MarketingSherpa Blog

At 5:45pm last Thursday I was in the midst of wrestling with the
next day’s editorial, when Andy Sernovitz of GasPedal Ventures
called me up out of the blue.

“They’ve caught Gaven Stubberfield!” he cried joyfully.

Notorious junk emailer Gaven Stubberfield used stolen lists to
send some of his slimy offers. I know this because two of these
lists were MarketingSherpa’s reader file and GasPedal’s list,
stolen along with at least 10 other publisher’s lists in the
summer of 2002.

(At the time Andy, I, and Ralph Wilson were the only publishers
to come clean and publicly reveal our lists had been stolen, in
hopes that other list owners would be educated about the problem
and prevention measures. You can learn more at:
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2139 )

Although I’d contacted the FBI and other law enforcement
officials back then, no one was very interested in hearing my
story – besides the NY Times, WSJ, and DM News that is.

However, the wind has definitely changed. Everyone from the
President, to state attorney generals, to local police are
gunning for junk emailers this month.

Here are some links to related stories in the press you might
find useful:

-> Gaven Stubberfield is First Computer Crimes Arrest in VA:
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=150989&nid=25

-> New York Attorney General to File Suit Against Junk Mailers
(Note: this is important for anyone mailing promotions on behalf
of third parties to read, and for anyone who runs an affiliate
program. Registration required.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/technology/18spam.html

-> Final, complete text of the CAN-SPAM Law, and a link to a
quick summary (Note – we’ll publish a special issue on this next
Tuesday for all our EmailSherpa readers, so look for it)
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

By the way – this is our last issue of Best-of Weekly for 2003.
I hope you enjoy the holidays, and thanks for your support.

, Managing Editor

At 5:45pm last Thursday I was in the midst of wrestling with the
next day’s editorial, when Andy Sernovitz of GasPedal Ventures
called me up out of the blue.

“They’ve caught Gaven Stubberfield!” he cried joyfully.

Notorious junk emailer Gaven Stubberfield used stolen lists to
send some of his slimy offers. I know this because two of these
lists were MarketingSherpa’s reader file and GasPedal’s list,
stolen along with at least 10 other publisher’s lists in the
summer of 2002.

(At the time Andy, I, and Ralph Wilson were the only publishers
to come clean and publicly reveal our lists had been stolen, in
hopes that other list owners would be educated about the problem
and prevention measures. You can learn more at:
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2139 )

Although I’d contacted the FBI and other law enforcement
officials back then, no one was very interested in hearing my
story – besides the NY Times, WSJ, and DM News that is.

However, the wind has definitely changed. Everyone from the
President, to state attorney generals, to local police are
gunning for junk emailers this month.

Here are some links to related stories in the press you might
find useful:

-> Gaven Stubberfield is First Computer Crimes Arrest in VA:
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=150989&nid=25

-> New York Attorney General to File Suit Against Junk Mailers
(Note: this is important for anyone mailing promotions on behalf
of third parties to read, and for anyone who runs an affiliate
program. Registration required.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/technology/18spam.html

-> Final, complete text of the CAN-SPAM Law, and a link to a
quick summary (Note – we’ll publish a special issue on this next
Tuesday for all our MarketingSherpa readers, so look for it)
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

By the way – this is our last issue of Best-of Weekly for 2003.
I hope you enjoy the holidays, and thanks for your support.

A MarketingSherpa reader (who asked to be anonymous) called me up
last Friday afternoon to say, “I’m sorry – I just hired the bad
guys to do my search engine optimization.”

He explained he was apologizing because the firm he hired was
using a pretty slimy practice, that our Buyer’s Guide had
recommended against, to get his Web site lots more rankings.

They were putting hidden (aka invisible) links on all their
unrelated client’s sites that pointed to other clients’ sites.
The theory is that Google and other search engine robots would be
fooled into thinking each site had fabulous link popularity, and
they’d rank the sites higher.

