Site Optimization: Lipstick on a Pig?, Or, Bacon and the Theory of Local Maximum

By Ryan Turner | Dec 5, 2008 12:34:33 PM

Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.

 

Jason Carmel is a colleague of mine I learn a ton from. His expertise is in web site optimization--running experiments where he tests versions of web pages against each other to see which performs best. (Not to be confused with search engine optimization, improving a site's visibillity in search engines.)

Jason is a fairly unflappable guy. Nonetheless I recently started making an effort to get his goat. He gives me just enough encouragement that I keep going. The gist of my teasing is that optimization is nothing but a mechanical exercise to determine whether a red button works better than a blue button. "Glad to hear that red button worked out better by 2.84 percent Jason. The sum of your creative energy has produced yet another quarter million in revenue. You must really love your life, man. Hey, have you thought of trying one of those animated GIFs instead of a regular button?"

Fortunately, Jason is twice as nice as me, as well as twice as smart. He takes my ribbing well--and responds thoughtfully to the serious question underlying my teasing: We know optimization can move big numbers in terms of revenue, but can it do more than simply tweak pages to bump up conversion? Can it vet creative concepts? Can it maximize the creation of mutual value between businesses and customers? Can it help create more engaging experiences?

(image credit, found via Lee)

The short answer here, according to Jason, is that it depends, partly on what you're trying to achieve. If all you're focused on is moving business value measures, you're probably putting lipstick on a pig. But testing against value creation has the potential to uncover game-changing opportunities.

Here's an email exchange between Jason and me, in which he explains in a little more detail:

 

RYAN:

That whole web site optimization thing—isn’t it really just putting lipstick on a pig?

 

JASON:

I think “I hate you so much” might be a succinct way of responding, but I'll provide a little more detail:

Web Site Optimization is exactly like putting lipstick on a pig, but only if you start out with a pig. And if you are starting out with a pig, your opportunities for improving things are limited, and you’d be using the wrong tool to fix the problem. We are talking here about the concept of a “local maximum” which is a fancy, math term applied to mean “the best something can be within a limited dynamic.” Consider the aforementioned pig’s ability to fly, which, metaphorically speaking, is not particularly developed. We could take a pig and genetically modify it to be more aerodynamic. We could investigate building pig hang-gliders and attempt to train the smartest pigs to use them. But even in the best case, with the most aerodynamic pig, benefiting from the best training, and using the best pig flying technology, it will never fly as well as a bird. The best case flying scenario for a pig (the pig’s local maximum as far as flight is concerned) is nowhere near as effective as a bird’s. In that scenario, you’d be better off exchanging the pig for a bird at the start, rather than waste any time or effort teaching a pig to fly better.

Applied to the web: if a site sucks so much- if the goals and purpose are unclear, if the information architecture looks like my desk (at the moment), if the navigation is counterintuitive and the messaging has absolutely no intersect with the audience, then no amount of optimization in the world will make it right. The local maximum of that crappy site is too low for any optimization to matter. Or (even worse) you’d need the infinite number of monkeys to stop typing Shakespeare and to start applying experiments to your site to get the right combination where testing would make a real difference. Neither is very efficient. If your site is the pixilated equivalent of a pig, you need much more elemental help from a user experience expert first (know any?). Until you fix the fatal flaw(s) in a site, anything else you do will be throwing good money after bad.

Site Side Optimization works well in circumstances where the local maximum is high, but for some reason, the site is not achieving it. This can be due to single points of failure on the site, like a specific conversion path or page underperforming, or because the audience needs to be targeted more specifically, or because the existing content is stale/irrelevant. In each of these cases, experimental testing can make a huge difference. Optimization also works exceptionally well (and this is far more interesting to me) when applied as a method of trying out a new (and potentially risky) idea that could radically change and significantly improve an experience.  In both of these examples, the basic site is healthy, and the optimization program serves as a tool to reach its fullest potential.

 

RYAN:

But what I keep looking for is the way to test birds against pigs, not in the sense of which flies better, because as a user experience expert I do have the capability to predict the winner of that contest—but when I don’t have a clear sense of the best conceptual solution. For example, maybe I just can’t decide between eggs and bacon. Can optimization help design a better breakfast, or only decide between pulp and no-pulp in the OJ?

 

JASON:

Optimization can test more conceptual ideas, but it will be really hard to unpack the WHY after we determine which one wins. Most sites aren’t deciding between bacon and eggs, but rather between the bacon, eggs and hashbrowns with coffee or the granola, fruit and yogurt with yerba matte. If the former wins in a test, I don’t know whether it’s because of the bacon (which will usually win over everything) or the coffee, or because the person deciding had granola for the past three days, and would have taken ANYTHING other than more granola.

