What is important in a creative Social Media Campaign?
First, you want a Social Media Strategy that centers on the right channels, besides that, you want to make sure that your content is being communicated in a way in which it goes viral in the community and beyond. So, what do we do and what do we need to keep in mind?

A Social Media Campaign should mirror your Social Media Strategy in that you should make it clear, from the start, what your want to achieve. Set your goals! And even though it would be nice to forget about it for one minute, you also need to set a budget, one that is proportional to the goals you defined beforehand. What do you want to achieve and what is it worth to you? Creative brainstorming has the tendency to quickly lose sight of the relationship between cost and benefit, which has repeatedly given us Social Media campaigns that are good, but cost much more than they could ever hope to recoup. I want to stress this point, as there are still way too many large corporations that meddle in the social web without having a real goal or any strategy whatsoever, by throwing large budgets at it without giving a moments though about the returns those campaigns generate. “Everyone's doing it, there surely must be a good reason...”.

Once you have decided on the goals for your campaign and allocated a budget, you can start to brainstorm. There are numerous brainstorming-methods, but the one thing they all have in common, is a set time frame. This is to keep you from losing yourself in your ideas and creativity. It is more effective to set a short time frame and then repeat the process the next day. Use the first brainstorming session to come up with ideas and put them on paper, then, once you have taken a break from it, question those ideas again and put them in concrete terms. The more people you bring to the table, the more opinions you will have. This means that you will never have everyone see eye to eye, which makes it important to make a decision for one idea at some point in time and not mix together multiple ideas because you are trying to reach a compromise everyone can get behind.

Below are four questions you should ask yourself to see if you idea for a campaign can work:

  • Is the campaign social?
    Is the content, the benefit or the message of your campaign so relevant, that the community considers it "share-worthy"? How are the users being motivated to share this content with their friends? How can the actual campaign be shared?


  • Can you link it to other kinds of media?
    How can you integrate your campaign into other channels and media outlets, so that you enable a cross-channel communication, to strengthen you campaign? By integrating it into your website and customer-newsletter, for example.


  • What about scalability?
    How can you communicate your campaign outside of an existing community or your customer-base, in order to increase its reach? By starting a simultaneous Facebook Ad Campaign, for example.


  • Is the campaign viable?
    Do you have the necessary technical requirements in place to realize such a campaign? Are there any legal or internal regulations that you need to be mindful of? For example, are you in accordance with the Facebook Promotion Guidelines? Are there possible risks involved with the realization of the campaign and what are ways to reduce them beforehand?


Anna-Lena Radünz - 15.05.2012 09:58


AdSense and the dollar-price-myth
It happens quite often that, either in blogs or forums, I can read about how the income through AdSense is actually quite decent, but that a lot of the profit is getting lost due to the bad exchange rate of the US-dollar. In principle it is correct that the exchange rate for the US-dollar influences the amount of the AdSense-cash-transfers, however, in a way this is, by far, less severe than what is being assumed. But lets take one step after another:

Let us assume that the German health insurer Gierig has gotten word that they can acquire a lot of new customers through Google. Gierig is therefore opening up an AdWords-account with Google in Dublin and grants them a direct debit mandate for their business-account. The pro's make up a few advertisements, which cost about 1 Euro per click and 1000 surfers click on Gierig's advertisements in the content network. At the end of the month, Google collects 1000 Euro from Gierig, converts them to US-dollars and wire-transfers them to Google USA.

I myself am the owner of one of the well known, high-grade content websites on the topic of health insurance. This is also were the advertisements from Gierig are shown and, needless to say, clicked on. Now, since AdSense – contrary to AdWords – does its calculations in US-Dollars, I will be compensated in US-Dollars. I will therefore get the 1 Euro, minus Google's commission – lets just say 25 percent – and this is then multiplied by the current exchange rate for the dollar, which gets me about 1 US-dollar. At the end of the month, my revenues are converted from US-Dollar to Euro and they will transfer me about 75 Cent for every click.

