text:
People ranging from successful entrepreneurs to technology consultants, and sometimes those in a marketing department, understand little about how Google works, and what makes a good SEO strategy. I assume...
The post SEO For Non Marketers: What Every Business Person Should Know About SEO appeared first on Push ROI.
People ranging from successful entrepreneurs to technology consultants, and sometimes those in a marketing department, understand little about how Google works, and what makes a good SEO strategy. I assume this is why I often meet people who have gotten burned by some snake oil SEO salesperson in the past.
Not everyone needs to know much about SEO, but this is what anyone running a business or working even tangentially with marketing should know about search optimization. This post is by no means the most comprehensive SEO guide available. But I believe this will give enough of an overview to slow the growth of snake oil ad agencies.
I'm keeping the focus for most advice on Google because they are the largest search engine, and most of what helps a site rank in Google will apply to Bing, Duck Duck Go, and any other web search engine.
As far as I can tell the top five factors to help a site rank and get meaningful traffic are:
Research Focusing On Business Value
Most talk about SEO, centers on how to rank, not what to rank for, but any optimization trying to get a website to a number one Google result that doesn't focus on business value is a waste of effort.
Showing up as the number one result for a phrase in Google means very little unless that phrase is searched by people interested in the website and products. A friend once wanted to start a travel blog called "strategic travel info" because of the "SEO value." We could easily have been the number one result for the term, but no one was searching for "strategic travel info."
Even with highly searched terms, unless the intent of the searcher matches with your website, it will not add value to a business. For example, ranking for "watch TV free" when you sell TVs. You may get traffic, but it will not be relevant traffic. If you're Nexflix, "watch TV free" is false advertising and not likely to drive sales.
Technical Aspects Of The Website
A website should be fast and easy to use for humans, and readable to Google bot. Blocking Google from seeing your site is the most certain ranking killer. Having a sitemap submitted to Google Search Console is a simple way to improve how quickly new pages are indexed into search results.
Items like canonical URLs tell Google what the original source of content is, for example, differentiation of a blog post and several category pages that list the blog post. The actual structure of URLs, the information architecture of the website, and how the site functions on mobile all matter a lot. I could name many technical areas that help improve the way a website ranks in Google, but for the most part, these do not need to be understood deeply outside of web and search marketing teams.
However, understand, unless a rockstar set up the website, some aspect of SEO can improve via technical optimization. Unless an SEO agency can explain why they have no plans to change anything under the hood of your website, be skeptical.
It is virtually impossible now to rank a website for a term without some semantic relevance. A site selling TVs could rank for "watch TV free," because Google bot doesn't have high reading comprehension. But you will have a tough time ranking a local plumber for the term "watch TV free." As mentioned above, this is a waste of effort for each business. But the content of your website limits and controls what you can rank for on Google.
The idea that content is king is prevalent, and to some extent, accurate, but content alone will not guarantee rankings. There is no perfect length for a webpage, and while guidelines exist, there is not a universally ideal keyword density. But by taking the research for terms having both search volume and relevance for a business, you can begin to craft content that will help your website rank for relevant, high-value terms.
Often you can improve a website's rankings by improving the content. But only adjusting content will seldom be enough for a massive boost. Content often acts as a sight, dictating what you're aiming for, not whether you will hit the target.
Links To Your Website
I say this so much I start to sound like a broken record, but links matter for SEO. Furthermore, I cannot imagine a time when Google will stop using some variation the quality, quantity, relevance, and context of the links to a website as a beacon both of what a web page is about and how important that page is. Still, so-called SEO experts will claim link building is a waste of time.
Not all links are quality links, and that means having 1 or 20,000 links from websites without traffic, trust, or relevance to your site won't move the dial. We use tools like Majestic, SEM Rush, and Ahrefs to help establish the most valuable link opportunities for ourselves and our clients. But an SEO expert who doesn't believe links are a factor in search rankings is either lying about expertise or lying about how Google works.
Misinformation spread by "experts" is so common that I even know people in technical marketing who didn't realize that they should want links from authoritative and relevant websites. At a minimum, you should want such links, because people can click them, sending valuable traffic to your site. But a high-quality link, even in old articles that have gone mostly unclicked for months on end, still offers some value for propelling a website up the search results page of Google.
Since 2009 or so, Google also personalizes aspects of search based on factors that cannot be optimized for meaningfully. From an article on Search Engine Land at that time:
"For example, let's say someone else prefers Barnes & Nobles. Over time, Google learns that person likes Barnes & Noble. They begin to see even more Barnes & Nobles listings, rather than Amazon ones."
Starting in 2015, Google has used machine learning to let human behavior train the search algorithm. I've argued the use of this AI is so prevalent that even those working at Google no longer fully understand how pages are ranked. It's possible factors like social engagement exist. It's nearly certain that more people clicking a link, and spending time on the page without returning to Google is a factor.
Making it even more important to research and understands not just what words and phrases have search volume but also what people are seeking when they search for something.
Rapping Up
None of these factors work in isolation. You could almost grade each of these factors as being worth a max of 20 points. If you score at least a few points for each element and knock one out of the park, that is sometimes enough to rank. Conceptually the same is true if you score 10 points on each factor, leaving room for improvement across the board.
But a poor performance at any element of search optimization can spoil all other efforts. When we optimize websites, we start with research and an audit of the existing content and technical aspects of the site. We correct as much as we can both behind the scenes and for visible content. After that, we work on building links worth having, as we believe the collection of all these factors leads to humans reinforcing a website as the best result to Google's AI.
Header Image: "pay-per-lead Atlanta Georgia"
Mason Pelt is the founder of Push ROI and helps companies improve digital advertising and SEO.
