The Agency Record Blog

How the Internet is ruining the business of specialized skills.

“Google it.” We’ve all said and done it. In fact, in May 2011, Google had over 1 billion unique visitors. Google is such a major part of our culture that it has recently been added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a transitive verb. (Note: I had to use the Merriam-Webster dictionary shortly after this to look up transitive verb)

Because we have the ability to Google any information at anytime on our PCs, laptops, smart phones, and tablets we can virtually obtain any knowledge we desire. Savvy Internet users have been taking advantage of this for years in order to learn anything from the ingredients in hollandaise sauce to step-by-step instructions on how to knit. This is an incredibly powerful tool that creates a sense of cohesion throughout the world as well as allows us to broaden our sense of understanding on a variety of topics, no matter how mundane. But this powerful tool is not without its concerns…

Google creates a “jack of all trades,” out of every person, and this can throw a wrench into the plans of many small business owners. Just the other day my husband Googled instructions on how to replace a tail light in our foreign car to avoid going to the auto mechanic. Across the globe, Google users are finding out how to bypass specialty service businesses in order to save money. From fixing a computer at home to avoid a repair fee to booking a vacation online to negate the need for a travel agent, specialty shops everywhere are taking a hit.

Having the power to Google allows us a virtual world that should be milked for every drop of information. Specialty shops and small businesses may have taken a hit, but the advent of the Internet causes so many facets of business to evolve. It will be interesting (and telling) to discover how specialty service shops and businesses deal with ongoing trend of the do-it-yourselfer.

In this final part of my conversation with Taylor Hill, we discuss the ROI of SEO, and what type of questions companies should ask when shopping for SEO services.

Jonathan Sanders: Why do you think people or companies have a tendency to cut costs in web/SEO work?

Taylor Hill: It’s human nature to not pursue what you don’t understand.  Most people understand getting traffic, but they don’t get the work that has to be done or understand why it’s not an instant solution. SEO is no different then any other part of a business plan, it takes work and commitment to the process to see the change.  Companies will spend big bucks to get 1 to 2% ROI (return on investment) with traditional marketing because they know what to expect and can count on the return pretty much every time.  With the Internet, knowing search engines change the algorithms every time you turn around, you can be on top today (on the front page of an organic search) and 10 pages into the search tomorrow.  I think this frustrates many companies and they either toughen up and pay for SEO, pay to learn it or they will eventually give up.

JS: What are some suggestions you have for people or companies who are about to look into SEO? What questions do they need to ask?

TH: Well, the very first question I would ask is this; can you tell me if anyone is looking for what I do?  You would be amazed at how many people are trying to get business from areas that have little or no potential in the first place.  If people aren’t looking for you or what you do, you are in trouble and no matter how much money you sink into the site it will be an uphill battle.  Now I say this as a general rule as there are times when something brand new comes along and it breaks through.

I can also tell you what not to ask; is there a guarantee that this will put me on the front page?  I could truthfully answer this question both yes and no.  I can get people on the front page of Google in no time at all for keywords and phrases that will bring in some (little or no) traffic.  I’ve actually seen SEO companies market phrases that they can get you to the front page.  The problem with this is it’s smoke and mirrors.  These are very low search phrases.  You can read enough free SEO forums to do that yourself because it’s relatively easy.  However, companies want returns on investment (ROI).  If a company pays thousands and all they get are a couple of front page listings for a couple of long tail phrases, they will be disappointed.  When you go for valued (high searched) keywords, normally, you are in a battle for position and it takes a lot of effort and time to get on the front page of an organic search.  That translates into money or time or both, if you learn SEO yourself.  Because it’s a battle, there are no guarantees for the main keywords and phrases.  And that’s before you add in the unknown, which is the algorithm changes from the search engines. There is no way anyone can really give a guarantee for that.