The thing is – it was working. He was getting great rankings.

He asked me, “I know it’s wrong, but I need the traffic for my
business. I’m only showing up in search engines for terms that
my company should have been in all along. So why is this so bad
really?”

I’ve interviewed loads of search experts for our Buyer’s Guide on
this topic, and many have told me that there’s an ugly
underbelly to the search business. It’s a bit like the junk
email industry — people know they are spamming, but for many
it’s profitable enough that they keep doing it.

And, like junk email, search engine deceit is rampant in some
parts of the affiliate world. Which is infuriating for merchants
who practice honest search optimization, only to see their
rankings beat by their own affiliates.

So, what should you do?

I urge you to keep to the straight and narrow with your
optimization. It’s not about morality – it’s about business
risks.

If you get caught doing something that’s against Google’s
preferences, they may cut you off from being listed entirely.
(They don’t *have* to list you, you know. There’s no law forcing
them to list anyone in the organic non-paid results if they don’t
want to.)

How can you be caught? Well, a competitor may report you. Or
somebody may report your optimization firm and hence all their
clients. Or Google’s frequently updated programs may spot the
problem automatically.

Once you’ve been cut off, it can be very difficult to convince
Google to let you back again. Ever. I know one company which
has been trying to be re-listed for more than a year now.

Is quick and easy traffic now worth the risk of losing all your
listings in the future? It’s your call to make. It’s your
business at stake.

A MarketingSherpa reader (who asked to be anonymous) called me up
last Friday afternoon to say, “I’m sorry – I just hired the bad
guys to do my search engine optimization.”

He explained he was apologizing because the firm he hired was
using a pretty slimy practice, that our Buyer’s Guide had
recommended against, to get his Web site lots more rankings.

They were putting hidden (aka invisible) links on all their
unrelated client’s sites that pointed to other clients’ sites.
The theory is that Google and other search engine robots would be
fooled into thinking each site had fabulous link popularity, and
they’d rank the sites higher.

The thing is – it was working. He was getting great rankings.

He asked me, “I know it’s wrong, but I need the traffic for my
business. I’m only showing up in search engines for terms that
my company should have been in all along. So why is this so bad
really?”

I’ve interviewed loads of search experts for our Buyer’s Guide on
this topic, and many have told me that there’s an ugly
underbelly to the search business. It’s a bit like the junk
email industry — people know they are spamming, but for many
it’s profitable enough that they keep doing it.

And, like junk email, search engine deceit is rampant in some
parts of the affiliate world. Which is infuriating for merchants
who practice honest search optimization, only to see their
rankings beat by their own affiliates.

So, what should you do?

I urge you to keep to the straight and narrow with your
optimization. It’s not about morality – it’s about business
risks.

If you get caught doing something that’s against Google’s
preferences, they may cut you off from being listed entirely.
(They don’t *have* to list you, you know. There’s no law forcing
them to list anyone in the organic non-paid results if they don’t
want to.)

How can you be caught? Well, a competitor may report you. Or
somebody may report your optimization firm and hence all their
clients. Or Google’s frequently updated programs may spot the
problem automatically.

Once you’ve been cut off, it can be very difficult to convince
Google to let you back again. Ever. I know one company which
has been trying to be re-listed for more than a year now.

Is quick and easy traffic now worth the risk of losing all your
listings in the future? It’s your call to make. It’s your
business at stake.

Wow – I don’t think we’ve ever published anything that got such fervent, lengthy, opinioned responses as this week’s article, ‘80% of Consumers Hate Flash Intros’ (link below.)

Some people thought the survey that generated the data was
slanted or improperly created. Some felt that Flash is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And, many expressed joy that the Flash intro bubble was “popped.”

While I don’t think the survey was absolutely perfect, I also don’t think its imperfections skewed results so profoundly that a different version would have had opposite results. (You can judge for yourself, we included a link to the original survey in the article below.)