]]> https://pushroi.com/seo-non-marketers/feed/ 0 Who Runs Google? Humans No Longer Drive Google Search https://pushroi.com/opinion-humans-no-longer-drive-google-search/ https://pushroi.com/opinion-humans-no-longer-drive-google-search/#respond Thu, 21 Nov 2019 23:16:51 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=7902
Google started with the goal of indexing the internet to make finding things online easy. They succeeded in solving that problem, but now Google has changed the way we consume,...
The post Who Runs Google? Humans No Longer Drive Google Search appeared first on Push ROI.
Google started with the goal of indexing the internet to make finding things online easy. They succeeded in solving that problem, but now Google has changed the way we consume, create, and used the internet. And I don't think anyone is truly behind the wheel of Google's search product.
In 2018 Google made 3,200 changes to the search algorithm. Most of these were small tweaks, but I'd be shocked if any single person or team at Google could explain how the search engine actually ranks pages. Google has layered so much machine learning onto the human-written algorithms; I am convinced Google's search product is now a black box even to the teams who help build and maintain it.
An Oversimplified Story of Google Search
When two Stanford students created Google, the idea was simple, keywords explained what a webpage was about, and inbound links indicated the importance of that page. The concept of using links to rate the importance of a page comes from bibliometrics, the statistical methods used to analyze and rank the influence of academic publications — the more citations an academic paper has from other papers, the more influential that paper is considered. Citations are also waited, meaning not every citation holds equal importance.
With a lot of backstory left out, this concept lead Larry Page and Sergey Brin to create the first modern search engine. Other search engines existed for around nine years before 1998 when Google stept into the ring. But while Archie and Veronica can be called the grand parents of all search engines, Google changed how every future search engine would work.
Prior to modern search engines, websites were found using directories and blog roles, where sites would link to each other so that people could discover more of the web. This linking, along with basic keyword recognition, was how Google indexed and ranked websites. When this started to get abused by webmasters who would build sites, write spam content, and buy links to rank, Google updated the algorithm. Google also told website owners to change their behavior or risk getting deindexed.
Google Now Shaped The Web
Most of the early updates were direct changes to math that impacted how Google treated things like keyword stuffing, invisible text, and "unnatural" links. This was when Google started really changing the behavior of webmasters. With many high profile sites banished from the search results starting in 2003, everyone knew Google wasn't playing. Most Google updates would come with a new crop of sites pushed down in, or removed from search results altogether.
When Google said how they wanted the web to work, the internet now listened. When Google said excessive reciprocal links are bad and reordered search results pages, web users changed their behavior. Someone on Google's webspam team would say "use the nofollow tag on press releases" – webmasters and marketers would do so. The web was adapting to Google more than Google was adjusting to the internet.
The AI Now Runs Google
By 2015 Google added RankBrain, a machine learning algorithm that attempts to choose the best content for any particular keyword search. The AI examines factors like user behavior and regional linguistic patterns. Later machine learning was added to link analysis and used to aggregate signals together.
We have seen with Google-owned YouTube that they AI system reviewing videos for demonetization and removal is not fully understood. When accused of bias YouTube execs insisted, they didn't fully know how the AI worked. I have no doubt the YouTube executives were truthful and that Google is equally clueless about what the AI is doing.
Brian Dean made a list of 200 Google ranking factors, and if the AI could articulate every factor it considers, I'd bet Dean's list covers under 1% of them. I can't say the inmates are running the asylum. But it seems accurate to say humans no longer control the entity that shapes the web more than any other force on the globe.
Header Image: "Fail Bot" by Christia Fung
]]> https://pushroi.com/opinion-humans-no-longer-drive-google-search/feed/ 0 Why Push ROI Doesn't Just Build Websites https://pushroi.com/why-push-roi-doesnt-just-build-websites/ https://pushroi.com/why-push-roi-doesnt-just-build-websites/#respond Mon, 14 Oct 2019 01:43:21 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=7737
In the late 90's to early 2000's very few people had any idea how to get a website up and online. A lot of web developers popped up and they...
The post Why Push ROI Doesn't Just Build Websites appeared first on Push ROI.
In the late 90's to early 2000's very few people had any idea how to get a website up and online. A lot of web developers popped up and they charged a lot for building websites. As a friend once put it, he was tripping over $10,000 checks to cash $20,000 checks. It was a boom.
Around 2008 when I started freelancing a huge amount of my projects were building websites. But lately as an agency, we don't really build websites as a standalone service. The reason is most people don't need an agency to have a great website.
Building a website in 2019 is fairly easy. A lot of drag and drop site builders exist (fair warning some are really bad) but… Between the good site builders and open source CMS's, like WordPress, Ghost, Jekyll and Drupal most people can have fast and reliable websites without breaking the bank. And with many thousands of well made themes that website will look nice, be mobile friendly and can be customised to the point it's unique.
While I think many of the site builders are overpriced when compared with using WordPress on cloud hosting, they are (most of the time) cheaper than hiring anyone to build your website. If you're really frugal you could build a static site and host it free on Github or GitLab. My point is a lot of roads lead to a good website.
We still build websites frequently, last year the team launched at least 30 websites and many hundreds of landing pages. But unless the project was something requiring extensive custom code or other knowhow, like a large ecommerce or membership site these were almost always part of other work. We often end up rebuilding websites when we are doing SEO, PPC or an other marketing service.
Of the few times in the last 18 months when our main contract was for building a website, what we were really doing was branding, foundational SEO, and content writing. Web development still has a big seat at the marketing table, but no one should be without a good website because some agency quoted them an obscenely high price.
Header Image: "WHY?" by annnna_
Mason Pelt is the founder of Push ROI, and helps brands with video production and YouTube management strategy.