The other trick about testing high concepts in a website format is that you would have to build each solution to test them, which is usually more expensive than testing out wireframes or front-end prototypes in front of a more controlled audience.

 

RYAN:

First, you seem to be suggesting that a test win for the bacon breakfast might not imply extensibility for bacon breakfasts in general: That because, lacking control, the results might be idiosyncratic, they might not therefore apply broadly. Next week you might get a different result. My question is, why does that matter? And why does “knowing why” the bacon breakfast worked matter, as long as you know it worked.

 

JASON:

It is definitely a question I get from clients a lot. Why do I care about the individual elements of a variant- if the variant as a whole makes us more money, let’s just launch it and move on. I can’t fault the sentiment, but knowing why the bacon worked could lead to better tests, more focused messaging and (even more) cash money. I want to know that it’s the bacon by itself that is the motivating factor outside of all the other influences. Let’s say that we ran a test breakfast against a bowl of Total cereal and we tested bacon with powdered eggs as the experimental variant. Now let’s assume that bacon and powdered eggs lost to the control by 1%. You could take the position that we would do better to serve Total because we want to avoid losing that 1%, and you would be right. But what if you knew that the bacon by itself actually improved the breakfast by 15%, but the powdered eggs were so crappy that they hurt the breakfast by 16%, so you netted the 1% loss? If I controlled for all the variables in my breakfast, that knowledge would a) help me make a better breakfast overall (just serve bacon), and b) will also prevent me from throwing away a positive variable simply because it was paired with a really negative one.

I imagine you run into that a lot with prototyping and wonder how you deal with it in the UX world.  If a subject totally fails at a task, are you ever afraid of overcorrecting a prototype to account for it? Do you ever throw the baby out with the bathwater? How do you control for that?

 

RYAN:

A great question. One of the answers is that in usability testing, you're looking for usability problems. So as long as your test participants are representative of your users as a whole, major failures are, practically speaking, never anomalous. If your user population is one million, and one of the eight people participating in your test has trouble understanding some aspect of the interface, what are the odds they're the only person who's going to have that problem?

The other thing I wonder about is what happens when what you’re trying to accomplish is harder to measure than conversion (e.g. brand lift) or if you want to measure it over time (e.g. engagement). Especially in social media, it’s quality that matters, not quantity. You want to know how valuable your user-generated videos are more than you want to know how many of them you have. Can web site optimization help you get to answers?

 

JASON:

Ah, you and your social media. When are you going to come to terms with the fact that this whole thing is a fad? The future is in email, Ryan, and lots of ‘em. Mark my words.

Absent a more qualitative tie-in with optimization (surveys, satisfaction scores, etc.) you will be hard-pressed to get good data about branding or the impact of social media. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t optimize for branding or social media. I’m saying you need to get that qualitative kicker. I’ve done a few branding tests, and I think they provide some interesting feedback. But I’ve never optimized where a KPI has to be judged on quality (e.g., good comments vs. troll comments) or off the site entirely (e.g., buzz in the blogosphere). Sounds fun.

Site Optimization: Lipstick on a Pig?, Or, Bacon and the Theory of Local Maximum

By Ryan Turner | Dec 1, 2008 8:01:09 AM

(Cross-Posted from Web Social Architecture.)

Jason Carmel is a colleague of mine I learn a ton from. His expertise is in web site optimization--running experiments where he tests versions of web pages against each other to see which performs best. (Not to be confused with search engine optimization, improving a site's visibility in search engines.)

Jason is a fairly unflappable guy. Nonetheless I recently started making an effort to get his goat. He gives me just enough encouragement that I keep going. The gist of my teasing is that optimization is nothing but a mechanical exercise to determine whether a red button works better than a blue button. "Glad to hear that red button worked out better by 2.84 percent Jason. The sum of your creative energy has produced yet another quarter million in revenue. You must really love your life, man. Hey, have you thought of trying one of those animated GIFs instead of a regular button?"

Fortunately, Jason is twice as nice as me, as well as twice as smart. He takes my ribbing well--and responds thoughtfully to the serious question underlying my teasing: We know optimization can move big numbers in terms of revenue, but can it do more than simply tweak pages to bump up conversion? Can it vet creative concepts? Can it maximize the creation of mutual value between businesses and customers? Can it help create more engaging experiences?

(image credit, found via Lee)

The short answer here, according to Jason, is that it depends, partly on what you're trying to achieve. If all you're focused on is moving business value measures, you're probably putting lipstick on a pig. But testing against value creation has the potential to uncover game-changing opportunities.

