Blogs, brands, SEO and Wikipedia
Posted Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 12:08pm in Blogging, PR General | 5 Comments
I’ve been reading quite a lot of discussion relating to the rankings Google* gives to Wikipedia entries of late. In general, if you search for a brand using Google, chances are its Wikipedia entry will be there on the first page. Take, for example, Coca-Cola. A quick search shows that the soft drink company’s entry on the human-driven encyclopaedia comes up in fourth spot. Again, pull up a search using Microsoft as a search term and it’s right up there too.
Some people aren’t exactly happy about this and have went as far as to suggest that the leading search engine has manipulated its search results to accommodate Wikipedia. And again, this discussion isn’t new. Similar comments were made almost two years ago.
But Google isn’t manipulating anything. It’s blogs and organic SEO that are driving Wikipedia entries to the top of search results. If we go back to my two examples: Coca-Cola and Microsoft and run their Wikipedia entry urls through Technorati, like so:
In both examples you’ll see a considerable number of bloggers linking to each entry. Coca-Cola and Microsoft each have 110 and 1343 blogs linking to it respectively. Not surprisingly, Microsoft has a lot more.
Now, again, if we use these same results in Technorati but switch it to show links by authority like so:
In both cases you’ll see some reasonably authoritative sites linking to each. Microsoft’s more so than Coca-Cola’s. And how does Google partly measure whether to put a webpage further up the search engines? By measuring inbound links and their authority. Thus meaning that Google has no hidden agenda - it is merely reacting to the natural and unbiased blogging ecosystem driven by the people for the people. Anyone who actually reads this blog will know that I link to Wikipedia entries all the time - probably a bit too much in fact.
So what does this mean for brands? Well, I see two mechanisms at work here - both driven by the people. First you’ve got the Thinkers (those who write the Wikipedia entries) and then you’ve got the Linkers (those who link to them from their blogs). Both co-creating content and inextricably linked but each relatively unaware of one another. From a PR point of view, these two mechanisms are the cogs that turn the motor (Google) which inturn generates these high visibility search emissions.
So effectively, it isn’t Google that the brand should be explicitly concerned about - it’s the people that are powering it.
*I know there are other search engines but in this instance I just refered to Google as to keep it simple.
How many relationships can one man have?
Posted Friday, May 25, 2007 at 4:05pm in Blogging | Leave a Comment
No, I’m talking about that, silly! I’m talking about how much attention can you give to all the contacts/friends you acquire using social networks, IMs, blogging etc. Are they all sustainable? I don’t think they are. There must come a point when you simply can’t keep up with them all and, quite frankly, I’m beginning to feel like that now.
After signing up to Facebook a month or two back (very addictive btw) I’ve made 69 friends; quite a modest number compared to some hardcore Facebookers really. And then I have a list of 40 people on my IM list and then I have all the great peeps I’ve met through blogging/social media. Plus the numerous conversations I have through email on a daily basis and then there’s the time made for the few (yes I do) friends I have in the real world. Holding down a full time job in the process don’t you know? Phew!
The rising Facebook chatter
No wonder there are so many people reluctant to sign up for Twitter, Second Life et al. Myself included. There’s too much noise going on already. Do you really need another form of communication to keep in touch? Really? Do you?
My feeling is that, in time, social networks will become more personal. What do I mean by this? Well, I think we’ll look back at the time when you added the guy on Facebook because he bought a car from you seven years ago and laugh about it. Your sphere of friends will become much more intimate and the days of people chasing popularity only will be few and far between. Think of them as online versions of the Freemasonry.
So what will it mean for brands? To be honest, if my inkling is correct, I don’t know.
Related: Social networks are becoming smaller.
technorati tags: social+networks, facebook, attention, relationships
A new PR blog
Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 4:52pm in Blogging, PR General | Leave a Comment
My friend, Ben Ayers, from ITV informs me he’s started a new PR blog, called New Media Curious. Ben says, rather jokingly, in his opening post: “Never let it be said that I don’t have a finger firmly on the pulse. I read today that blogs have officially come of age - they have been with us for ten whole years.”
If you’re looking for a blog which will discuss the impact of the internet on UK TV from a PR point of view, this is it. Looking forward to reading more insights.
Subscribed!
Space filler:
This is the winning presentation from Slide Share’s World Best Presentation Contest. In a word, brilliant.
technorati tags: ben+ayers, itv, new+media+curious
Don’t Panic Guide to Crisis Comms
Posted Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 11:17am in Blogging, Media, PR General | 5 Comments
It was a great day out yesterday at the Don’t Panic Guide to Crisis Communications organised by Andy and Nicky Wake of Don’t Panic Projects. Eleven speakers all stressing the importance of effective communication in a crisis situation and all of whom had been at the forefront of some well-known disasters and news stories.
Strangeway Riots, IRA bombings, paedophilia, Harold Shipman and the Lockerbie disaster were just a few of the examples discussed by those who were at the heart of the communication in each case.
In fact, my bit on online crisis comms and effective online reputation management seemed quite insignificant to those who had dealt with political bombings, Britain’s worst serial killer, a passenger plane crash etc etc.
Here’s my presentation:
The presentations were insightful, the company was excellent and the food was delicious. It was really good meeting Andy, Nicky and Stuart again. Plus it was great to meet Richard Bailey and Andy Green for the first time too.
Cool.
Innocent still innocent?
Posted Monday, May 14, 2007 at 9:24am in Blogging | 2 Comments
The lead story in this week’s MarketingWeek details Innocent Drinks’ partnership with fast food chain, McDonald’s. In short, kids buying Happy Meals will now have the choice to include an Innocent Smoothie along with their burger and fries; as opposed to the standard regular soft drink choices that normally come with the meal.
For now it’s a trial period only and is taking place in just two selected UK regions: the North East and Yorkshire but if it proves successful it’ll be rolled out nationwide.
Marketing Week suggests that the Innocent brand has much to lose by partnering with McDonald’s. Innocent being the ‘do no wrong’ company while McDonald’s is perceived as the big corporate giant that we owe for our big-bellied children. And I agree, they do have a lot to lose but at the same time I think it’s quite a bold move.
I first read about the trial on the Innocent blog and like many others I left a comment in disapproval. Innocent’s reasons for aligning themselves with McDonald’s are to get their healthy drinks in front of millions of British children and to sell more of its drinks which in turn makes more money. Well, they are a commercial organisation.
Initially, the cynic in me thought that it was predominantly the latter motive. But after a little consideration and time to digest it I think it’s a good move. Good but risky.
Think about it. McDonald’s is trying to clean up its act (I for one have never had a problem with McDonald’s. If you don’t want to eat somewhere you don’t have to. Simple as that) and Innocent is helping them out. At least kids will have the opportunity to drink something healthy along with their Happy Meal. It’s better than just the fizzy drinks option in my opinion.
Look at this way. Innocent are still selling the same drinks they’ve always done. Just because they’re being sold from McDonald’s doesn’t mean the fat content suddenly increases. I see it as Innocent being the superhero going in to make good.
Right on!
P.S. I may have said Innocent Drinks rock before.
technorati tags: innocent+drinks, innocent+smoothies, mcdonalds