]]> https://pushroi.com/why-push-roi-doesnt-just-build-websites/feed/ 0 Video Production Has Changed, Let's Record With Our Phones?! https://pushroi.com/video-production-has-changed-lets-record-with-our-phones/ https://pushroi.com/video-production-has-changed-lets-record-with-our-phones/#respond Wed, 25 Sep 2019 22:29:22 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=7696
I started in video production during the DSLR revolution. In 2009 a lot of production companies were still pushing Sony XD cameras, and saying "little still cameras" were a gimmick....
The post Video Production Has Changed, Let's Record With Our Phones?! appeared first on Push ROI.
I started in video production during the DSLR revolution. In 2009 a lot of production companies were still pushing Sony XD cameras, and saying "little still cameras" were a gimmick. I remember the looks of shock when I used a Canon 60D and a $99 50mm lens as a second camera along with, a much more expensive, and far lower quality "pro" camera.
By the time I was editing that video, the DSLR was the primary camera. And now about 10 years later, no one thinks it looks silly showing up to a video shoot with a DSLR.
In 2010, when the iPhone 4 came out, it was the first commercially successful smartphone with a video camera and processor that was capable of doing much. No one would shoot a real video on an iPhone, certainly they wouldn't edit on a phone… But, while it was a gimmick, some people did.
"Apple of My Eye" was a short film, more of a camera test, directed by Michael Koerbel. It was shot entirely on the iPhone 4, and edited entirely with the iMovie App, all in 48 hours. The film is only 90 seconds or so, and honestly even if directed by Stanley Kubrick 90 seconds is not likely to change the movie industry forever. But the film was solid, and it also looked very good. Not just good for a phone.
The 2012 Oscar-winning documentary Searching for Sugar Man shows a few scenes shot on an iPhone. This was out of necessity when director, Malik Bendjelloul ran out of money ran out of money.
Phone camera tech kept getting better, and in 2014, Bentley shot an ad using an iPhone 5s and an iPad air. Was it a gimmick? Yes, I say this because, unlike with DSLR's the producers could have used many cameras, that would have taken far less effort, and even been a better final product. But camera phones were capable of doing really good work.
Last year, in 2018, phones being used for hollywood and commercial videos, outside of found footage and quick, rare interviews or shooting in the most cramped of cramped spaces was still a gimmick. But undeniably, the phone cameras were good.
To promote the Google Pixel 3 Eminem "Venom" got a special music video recorded, on the Empire State Building, broadcast on Jimmy Kimmel, and largely shot using the Google Pixel 3. The Entire behind the scenes video used the Pixel 3 camera.
This brings me to the point were I now tell people, they can shoot videos with a phone camera. Will it look as good as any of the videos I used as examples? Maybe, probably not, but most people don't need that quality.
Should every brand film with a phone? Heck no! But if you are someone looking to just get started you can get by with a phone. You may have to get creative, and learn to be technical. But many classic TV shows still being broadcast today, used cameras with lower quality and inferior workflows than the phone in your pocket.
Header Image: Jimmy Kimmel Live Behind the Scenes
Mason Pelt is the founder of Push ROI, and helps brands with video production and YouTube channel management strategy.
]]> https://pushroi.com/video-production-has-changed-lets-record-with-our-phones/feed/ 0 My Friend Kelby, Why Online Bots Aren't So Simple To Spot https://pushroi.com/my-friend-kelby-why-online-bots-arent-so-simple-to-spot/ https://pushroi.com/my-friend-kelby-why-online-bots-arent-so-simple-to-spot/#respond Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:51:35 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=7674
Kelby is a real person, one I have known for years, but online she barely seems to exist. She is one of the vast majority of people, to have never...
The post My Friend Kelby, Why Online Bots Aren't So Simple To Spot appeared first on Push ROI.
Kelby is a real person, one I have known for years, but online she barely seems to exist. She is one of the vast majority of people, to have never had a personal website, tried to be YouTube famous, published a press release, or even a blog post. Her Facebook Account is set to mostly friends only, and otherwise she has, basically no online footprint.
She is on Twitter, using just her first name on an account with about 10 followers. Her account tweets very few things that are personally identifiable. Honestly, she seemingly exist to retweet Jeffree Star and Shane Dawson. Outside of a couple of photos of her child, Kelby looks indistinguishable from the common idea of a bot. While tools like Botometer do label Kelby a human, many people wouldn't instantly assume her humanity.
Fake Accounts Are Hard To Spot
By most metrics people look for, like having only a partial photo of her face for a profile pic, having a disproportionately high number of retweets to original tweets, few followers and interactions with just a small handful of accounts, she looks fake. She's not. She's part of, if not the majority on twitter, at least a healthy normal subset of users. I've been shocked by the number of times I've had real conversations with accounts that set off the same "this is a bot" alarm bells as Kelby.
Another friend of mine, Gary Leland has been on the internet since there was an internet. Leland started an ecommerce site back in '96. If it wasn't the first online store, it was one of them. Since that time he's published thousands of hours of video and audio, published at least 15 e-books, and thousands of blog posts on hundreds of websites.
Leland has largely avoided the kind of mainstream media circles that social networks try to use as benchmarks for influence and impersonation risk. He has no shortage of mentions including some of the earliest books about Podcasting. He has the kind of online footprint that really cannot be faked.
Fake Accounts Hurt The Platforms
I have huge sympathy for the teams at social networks who must try to accommodate for both the Kelbys (last name withheld) and the Lelands. Earlier today I wrote about Twitter removing 10,112 state-backed accounts spreading propaganda. It feels important that Twitter remove these accounts, but they may be harder to spot than you think.
While I haven't sifted through the terabyte and a half of data Twitter shared. One Chinese controlled account had over 300,000 followers. It looked real, at least enough to pass the sniff test. What that account was sharing, how it was accessed, and how other accounts were coordinating with it are likely the connective thread that tipped off the team at Twitter, to it's being used maliciously.
