“It’s always been this way”

The only standard is impermanence.

It’s very easy to believe that the world we live in has always been this way.

Your ethnic group has always had a similar standing.

Technology has always permitted certain kinds of interactions and is always improving.

Real estate values always rise from decade to decade. (Until it didn’t).

A job has always been the standard way to make a living.

Your chosen religion has always been practiced the way you practice it.

People in positions of authority and leverage have always had degrees from famous colleges.

Information has always been widely available.

As soon as you accept that just about everything in our created world is only a few generations old, it makes it a lot easier to deal with the fact that the assumptions we make about the future are generally wrong, and that the stress we have over change is completely wasted.’

View full post on Seth’s Blog

Has Your Site Been Pandalized by Google?

In February of 2011, Google kicked off a series of updates dubbed “Panda.”  The Panda algorithm has demoted some of the spammy sites that had climbed search engine results. Unfortunately, these fly-by-night operations weren’t the only victims of Panda.

It turns out that some small businesses have also been “Panda-lized.”  There have been  7 updates of the algorithm this year in 2011.  Discussion boards and blogs are littered with anguished entrepreneurs and business owners pointing out how their organic search traffic has dwindled due to their sites being dumped from top search results after Panda updates.

Are You There, Google? It’s Me, Small Business

While Google assures everyone that its efforts are for the greater good,  some Webmasters contend Google doesn’t realize how much it is hurting small businesses.

Yes, larger sites have also been hit, but many of them have been able to put their Web teams and SEO teams to work to make changes.  Small businesses, however, tend to have a harder time riding out the storm and recovering.  Most small businesses don’t have SEO staff internally.  Their use of external SEO professionals is probably limited due to costs.  Many business owners or key staff are do-it-yourselfers wearing multiple hats.  They have to cannibalize time from other business urgencies to understand and cope with algorithm changes.  And fewer small businesses have the revenue streams that larger companies have, to fall back on until search traffic rebounds.

Small business owners aren’t just sitting back and taking it. A site called Saving Small Business aims to get Google’s attention, or at the very least, everyone else’s attention, on the matter.

The founder of the site, who asks to be identified only as “Max,” created the site in response to Panda’s first launch:

“On February 24th we woke up to find our e-commerce business annihilated.  We quickly discovered it was due to Google’s Panda after doing some research on the web.  Although we were extremely frustrated and knew we were incorrectly penalized, all of our thoughts and actions were focused on saving our business.  It wasn’t until we did everything Google recommended in their suggestions and more, and then saw our site hit yet again in October that we decided we had to try to do our part to bring attention to this.  We’ve been in business for many years, our customers love us, and we’re a real small business with real employees.”

Saving Small Business is aimed, says Max, at bringing attention to the damaging effect of the Panda updates on small businesses:

“We understand Google has a right (and even a duty) to adjust their search results to provide the best experience possible for their users.  But what they’re doing with Panda amounts to unnecessarily experimenting with people’s lives.  Panda is a machine learning (artificial intelligence) experiment, and we want small businesses, the media, and the general public to understand Google’s experiments are destroying businesses and people’s lives.”

The site encourages other small business owners to tell their stories. Contributors to the site tell tales of losing their houses and laying off employees who were more like family. Max isn’t alone in feeling frustrated. Chriss Bristow, owner of a car parts site, and a retail website, is one such annoyed small business owner. His site is over 14 years old, and he insists he has only ever used “white hat” SEO techniques to drive traffic.

When Bristow noticed his site had slipped down in ranking, he contacted Google …to no reply. He tried to follow Google’s suggested guidelines and resubmitted his site, but traffic continued to worsen.  Bristow says:

“Nowadays when I run a Google search for something that we also sell, virtually all the first “spots” are taken by Amazon, Amazon affiliates, other affiliate websites, scraper mash-up pages and spammed Facebook pages that almost always point to Amazon. Now I realize that Amazon is a monster shopping site, but what makes them an authority site for auto parts?”

Bristow is saddened by the fact that his family owned business has had to lay off several employees, and he attributes it to Google Panda.

What’s in Store?

Now, before you start boycotting Google (is that even possible?) it’s important to understand that Panda wasn’t created to single out small businesses.  But despite its intended solution to clean up the Web, some industry experts, like Aaron Wall of SEOBook, contend it has had a disproportionate effect on small-business sites, especially ecommerce sites:

“Panda was sold by Google engineers as a way to demote low quality content while promoting high quality content. Ultimately what it did was promote large brands & social platforms, while throwing many small ecommerce businesses (and a few big content farms) under the bus. The impact of Panda makes it hard to have a large website (in terms of page count) unless you also have a large brand.”

Why ecommerce sites? They tend to have a large number of product pages, many without inbound links to them.  Such sites may be inadvertantly equated with spammy sites that also have a large number of pages but a low number of links to those pages.

