficult to tell the difference when you look at the faces of your coworkers."

On monday, I join MSA to add my expertise in competitive intelligence, seo, sem and usability to their already creative efforts. I hope to do well there. I'm nervous and a little scared, but excited and optimistic.

To all the amazing people who lost their job, I'm sorry, I already miss you and I know that it was not our fault. We were like the paramedics trying to resuscitate the patient after they flatlined. We tried, we failed... but I know that we all came out of this smarter, tougher and better.

Homosexuals Lead Social Network Usage and Acceptance

From ClickZ and MarketingVox comes a report from Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs Communications that the Lesbian/ Gay/ Bi-Sexual individuals consume social media more than their straight counterparts.

Lets look at some of the data:

YouTube:
visits for an hour or less per week
27% of the GLBT population
22% of the heterosexual population

Craigslist.org:
Visits for an hour or less per week
20% of the GLBT population
13% of the heterosexual population

Friendster.com:
Visits for an hour or less per week
11% of the GLBT population
4% of the heterosexual population

MySpace.com:
Visits for an hour or less per week
33% of the GLBT population
28% of the heterosexual population

75% of the GLBT population classify themselves as heavy internet users
59% of the heterosexual population classify themselves as heavy internet users.

What does this imply for marketers and people who want to use interactive media, social networking and other aspects of social media to get their point across?

One of the things I think that may play a part in this is that because there is still a stigma associated with homosexuality, there are still many people in mainstream culture who continue to tread out the myths about homosexuals, there are still many gay people who are finding the social needs in a safe environment through social media. They're expressing themselves and finding an outlet for contact, friendship, support and fun.

Does this mean that marketers are going to have to "gay it up"? Firstly, to do so would be condescending and pandering. Secondly, marketers will have to realize that it's not the sexual preference that dictates most consumption, it's the willingness to explore alternative areas other than just the traditional media, that makes this population unique and on the cutting edge of social media exploration.

I think that Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs have given all of us some insight into a group of people who are brave, explorative, creative and keep finding new ways to turn culture's pressure on them into innovation.

Stereotypes, Demographics, Soy Lattes and NPR

NPR recently did a story that I had the distinct pleasure in listening to called "The Listeners of National Public Radio". The show was done by NPR's On The Media. What impressed me was the incredible power of stereotyping and how it skews actual data.

I listen to NPR almost exclusively. I find that they have good analysis, good stories and a diverse group of people sharing different ideas in civil debate and discourse. So you can understand my shock when I heard a family member refer to NPR as "National Propaganda Radio"... he continued... "I'm upset that so much of my tax dollars go to support such a blatantly biased service". This isn't the first time I've heard NPR get blasted by people. On Fox News Sunday, the expert panelists Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are both correspondents for NPR, and on FNS, they tend to skew left of the political spectrum. This has always bothered me just a little bit, it seems to lend credence to the "left leaning" of NPR. An excellent analysis of that perception has already been done by Geoffrey Nunberg in his new book - Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising. Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving Left-Wing Freak Show.

So, when I heard On The Media's show about NPR's demographics, I wanted to share some of the actual data gathered.

NPR Listeners are more likely to:

• Visit Starbucks
• Buy a Volvo
• Read the Sunday Times
• Watch "The West Wing"
• Live on the coast
• Drink soy milk
• Drink French wine
• Describe themselves as "liberal"

NPR Listeners are less likely to:

• Watch Will and Grace
• Treat wrinkles (25% less likely)

From the article:

But one general impression you get reading through the survey is that you're more curious than average, more eager to spend time in other countries. Thirty percent of NPR News listeners are more likely to want to, quote, "understand how the world works."

What this tells me is that while you're more likely to listen to NPR if you describe yourself as a "liberal", many people who describe themselves as "conservative" listen and participate in the broadcasts. While more people on the left may listen to NPR, but the over-riding principle here is is not world view or fiscal/ social philosophy, but a desire to understand the world, the culture and events. This is not a political trait, this is a human trait.

I think that the further from the center of the political spectrum we move, we become less curious, less open and less inquisitive. I find that the more extreme your position on the political spectrum, you tend to view the opposing viewpoints as more antithetical to your core being and you become less willing to compromise.

In essence, we become less human. We become representations of an external ideal, and not the diverse accumulations of our lives, loves, education and experiences. We become fundamentalists to an idea that isn't really attainable in real life.

The data in the survey shows that people who listen to NPR may in fact lean to the left, however what's between the data is curiosity, exploration and a willingness to explore and experience new things. That's what I've always seen in NPR, whether I'm listening to a piece on Himalayan banjo stringers or the results of an election.

On Notice

Now I too can arbitrarily put things on notice!!

my friends better stay on my good side, or else.