So Expand Verification
Yesterday, before the Twitter announcement about the removal of over 10k accounts, YouTube changed its rules for verification. The new YouTube rules will seemingly unverify a lot of accounts. I argued that this was a mistake. But not for the reason that many YouTubers were angry about on Twitter.
I don't care that verification is viewed as a sort of creators reward. I think YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Tinder, and Yo moma (I couldn't help myself) should all let as many people be verified as want to submit to some kind of process. Last year I wrote that for Twitter expanding verification could slow the spread of fake news.
The connective thread between Kelby and Gary Leland is that they are both real. I've met them both, but what's more you don't need to take my word for it. They can both prove they are real, and they can do so without showing a list of mainstream media mentions. When I got verified on Twitter, I had to show my ID, and a photo of myself. Twitter used this, and a few other things for identity verification.
Stop Making "Verification" An Endorsement
Unfortunately most of these social sites insist on turning verification into a form of endorsement, by subjectively determining notoriety. I get it, Twitter was, before closing the verification requests, flooded with people wanting the badge. But couldn't Twitter or any other social network handle verification in a way similar to EV SSL certificates? EV SSL certificates (unlike DV certs) confirm the identity of the website owner, and SSL providers like Comodo process a huge number of these requests each year.
It's true that government propaganda groups would be able to create accounts the platforms would go on to verify. When you can create government issued IDs, it would be easy to game the system. But that account verification would mean less, because more people would have it. Also, despite government groups being able to fabricate "real" people, trolls, hackers, and non-state propagandist would have a much more challenging time exploiting the platform.
Header Image: "Twitter" by chriscorneschi
Mason Pelt is the Founder and a Managing Director of Push ROI. Follow him on his blog.
]]> https://pushroi.com/my-friend-kelby-why-online-bots-arent-so-simple-to-spot/feed/ 0 Google Is Pushing Cookies Harder Than A Dealer On Sesame Street https://pushroi.com/google-is-pushing-cookies-harder-than-a-dealer-on-sesame-street/ https://pushroi.com/google-is-pushing-cookies-harder-than-a-dealer-on-sesame-street/#respond Sat, 24 Aug 2019 18:49:29 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=7635
The post Google Is Pushing Cookies Harder Than A Dealer On Sesame Street appeared first on Push ROI.
So far this August Google has made two major public statements concerning cookies, the packets of data websites often place on someone's web browser for ads tracking and feature customisation. First announcing, plans for a "Privacy Sandbox" a magical privet world, that for some reason must involve cookies. And also releasing a report stating that "blocking cookies materially reduces publisher revenue. Both of these claims by Google appear somewhat reasonable on their surface, but become a bit suspicious with any real scrutiny.
Google's apparent goal of the so called privacy sandbox is to develop standards to at least partly restrict fingerprinting, but still keep cookies around, because, well.. ads targeting. A blog post by Google's Justin Schuh says:
"Technology that publishers and advertisers use to make advertising even more relevant to people is now being used far beyond its original design intent – to a point where some data practices don't match up to user expectations for privacy." This is fair, but the post goes on to say that "large scale blocking of cookies undermine people's privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting." saying that "With fingerprinting, developers have found ways to use tiny bits of information that vary between users, such as what device they have or what fonts they have installed to generate a unique identifier which can then be used to match a user across websites. Unlike cookies, users cannot clear their fingerprint, and therefore cannot control how their information is collected. We think this subverts user choice and is wrong."
While it is true that fingerprinting isn't well understood by average web users, it's laughably farcical to say that cookies improve users privacy. Writing for Freedom To Tinker security researchers Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan highlight just how disingenuous the arguments put forth by Google are. If the researchers seem less trustworthy than Google, maybe NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's belief that ad blockers do enhance your privacy will resonate with you.
It's true as Google points out advertisers want to know that advertising leads to more business. Having managed many millions of dollars in digital advertising specifically on Google it's really nice to show a report with conversion data. Due to tracking, digital ads reporting is far less labor intensive than radio, tv, and print where you have to examine sales lift in a region, and use a mix of offer codes, and tracking numbers to show success.
However, Google's claim is that without the benefits of cookies publishers, not just advertisers are harmed. Saying that revenue for publishers from users without cookies enabled on the browser is decreased by 52% on average. This is contested by another study that reports revenues for publishers are hardly impacted by the presence of user cookies.
The methodologies of the studies aren't clear enough for me to do a head to head comparison, but Google desperately needs cookies for it's ad tech. I may sound bitter when I say Google has increasingly been using technolagy to remove the job of ads managers. Nearly every update in features for Google Ads makes the automated campaign optimization better while removing some of the ability to manually optimize advertising. The result, like a camera manufacturer who removes manual settings, but improves auto focus is a better average, but fewer outlying top performers.
I do understand the concerns around fingerprinting, but cookies are a part of a digital fingerprint. I also understand the business need for ads to show results, my company is Push ROI. but my perception of Google's claims is that they are pushing cookies harder than a dealer on Sesame Street. I have to assume the reason Google has taken a substantially different stance about what leads to privacy online is because that is what benefits Google the most at this time.
]]> https://pushroi.com/google-is-pushing-cookies-harder-than-a-dealer-on-sesame-street/feed/ 0 Why eSports Needs Real Content Marketing https://pushroi.com/esports-needs-real-content-marketing/ Tue, 03 Apr 2018 01:20:50 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=6868
eSports seems to be coming of age in 2018. Overwatch league claims they beat Thursday night football ratings and Ninja (with the help of Drake) broke the largest concurrent viewer...