Small businesses may be suffering an unintended consequence of Google’s effort to cleanse the Web, but there are things you can do to minimize the effect, according to Wall:

  • Start a new site on a new domain. Keep a low page count and work doubly hard at branding if you plan to build a bigger site.
  • Push harder to develop non-Google traffic streams.  [We suggest:  Start right now to build an email list; sponsor and speak at events; advertise to a targeted audience; run contests; build a loyal following on social sites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and, yes, Google Plus.]
  • Increase user engagement metrics.  Part of why brands score so well is that their brand creates end-user demand in ways that provide strong user engagement.  [We suggest: start a blog or if you have one make it better; add original quality content that is interactive or hard to find elsewhere such as tools, guides, quizzes and downloadable worksheets or checklists;  and create videos, infographics and other "shareable" content that visitors will spread on their own initiative.  Also, use analytics to study and understand what people are looking for when they come to your site, and why they may be disappointed and leave immediately  - and fix it.]

And if you have a story of being “Pandalized,” share it on Saving Small Business. Who knows? Maybe Google will be listening.

From Small Business Trends

Has Your Site Been Pandalized by Google?

View full post on Small Business News, Tips, Advice – Small Business Trends

It’s Always Been About the Relationship


It’s Always Been About the Relationship

This content from: Duct Tape Marketing

Marketing podcast with Mari Smith (Click to play or right click and “Save As” to download – Subscribe now via iTunes or subscribe via other RSS device (Google Listen)

Mari SmithLots of marketers question the ROI of this tool or the impact of using social media in this way, when the real filter in marketing is and always has been the ability to create and foster relationships.

In fact, you can make decisions about which social media platform you should dive deeper into by simply asking this question – could this platform help us build deeper relationships with our customers? If you can answer yes to that question than you should jump in and figure out how to use it for this purpose.

I think the proliferation of social media and the accompanying ease at which you can build “friends” muddies the fact that the foundational elements of true relationship are platform neutral – the real payoff comes from the relationship mindset.

I visit with master relationship builder and author of The New Relationship Marketing: How to Build a Large, Loyal, Profitable Network Using the Social Web, Mari Smith for this week’s episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast and I can think of few people online or off that work as hard as she applying the elements of relationship building.

The new relationship building refers to best ways to employ the new social tool set to do the kind of relationship building that’s always been a crucial aspect of effective marketing.

Mari has built an international business on the back of social media tools by understanding like few others just how powerful these tools can be in the hands of someone that gets it’s all about the relationship. (Okay, she also works her tail off too.)

There is much to learn about how to use the new breed of online tools for good by reading The New Relationship Marketing, but I would urge you to also pay great attention to what Smith does online and off and she’s such a great example of practicing what she preaches.

You can listen to the show by subscribing the feed in iTunes or a variety of other free services such as Google Listen (Use this RSS feed) or you can buy the Duct Tape Marketing iPhone app. (iTunes link – Cost is $2.99) or

View full post on Small Business Marketing Blog from Duct Tape Marketing

Has the speed shortage been averted?

We certainly had one a decade ago. Communication was moving too slowly, interactions took too long, ideas stumbled along. It used to take four weeks for someone to answer a piece of mail!

Leapfrogging that four week standard was one of the key reasons to adopt online business. Faster meant better, because faster led to tighter integration, more feedback and greater market share. Four weeks became two weeks became a day became an hour…

I’m not so sure we have a significant speed shortage any longer. Not in the loop of business communication, certainly. Being twice as fast to respond as you were last year may no longer be worth the risk and effort. It might not even be possible. (Though there are a few areas where first matters a lot, most notably the speed realtors respond to inquiries).

What’s scarce? Good ideas, not just fast ones. Shipping the good ideas. Finding the spot where uncomfortable meets important.

I’d rather you think and instigate. Get back to me tomorrow, that’s fast enough.

View full post on Seth’s Blog

Click Magic – Making money online has never been easier or more fun!

Most programs out now target males, 18 to 30. This program is designed to target both men and women, over 30 (over 35), who are unfamiliar with terms like Ppc, Seo, or Afilliate (true newbies). This soft sales approach is Perfect for this market.
Click Magic – Making money online has never been easier or more fun!

Ivi delivers what we’ve all been waiting for — live TV on the internet

Market researcher SNL Kagan reported that the cable TV companies lost 711,000 subscribers in the second quarter of 2010.
First shared by InstantTechFeed
on SERVICE_TWITTER
InstantTechFeed
Last shared: Mon Sep 13 20:18:37 GMT 2010
85 Total Shares: 85 Tweets

View full post on Home Wealth Project Riot!

