I started doing this blog as an outlet for sharing my experiences, best practices, and things I’ve learned working in the field of electronic communications and digital strategy. The one thing that I didn’t realize, each time I sat down to write a post, was just how much my education in and feelings on leadership would play in the creation of the posts, particularly with regard to publically taking a position in my personal life that might have direct repercussions to my professional life.

One such item that I’ve come to terms with is my belief in marketing as a way of developing long-term awareness rather than a tool for short-term business growth. Some folks might consider this two sides of the same coin, but I don’t. For those people focused on short-term metrics and the bottom-line it’s difficult to imagine that marketing *only* creates an awareness. However, this makes me think of an old adage: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Some marketers prefer the alternative ending: You can lead a horse to water, and when marketed well, the horse will drink, and drink, and drink. I don’t believe this.

I believe marketing creates awareness. If the universe wants what you’re marketing then awareness will reel those folks in. If the product or service provides lasting value then the product/service will retain them.

Too often marketing or the creation of awarness around a product/service is viewed in the short-term. Without immediate results the marketing is considered a failure, and with great short-term conversion and sales the marketing is considered a success. This makes pretty flimsy criteria for determing success or failure, but to many folks things are just that black and white; for these folks, sadly, reality doesn’t coincide.

Marketing needs to stay focused on the long-term. Creating awarness, opening and changing people’s minds is an extremely slow process. I would argue that there’s no shortcut, and it’s something that an organization must take their time with.

Site Pro News is a great resource, and one that I look at daily. Late last week, I came across a great story on linking and SEO, two things that confuse a lot of folks. So in an attempt to provide value to readers of this blog, as a digital concierge, of sorts, I wanted to add a link to this site. The story is called Links 101 – Puritans, The Puerile & The Pragmatic by Ben Kemp, who also maintains his own blog called The SEO Guy, and as far as I can tell, this is the most brief and definitive discussion on the place of links and SEO I’ve come across. I’ve wanted to take the time to discuss these same things, but when I read Ben’s article, I decided why should I reinvent the wheel, I’ll just repost this article. I highly recommend that anybody interested in linking and SEO, or for those just confused by the whole things, read this story.

There’s an interesting post here, called The Web Will Be the Death of Google. This is a good article that ties into all the press that Bing and it’s attempt at knocking Google off the top of the search mountain is getting. The thing that’s easy to forget is Google did next to no marketing for their search (interesting Salon article from 1999 that touches on this a bit, as well as a 1998 Cnet article here). I know for me, back in 1999 or 2000, numerous people recommended that I use Google, as I had been a big user of Yahoo! for everything. Eventually, Google became the search tool of choice, not just for me, but for a lot of folks. Was it because it worked well? Was it because it was lean and uncluttered? Was it because it was quick? Honestly, it’s probably some combination, but I know that value that Google offered came to me through word-of-mouth, and when I tried the tool, it delivered as promised. It was no frills, just a simple tool that worked well.

Again, Google did very little marketing; they put something out there that worked, and people came to it. Clearly, they knew what people wanted, and how to add value. This is a piece that Microsoft has never figured out. I’m not sure if it’s just been a case of willful ignorance, or just customer indifference because their OS monopoly made them a required player. However, either way I would say to serve is a privilege, and if your tool is chosen, then it’s bonus and bonus! Create the tool of choice, and cherish the privilege of service.

So as many folks sound the Google death knell, I say Google will die only once they’ve decided that they don’t want to serve the customer with imaginative and innovative ideas. Anyone, who saw the preview of Google Wave, last week, knows that they’re clearly not there yet. Yahoo! might be there, MySpace might be there, and there are others, but then there are folks like Twitter, and Facebook who keep trying to develop innovative tools to serve the customer.

The fact is any company that stops thinking about, or doesn’t consider their, customer is going to go out of business; whether they’re selling Web services or hot dogs… I only have to look at my home of Detroit to know this is true.