The post Why eSports Needs Real Content Marketing appeared first on Push ROI.
eSports seems to be coming of age in 2018. Overwatch league claims they beat Thursday night football ratings and Ninja (with the help of Drake) broke the largest concurrent viewer record on twitch.com with 626,000 viewers. This year eSports is earning a lot of hype; but is the hype keeping consumer attention?
In Dallas, Texas, we've seen massive growth in eSports. Four teams made the DFW metroplex their home base this year. But after the inaugural Overwatch League season ends, and the venture capital money runs out in a few years what will happen? Most of the marketing I've seen are "flash in the pan" spikes of exposure. Bursts of marketing success often gain attention in the short term and fail to grow a brand outside of their industry. I fear that most of these organizations will die without consistent, and authentic content.
The Dallas Fuel, our local overwatch team, put up a billboard around the corner from their office. They used it to push social media engagements with a contest on Twitter.
DALLAS LOCALS! Take a selfie in front of the @OverwatchLeague billboard and you could get a Dallas Fuel hat!
Post your photo on Twitter using the hashtag #BurnBlue and #Selfie pic.twitter.com/07NgmqaiCg
— Dallas Fuel (@DallasFuel) January 9, 2018
Looking at the hashtag on Twitter, it seems they earned a bit of momentary engagement. I'm sure they use other marketing as well, but I haven't seen much of it. Billboards, even without the added social push, still work. And, gamers are a large enough market segment for outdoor advertising to be effective. But without an ocean of content to drive people to, I'm not sure any long-term impact will come from this ad.
Content Marketing Creates Long-Term Exposure
Optic Gaming does a very good job of creating a content ocean. Putting out a variety of video content across social media from their Podcast to their weekly vlog series called "Vision". Ryan Musselman, SVP of Infinite Esports Entertainment (formerly the president of Optic Gaming), said this during a panel discussion regarding content:
"It's mission critical. It's a part of their DNA, and it has to be from day 1… we as an organization did not start out in eSports. We started out with content, and we did that on purpose. Because when you build a brand the audience tends to follow… So we built a content company first and then backed into eSports, and that's why we have a brand that can rival, at least on Twitter, the Dallas Cowboys."
You can watch the full video here:
Optic famously has the largest social media following in eSports, and they've built it by putting out consistent content to their audience. Building a consistent audience has attracted sponsors like Chipotle, and Brisk Ice Tea. From my perspective, it seems Optic is less focused on winning trophies & prize money, and more on partnering with sponsors that will spend millions more then any esports organization can win in a season.
Long-Term Exposure Creates Diehard Fans
Advertising when done correctly creates awareness and drives conversions. However, the diehard fans required for a sport's league most often come from long-term exposure. Advertising is an inefficient way to create long-term exposure, it's far better to use advertising to drive people to an ocean of content, and let the content create a lasting affinity.
For Coca-Cola the most recognizable global brand, it's not just advertising, but the memories of seeing, and consuming an ice cold coke that creates brand affinity. You're more likely to remember being a kid drinking a coke with a grandparent than the last commercial you watched, but seeing that commercial increases the likelihood you'll drink a coke today.
The NFL does advertise, but it's the nearly 100 years of history that create the massive brand affinity. Literal generations of memories of tuning in to games. Many have/had high school daydreams of one day playing for their favorite team. For eSports to reach the level of the NFL in a digital age (when even teams in the NFL are producing a lot of online content), it will take more than just the games in the league. It's going to take a lot of content that people want to watch to reach that level of cultural recognition.
Diehard Fans Lead To Advertisers
For eSports, advertising can drive exposure to a new audience, and content can create brand affinity. The already large audience of eSports means the focus should be on improving brand loyalty, making eSports attractive to advertisers. Because right now eSports is undervalued. Last year at VidSummit I asked Garyvee about eSports, his response:
"From a marketing standpoint, I think it's grossly underpriced attention and brands should spend a fuckload more money on esports."
On this Garry and I agree. The prescription for eSports is not only to maintain their size but grow, and become more valuable to advertisers. The only path I see for eSports to take a place among existing major sports is with content marketing.
Header Image – creative commons by steelseries
Joshua Wethington was a Managing Director of Push ROI.
]]> AdWords AI Will Auto-Generate Then Auto-Launch Fun New Ads https://pushroi.com/adwords-auto-generates-launches-ads/ Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:38:47 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=6847
In late April Google will start offering (forcing) a new tool letting artificial intelligence generate ads in your AdWords account. The really fun part; once these ad recommendations appear, you'll...
The post AdWords AI Will Auto-Generate Then Auto-Launch Fun New Ads appeared first on Push ROI.
In late April Google will start offering (forcing) a new tool letting artificial intelligence generate ads in your AdWords account. The really fun part; once these ad recommendations appear, you'll have 14 days to dismiss them before they become active by default. So, look forward to seeing text ads generated by an AI's best guess at improving your campaigns.
Granting that Google will build these new ads using information from existing ads, landing pages, site descriptions, and other relevant data it is likely the ad will be at least somewhat on target. However, the sophistication of the AI does not diminish the concern many ad managers (including our team) feel about Google automatically creating and launching ads with no human oversight.
Adwords Already Uses AI for Keyword Suggestions
AI generated lists of suggested keywords are a long time feature of Adwords. Many advertisers are accustomed to seeing notifications pop up suggesting you add a fairly huge number of mostly irrelevant keywords to your campaigns with a single click. These suggested keywords generated by AI often miss the mark, turning the time-consuming task of keyword research into a high-speed, money burning exercise. Admittedly this tool has become smarter over the years but is still a great way to quickly target a completely irrelevant audience.