If you found out tomorrow that $10,000 had been willed to you, but only for spending on marketing your business online,…

… Event Marketing and Promotions (1), Internet Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Customer Relationship Management (1),…
First shared by saumarjyoti
on SERVICE_TWITTER
saumarjyoti
Last shared: Thu Aug 19 01:39:10 GMT 2010
3 Total Shares: 3 Tweets

View full post on Home Wealth Project Riot!

Ever been in love? Reactions to social media could be a lot like that at a biochemical level

Well, there you have it, a study of one (the author fully mentions this) but hey, now… Interested in more social media news and discussion?
First shared by TNWsocialmedia
on SERVICE_TWITTER
TNWsocialmedia
Last shared: Tue Jun 29 01:39:43 GMT 2010
43 Total Shares: 43 Tweets

View full post on Home Wealth Project Riot!

Online voting, social networking sites have been game changers in All-Star balloting

http://homewealthproject.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/HLIC/ef5356185701e99d97f60c6791b85ff7.jpg But the embrace of social media this year — with an online ballot that allows fans to vote up to 25 times — has changed the dynamics, to such an…
First shared by internetmarkets
on SERVICE_TWITTER
internetmarkets
Last shared: Sun Jun 27 03:39:36 GMT 2010
110 Total Shares: 110 Tweets

View full post on Home Wealth Project Riot!

Contrary to What You May Have Read, the Recession Hasn’t Been Good for Entrepreneurs

If you’ve been reading the newspaper recently, you might have heard that the Great Recession has been a boom time for entrepreneurs. No less an authority than former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in a New York Times opinion piece, “LAST year was a fabulous one for entrepreneurs, at least according to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity released last month by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.”

Reich quotes the Foundation as saying “Rather than making history for its deep recession and record unemployment, 2009 might instead be remembered as the year business startups reached their highest level in 14 years — even exceeding the number of startups during the peak 1999-2000 technology boom.”

Because the idea that the recession has been fabulous for entrepreneurs didn’t fit with what I’ve been seeing for the past two years, I took a closer look at the numbers.

The Kauffman index uses information from the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure “the percentage of the adult, non-business-owner population that starts a business each month.” Specifically, the Index is the ratio of the number of people between the ages of 20 and 64 not self-employed who became self-employed in a given month, divided by the population between those ages.

This percentage rose from 300 people per 100,000 in 2007 to 340 per 100,000 in 2009.

But this is where the numbers get a bit odd. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses the CPS to measure self-employment, and they reported that the number of people self-employed outside of agriculture fell from 9,557,000 in 2007 to 8,995,000 in 2009, a decline of 5.9 percent. (Because the population grew over this period, the decline in self-employment as a percentage of the population is an even larger 7.5 percent.)

For those of you who are still with me on the numbers, this means that the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity and the BLS estimates for self-employment, which are both drawn from the same monthly survey, tell very different stories about what has happened to self-employment during the recession. The Kauffman Index shows a 13.3 percent increase from 2007 to 2009, whereas the BLS shows a 5.9 percent drop over the same period.

Although these numbers look contradictory at first glance, they are not because they measure different things. The BLS figures track the number of people who are working for themselves at a moment in time. By contrast, the Kauffman Index measures the number of people who become self-employed in a particular month.

What’s not measured by either source is the number of people who quit self-employment in a particular month. And the missing number is the key to putting both figures together.

As the Kauffman Index shows, during the recession, the number of people who moved into self-employment increased. But as the BLS shows, the number of people who are self-employed in at any point in time has declined. For both these numbers to be correct – and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of either one – a lot of people must have given up on self-employment in 2009.

According to the Kauffman Index, an estimated 6.7 million Americans went from not being self-employed to being self-employed last year. Given the 224,000 person drop in the number of self-employed people reported by the BLS, 6.9 million people must have quit working for themselves in 2009.

Do these numbers mean that “last year … a fabulous one for entrepreneurs” as Reich wrote in the New York Times? Are the results of the Kauffman Index really “good news for the year 2009” as Kirsten Moore wrote in Newgeography?

I don’t think so. If we accept the Kauffman Foundation’s argument that the self-employed are entrepreneurs, then the CPS data show an entrepreneurial sector that has been damaged by the recession. The statistics indicate that the self-employment failure rate has become so large that the number of people working for themselves has dropped, despite a sizeable increase in the number of people becoming self-employed.

The reporters, bloggers and others making use of the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity should be more cautious about how they interpret it. Headlines like “Despite Recession, U.S. Entrepreneurial Activity Rises in 2009 to Highest Rate in 14 Years, Kauffman Study Shows” http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/despite-recession-us-entrepreneurial-activity-rate-rises-in-2009.aspx give the misleading impression that the recession has been good for entrepreneurs.

And I don’t know a lot of people who would call the Great Recession “fabulous” for those who work for themselves.

From Small Business Trends

Contrary to What You May Have Read, the Recession Hasn’t Been Good for Entrepreneurs

View full post on Small Business Trends