SEO & Social Media: What is the Relationship?

By Rich Devine | Aug 30, 2010 2:59:13 AM

There are so many ways to answer this question. I've been trying to answer this question for at least a year, in terms of how we position our agency services and capabilities -- and I think I have the answer.

But first, lets discuss why it's so difficult to consistently and concisely define SEO/Social kinship and fit it neatly into a box. There are many reasons -- a few of of them include:

1. Subjective Definitions of Social Media:

While we most folks generally agree on what SEO is, why it's important, how it's generally done, and what the benefit can be -- no two people have the same definition for Social Media. For some, it's about blogs. For others it's about social networks like Facebook, and perfoming community management. Yet for others, it's about having conversations using Twitter. Some look at Social as a means for outreach, public relations, and awareness. And others view it plainly and simply as another visitor acquisition channel. Then there are those that view Social as a means to understand sentiment and tonality related to a brand or product. Is it limited to just digital? Or does it include any kind of social effort and behavior that exists online or offline?

Because there is no generally accepted definition of Social Media, how we understand the relationship between Social and Search is just as fragmented. Likewise the way we execute strategy based on Social/SEO synergy is inconsistent.

2. Lack of Standard Process

Because there is no widely accepted definition for Social Media -- how the medium is applied by marketers varies widely. This is where we can get in trouble. From an agency perspective, this is maddening because I want to hone our method, and define our capabilties and offerings. But the more we try to add structure and process to the execution of social media -- the more risk we face in missing new and innovative ways to harness the potential of social media.

For SEO & Social -- the same challenge exists. Any standardized process to realize synergy between the two may limit potential from that synergy.

3. Rate of Change:

Trying too hard to standardize process is risky because of the rapid onslaught of new tools, technologies, fads, and practices. The rate of change we see requires a reset in our understanding of what Social is -- monthly or even weekly. I won't even try to recite all of the variables that go towards 'change', but just think about how Twitter has impacted how we view social just during the last 6-12 months. Think about the emergence of local-social phenomenons like Foursquare and now Facebook Places. Think about the impact of Mobile and Mobile Apps. Think about all of the ancillary tools, widgets, and nic-nacs that strike social resonance and inspire sharing.

For SEO specifically, consider the impact of unviversal search. A SERP is no long just a SERP. Both real-time and seasoned social content continues to be more and more prominent -- both in its display within search results as well as its contributing impact on site authority and rank potential.

3. Organizational Boundaries:

However you define Social, there is considerable overlap between SEO & Social. But all too often, those that are responsible for SEO aren't always the ones assigned to manage Social Media efforts. Naturally, whatever potential synergies may exist between both disciplines aren't realized as well as they could be if managed by separate teams or resources.

So with so much ambiquity and fragmentation, how do we make sense of the connection between SEO and Social? Well, I'm glad you asked, because I have the answer. But before I tell you, you need to pay me. For such an invaluable answer, why would we give it away for free?

Don't worry, all you have to do is Pay with a Tweet (one of my favorite little social nic-nacs). Here's the deal: we want more traffic for ZAAZ Blogs. And there's a couple of ways we can get it: through increased SEO visibility, and through viral Social Media distribution of our blog.

So here's how this works: my ground-breaking answer and the remainder of this riveting blog post can be accessed after you tweet a nice little tweet. Your tweet tells your followers all about this clever blog post written by yours truly, and how it changed your life. Your tweet inspires further sharing of my post and blog to others, and their interest in accessing my 'answer' incents further tweeting and social sharing.

But it doesn't stop there! Many of those that take interest in my post and our blog will lead to a viral cascade of links (blogs/sites/tweets/etc.) Google then sees these links and adds authority to our blog, increasing our search engine rank potential.

Believe me people -- the answer is worth it. Seriously. But even if you don't care about the answer, do me a solid, and just tweet this damn blog post, okay? Just click the link below. (Oh, and follow me too!)

#shamelessselfpromoter

SXSW Interactive

By Elena Moffet | Aug 13, 2010 10:29:23 AM

ZAAZ has three submissions in the SXSW PanelPicker. We guarantee education, entertainment and surprises. Voting ends August 27th! Look at our ideas, ask us questions, vote for us, and let's take 6th street by storm!

Rich Devine "Mobilizing Performance From Search"
By 2012, 20 percent of all search queries will come from a mobile device. While there is growing focus on creating mobile site experiences and applications, not enough businesses focus on their mobile search experience. Just because you’ve optimized search for the desktop doesn’t mean it works on a mobile device. Mobile search is different than desktop search—and for many businesses, it’s a critical step toward customer success. Our discussion focuses on three core actions: how to identify unique business opportunities for mobile search, how to optimize for mobile search, and how to measure the performance and value of mobile search.