Read an interesting survey today that kind of confirmed some of my suspicions, at least preliminarily. You can read it here. The gist of the survey is that people are using social networking to chat with and build networks of friends and colleagues, but not buy stuff. That makes sense to me. I’ve always thought that the social media piece, as it pertained to growing business or selling products, seemed kind of questionable, at least and unproven at best.

I come to this opinion first and foremost as a user. I like to get my hands on stuff that I hear my friends talking about, and that has influenced a lot of purchases over the years, but there’s a higher likelihood that I’ll read about something, hear a review on NPR, or just generally pick up something that I heard about through word-of-mouth. I’d love to get other folks opinions on this, as the monetization of these services and the possibility of growing business through social media is getting a lot of press these days.

This morning I was reading Seth Godin’s blog, catching up on items in my reader, and came across the post: “What kind of open are you looking for?” Basically, this is an explanation of some of the various flavors of what it means to be open. I refer to this a lot when talking about electronic communications and the Web, specifically open source technologies, or the LAMP flavor of Web, but also the broader context of egalitarian nature of the Web, so I thought it might be helpful to others to see some other examples of the open philosophy.

I’m actually writing this post out of sequence. I just composed a post based on an article I read at Seth Godin’s blog, here, but I intend to publish this one first, and then follow up with the initital post that I wrote. I’m doing this because writing the initial post, Open, et al… actually got me thinking about what it means to be open. I’ve referred to open source, or the open, egalitarian nature of the Web here, and elsewhere many times over the last decade (yikes, time flies!) and it’s always been a bit of an abstract concept. Tech and Web folks could get the gist of what it mean to use open source software, like Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP (LAMP) and others, but when referring to the philosophical nature of open on the Web, as a communications platform, many folks just kind of gave me a funny look. So I started to do some research on the philosophical foundation of open source, with the hope that I find some information that pointed to the open nature of the Web.

Most of the information that I found pointed to open source software, doing a search of open source philosophy on the Web via Google, this wasn’t surprising. However, after some digging, I found this page, Philosophical Tenets of Open Source, and close to the bottom of the page I found what I was looking for, I’ve taken this bit of text from the page:

Open Source Is a Gift Economy

To understand open source, it helps to make a distinction between a commodity economy, to which we are accustomed in a capitalist society, and a gift economy. In a gift economy, gifts are exchanged, forming a bond based on mutual obligation: In the simplest form of gift exchange, when one person gives a gift to another, the receiver becomes obligated to the giver, but not in a purely mercenary way–rather, the recipient becomes very much like a member of the giver’s family where mutual obligations are many, varied, and long lasting. A person may give a gift with the realistic expectation that someday a gift of equal or greater use value will be received or that the recipient will pass on a further gift. In an open-source project, the gift of source code is reciprocated by suggestions, bug reports, debugging, hard work, praise, and more source code.

The commodity economy depends on scarcity. Its most famous law is that
of “diminishing returns,” whose working requires a fixed supply. Scarcity of
material or scarcity of competitors creates high profit margins. It works through
competition.

The gift economy is an economy of abundance–the gifts exchanged are inexhaustible. Gift economies are embedded within noneconomic institutions such as kinship, marriage, hospitality, artistic patronage, and ritual friendship. A healthy Western family operates on a gift economy. In an open-source project, the status and reputation of individuals depend on the quality of the gifts they contribute.