What I believe to be the most valued question that every company or individual should ask is: do you understand ROI and if so, can you show me what SEO can do for my company’s ROI?  If a company is not on the Internet to boost their ROI, why are are they spending money here?  The first thing I would want to see from a SEO person or company is an analysis of my business on the web.  A projection of sorts showing me what the potential is for my business model, whether that be ecommerce, leads or simply branding.  You show me potential (or lack thereof) so I can make a good decision and I’ll always remember you!  On my end, if you remember me as the guy who either saved you money by telling you it was a bad idea or helped you make money by showing you the potential; I’m either working for you now or will be soon.

I was speaking with a friend the other day, and an interesting question came up: how does someone get started in SEO/SEM (Search Engine Optimization/Search Engine Marketing)? I figured the best person to ask would be our very own SEO guru, Taylor Hill. If you are familiar with Taylor, you will know that he is a man of many interests and talents. Taylor recently sat down with me to answer some questions about SEO.

Jonathan Sanders: How did you get started? Was it necessity or interest?

Taylor Hill: I created a website for a business I was in and paid a lot of money for the template to build the site.  There was some SEO associated with the site and when I got started doing the things that were recommended, I saw a little movement but not much.  It was after that experience I thought there has to be something else because I see where other’s are getting on the front page of Google.  It was after that thought that I jumped down the rabbit hole.

JS: What are common misunderstandings about SEO work?

TH: I think the most common misunderstanding still today is that if you build a pretty, expensive website, people will eventually find you.  It’s not that you shouldn’t build a website, but you will need to either learn or find a good SEO person or company to help build it (or modify it, if already built) to make sure it has the elements to get picked up by the search engine spiders on the site itself.  This is called on-page SEO.  There is a lot of off-page work that will need to be done, but if the on-page work is not correct, it doesn’t matter what you do off page.  The other thing I would say people should know, if they are paying attention, is your site will need good original content.  If you don’t want to create it or pay someone to create it… well, it will sit there looking pretty.

JS: Why do companies need SEO?

TH: That’s easy – traffic.  The Internet is no different than a brick and mortar store, location is key.  The location is the front page of a search engine after someone does an organic search.  The goal is the front page of Google since it’s the dominant search engine today.

I have more with Taylor in my next post. Stay tuned!

I’m so puzzled by Google+. I understand the value of having a social media community that’s automatically plugged into the largest search engine in the world. Users’ content will be completely searchable/findable between Google and Google+, and that’s a major asset for online marketers, web developers, and businesses. It’s also incredible that when using the mobile application for Google+ any images you take with your smart phone will automatically be uploaded to Google+ so you can share them easily.

One of the most revered assets of Google+ is the application of circles. Now, instead of posting pictures, status updates, and articles to ALL your followers, you can organize followers into categories and share information only with specific circles (friends, family, etc). If you have a work related article to promote, share it exclusively with your clients. Similarly, if you’ve uploaded a picture of your wild bachelor weekend, you can share it with the circle holding your friends’ profiles so your co-workers and family members won’t see it.

This new feature does make social sharing more private for those who are worried about sharing too much with the wrong people. On the other hand, if you’re worried about what certain people will think about what you share, do you have any business sharing it in the first place? In other words, if you’re worried about who is reading what you’re sharing, you’re not practicing safe sharing.

Google+ makes safe sharing possible, but it negates a powerful piece of social etiquette. If you’re not comfortable with everyone reading what you’re sharing, then you probably shouldn’t share it. I foresee millions of Google+ mishaps where the wrong information is shared with the wrong circles. Is this the worst thing in the world? No. But by separating social circles, Google is allowing irresponsible sharing to happen all across it’s social community.

Google+ is taking the social world by storm, and it will be interesting to see where the road leads. Despite the ability to share with certain people, I hope the networking world continues to leave its social doors open.