Here's an email exchange between Jason and me, in which he explains in a little more detail:

 

RYAN:

That whole web site optimization thing—isn’t it really just putting lipstick on a pig?

 

JASON:

I think “I hate you so much” might be a succinct way of responding, but I'll provide a little more detail:

Web Site Optimization is exactly like putting lipstick on a pig, but only if you start out with a pig. And if you are starting out with a pig, your opportunities for improving things are limited, and you’d be using the wrong tool to fix the problem. We are talking here about the concept of a “local maximum” which is a fancy, math term applied to mean “the best something can be within a limited dynamic.” Consider the aforementioned pig’s ability to fly, which, metaphorically speaking, is not particularly developed. We could take a pig and genetically modify it to be more aerodynamic. We could investigate building pig hang-gliders and attempt to train the smartest pigs to use them. But even in the best case, with the most aerodynamic pig, benefiting from the best training, and using the best pig flying technology, it will never fly as well as a bird. The best case flying scenario for a pig (the pig’s local maximum as far as flight is concerned) is nowhere near as effective as a bird’s. In that scenario, you’d be better off exchanging the pig for a bird at the start, rather than waste any time or effort teaching a pig to fly better.

Applied to the web: if a site sucks so much- if the goals and purpose are unclear, if the information architecture looks like my desk (at the moment), if the navigation is counterintuitive and the messaging has absolutely no intersect with the audience, then no amount of optimization in the world will make it right. The local maximum of that crappy site is too low for any optimization to matter. Or (even worse) you’d need the infinite number of monkeys to stop typing Shakespeare and to start applying experiments to your site to get the right combination where testing would make a real difference. Neither is very efficient. If your site is the pixilated equivalent of a pig, you need much more elemental help from a user experience expert first (know any?). Until you fix the fatal flaw(s) in a site, anything else you do will be throwing good money after bad.

Site Side Optimization works well in circumstances where the local maximum is high, but for some reason, the site is not achieving it. This can be due to single points of failure on the site, like a specific conversion path or page underperforming, or because the audience needs to be targeted more specifically, or because the existing content is stale/irrelevant. In each of these cases, experimental testing can make a huge difference. Optimization also works exceptionally well (and this is far more interesting to me) when applied as a method of trying out a new (and potentially risky) idea that could radically change and significantly improve an experience.  In both of these examples, the basic site is healthy, and the optimization program serves as a tool to reach its fullest potential.

 

RYAN:

But what I keep looking for is the way to test birds against pigs, not in the sense of which flies better, because as a user experience expert I do have the capability to predict the winner of that contest—but when I don’t have a clear sense of the best conceptual solution. For example, maybe I just can’t decide between eggs and bacon. Can optimization help design a better breakfast, or only decide between pulp and no-pulp in the OJ?

 

JASON:

Optimization can test more conceptual ideas, but it will be really hard to unpack the WHY after we determine which one wins. Most sites aren’t deciding between bacon and eggs, but rather between the bacon, eggs and hashbrowns with coffee or the granola, fruit and yogurt with yerba matte. If the former wins in a test, I don’t know whether it’s because of the bacon (which will usually win over everything) or the coffee, or because the person deciding had granola for the past three days, and would have taken ANYTHING other than more granola.

The other trick about testing high concepts in a website format is that you would have to build each solution to test them, which is usually more expensive than testing out wireframes or front-end prototypes in front of a more controlled audience.

 

RYAN:

First, you seem to be suggesting that a test win for the bacon breakfast might not imply extensibility for bacon breakfasts in general: That because, lacking control, the results might be idiosyncratic, they might not therefore apply broadly. Next week you might get a different result. My question is, why does that matter? And why does “knowing why” the bacon breakfast worked matter, as long as you know it worked.

 

JASON:

It is definitely a question I get from clients a lot. Why do I care about the individual elements of a variant- if the variant as a whole makes us more money, let’s just launch it and move on. I can’t fault the sentiment, but knowing why the bacon worked could lead to better tests, more focused messaging and (even more) cash money. I want to know that it’s the bacon by itself that is the motivating factor outside of all the other influences. Let’s say that we ran a test breakfast against a bowl of Total cereal and we tested bacon with powdered eggs as the experimental variant. Now let’s assume that bacon and powdered eggs lost to the control by 1%. You could take the position that we would do better to serve Total because we want to avoid losing that 1%, and you would be right. But what if you knew that the bacon by itself actually improved the breakfast by 15%, but the powdered eggs were so crappy that they hurt the breakfast by 16%, so you netted the 1% loss? If I controlled for all the variables in my breakfast, that knowledge would a) help me make a better breakfast overall (just serve bacon), and b) will also prevent me from throwing away a positive variable simply because it was paired with a really negative one.