At least suggested keywords require manual approval. By default with this new feature, ad managers will need to disarm the unknown AdBomb cooked up by the AdWords AI, or it could be explosive. Remember that could be good or bad, we have no idea what will happen. Not knowing how the AI comes to its conclusions, or what it's track record is gives me pause. Also, Google isn't paying for any poor choices made by it's AI, so the AdBomb joke is starting to sound better (or worse) the more I think about it.
Although it may feel like Google is springing this on the public out of nowhere, this program has been in testing since January of 2017 in one form or another. In its earliest stages, the program was called "Ads Added by AdWords," — these ads were created by humans. The study was trying to prove if additional ads could help ad groups in the majority of circumstances. Once the answer was a resounding yes, the team had to scale the program via machine learning. This lead to the program to its fully automated state that it is in today. How smart the machine has become is now the question to be answered.
How to Disable the AdBomb
Although accounts will default to automatically launching the ads every 14 days; it is possible to opt out of this feature in account settings in both the standard AdWords and from a manager account (this will opt out for all managed accounts).
Jon Norwood is a Managing Director of Push ROI.
]]> Shameless Self Promotion Turns You into The Emperor With "New Clothes" https://pushroi.com/shameless-self-promotion-turns-you-into-the-emperor-with-new-clothes/ https://pushroi.com/shameless-self-promotion-turns-you-into-the-emperor-with-new-clothes/#respond Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:37:05 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=6790
People work, buy, gimmick, and game their way to perceived authority. Buying bot engagement online, or fitness stars using fake weights on Instagram; Are not so different from hiring mourners:...
The post Shameless Self Promotion Turns You into The Emperor With "New Clothes" appeared first on Push ROI.
People work, buy, gimmick, and game their way to perceived authority. Buying bot engagement online, or fitness stars using fake weights on Instagram; Are not so different from hiring mourners: or the fake strongman acts that were a staple of old carnivals. A magician's twist on the strongman gimmick suppressed a revolt in Algeria for the Second French Empire. People can, and sometimes want, to be fooled.
Social media "stars" of today tricking the public aren't the same as Robert-Houdin tricking the Marabouts out of a revolution. But both distort reality to gain influence over others. On performers deceiving audiences, Penn Jillette put it this way.
"My friend, David Blaine, seems to feel that the audience is supposed to leave a magic performance thinking that they've witnessed something supernatural and not just a trick. Penn & Teller proudly do tricks; David might want the audience to think he's really magic."
Oh, some fools, oh, they fool themselves
Professionally, not just for performing artist or celebrities, people try to gain influence. For example, naming trade association memberships and awards to land a client. I do it; Push ROI has client testimonials and logos on our home page.
There is nothing wrong with framing one's work in the best possible way. However, it is easy to join an "everyone accepted" trade association, or win some "for sale to the highest bidder" awards and pretend these are credible. After all, most won't know the difference and those who do likely want to keep the illusion going. If few people believe something, but a majority pretend a devout faith; is that truth by consensus?
In the pursuit of influencing others, we sometimes distort reality. An A+ rating from the BBB or a chamber of commerce award are not bad things; just not the level of honor the recipients often pretend or even believe them to be.
They're not fooling me
Many agencies, including ours, are Google Partners. It's a good thing. Partners must pass several tests, manage a minimum amount of ad spend and get a reasonable performance benchmark in AdWords. Being a partner helps a little in our jobs; we have someone at Google we can contact when AdWords related problems arise, and that is nice.
Still, it sounds better than it is, and I've seen agencies exaggerate Google Partnership. Most agencies in the program are competent. However, the badge does not guarantee rockstar performance, and not having partner status isn't a sign of incompetence. Still, some agencies imply that the partner badge means they can walk on water, or even that being a Google Partner has something to do with SEO (it categorically doesn't).
You can fool others, but It's easy to fool yourself too; I can think of four honors, awards or titles I achieved because I felt they were so amazing as to be life and career changing. Sadly, none of these were more than a small resume bullet point, and pretending otherwise won't help me in the long term. Still, it is often tempting to try to inflate the value of an honor.
And I know it isn't true
A few friends and I talked about starting our own society for geniuses working to change the world. It would be Triple Nine Society meets Rotary Club. We called our plan, "the Lucille Ball growth hack" because it was overly complicated, but entertaining for a half hour. Using the address of friends employer's we'd register a domain name, and toss up a splash page, implying that a fortune 100 tech company may be behind this new organization.
We'd print very nice looking invitations and send them to well known, academics, entrepreneurs, journalists, etc. Our, oh so fancy invites would say the recipient was being "considered for membership in a new, blah, blah…" you get the idea. We'd send out 1,000 invitations in one day and see the response. We joked about even asking for CV's and IQ test results from respondents.
Once we had the first few hundred members, we'd send out press releases for the organization and have a members forum. Obviously, we'd list each member publicly on the site. Eventually, adding ourselves as members: Giving us a credible genius society and a network.
It was only a dinner conversation, we never tried any of it. But I like thinking about what could have happened. Would we end up making a real thing or just distort a lot of people's reality? Maybe no one would fall for it? I think we could have fooled many people, because they would have an emotional blind spot, wanting this secretive honor to be real. Much like the way some people believe a magician has supernatural powers or some of your friends believe crazy conspiracy theories.
Oh, I know it isn't true
In this case, even members who figured out we were bogus may not want to say anything. Undoubtedly many of them would have bragged to family, friends, and colleagues if they'd ever been fooled, even a little. The social pressure would make them want to keep up the illusion.
All the complex emotions I outlined in my thought experiment are seen in real life when a photographer creates fake photography contests or some major publication adopts a pay to play model. People do believe, or at least pretend to believe the myth is a reality. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about the distortion of reality, locked down by social pressure; As explained by Steven Pinker, (The entire video is embedded below this post).