The distinction really is that of the gift vs. commodity economy. It’s funny because as I write this I remember what it was that attracted me to the Web. I was a musician/composer, and I was working on a recording. After having played guitar for years, being in bands, playing shows, and trying to sell music at venues, I saw that the Web had the power to change everything for me as a working artist — the playing field had been leveled. On the Web, in 1999, Mp3.com had just launched, and it was skies the limit for artists to get out their, hang a virtual shingle, and let the world know about their work. However, it wasn’t about huckstering your product and bombarding folks with spam to inform them about your work (though there was some of that); rather there was an openness that permeated throughout this new platform. There were new channels for sharing what you were doing, as well as for folks, from all the over the world, to share with you. I’m sure at some point I’ll go into this story in greater detail, but for now, suffice it to say that the openness of the Web brought me in, and it was the openness and the economy of abundance on the Web that made me want to stick around, even forgoing my musical ambitions to see what a Web-centric world could look like. More to come, on what it mens to be open…

Just because you presented the better solution, doesn’t mean that the client will always take that route. Somehow, this defies good sense, but on the other hand, people are not always using good sense when they make decisions. There’s an emotional piece that equally defies good sense, and there’s nothing related to good sense as far as feelings are concerned, only what is and the hope that one will learn something from the experience of those emotions. Still, though, in the service of the client, you have to research and present the best option for them, and hope that there will be an intersection of what the client wants, what the client needs, and what the best solution is.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, as author Robert Pirsig put it, had little to do with Zen Buddhism, and in the early 1970s, when the book was published that might have been true. However, in the nearly four decades that have passed a new definition of Zen emerged. While Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was a discussion of what quality means, the sub-text of the book pointed at a non-controlling, and mindful approach to life and the universe where things were allowed to unfold without resistance. This is what makes me think of the title for this post, Zen and the Art of Web Strategy.

In my mind, the egalitarian nature of the Web and Web strategy has always been closely linked to Zen. With the Web, like Zen, anybody can get started any time. The barriers, if any, are few, so everyone has an equal opportunity to become a Zen or Web master. The Web, like Zen, encourages openness, because sharing isn’t a means to an end, it is the end itself, and that’s what has always driven the Web. The Web, like Zen, is allusive; when you think you’ve got it, either the next great business idea or the riddle of the universe, that’s precisely the problem and serves to illustrate that you don’t.

This is an unorthodox perspective when viewed from the traditional business paradigm because it seems as though everything is out of control, and just out of reach. To some extent it is, but that’s what makes the strategy fun, challenging, and quite a bit like a Zen koan.

I’ll use the concept of viral marketing to illustrate this point. Viral marketing is a relatively new spin on a concept that’s surely as old as time itself. Marketing 101 would say that anything that gets passed on by word-of-mouth, through email forwarding, or other comparable means of person-to-person dissemination qualifies as having gone “viral”. Viral marketing, on the other hand, is the attempt by marketers to manufacture this kind of response through the use of a variety of media, media platforms and sometimes unethical means. Sometimes it works, but mostly it’s hard to replicate.

Case in point, with regard to the Grateful Dead; it was unprecedented, and nobody could have ever foreseen that thousands of people would be trading tapes of Grateful Dead shows. In the earliest of times, we’re talking about badly reproduced and noisy recordings that were nothing more than an allusion to the music being played; nevertheless, it took off. Eventually, many live shows were put up for sale and Grateful Dead tape traders have become Web file traders who use the Web rather than the outmoded media of tape, and surely that will evolve into something else, but nobody could have bet on that, nobody!

Another great example is YouTube. One of the things that has gotten YouTube off the ground is the proliferation of clumsy and silly videos, some well-intentioned, some not so much that have made their way around the Web. YouTube has created something special and greatly diminished the barriers for getting video (and yourself) on the Web. With the amount of video that has been posted to YouTube it makes sense that some of these have taken off and gone “viral”, whether it is because of foolishness, incredibility or just because of the hilarity factor; and with 10-65,000 videos per day being posted it only increases the likelihood that something is going to go “viral”. YouTube has grown because of these “viral” videos being passed around. However, YouTube’s growth (and probably existence) would have been doubtful if it wasn’t totally open; YouTube’s parent company, Google, really, really get this.