I imagine you run into that a lot with prototyping and wonder how you deal with it in the UX world.  If a subject totally fails at a task, are you ever afraid of overcorrecting a prototype to account for it? Do you ever throw the baby out with the bathwater? How do you control for that?

 

RYAN:

A great question. One of the answers is that in usability testing, you're looking for usability problems. So as long as your test participants are representative of your users as a whole, major failures are, practically speaking, never anomalous. If your user population is one million, and one of the eight people participating in your test has trouble understanding some aspect of the interface, what are the odds they're the only person who's going to have that problem?

The other thing I wonder about is what happens when what you’re trying to accomplish is harder to measure than conversion (e.g. brand lift) or if you want to measure it over time (e.g. engagement). Especially in social media, it’s quality that matters, not quantity. You want to know how valuable your user-generated videos are more than you want to know how many of them you have. Can web site optimization help you get to answers?

 

JASON:

Ah, you and your social media. When are you going to come to terms with the fact that this whole thing is a fad? The future is in email, Ryan, and lots of ‘em. Mark my words.

Absent a more qualitative tie-in with optimization (surveys, satisfaction scores, etc.) you will be hard-pressed to get good data about branding or the impact of social media. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t optimize for branding or social media. I’m saying you need to get that qualitative kicker. I’ve done a few branding tests, and I think they provide some interesting feedback. But I’ve never optimized where a KPI has to be judged on quality (e.g., good comments vs. troll comments) or off the site entirely (e.g., buzz in the blogosphere). Sounds fun.

Twitter: Trivial. Beautifully So.

By Ryan Turner | Nov 11, 2008 11:18:37 AM

I wrote a post a year and a half ago on Twitter in which I identified two types of use for it. This was at the height of the initial buzz about Twitter, and while some folks were really excited to finally see an HTML / SMS / IM social application, others worried aloud that Twitter, for the same reasons it offers such a low threshold of entry, would also tend to erode the quality of social relationships online. The thoughtful anti-Twitter point of view was that it encourages triviality, and the gist of my post was that while that may be true, there are times when trivialities are useful.

Since I wrote that post, I've become an avid Twitterer, and I have to say my perspective on Twitter, and indeed on triviality, has changed. I now see triviality as maybe the critical element of truly meaningful relationships, online and off, and Twitter has accordingly become one of the cornerstone services of my personal and professional social lives.

That sounds crazy, I know, and while it may be true that I am prone to crazy-sounding declaratives, I'm actually not kidding about this. I now use Twitter at work very frequently, mostly within my team, and it has improved our functioning and, dare I say it, made us closer, more personally connected.

Let me float an assertion: The deeper the relationship, the greater the proportion of it dedicated to triviality; and beyond, say, 90% triviality, the relationship isn't a relationship at all. And likewise with meaningful interactions--if everything is meaningful, it's not a relationship, it's therapy.

So here is my Bullseye Diagram of Love, illustrating the way I'm starting to envision online social systems supporting healthy relationships:

So I'm arguing for Twitter, or an analogous triviality service (ha!) as a supplement to existing relationships, not as a full-fledged social channel in and of itself. As a social network, I actually do think it's useless, or worse. And you can take that as a caveat.

But I am saying I think triviality in general and as supported by Twitter, in both personal and professional settings, is indispensable--that we can and should deliberately design it into social systems.

The Carl Lewis Rules of Marketing

By Leslie LaRue | Aug 27, 2008 3:23:32 PM

Remember Carl Lewis? The Olympic hero of the 80’s and 90’s? He won a lot of medals, set some world records and was in general, the type of athlete you marvel at. He had the potential to endorse multiple household brands and be a sports commenter for as long as Bob Costas. Until Michael Phelps came along, outside of Mary Lou Retton and Bruce Jenner, there were very few other Olympic athletes who were as widely recognized.

But, somewhere along the way, Carl Lewis decided, “I’d like to have a music career.”

Bad idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jamJ4-C_TME

This video is quite likely, the most horrible thing I’ve ever seen. My perception of Carl is permanently damaged. It makes me never want to watch him give commentary on a sporting event ever again. Let alone, sing, dance, lift weights or blow bubbles. (?)

Maybe it’s the black unitard, the special effects, or just the song itself. But if there was ever one reason why he never became a household name this video might it. Part of the excitement in the world of marketing is trying new things. But we still have to remember, “Is this a good long-term decision?”