The currency risk is limited to the time between Google's collection from Gierig and their payment to me, which should normally be about a month. If the price of the Dollar will keep decreasing drastically, then the 1000 Euro that Google will collect from Gierig will be worth more Dollars and therefore I will get more, too – in US-Dollars.

Johannes Beus - 07.06.2007 15:14


Quality-Update: initial reflections, more data
VisibilityIndex
#DomainChange
1gutscheinrabatt.eu-97%
2prepaid-vergleich-online.de-93%
3tagesgeld.org-92%
4sinnvollerweise.de-87%
5onlinekredite.cc-85%
6dsl--flatrate.de-84%
7geschenk.com-83%
8kostenlose-kartenspiele.de-80%
9witze.net-80%
10gratis-tattoovorlagen.net-80%
11partnervermittlung-24.net-77%
12kreuzfahrt.de-76%
13schicksal.com-72%
14zahnweissinfo.com-70%
15malvorlagen-gratis.de-70%
16geburtstag-gedichte.com-70%
17prepaid-discounter.de-70%
18dekoration.de-69%
19exclusiv-escort.eu-69%
20stromvergleich-online.de-67%
21tagesgeld-vergleich.net-67%
22grusskarten-bestellen.de-67%
23italienisch-....de-66%
24studienreisen.de-63%
25trauersprueche.org-62%
26rezepte-und-tipps.de-62%
27gratis-gedicht.de-62%
28plz-suche.org-60%
29krankenversicherung.net-60%
30reifen-pneus-online.de-59%
31wechseln.de-56%
32chinesisches-horoskop.de-56%
33krankenkasseninfo.de-55%
34girokonto-news.de-55%
35ferienwohnungen.de-54%
36telefonanbieter-....de-53%
37online-stellenmarkt.net-52%
38alarm.de-51%
39flugbuchung.com-51%
40lottozahlen.info-51%
41einladungskarten-....de-50%
42ferienwohnungen-....de-49%
43spruch-und-wunsch.de-49%
44privaturlaub-kroatien.de-49%
45inhaltsangabe.info-48%
46dsl-flatrate-abc.de-47%
47musterhaus.net-46%
48geburtstagskarten-...de-46%
49fliesen24.com-46%
50kostenlosespiele-....com-44%

The dust has somewhat settled on the battlefield that is the Google-SERPs and even though the quality-update only brought changes to about 3 percent of all SERPs, the echo that is heard throughout the SEO-sector is distinctly larger. No wonder – with this update, Google took on those sites and methods of optimization that our craft deals in. We pushed the new data onto our Toolbox today and, looking at our server-load, it becomes apparent that there is a huge interest in analyzing and gaining more information on this subject. Complicating things further is the fact that Google, in the form of Matt Cutts, has, by now, confirmed (here and here) that, not only did they push their new quality-update onto their servers over the past couple of days, they also added a new incarnation of Panda. With this upgraded knowledge, we calculated our VisibilityIndex-lists anew, now only taking into account the changes that happened between Monday (04.23) and Wednesday (04.25) – this sharpens the image and makes the search for the cause more accessible.

While we are on the topic of causes – in their explanatory blogpost, Google already set us on two tracks to be followed: on the one hand, we have the excessive use of onpage-measures (keyword-stuffing) and on the other hand, we have clumsy purchases of links. It can be assumed that Google will likely use more than one indicator to trigger this filter, but as far as I am concerned, I am inclined to see their weighing mechanism more on the offpage- than in the onpage-sector. While you can usually get rid of onpage-mistakes rather quickly, the story changes considerably, when you talk about failings in your linkbuilding. Once a link is set up, it is often quite hard to get rid of it again; and even if you manage to do so, Google is still able to draw interesting conclusions when they look at the timeline of your actions.

When you take a closer look at the backlink-profiles for the domains to the right, you will notice that a surprisingly large number of domains concentrate strongly on “hard” money-keywords in their top-linktexts. One click on the source of these links and you are painted a picture that does not speak for a solid and natural linkbuilding in the home-market for the domain. While Panda dealt more with user signals, it seems that Google went back to relying on “concrete” SEO-criteria for this update. Be it on- or off-page, all of these are things that have been part of a cunning SEO's repertoire for years.