I was also very surprised at the number of Flash intro
supporters who wrote in. The fact that most Web users
dislike intros is hardly new, or even big, news.

So, I contacted Macromedia – the makers of Flash – to see if they had any formal best practices or advice on
Jared Spool’s UIE site http://www.uie.com

Wow – I don’t think we’ve ever published anything that got such
fervent, lengthy, opinioned responses as this week’s article,
‘80% of Consumers Hate Flash Intros’ (link below.)

Some people thought the survey that generated the data was
slanted or improperly created. Some felt that Flash is the
greatest thing since sliced bread. And, many expressed joy that
the Flash intro bubble was “popped.”

While I don’t think the survey was absolutely perfect, I also
don’t think its imperfections skewed results so profoundly that a
different version would have had opposite results. (You can
judge for yourself, we included a link to the original survey in
the article below.)

I was also very surprised at the number of Flash intro
supporters who wrote in. The fact that most Web users
dislike intros is hardly new, or even big, news.

So, I contacted Macromedia – the makers of Flash – to see if they
had any formal best practices or advice on Flash intros. Suzy
Ramirez in the PR department sent me a link to a white paper
called, “Flash: a New Hope for Web Applications” (link below.)

Despite the promo-sounding name, it’s actually a fabulous paper
with lots of useful screenshots and examples of how you can use
Flash to make people love your site and your brand. I heartily
recommend you download it.

But, it didn’t have a specific rule about intros – so I called up
the co-author of the paper, Jared Spool of User Interface
Engineering, to ask, “Flash intros – good or bad?”

Jared said, “When we have clients who are thinking about Flash
splash pages, we tell them to go to their local supermarket and
bring a mime with them. Have the mime stand in front of the
supermarket, and, as each customer tries to enter, do a little
show that lasts two minutes, welcoming them to the supermarket
and trying to explain the bread is on aisle six and milk is on
sale today.

“Then stand back and count how many people watch the mime, how
many people get past the mime as quickly as possible, and how
many people punch the mime out.

“That should give you a good idea as to how well their splash
page will be received. That’s the crux of it.”

However, Jared did add, if 100% of your site visitors are coming
to learn one thing and one thing only from you, then a splash
page might work. His example, “Michael Jackson’s home page today
could say ‘I’m innocent of all charges,’ and that would be it.”

So, you heard it from a usuability expert that Macromedia
themselves recommend. Flash intros are not wonderful.

Useful links related to this Blog:

The “80% of Customers hate Flash Intros” article that prompted
this Blog (includes link to original survey):
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2524
(Open access until 11/27)

The White Paper Macromedia (and I) recommend you check out on
Flash design inspiration
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/blueprint/articles/flashbp.html

Jared Spool’s UIE site
http://www.uie.com

Weird – yet good – show.

“This is the eleventh AD:TECH,” said show Chair Susan Bratton just before Tuesday morning’s keynote.

You’d think that any industry after 11 conferences would have stabilized. That there would be at least a handful of massive booths (aka “pavilions”) on the show floor from the biggest vendors. That the majority of attendees would be experienced in the field.

Instead it was the opposite.

Yes, everyone was celebrating the fact that the industry has stabilized in terms of forward growth and respect. One speaker said, “Last year we were all just glad to be here; this year Internet’s back big-time. We’re walking with a collective swagger.”

However, the industry has yet to truly coalesce.

– There were absolutely no big booths. Even big-name companies had booths that in any other industry’s tradeshow would be for small-fry only.

– I hadn’t even heard of roughly 25% of the folks exhibiting. They were either new, or newly renamed, or flying real low under the radar before this. Established industries don’t have so many unknown players.

– Aside from the huge number of vendor sales reps, the almost 4,000 attendees couldn’t be grouped into any one heading. I’ve never seen such an odd mixture of utter newbies, old-timers, low-level people and C-level people at any comparable show in another industry.