If you’re Carl Lewis, you’re probably asking yourself that very question. Because, whether you like it or not, when you or your company attains a certain level of awareness with the general public, you have to make some decisions on how to market yourself. I'm pretty sure that doesn't nvolve an old lady in yellow sunglasses chasing you around a gym.

So, here are some general rules-of-thumb for anyone trying to make that decision.

(Phelps, are you paying attention here? I don’t want to see anymore of these videos surface.)

1.       Be consistent. – Trying new things is good. But that crazy thing you cooked up late Friday night should support your brand, not define it.

2.       Pick things you’re good at. It’s OK to just be an amazing athlete. You don’t have to sing too. We don’t mind. It’s tempting to constantly widen your services, your product offerings, (your music career) but at what cost? The reason people were inspired by Carl Lewis in the first place was because he is a great athlete. Not a singer/dancer, bubble-blower.  I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t push ourselves to succeed in new ways. But sometimes, use what you’ve got.

3.       Be pro-active, not reactive. It’s very easy to get so busy, that we end up working within the realms of who is contacting us.  To sponsor an event, advertise in their publication, market their product, etc. But does it make sense for your own long-term vision and goal? Spend the extra time doing research on ideas or concepts that fit who you are, not who are filling up your In-Box. Maybe Carl got a great offer from a record company to make this video. But does that mean he should have done it?

4.       Follow through - I recently visited the official Carl Lewis website. He has a blog. He has not posted a blog since January of 2007 and it was a test to see if it was working. If you’re going to do something, do it. Otherwise your audience stops paying attention.

5.       Remember your roots. Success makes us feel good. But it shouldn’t cloud our decision-making. In other words, don’t get cocky and think that now that you’ve established your brand, you can go off the deep-end.  Carl Lewis actually had two endorsement deals, with Coke and Nike. . But he turned Coke down, confident he’d be worth more after the 1984 Olympic Games. Coke cancelled the offer. Nike had Lewis under contract for a few years, despite questions about how it affected his status as an ameteur. He was appearing on Nike television ads, in print and on billboards. After the Games and faced with Lewis’ new negative image, Nike dropped him.

(I think Nike saw the video. Truly, a lesson for all of us.)

My summer prediction: Microsoft will buy Yahoo by year end

By Nigel Morgan | Aug 19, 2008 2:09:24 PM

So it has been a long summer so far and I hope there are many more days of sunshine to go. It has had its ups, just look at Michael Phelps, and it has had its downs as we bid farewell to Isaac and Bernie. Of course for us online marketers there has been an ongoing story that has had both the ups and the downs. I am talking of course about the on again, off again, on again but now off again saga of the Microsoft takeover of Yahoo.

So while Jerry Yang is in China at the Olympics and the Microsoft upper management is enjoying a fine Pacific Northwest summer, I will throw in my opinions on where this story will end.

To me it is quite clear that this merger will happen; there are a number of reasons why this deal will go through for Microsoft and Yahoo. I list them here and ask you all to join the debate!

Market share of total online ad revenues.

This is the number one reason why this takeover will happen. Online advertising revenues are still growing very fast and will continue to do so according to every survey and expert opinion you read.

Today Google is firmly in the box seat owing to its market position as undisputed search engine leader and ownership of Doubleclick. Once Google fully optimizes it’s ability to understand the vast majority of internet behaviors through its search engine and Doubleclick tags, it will be able to target marketing messaging to daunting effect (read attain massive revenues from online advertisers). Although MSFT owns Atlas, the combination of Atlas and MSN will, most likely, never get MSFT to a market leadership position. If Microsoft doesn’t gain a huge increase in market share and soon, it will be virtually impossible for them to catch Google. How do you suddenly increase market share? Answer, buy a competitor.

“Owning” the vision of the PC is Microsoft’s heritage

Microsoft has continually innovated across the years and while they have some very successful products such as X-Box, Windows and Office to name a few, they have not truly come on from their computer on every desktop vision of 20 years ago.

When a computer was used mostly for work, Microsoft set the vision for the personal computer with its operating systems and productivity software. These products are still by far the biggest driver of the company’s profits. However thanks to internet applications PCs now are equally used for recreation and Microsoft has never managed to dominate the market in this reality. Microsoft’s online presence that gave them early market advantage in the form of Internet Explorer and MSN are becoming more strategically irrelevant every day and their market share continues to follow a long-slow downward trajectory. Efforts such as Silver light, .NET and other initiatives will not change the fortunes of Microsoft in this regards.

The people at Microsoft need to innovate

While Microsoft could happily continue to dominate the OS market, Bill Gates will not want to see his life’s work become a monopolistic commodity. Microsoft also has enormously talented employees and they will not go down this route without kicking and screaming.