In the examples above neither could have happened if left to traditional business paradigm means. And, anybody who you have believed that they could would have been laughed out of the room. However, in an open environment that fosters quality, and is willing to be patient, and let things unfold, naturally, anything can happen… frequently nothing happens, but while nothing is happening something is growing out of the stillness… Truly, this is Zen and the art of Web strategy… I’ll be talking about this more…

Alright, so the series seems to be taking off, see my last post here, because this morning, even with all the coffee in the world, I couldn’t shake the idea of talking about keywords.

Back in the pre-Google era SEO was wholly dependent on keywords, specifically, meta tags. Meta tags ruled; you could put them anywhere, but the head tag was where the most scrupulous Web master put them, as they would only be seen by bots, not humans; however, the system game approach was to put them EVERYWHERE… particularly, you would see them in the body of the Web page, dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of keywords that attracted the bots of the day to what may have amounted to one paragraph of content, that frequently wasn’t relevant, or had a page full of ads, or a link to an affiliate program or something… The search engine would get you to a page like this, but you would never come back, because it was a bust, a waste of time.

Enter the Google era… keywords still ruled, meta tags didn’t hurt, but wait there’s more! This is where the SEO content writer piece comes in that I talked about in the previous installment. As I said before, in the old days you just wrote and if the writing was good, and the site had a good search ranking over all (probably due to the intersection of keyword placement and keyword-infused content), it would probably get picked up, but Google changed the game; not only did you have to write good content, and have a pretty good ranking, but now a contributor to your ranking was indicated by folks who linked or referenced you, kind of an early form of the wisdom of the crowds, before the term had been established.

Keywords are still very important, but they play a slightly different role, or rather the writer has a slightly different role when it comes to the placement of the keywords in the narrative; I’ve found that there are two basic rules of thumb:

• Write good content
• Infuse good content with keywords

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, there’s no shortcut to getting a good search ranking, but these two rules greatly diminish the time it takes to get picked up. For instance, let’s look at this post. This post has numerous references to the terms: keywords, SEO and Google. These get the post half-way home as far as ranking is concerned, if someone happens to be looking for info on these items, but if people start to link to this page or reference it, Google will say, ‘hey, wait a minute, we need to give this page a higher ranking’… I can’t emphasize the two basic rules of content and keywords enough…

This is part 1 of an on-going, but not particularly linear, series on SEO.

The world of Web is steeped in jargon that leaves many entry-level common folk scratching their head first in wonder, then awe, and then irritation. SEO, or Search Engine Optimization, is one such term. There’s nothing particularly mysterious about SEO; you want folks to find your site, you need to get listed it in search engines, because that’s where people go to comb through the mass of data that is the Web. However, the problem begins when you get people gaming the system.

Case in point: A few months back I took an interest in doing some freelance music journalism on the Web. I did this in the last couple years of college (1999 – 2002ish). At the time I found that the Web was a burgeoning source of information that generally paid — bonus and bonus. So I decided that I would look into this again to exercise my writing skills and make some cash on the side. I have to tell you I was blown away to see that along with various writing requirements, you had to be versed in SEO content writing. Huh? What’s that? Of course I knew what that meant, but I was a little shocked to see that as a requirement for freelance music writers. I did a little research and found that there was a new breed of Web writer, SEO content writers (click here for a link to a quick Google search where I plugged in “SEO content writers”).

Back in the innocent days of my previous web content sojourn there was just writing, and if the site had a good presence, and the content was good, it would get picked up by search engines… that was also kind of the beginning of the Google search revolution… A different time to be sure, but this illustrated a significant change… Web content had grown up into a real and valuable thing, and this was an eye-opener for me.

So where am I going with this? Basically, in my professional life I can appreciate how one might like to fast-track their Google rankings with slick SEO styled content, but at the end of the day, that will only get people to your site, it won’t make them continue to come back. There’s no shortcut. If you want a site that brings people back time and again, there’s only tried and true way, and that’s to deliver valuable content on a continuous basis. This won’t only get people to your site; it will get people sharing the value that they’ve found on your site, which in turn could make your site more valuable than you ever imagined. More on SEO to come…