News flash! If you were relying on Yelp, Angie’s List and InsiderPages to get extra reviews on your Google Place pages, you won’t be anymore. Google, under a torrent of criticism, has stopped scrapping those sites’ reviews. 3rd party sites have long complained that Google was using their content, or content generated on their sites, to boost it’s own review service, Google Places. Yelp has been particularly vocal with their displeasure.

This has created a bit of a quandary for small business owners that benefited from having reviews of their businesses aggregated in one place. Now, if you go to a company’s Place Page, it might look a little bare. Only reviews from registered Google users will appear there.

The winners in this scenario are clearly the 3rd party sites. Google will no longer be able to piggyback off of their hard work to bolster it’s own review site. Plus, I think Google will really have to improve their user review process. The losers are users of Google’s search. It will be a bit more time consuming to do research on the companies they are looking into. I don’t think Google is affected in any particularly large way. Their place page results are still going to appear at the top of the SERP’s (Search Engine Results Pages).

What does this mean for business owners? It means that they are going to have to send their satisfied customers to multiple places to post their reviews. I don’t think this is a bad thing, though. For the time being, more people are engaging sites like Yelp and Angie’s List. However, do not ignore Google Places. Not only does it appear at the top of the SERP’s, but it is also gaining traction in the mobile app world. In other words, if you diversify your online presence, you won’t have anything to worry about.

I’m back with part 2 of my conversation with Carter Harkins. Here we talk more about what a client should think about with their video, and how the different video formats work both online and with mobile technologies.

Jonathan Sanders: What are considerations potential clients must take into account when thinking about adding a/v to their website?

Carter Harkins: Audio and video are sometimes viewed as being expensive, but the initial costs will provide many years of continued value for the business that uses them. In order to make the most of an online video strategy, I like to help my clients think about offline ways the same content could be used, or to see if there is a strategy that makes sense for purposing the same content across multiple marketing channels and projects.  This way of thinking helps to unify the brand message, and keeps costs considerably lower while increasing opportunities for exposure across many additional mediums.  It’s a large commitment to deploy video on a web site, but the returns have been huge for several of our clients.

More than just offering video production services, we are content strategists.  It’s about the process of evaluating the core activities of a business, and devising a plan to put video to work in roles such as making more sales, answering more customer questions, and telling powerfully motivating stories, among other things.

JS: Are there any formats you prefer to work with (.mov, .wmv, .flv, etc.)? What formats do you find to be more reliable?

CH: I think I let the answer to that slip out in a previous question, but yes, .flv is still my format of choice for web-browser-destined video. I use .mov and .wmv for other purposes, but usually more as an intermediate format for client approval or personal offline use.

This is probably getting a bit geeky now, but since it taps into your previous question about the future of Flash, I must say I am thrilled that Adobe has baked in the H.264 codec for HD quality video at super-low file sizes. I have been amazed at how good some of these large-format videos appear at full resolution, and it really does show that Adobe gets it, and is responding to the changes in its marketplace.

JS: To enable web video we’ve tried faster connections and more compressed video. Now that more services (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon.com, etc.) are streaming long format video, what do you think needs to be done to improve the experience? Do you think we need an upgrade in network infrastructure or more innovative compression techniques?

CH: Perhaps a little of both.  Streaming technologies become much more important for long-format video, so that viewers can jump around quickly to different sections of the linear timeline without having to download the entire file first.  Again, Flash excels here, in my opinion.

There are certainly a lot of companies, both established and startups alike, that are putting their best minds to work on the issues of content delivery.  As “out of the box” TV moves more and more into the mainstream of viewing habits, I anticipate that we’ll start to see motherboards with dedicated HD video chipsets. This would keep the decode/encode load off the main processor, and provide a better viewing experience for most users without sophisticated and expensive after-market video cards. It would also mean that smaller, highly compressed HD video files would be possible for real-time viewing at full resolution without the typical “hiccups” encountered on playback of certain compression schemas, including Flash in the browser.

JS: How have mobile technologies affected audio/video development for the web?