It makes good old fashion financial sense.

Although MSN and Yahoo users will not like me saying it, they really are substitute products for each other. Taking best practices from each and merging them together will improve the product and dramatically reduce redundancy. It will also create a broad base of messenger and email users that will dwarf the number of users on gmail. This is one beachhead that a combined Yahoo/MSFT should exploit in their ability to compete with Google.

At the end of the day, it may be the only path ahead for Yahoo too

Unless Yahoo does things very differently, they will continue to lose market share in search queries. This will ultimately result in long-term financial disaster as their editorial teams and messenger and email products will be left to support site visits and therefore online ad revenues. Yahoo’s content is not differentiated enough from other content sources to survive in the long run.

So, a takeover makes a lot of sense, ironically more so for the one that is blocking it. Microsoft can have a future without Yahoo but I struggle to see where Yahoo fits into the online ecosystem long term. Therefore I predict that Yahoo will come to this conclusion, Microsoft will have another attempt at a takeover and this time it will go through.

So there you have my opinions. I’m off to see my stockbroker!

Black Holes Always Put Things in Perspective

By Leslie LaRue | Aug 8, 2008 3:14:21 PM

I’ve been losing sleep lately. I hear the end of the world is coming. Really. September 10^th. Mark your calendars.

Some scientists on the Swiss border will seek to re-create the conditions of The Big Bang Theory in the form of The Large Hadron Collider (LHC); the largest particle accelerator ever built.  27 kilometers of experimentation designed to answer that fundamental question. What happened in the very beginning?

Similar experiments have been conducted in the past, but never on such a massive scale. In previous testing, tiny amounts of anti-matter, or “dark material” were released. The stuff of creation. The stuff that shapes a universe, or can take it down.

Most scientists are elated. It’s their chance to prove hard-core theory, study anti-matter, the possibilities are endless. But there is a slight catch. This experiment could create a series of small black holes, or turn Earth into a vast chasm of grey matter. A former nuclear safety officer actually filed a lawsuit trying to get them to stop the experiment.

I should mention, there is also a chance that dragons and unicorns could fly out of the LHC. It’s about that slim. But scientists being who they are, they won’t discredit that possibility. This makes me a bit nervous.

But it also gets me thinking. When faced with a decision that the world is ending, what do I care about? What really matters? Would I pull up a chair and have a cocktail? Medicate? Meditate? Gather all my friends and family and give them a hug? (Yes)

Surely, you say, she’s not going to make an analogy for digital marketing. Please. Of course I am.

Not that I would focus on performance marketing during the crisis of a black hole. I’m sorry ZAAZ, I love you. But no, I would not. But I do tend to think about the swirling masses of extra “stuff” we create in the world of marketing.

How much of all this is really necessary? Do we do it out of anxiety to prove our worth? Validate we’re consistently churning out results? Now is the time to simplify.

(What better excuse than the end of the world?)

Scale back. For lack of a better term, eliminate the extra crap you’re doing.

Look at what matters to growing your business, to developing it long-term and putting money back into what makes it all worthwhile. Only you can be the judge of that based upon your overall goals for success.

Maybe it’s condensing your KPIs from a list of five to two.  Maybe it’s hosting a panel instead of constructing a booth. Do you REALLY need all that, or is just extra stuff? 

Oh, and don’t forget to wear a sweater. Black holes tend to be chilly.

Justin Marshall on Social Media Marketing

By Ryan Turner | Jul 16, 2008 4:21:03 PM

Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.

Here is the video of Justin Marshall's talk last week, titled Money, Media, and Your Mom's Peach Cobbler: Social Media Marketing Done Right. Justin is a colleague of mine at ZAAZ and a major contributor to our efforts in social media.

Justin's take on social media revolves around 3 critical points: Find your customer's shared passion, build value through community, and focus on strategic objectives. His talk includes some great stories and examples, including a sample concept for a social media campaign done right. (Are you listening, Whole Foods?)

Here's the 15-minute video:

And here are the slides, so you can follow along:

I'll be posting the other presentations from the event as I get them ready. Video processing, especially at my novice level, takes forever.

Insights into the Emergence of Search Analytics (Initially Posted on ClickZ)

By Shane Atchison | Jul 2, 2008 2:54:15 PM

In grade school, I really wanted a pair of Velcro tennis shoes. My parents obliged. Shortly after, I decided that I needed a pair of new basketball shoes (before I realized I was too short to succeed at basketball). My parents couldn't understand why I didn't just wear my new velcro tennis shoes. I tried to explain that each served distinctly specific functions. No dice.