One afterthought on all those voices that speak up after such an update, those who saw this comming from a mile away: Sure, many of the domains in question went against Google's guidelines and Google has every right to take the necessary steps to stop these practices. One thing you should not forget though, is that there are there are numerous sectors where it would be impossible to fairly compete in the SERPs, by only using methods that are within the constraints of Google's guidelines. This makes being gleeful at a time like this uncalled for.

Johannes Beus - 26.04.2012 14:46


When the Webhoster optimizes
Today, through a posting on the Abakus-forum, I stumbled upon the discussion worthy business practices of the Domainunion AG. At first glance they are a provider like every other, though it seems that they put their focus not only on the allocation of webspace and e-mail accounts: the free “SEO service” that they are advertising on their homepage has, in Domainunion's specific realization, high risks for the ranking of their client-domains in searchengines. This is basically about two things:

Domainunion adds a link to itself on the customers homepage besides their own informations about date and time. There are parallels to the sale/purchase of links here and seeing that the link to Domainunion is split in two (“Domain” and “union AG” are two separate links) can be seen as a sign that they are aware of the effect this has. As if this would not already be enough, it seems they are only delivering this box when a searchenginecrawler comes to visit the site – classical cloaking, which is prohibited in Google's Webmaster-Guidelines for example.

This is only bested by Domainunion seemingly setting up the subdomain “registrar” for domains and then posting a default- page there. Using a simple Google search, one can get a decent overview of the scope of this method. This site then links the customers domain (it seems that this is the “free SEO service”) and at the same time they are placing a few links to Domainunion itself: Domain, Mail, Webspace and Webhosting. Though that is not audacious enough, in the sourcecode for the site you can find another link in the <noframes>-area which, currently, holds the linktext “Schutzglas (safety-glass)” which links to a third site.

Every one of these Webmaster-Guideline-violations would be grounds for a removal of the site from the searchengineindex or at least a considerable depreciation of its ranking. With this accumulation of violations I am astonished that Domainunion's actions were not noticed much earlier – sadly in this case the uncritical “default-customer” does not have enough background-knowledge which leads them to trust Domainunion's statement on their homepage: “all services are commercial free, guaranteed”

Johannes Beus - 04.11.2008 15:56


The Semantic Web by way of Rich Snippets
A few weeks ago, Google introduced a few innovations and perspectives on the future development of their searchengine at the „Searchology Event“. To me, there is one application that, at first glance, has been overshadowed by the more intuitive implementions such as the wonder wheel, even though, in my eyes, it's the most important development: “Rich Snippets” is what Google calls this opportunity to mark certain informations in the websites source code in a bid to highlight the normal Snippets, which have lost a lot of attention since the blanket introduction of Universal Search. We can see this nicely in the entry for the badly made Qype-clone Yelp.com:

Rich Snippets am Beispiel von Yelp.com

Aside from the usual information such as the Title, the URL and a text-snippet, we are also shown the average review-rating and a general price range. It should come as no surprise, when Google says, that these results have a much higher clickrate than “normal” results. At the moment, you have to be on a Whitelist to benefit from these additional clicks (which will probably either fade out in a while or get major, automatic expansions) and, which makes this the exciting part, the data in the source code has to be marked in a way, that the computer can understand it.

While up until now, the main hindrance in the advancement of the semantic web was the problem, that computers were not able to understand the content of most sites and put them in relation to each other, which will now change. For the first time, large parts of the (commercial) Internet have an interest in marking their content accordingly and I am sure that, a short time after a widespread introduction through Google, we will get a whole lot of other, far better usages of the data at hand.