CH: It’s been a pretty profound shift.  We now sometimes maintain several file versions of the same video content, in order to deliver the best experience to each viewer, depending on their device (Android, iOS, WindowsMobile, etc.).  Social video sites are also doing this automatically with uploaded videos now.  The mobile revolution we see unfolding is making it easier to watch video anywhere, anytime, but for content producers, it has made publishing for all these new devices a lot more strategic and labor-intensive. Safeguarding a unified viewing experience across so many devices, screen sizes and resolutions is a myth.  We just stay with industry best practices for each device right now.

Having said that, I am hopeful about the future of mobile internet devices.  When I put my entrepreneur/innovator hat on, I see a lot of opportunity right now.  Seriously, this is a good time to be building apps in the mobile video space.  Know any investors that I should be friends with?

We spend a lot of time writing about our individual levels and areas of expertise, but this time, I wanted Carter Harkins to express himself through a series of questions and answers. He has a pretty varied background, and it was a lot of fun to pick his brain. Here is part 1 of my interview with him.

Jonathan Sanders: How did you get started providing Audio/Video services for the web?

Carter Harkins: I am a musician from way back, and I play keyboard/synthesizer, so I have always been pretty connected to the technical side of the arts. When the world wide web came along in the 90’s, I immediately got interested in how computers could be used to musically collaborate across distances. These days, it’s no big deal for a bass player to lay down his part in Chicago one day, and put it on the web for the saxophone player in London to add his part. But back then it was The Holy Grail.

Video came later as I started experimenting with digital imagery as part of marketing musicians I worked with.  And at some point, I realized that I had the skills to be able to handle the audiovisual web for clients, so I just hung out my shingle and opened for business. It’s been a lot of fun, from the early days until now, growing into a full-service marketing firm people are taking seriously.

JS: Are there any common misconceptions about how audio/video works online?

CH: There are a LOT of small technical things that, if not understood properly, can add up to something that sounds or looks awful.  I’ve done a lot of podcasting for clients, and the number one misconception is that the audiences are all listening on iPods. They aren’t. They listen in front of their computers on those dinky little monitor-mounted speakers. So engineering the sound for that environment means that my recordings always sound better to people.

In video there are still way too many codecs and formats for the web, and people tend to only publish their video for the platform they own (PC or MAC), ignoring the other platform entirely. If the video is going to be seen on the web, I go with Flash video, because it is completely cross-platform, and the only format that in natively installed on about 98% of all computers worldwide.  Mobile content is another story these days, so lately we are encoding videos in multiple formats, aimed at and optimized for the devices that are popular today.

But perhaps the biggest misconception about a/v content on the web is that you can do whatever you want to with it. Copyright laws have NOT kept up with the internet explosion, and technology makes it super-easy to rip music and download videos, but just because you can do those things so easily doesn’t mean that it’s legal.

JS: There are a lot of web video standards now, with H.264 being a particularly strong competitor to Flash. Nonetheless, Flash is still the most used format for video on the web. Where do you see Adobe taking it?

CH: Flash now utilizes the “H-dot” standard natively, so there’s no real competition there any longer.  What has always made the Flash environment more interesting to me than other ways of doing video is how it can use video in a rich, data-driven way to deliver user experiences that are built around visual content.  In these applications, video is just the content that fuels other interactions.  HTML5 is starting to touch on these tools now as well, but Flash has been doing it for years.

We have begun to see the full version of Flash supported on phones, tablets and handheld devices this year. That opens up an entirely new playground of fun to be had. Even with Apple and the Flashless iPad and iPhone exploding in popularity, and HTML5 standards making many of the features of Flash less attractive in the browser, Adobe doesn’t seem to be resting on the fact that it has always had market dominance. Things change fast in the online space, so Adobe is still pushing the envelope. It’s still a strong contender for multimedia applications.

—

Stay tuned for more of this interview.