While site-side Web analytics platforms are an appropriate, central hub for understanding overall digital performance, many marketing professionals still find it necessary to use complementary analytics solutions for more specific needs. Media and ad trafficking platforms are necessary for measuring display ad and paid search performance. Panel-based analytics are necessary to understand industry and competitive trends and insight. While these tools are all of an analytics nature, they each serve distinctly specific functions.

My Velcro shoes belonged on the street; basketball shoes were necessary to play basketball (or at least look good on the court). I don't want to replace my Web analytics platform, but I need a supplement for specific marketing functions to make effective business decisions.

SEO (define) continues to grow as a legitimate area of focus for enterprise marketing professionals. It's unequivocally the most efficient method for traffic acquisition, compared to paid search or display advertising, where costs scale with increased traffic. This makes SEO especially attractive in a recessed economic environment.

But we need to understand SEO performance at more granular level. Typical, high-level metrics provided by site-side analytics tools, like referring traffic or keywords, don't provide enough depth or breadth to make deep, effective decisions for SEO.

I recently spent some time with Richard Zwicky, founder and president of Enquisite, a search analytics solutions provider. I'm impressed by Enquisite's unique analytics capabilities specific to SEO, and I asked Zwicky to explain how search analytics can be an appropriate complement to a traditional Web analytics tool.

Shane Atchison: Let's start with the obvious question: why are marketers demanding more insight from search analytics?

Richard Zwicky:The budgets, activities, and expectations that drive search engine marketing -- SEO as well as SEM [define] and paid inclusion -- are all on the rise and are increasingly competing with other digital and traditional marketing and advertising spends. Search-specific analytics help marketers be more responsible with their budgets by offering a closer look at specific search performance and ROI [define].

SA: Why run search analytics alongside your Web analytics solution?

RZ:Enquisite focuses on natural search referrals. We're able to provide a level of depth beyond what traditional Web analytics tools offer. But search analytics isn't intended to replace Web analytics; rather, it complements Web analytics by shedding detailed insight on how search efforts specifically contribute traffic to a site and which specific keywords perform on a site. Our data is made actionable only when viewed in the context of traditional Web analytics reports and insights.

SA: Can you share examples of how search analytics are able to provide more "detailed insight?"

RZ:A good example is geotargeting. This is commonly used to inform paid search strategy but isn't commonly achievable for SEO efforts. Enquisite's reporting allows for a highly refined and customizable look at geographic performance from natural search. We show performance by city (and, in some cases, by Zip Code) for each individual search referral. This is especially useful because your site can rank differently in search engine results pages, depending on a searcher's location.

Traditional Web analytics would simply show you that you're getting search traffic but wouldn't explain your site's positioning in the SERPs [define] -- or the fact that it differs in geos. It also isn't going to distinguish the fact that some traffic comes from New York and some from Seattle.

SA:We see companies consistently wanting to view SEO success beyond just rank. Can this be more achievable with search analytics tools like Enquisite?

RZ: This has always been a common challenge, and one of the reasons that SEO and SEM performance have always been an apples-to-oranges comparison. The central problem is conversion. SEM managers are able to view conversion data at a keyword level, but SEO reporting has never really been able to tie specific keywords to specific site-side conversions.

We are soon to release conversion functionality, and we believe that Enquisite will be the first solution to offer detailed conversion tracking and analytics for natural-search-referring keywords. We can also identify which search terms, not currently optimized, have the highest potential for driving future traffic and conversion value.

SA:SEO conversion tracking is a promising level of value and insight that marketers haven't been able to realize from traditional tracking or Web analytics solutions. But it also seems like an opportunity for alignment with traditional solutions. How can that be achieved?

RZ:You're right; the value of providing SEO conversion insight is a core reason that dedicated search analytics tools will emerge as a necessary complement for marketing professionals. But you're also correct in identifying the need for alignment. The sophisticated insights that Web analytics provide in terms of looking at path data, funnel analysis, identifying and defining success events, goals, or conversions are crucial. We simply want to focus on specific insight and performance from search. This should both inform Web analytics and be informed by Web analytics. Search analytics insights can also align with other efforts like behavioral targeting.

SA:What are the big opportunities for search analytics in the next 12 to 18 months?

RZ:There is still a wealth of opportunity for search analytics providers to deliver deeper reporting functionality. Firms will need to focus on reporting functions that really address the decision-making needs of search marketing professionals. Accordingly, we really try to base our primary product focus on user feedback. We try to pay attention both to what our customers tell us and what the tight-knit search marketing community discusses. As important as search marketing is, providers need to realize that it is only one aspect of a larger analytics and marketing effort. Marketers only have limited time and attention to dedicate to search analytics. Firms need to try and avoid reporting clutter that over-delivers on analytics that we think are cool or are just nice to know.