– The topics everyone was talking about in the hallways were contextual advertising (ie Google Adsense and its competitors), search marketing, and rich media. Hardly anyone talked about email (aside from fear, fear, fear) when a year or two ago, it’s all anyone talked about. Topical whiplash.

So, yes the show was big, attendees were in an upbeat mood, and there were some pretty good speeches (links below), but my overwhelming feeling was as an industry we have a long way to go.

And I’m looking forward to AD:TECH 2013. It’s gonna be really different.

Useful links:

AD:TECH’s Official Show Blog with loads of commentary and notes from attendees:
http://www.adtechblog.com/

Fast Company’s Blog with some word-for-word transcripts of actual speeches (scroll down and look at entries for Nov 3-5):
http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2003/11/index.html

MarketingSherpa’s Library, including interviews and Case Studies with more than two-dozen AD:TECH speakers:
http://library.marketingsherpa.com/search.cfm

Weird – yet good – show.

“This is the eleventh AD:TECH,” said show Chair Susan Bratton just
before Tuesday morning’s keynote.

You’d think that any industry after 11 conferences would have
stabilized. That there would be at least a handful of massive
booths (aka “pavilions”) on the show floor from the biggest vendors.
That the majority of attendees would be experienced in the field.

Instead it was the opposite.

Yes, everyone was celebrating the fact that the industry has
stabilized in terms of forward growth and respect. One speaker
said, “Last year we were all just glad to be here; this year
Internet’s back big-time. We’re walking with a collective swagger.”

However, the industry has yet to truly coalesce.

– There were absolutely no big booths. Even big-name companies had
booths that in any other industry’s tradeshow would be for small-fry
only.

– I hadn’t even heard of roughly 25% of the folks exhibiting. They
were either new, or newly renamed, or flying real low under the
radar before this. Established industries don’t have so many
unknown players.

– Aside from the huge number of vendor sales reps, the almost 4,000
attendees couldn’t be grouped into any one heading. I’ve never seen
such an odd mixture of utter newbies, old-timers, low-level people
and C-level people at any comparable show in another industry.

– The topics everyone was talking about in the hallways were
contextual advertising (ie Google Adsense and its competitors),
search marketing, and rich media. Hardly anyone talked about email
(aside from fear, fear, fear) when a year or two ago, it’s all
anyone talked about. Topical whiplash.

So, yes the show was big, attendees were in an upbeat mood, and
there were some pretty good speeches (links below), but my
overwhelming feeling was … as an industry we have a long way to go.

And I’m looking forward to AD:TECH 2013. It’s gonna be really
different.

Useful links:

AD:TECH’s Official Show Blog with loads of commentary and notes from
attendees:
http://www.adtechblog.com/

Fast Company’s Blog with some word-for-word transcripts of actual
speeches (scroll down and look at entries for Nov 3-5):
http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2003/11/index.html

MarketingSherpa’s Library, including interviews and Case Studies
with more than two-dozen AD:TECH speakers:
http://library.marketingsherpa.com/search.cfm

John Kerry is the first presidential campaigner to place ads on blogs. BlogAds Henry Copeland says, “You can see them running soon on Atrios, Politicalwire, Blogshares and Talkingpointsmemo.” Henry also notes that “Ads on Talkingpointsmemo have been averaging clickthrus near 2%.” To which I reply, “well honey, ultra-niche media buys always work best, but media buyers hate them because they can’t expand the campaign if it works.”

Apparently Kerry’s campaign is also sponsoring TheOnion, but not Slate or Salon. Can you say quirky?

OJR Article (longish) on how UK newspaper sites are charging for content – including PDA news updates. Nothing earthshattering but still fun.

And it’s a twofer – another new OJR article on paid content “CanWest Takes Tiered Approach to Pay Content at Canada.com” – it’s about what they’re planning not what they’ve done and learned from.