Anders Rosenquist and Katlen Tillman "How Mocial Apps Help Dorothy Kill the Witch"
What if Dorothy had had access to social, mobile, and location-based services on her journey to Oz? How would that have changed her experience getting back to Kansas? This panel will explore that very question with the aid of an innovative case study from Alaska Airlines. Location-based services can build customer loyalty, provide value and support a brand. We’ll discuss how the marriage of mobile with social can integrate real world places through mapping and destination content. Connecting conversations based on location, these "mocial" apps can help people like Dorothy understand where to go and what to do during the journey while avoiding the witch, or the perils of air travel.

Jason Carmel "Privacy vs. Relevance: Who Smells the Tension?"
Generic, digital experiences suck for both users and businesses alike. People expect to be treated as individuals with unique perspectives and needs. When executed appropriately, everyone benefits from more targeted content. But when does personalization go too far? With digital technology collecting data at an unparalleled rate, there is a risk of this information being breached, mishandled or assumed incorrectly. This session delves into the cost and benefits of using digital and offline data to create a more personalized experience, and investigates the best ways to build these data-driven experiences without trampling over the privacy rights of the public.

The WSJ's Datapocalypse 2010

By Jason Carmel | Aug 2, 2010 2:57:18 PM

The Wall Street Journal has an amazing interactive piece entitled "What They Know" that focuses on the data that is collected and used for tracking and reporting by 50 of the most visited sites on the Web. Play around with it for a while- you get a sense of the massive amounts of data that popular sites such as ebay and CNN.com collect about you behind the scenes and how that data might impact your privacy online.

Unfortunately, the good people at the WSJ couldn't leave it alone with a powerful display of information. Instead of representing an informed understanding of what data companies are tracking, the risks and benefits of collecting and using that data to the end consumer, and an assessment of efforts that are or should be made to improve the system, they got all "DATAPOCALYPSE 2010" on us. Let's unpack a few issues I had from this little suitcase of drama, shall we?

Issue #1: Marketers are spying on Internet users"

This is how the author starts off the article (note the bold was their emphasis, not mine), and it's an exaggeration of the grossest order. "Spying" is not a term one should thrown around lightly. In fact, unless it is literally applied to the act of assassinating someone with an umbrella tip or swallowing something on microfilm, the only people who use the verb "spying" in this context are those who are trying to create controversy. Are marketers "spying" on you as you navigate the web? Of course not. Collecting anonymous data to inform how successfully an audience is consuming certain content is a far cry from sending someone with an accent to open up your home safe and take pictures of your offshore bank account numbers with a very, very tiny camera. Using the term "spying" when you mean "sharing aggregated web data" is from page 12 of the Fox News Handbook of Journalism, and the WSJ needs to be better than that.

Issue #2:  I'm not even going to justify the graphic of the dude with the binoculars with a comment.

"Watchers?" Honestly. The WSJ makes Web Analysts and Data Miners sound as if they are video taping you in the shower.

Issue #3: Exposure Index?

The Exposure Index is the grade that the WSJ folks give to each site to inform the reader of how worried she should be about her data being traded around like prison cigarettes. The WSJ explains its methodology obliquely at best. Volume of trackers and opt-out options are interesting circumstantial factors, but they pale in comparison to an analysis of 1) what information is being shared 2) with whom 3) for what purpose, which this index appears to lack:

• More tracking isn't necessarily more sensitive tracking - The fact that a site collects 200 pieces of information doesn't make that information particularly relevant or sensitive, in aggregate. There is a false assumption permeating the data as it's presented that each data tracker leads to information of equal value. Think about how patently untrue this is. Information concerning which articles I read on espn.com and how ESPN would share that information in an aggregate way, even to 100 third party advertisers is in the grand scheme of evil out there in the world fairly low on the totem pole. Compare that to the very sensitive financial data that is collected and used by PayPal, which gets a better score on the exposure rank, in part because it has significantly fewer trackers.
• Define your terms - I think the infographics would be a lot more telling, and consequently a lot less sensationalist, if they included a key explaining what these 3rd party sites are that get your data and what they are doing with it. When a site shares information with Microsoft, for example, it likely has to do with the Bing! search terms used to get to the site. The trackers are not sniffing your machine to see if that copy of Outlook 2010 is registered. Similarly, "Coremetrics," will sound a lot less ominous if you know that it is a standard web tracking tool that monitors anonymous visitor behavior on site, rather than a collective of Nigerians trying to steal your daughter's college tuition.

I don't want to be misinterpreted here as saying that we shouldn't be concerned about what data is being collected about us on the Web and how it is being used. Privacy policies are impossible to understand, a lot of unnecessarily sensitive data is being collected and stored indefinitely for no discernible advantage to the end user, and, let's be frank here, businesses can't always be trusted to act in good faith when an opportunity to make a killing arises, and the only thing standing in its way are the sanctity of a few words on a web page that no one really reads anyway. I work in the industry and know full well that it needs to change. I applaud the WSJ for releasing its findings and recognizing Internet privacy as an important issue.

My concern here is that the language used by the WSJ inspires panic (check out the results of their poll) rather than conversation, and panic invariably results in knee-jerk reactions and ineffective legislation- both of which are on the way.