Johannes Beus - 25.05.2009 18:42


Google Quality-Update: initial data
By rolling out a new algorithm-update during the night, after it had been quite on that front for a while, it is likely that Google caused quite a bit of amazement for German SEOs this morning. Additionally, they published a blogposting on the subject to shine some light on the reasoning behind this update, which is to fight webspam – of any kind whatsoever. As far as that is concerned, this update is on par with the Panda-update. While these changes should only be relevant for about 3% of all searchqueries, it can be assumed that extremely competitive searchqueries are disproportionately often the target, which will let the “perceived” rate of change be much higher in the SEO community.

To evaluate the impact on the SERPs, we ran a special analysis of your keyword-base during the morning. We were unable to make out major fluctuations in the SERPs, this time. This would mean that you will need to get used to the way things are now, until the next iteration of the underlying algorithm takes place. Here we have the winning- and losing-domains for last week, based on their VisibilityIndex score:



At first glance, it seems that Google got exactly the results they were hoping for: sites with high-quality content are returned more often; domains with a multitude of affiliate-links and -content have the tendency to show up less. We can surely expect Google to fine-tune their filters multiple times in the coming weeks and month, their line of approach, however, is set.

The next few days will likely spawn many more articles on possible causes and reasons for the changes in ranking. One thing though that should already be clear is that, in this case, Google is not just betting all their chips on one signal, but weighing and evaluating a host of different references. This makes it harder and harder go gain a ranking-advantage without having the corresponding “substance”, as far as content and user behavior are concerned, backing it up.

Additional posts on this subject (in German):

Johannes Beus - 25.04.2012 12:00


Google vs. Linktrade, part 42
The trade in links, in order to manipulate the Google resultspages, is nearly as old as the searchengine itself. While it started out as a reasonably small market segment, with a relatively small effect on the SERPs, it seems that 2007 was the year that Google decided it was a worrisome development. From then on, they have been fighting a relentless war against both linksellers and -buyers. “Google's conscience”, appearing most of the time in form of Matt Cutts threatens, pleads, intimidates – and at the end of the performance, nothing has changed and we get to see the same play again, next year.

A couple of weeks ago, that time was once again here: this year, Google decided to add more of a personal touch and addressed a very large number of Google Webmaster-Tools-Accounts with a short greeting, in which they speak of unnatural links on the webmasters' websites. They did this without getting into specifics (of course), deliberately opting to stay on the side of ominous. They encourage webmaster to get rid of those unnatural links and then ask Google nicely for reconsideration. This measure was accompanied by vague insinuations that links would be evaluated differently in the future, as well as Matt Cutts musings on the subject of overoptimisation of websites. To make sure that everybody is also aware of Google's resolve in that matter, they decided to sacrifice some pawns (appropriately enough in the leadgen-sector, which, in the future, will surely be of no interest to Google).

When I look at the reactions that this years show had within the SEO-sector, it seems that Google managed to be more successful with this approach that in the years prior. Google's deftly scattered remarks are often incorporated without thinking twice about them, links are removed and linksellers are ratted out in the Webmaster-Tools under the guise of self-protection. This, of course, leaves a lasting impression, even on those who, at the moment, do not see a cause for action: maybe there is something to these threats and I might be better off, not buying this link?

Personally, I am looking forward to seeing what play Google will put on next year.

Johannes Beus - 17.04.2012 09:18


Brockhaus gains insight
The Brockhaus publishing-house has announced that they want to offer their content through a free but advertisement-financed “encyclopedia-portal” from mid-April on. This is not a wholly voluntary development – through the strong decline of their printed media they have accrued losses in the millions during the last fiscal year. The “Brockhaus case” seems exemplary for a long list of publishing-houses. Be it in Germany or internationally, most of the publishing-houses have simply overslept the timely entrance onto the Internet. Now the editions are falling, advertising customers are noticeably switching to the Internet and the publishing-houses see their hopes dashed. I have an utter lack of understanding for how the Brockhaus publishing-house, who says it watched the Internet for the last 10 years, is only acting now – it is not as if has become easier to successfully get started within the last five years. In this case, they have left the possibility to bind users untapped for years. In the meanwhile projects like Wikipedia had the chance to become extremely strong. To get a transition to the topic of searchengine-optimization, here the comparison of which Google-resultspage Wikipedia and Brockhaus.de can usually be found on:

To be amicable, we can say that Brockhaus is optimized for users who rather click all the way through to the sixth results-page. Even if no mistakes are made in the encyclopedia's conversion, we can only hope that this decision was not too late, so that enough “modern, post-materialistic performers” (how Brockhaus calls its target audience) will find appreciation for the offer ...