Blogs as Unimaginative Failures

By Jason Carmel | Jul 1, 2008 3:28:59 PM

I'll admit, when my fellow ZAAZ-blog auteur Chris Kerns sent me a WSJ article entitled "Most Corporate Blogs Are Unimaginative Failures," and suggested I write about it, I couldn't figure out whether he was trying to be thought-provoking or secretly implying that my blogging sucks and tempting me to stand in front of the blogosphere in the emperor's new clothes (as it were). If I thought about it too hard, it almost seemed like the blogger-equivalent of telling someone that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary, or muttering very softly under your breath "adillholesayswhat". I'll assume he is taking the high road on this (a n00b mistake at ZAAZ, perhaps).

The article references a Forrester report that accuses most B2B blogs of being little more than refried corporate marketing hyped up as "Web 2.0," with all of the personality and ingenuity of prison food. Barely a quarter of all entries results in any significant conversation, and as a result, far fewer Fortune 500 companies are getting into the game.

I appreciate the good people at Forrester quantifying this, but I can't say it comes as any surprise. I imagine that the decision to get into the blogging game initially for many companies went a little something like this:

Marketing Guy #1 - My niece told me that she reads about American Idol on a blog. Says all her friends do too. Thing gets more visits than Santa's lap in December.

Marketing Guy #2 - Sweet Mary Lou Retton, I love American Idol! And we've been getting slaughtered in the "young tech-savvy people I can't relate to" demographic. We need a blog ASAP.

And so our intrepid Marketing Heroes set out to start a blog, without discussing important things like purpose, measurement of success, voice/tone, sustainability (i.e., do we have enough content for regular, meaningful posts), and ownership/moderation. Three months into the blog, they realize that coming up with posts takes real thought and work, which they can't support, so they phone it in by posting press releases word for word. They get a few negative comments and decide it's easier just to turn off the ability to comment altogether rather than address any criticisms directly. And (perhaps most importantly) since they can't linearly connect the readership of the blog to any purchases or leads, the project quickly loses what little financial and political resources it ever had. As I type this, to be honest, I'm surprised there are any B2B blogs left at all for Forrester to study.

For me, the biggest take-away from this is how a well-timed conversation about goals would lead to a startlingly different result. Understanding why the conversation inherent in a blog is important, how much effort it will require, and how it will be measured is especially important for social web applications to avoid "unimaginative failures."

You're Invited: Social Media Event at ZAAZ Seattle July 8th

By Ryan Turner | Jun 30, 2008 10:58:45 AM

Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.

People keep asking me when we're going to host another event at the ZAAZ office's notorious Z-Bar in Seattle. Well...

I'm super excited about the lineup for this event, which includes industry leaders from corporate, agency, and independent circles who share passion and expertise in the human dimensions of social computing. Knowing most of these folks pretty well, I think I can guarantee an evening of thought-provoking conversation.

The format for this event will be similar to the previous one I organized, which seemed to go pretty well. We'll have short talks from each speaker followed by a panel discussion. Plus, snacks and beer.

Here's the rundown on the speakers:

Brian Fling of Flingmedia is a full-fledged mobile design geek and human Swiss Army knife. His talk, "Mobile 2.0: Design and Develop for the iPhone and Beyond" will explore some of the social dimensions of the emerging mobile world.

My colleague Justin Marshall is behind some of the most exciting work we've done in social media. His take on social media for marketers, titled "Money, Media, and Your Mom's Peach Cobbler: Social Media Marketing Done Right," offers guidance for marketers looking to engage with customers online.

Samantha Starmer is a highly-respected thought leader in the local information architecture community. In addition to her work at REI, she co-teaches the UW Information School's Summer IA Institute. Her talk, "Single Athletic Female seeking Single Slender Male: The Marriage of Social Media and Metadata," promises to reveal the secrets of better online living through metadata.

Nancy White of Full Circle Associates has been doing online community since WAY before it was cool. Her broadly-ranging expertise includes online learning and facilitation, communities of practice, technology in the developing world, and social technology in general. Her talk is titled "Slow Community."

Wendy Chisholm is a former co-editor of the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and a passionate advocate for universally-accessible design online and off. She's currently working on what promises to become "THE book" on accessibility for the emerging Web.

We're really lucky in the Seattle area to have access to such quality thinkers and experts. I hope you'll join us, and if you do plan to attend, drop me a note at ryant (at) zaaz dot com so I can get a rough headcount.

The Facebook event is here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=66791410200.

I hope to see you there!