"When the little boy said the emperor was naked, he wasn't telling anyone anything that they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor naked and on display, but he was changing the state of their knowledge nonetheless; because at that point everyone knew that everyone else knew, that everyone else knew, that everyone else knew, the emperor was naked. That changed their relationship with the Emperor allowing them to challenge him with their laughter."
Some people fall for metaphorical signs flashing "scam". People buy training classes after they see a video of a man with 14 cars in which it's fun to drive his books around. Variations of the Nigerian prince scam still work, and people join cults. But for the most part, when you by into a lie or try to warp other people's reality, you open yourself up to be mocked when someone points out the obvious.
Header Image – YouTube Screenshot Of Embedded Video
]]> https://pushroi.com/shameless-self-promotion-turns-you-into-the-emperor-with-new-clothes/feed/ 0 What Milton Friedman Taught Me About Guest Blogging https://pushroi.com/milton-friedman-taught-guest-blogging/ https://pushroi.com/milton-friedman-taught-guest-blogging/#respond Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:08:56 +0000 https://pushroi.com/?p=6472
Since I was young I've been a bit of an economics nerd, and despite Milton Friedman's evil creation (income tax withholdings) I've forgiven him and learned from his writings. Strangely,...
The post What Milton Friedman Taught Me About Guest Blogging appeared first on Push ROI.
Since I was young I've been a bit of an economics nerd, and despite Milton Friedman's evil creation (income tax withholdings) I've forgiven him and learned from his writings. Strangely, Friedman taught me more about guest blogging than any marketing guru I've met.
Years ago I came across an interview of Friedman on C-SPAN Booknotes talking about F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" the pertinent quote is
"They've [The New York Times] turned down many an op-ed piece from me which I've subsequently published in The Wall Street Journal or someplace else."
You've read that right. Nobel Laureate, National Medal of Science & Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Milton Friedman had op-eds rejected. It wasn't because his writing was bad or because he lacked the credibility. So when rejected, he submitted elsewhere.
This was eye opening because as someone with dyslexia I never thought of myself much of a writer. When my posts weren't accepted, I'd assumed it was because my writing was bad. Many, perhaps most guest posts meet rejection because the quality is lacking. This isn't always the case as Friedman clearly proves.
Like it or not, publications often have a narrative, and they don't always want content that's far outside of that purview. As Friedman put it
"They [The New York Times] have not been very favorable to these ideas [Austrian Economics] in the past."
Since this isn't a post about journalistic ethics, let's just agree editors have the right to turn down any content for any reason. And let's celebrate having more than one news source.
Quality aside, a surplus of content is another reason a publication will reject guest submissions. How many long-form in-depth reporting pieces on the same story does a news magazine need?
Applying Friedman's philosophy to guest blogging
About a year ago I set out to write a post with a single goal; publish in TechCrunch. I spent 5 hours writing a base post that contained all my primary points, resources and some of the tone of voice and styling I wanted. Next, I read several posts with similar or the same topic on TechCrunch and adapted my style to match the format to fit the publication better. I had several people proofread and review the post.
After all that, I submitted to TechCrunch via a web form. A few days later, I got an email saying my submission was accepted. You can read my post 3 nearly free growth hacks now. I'd done it, on my First try! No direct contact with anyone at TechCrunch and I was published. I thought the next time would be easy too.
A few months later I wrote a post about user testing following the same process. I got expert feedback and had several people edit my 'lysdexic blurn typos' before I submitted. Two weeks later I got a rejection.
Keep trying after rejection
Even with the rejection, I felt the post was good; It wasn't perfect. I used passive voice (As did George Orwell even when warning people not to use passive voice in the Politics and the English Language essay) and lacked a solid conclusion, but it was a strong starting point, and I didn't know what to change. So I followed Friedman's lead and submitted to another publication I love; VentureBeat. I got an email a few days later from the Op-ed editor Mo Marshall (who is a rockstar BTW).
She sent feedback; I tried to make the changes she asked for, and… turned what I felt was a good article into a piece of pretentious garbage. I'd completely lost my voice and because Marshall is a great editor; She went back to the first version and sent me half a dozen changes (including removal of my beloved passive voice), and the post ran as Stop overthinking UX and try the coffee shop test.
The changes weren't major, but they were significant. And the rejection from TechCrunch resulted in another of my favorite industry news outlets running my article. Thank you, Milton!
A method to write & pitch guest posts
Because I'm dyslexic, writing is time-consuming and a bit painful. If no one is paying me and I'm not very passionate about a topic, it's unlikely I'll write an article. Currently, I don't have any publications paying me regularly for content, so I write as the spirit moves about things I feel strongly. Yes, I often have the marketing goal of building authority, but that's not the main reason I write.
When I care enough to write, I'll create what I call a base post as described above. The base post contains my primary points, any solid one-liners I can think of, resource links as needed and when beneficial quotes from experts I know or someone from HARO.
Make a list of publications
If I don't have an outlet in mind for what I've written, I research using Google News to find media outlets that may want my content. I then see if 1. They have a preferred contact method for unsolicited manuscripts or 2. If I know someone who can introduce me to an editor.
Once I have a list of three publications that could run my article; I determine where I'd most like to submit. I base preference on distribution, quality of editorial, email lists and social presence, if they pay writers, how much contact I can have with the editors if I like the website and too many subjective reasons to name.
Edit the article to the publication's style
With the first target in mind, I edit the post to the publication's style and tone of voice (if they have one). Some outlets are edgier than others. I also try to add links to other posts on that website within my submission.
Semi-final draft complete, I ask other humans for feedback. Spelling and grammar, story flow and sometimes significant changes for accuracy. Once I have an article I think is worth publishing. I'll send a message to the publication using their preferred format for a pitch.
If I'm accepted, or an editor wants to work with me, fantastic! If not, I re-edit and submit to the Wall Street Je…err whatever my version would be in this context.