Johannes Beus - 12.02.2008 11:41


Universal Search: Status Quo
In my last posting, I asked which topics you were interested in. I want to say thank you for the many replies and suggestions – some of them will need some preparation time, while others can be answered rather quickly thanks to the data available to us. One of the these, is the development or rather the status quo of the universal-search-integrations within the Google SERPs. Seeing how my last post on this subject dates back nearly a year, it is time for an update.

We will start by taking a look at the amount of SERPs with universal-search-elements, dating back to the end of 2008:


We can see how the amount has been increasing continuously and has now reached nearly 50% of all searchqueries – if, in addition, you consider how much visibility these boxes will usually get, then you will notice that there will be no way around optimizing content for the different vertical searches. Next, we have an evaluation of the different types of universal-search-integrations:


If we compare this to the beginning of last year, you will notice that the Google image search is now far more integrated. Back then, only about 10% of the universal search boxes were image related, while now, nearly 40 (!) percent of universal-search-integrations hold results from Google Images. To get a better understanding of this jump, here the progress over time of each of the different integrations, again beginning at the end of 2008:


It is clear, that the jump happened at the end of June, the beginning of Juli and that Google has kept including images at this high rate ever since. The amount of videos, maps and news shown has also gone up, while the Google shopping-search has keep at about the same level. The Google-blogsearch-integration on the other hand, has lost some ground. The overall percentages here are a little higher, since there are many keywords for which more than one integration is being shown. The following chart shows the top-10 domains that show up in the image-boxes:


Wordpress.com, which hosts the popular blogsoftware leads the way, followed by Wikimedia.org, which is the Wikipedia's multimedia-service. This diagram shows how Wordpress gained traction alongside the general jump of image-search-integrations, though since then, it has continuously kept on getting stronger:


To show this more vividly, here is a chart with some of the keywords, for which the universal-search-integrations contain pictures from Wordpress.com:


It is not hard to spot how it is not only for the lightly contested longtail (which is also in the mix) but numerous extremely traffic-strong and competitive keywords, for which the Wordpress.com-bloggers have “weaseled” their way onto the first page. So, those of you who are planning on being featured in the image-search, should try to – additionally to your own domain – post the pictures on a Wordpress.com-blog and work on making them accessible by Google. General tips on optimizing for the vertical search can be had from Martin and Andre and there will also be sessions on this topic at the upcoming Campixx.

Johannes Beus - 03.02.2010 11:42


Ranking-factors: H1 to H6 in detail
One of the biggest surprises of the “ranking-factor-evaluation” was that, while the influence of headers of first order seem to be slim to non-existent, headers from H2 to H6 have an influence on the Google-ranking. Back then, I had sadly already done the evaluation of H2 to H6 together – who could have foreseen the results – which made it impossible for me to generate graphs for every headline.

Now, after Stefan Fischerländer has tried to get to the bottom of the weighting problem through an experimental setup, I decided to send my data through the parser again. Again, as I have said for the other evaluations: the graphs are not set in stone, are not claiming to be correct and they will only be meaningful with the correct interpretation :-)

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

Incidentally, Wikipedia is not using H5 for titles but is using it to format the navigation in all of their templates. This is a nice example for the fact that extremely strong domains, which show up in the SERPs relatively often, can have a strong impact on the results, even though a comprehensive data pool is used, which will therefore make it harder to determine the source and the consequences.

Tonight, I talked about this subject a little with FridayNite and Mediadonis at SeoFM.

johannes beus - 29.05.2007 09:38


1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 101