All I can do is write to the best of my ability and submit in the most relevant way possible. Not everything I write is worth publishing, but this method of writing, editing, and pitching is one that's worked for me, a renowned economist and maybe you.
Header Image – appears to be creative commons
Mason Pelt is the Founder and a Managing Director of Push ROI. Follow him on his blog. Feel free to checkout the services offered by Push ROI, inc. Including YouTube Channel Management
]]> https://pushroi.com/milton-friedman-taught-guest-blogging/feed/ 0


Congratulations to Graham Mills and Adrian Grocott for completing the 4 day comprehensive training course and passing the exam to become 'Trained Trainers' in the IPC610 workmanship standard for PCB assembly.
Over the next few months all Microtech staff will be trained in IPC610 to levels appropriate for their job role.
We have just installed Europlacers latest Pick and Place machine, the iineo 1. This can place components with an accuracy of +/- 35um allowing the placement of components as small as 0.4mm x 0.2mm (01005 components). The machine can place 14,000 components per hour (IPC placement rate of 11,580 c/h). The many advantages of this machine ensure that Microtech is "Ready for tomorrows challenges".


A lot of people in our industry are concerned about REACH. Here is a brief overview.
REACH is an abbreviation of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. It is enforced under Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 and its amendments. REACH is applicable to the European Community and is concerned with the safe use of chemicals, aiming to protect human health and the environment through the identification of the properties of chemical substances.
Under REACH , manufacturers and importers are required to register information onto a database of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) regarding the substances that are manufactured within the European Community or imported from outside it. Information on chemical substances held on this database can be accessed via the internet. manufacturers and importers much register details on chemical and physical properties, toxicity and ecotoxicity data, environmental fate and pathways plus the amounts produced or imported per annum.
The dates for registration of information vary with the properties of the substances and quantities produced. There is a general obligation for manufacturers and importers of substances of substances to submit a registration to the ECHA for each substance manufactured or imported in quantities of 1 tonne or above per annum.
The information must be supplied to ECHA in a registration dossier as specified by the REACH regulation.
Another major aim of REACH is to ensure communication in the supply chain, from the manufacturer to the end-user (down-stream user or distributor). Information is needed to use chemicals safely including health, safety and environmental properties, risks and risk management measures which is required to be passed up and down the supply chain. The primary tool for supply of this information is in the form of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
For further information on REACH we recommend consulting the Health and Safety Executive website or the European Chemicals Agency. This information was correct at the time of writing. Please note we cannot be held responsible for accuracy.


text:
Faxes & Petitions Resources & Research Voter Information
About LCA Issues Privacy Policy
News & Archives Schedule an Interview
Advancing Liberty Through Action
Stop the Censorship of Truth!
Big Tech corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Squarespace have been censoring conservative viewpoints for years, but right now radicals are a runaway train bearing down on your freedom of speech.
Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon CEOs were recently forced to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives. Now is our chance to hold Big Tech accountable for the shocking and horrific censorship of America's Frontline Doctors and the major studies and medical information they tried to give the American people.
They are silencing emergency medical doctors on the front lines treating COVID-19 and blocking them from spreading information during a pandemic.
They are closing the bank accounts of organizations offering the hope of the gospel to people involved in LGBT behavior.
They are shutting down private organizations' websites.
They are shadow removing people from Facebook pages that individuals have "liked" and are blocking content from newsfeeds.
And radicals have gotten away with it for far too long!
Now is the time to rise up and demand that the Federal Communications Commission and Congress protect our First Amendment freedoms online. If we stay silent, these radicals will continue their crusade to delete and eliminate all conservative perspectives ... and anyone that voices them.
Now is the time to apply the principles guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers to the 21st century. Send your powerful fax to Congress and the FCC today!
Fax the House and Senate Leadership and the FDA (8 faxes) for just $5!
Fax the previous option plus the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FCC (21 faxes) for just $19!
Fax the previous options plus the House Judiciary Committee and the Federal Trade Commission Health Care Division for just $45!
Fax the the previous options plus the remaining Republicans in the House and Senate for $75!
Your Fax will state:
To: Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Senate and House Leadership
I urge you to hold Google, Facebook, Twitter, Squarespace and other tech companies accountable. Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, lied to Congress when he stated his company did not "manually intervene" on search results. Evidence now shows this to be false. These companies are only allowing their personal viewpoints to be expressed and censoring and silencing the free speech of Americans all across our nation.
These Big Tech companies are claiming they are "private companies" and can censor the viewpoints of other citizens, while they also claim to be a "public utility" and immune to lawsuits for the messages they do distribute. They cannot be both if our First Amendment freedoms are to be protected.
Our First Amendment freedom of speech must be protected in the 21st century. We ask Congress to repeal Section 230, which gives legal immunity to private Internet corporations, which should be reserved only for public utility companies like phone providers. In addition, we ask the FCC to regulate and protect First Amendment freedoms.
My First Amendment freedom cannot be dependent on the whims and wishes of a tech geek and whether he/she agrees with me. We respectfully urge you to act now to secure our constitutional freedoms in the face of unrestrained bias in tech corporations.
(City),(State)
Founded in 1986, Liberty Counsel Action is a law and policy education, training and advocacy organization. From offices in Washington, DC and Orlando, Florida, LCA advances religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, the family, responsible government, national security, and support for Israel at the federal, state, and local levels. All contributions are made with the understanding that this ministry has complete discretion and control over use of donated funds. If the project described is fully funded, delayed or canceled, excess funds will be committed to the need most closely identified with the purpose for which the funds were originally given. Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Donations are not tax deductible. Privacy Policy.
Liberty Counsel Action
Liberty@LCAction.org
©Copyright 2010 - present. All Rights Reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl