Confirm - Free Classified, Free Locals Ads, Free Advertising, and more - Extoldeals

Confirm - Free Classified, Free Locals Ads, Free Advertising, and more - Extoldeals

Google vs SEO - What?????

I recently blogged in response to a action Google took taking down one of my blogs for "SPAM." Their response was that this was a common occurrence, hackers create thousands of fake blogs, steal content from real blogs, all in a attempt to create new pages with affiliate campaigns. In responses, Google takes down all of the blogs, legitimate and otherwise. My blog was entitled "Why Google can be bad for small business," and is no longer visible on any of my blogs. The blog suggested that Google wielded their muscle in excess, also in rash response, and cause detrimental effects to bloggers relying on their blogs to communicate with their audience. Not only does the temporary suspension cripple SEO effects of the blog, it also eliminates a businesses ability to maintain two way conversation with their customers. Believe me, I am in no way anti-Google, they have done a lot for entrepreneurs to be able to create businesses and generate exposure without the budget of giant competitors. But, when business owners rely on this relationship, and Google breaks up, even temporarily, it can cause serious side effects to the small business.

First of all, my blog complaining about Google's actions and intricately, painful customer service process magically disappeared. On top of that, today I read an article that SEO companies will no longer be allowed to advertise in Google's local business directory (Web Pro News article "Google Ditches Local Listings for SEO and Designers" by Chris Crum). This is a complete outrage. The very businesses that work hard to appease Google and ensure quality listings from millions of websites will no longer be available to consumers via Google. Google should be working with these companies to improve search results, not against them. And for business owners looking for companies to assist with SEO and web design, now they have to look a lot harder - or maybe just on Yahoo.

Google is responding by saying this move is necessary to meet the wants of their consumers. They are suggesting that for some reason, searches who are looking for "website design Houston," that the people are not interested in web designers in the Houston area. Is this ignorance, idiocy, or some kind of genius well beyond the common sense of anyone that possesses the quality? I personally don't get it.

Perhaps they are launching their own SEO business and are doing a preliminary extermination of the competition. Maybe they just don't want people and businesses to get help from professional web designers and consultancy with search engine optimization. Whatever the reason, I am curios to no end to hear any other possible scenarios which could make sense. Should anybody have input on the subject, I'd love to hear it.

- Mark Rogers
Custom Business Marketing & Sales Consulting, Inc

More Government Intervention to "fix" banks?

I was recently reading an article that was clearly written by someone with no knowledge of their subject, and of course there was no space to leave comments on the article, so I thought why not post my own blog on the subject? The first response was that it has nothing to do with Internet marketing, or does it? Let me start with a summary of the article.

"A better way to fix bankers pay" by Shumeet Banerji, can be viewed by clicking here. The opening paragraph discusses that world governments have begun administering newregulations for banks so that they don't collapse the world economy again, but they never bothered to ask the question of why the old policies didn't work. Shumeet says, "Why did the system go out of control in the first place? Most bankers understood that they might face catastrophic institutional failure and enormous loss of personal wealth. Why wasn’t that enough to keep them from taking such unprecedented risks? The implicit response seems to be that they were distracted by their greed."

Mr Banerji goes on to state several proposed solutions and offers little sensible insight into the problem and no quality solutions. First of all, there are a lot more aspects that affected the global economy than banks and bankers. Second, "greed" was not what caused to banks problems, in fact it was the exact opposite! Greed would lead to generating and holding on to capitol. Instead, banks, forced by government regulations, handed out massive amounts of money for people to buy homes they couldn't afford using adjustable rate mortgages and little to no down payment. This act of semi-communist generosity led to mass use of the word - "toxic assets." More specifically, banks gave people way to much money for homes that weren't worth it and people began foreclosing in mass when the need to move arose and nobody would by the house for what the banks were forced to pay for them, causing what George W. and Barack Obama both agree was necessary - TARP funds, the Trojan horse of government bailouts.

It is typical of people to blame greedy American capitalism for the worlds problems, but the fact is, American liberal generosity is what caused this particular problem. I'm not saying American liberal generosity is a terrible thing, but when you give money away that you don't have, problems will arise. And you can't fix them with more government regulations. It is popular mob mentality that wants governments to limit pay for some individuals in certain areas of business, but this is a ridiculous solution that would cause mass exodus of any talent capable of solving bank's problems. Now is a good time to point out that for every $1 the government spends on regulating an industry, companies spend $46 complying with these regulations. Common sense would say if we want companies to improve performance, government regulation needs to be reduced - not increased. But unfortunately, common sense is a rare commodity that government rarely invests in. By the way, I just saw a commercial from the government telling me that text messaging teenage girls asking them for nude photos is bad, thanks for spending our tax dollars on that message - I'm sure nobody would have figured that out without the commercial...

Anyway, how am I going to tie this into Internet marketing? Well, I could list a few common sense solutions like switching the expensive TV commercial I mentioned above into a banner ad that nobody would click on. That would at least contribute to some government savings, every penny counts when there is a real problem. But what about the banking industry? Has anyone ever seen a TV commercial for a bank? I know I have. I also know that no TV commercial has ever convinced to go open a new bank account or apply for a loan. Banking typically comes out of necessity, I certainly don't know anybody that goes banking for fun. If banks want to improve performance (including ROI on marketing campaigns), than they should spend less on branding (look what happened to WaMu - they bet everything on branding that didn't work out so well. You're Washington Mutual, why would you spend billions of dollars for a hip new name!?) and more on selling products people are looking for, where and when they are looking for them.

Banking is not that different than any other industry when it comes to selling products. More than half of consumers always use the Internet when researching their purchase, yet advertising budgets typically include far more money for radio and TV, leaving a very small portion to reach the bulk of their customers. Common sense business solutions are the only thing that can save the banking industry, and that comes from smart business men and women with common sense - NOT our government. And one last point I need to drive home to every business in America, if you do not have an effective Internet marketing strategy, than your business is not doing the best it can. Often advertising gets cut from the budget during lean times, but Internet marketing makes money, so why would anyone want to cut profits from their budget during lean times? If your Internet marketing is not making money for you, than I strongly suggest a consultation with a contingency marketing consultant - we don't charge a dime until we increase your profitability, so you can't loose. Even you Big Banks, the rules of smart business are very much the same everywhere.

- Mark Rogers

Internet Marketing Consultant

Custom Business Marketing & Sales Consulting, Inc

Marketing 4 Profit in the Auto Industry

I am considering changing the name of my Internet Marketing Blog as the vision of Custom Business Marketing & Sales Consulting, Inc (aka e-Profit-PRO$) clarifies. The mission of my company, e-Profit-PRO$, is not to simply create Internet marketing campaigns and websites that produce a strong return on investment (ROI); I personally hold the position of Individual Profit Consultant, and that is the general role of e-Profit-PRO$. We can design high return advertising, which doesn't only include Internet marketing - it can also include local or national radio advertisements, television ads, and whatever else may be important for "branding," a marketing tactic far more necessary for large national companies, or "brands" - but Internet marketing will always have a lower cost for reaching new people because it is cheaper than radio waves and digital television programming, and offers far superior targeting (offering custom messages on an individual level rather than serving the same message to every lead).

e-Profit-PRO$ also does sales consulting, which doesn't just mean consulting and training sales teams, but also working the companies of any size to increase sales. Bottom line, e-Profit-PRO$ uses a holistic approach to increase profits for clients - consulting on cutting costs, increasing profit per sale, and generating far more sales using every possible medium. And this doesn't just mean companies looking for larger profits, it also includes non-profit organizations (i.e. churches looking to receive a higher contribution per member, charities seeking more donations in larger numbers, etc.)

With that in mind, I'd like to discuss the automobile industry in America. The US government has given billions of dollars to our "Big 3" (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler), millions of Americans work for these companies - it is definitely in America's best interest these 3 companies succeed. Congress thinks this should be achieved by forcing these companies to manufacturer more cars they (Congress) perceive to be what Americans want, and vice versa (less SUV's.) But what makes America the most profitable nation in the world? INNOVATION! Not copying goods produced by foreign nations - that's for the Chinese. America's role in global profitability has always been innovation. Without Henry Ford, there would be no Nissan and Toyota, why would we want to copy them?

What the "Big 3" need to increase profitability is innovation. Sure, by cutting costs and increasing sales, they will improve their bottom lines. But to pay taxpayers our billions of dollars, stop laying off American workers, and start hiring again - we need innovation from our big 3. I, for the life of me, don't understand how electricity has not been used more successfully in manufacturing cars. Can you imagine what a HUGE effect it would have on our enemies if we no longer needed oil (I also don't understand why we don't have more American oil - but that's another discussion)? And to explain the impact on our economy, I offer the following example.

American entrepreneurs have vastly impacted the globe. Americans like Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs make it possible for consumers all over the world to buy light bulbs, cars, mp3 players, personal computers, fax machines and so much more. Let's look at cell phones for a minute. Nokia continues to be a leader in cell phone sales - originally a Japanese company. But if it weren't for Benjamin Franklin having invented phones, they never would have sold a thing. Now, they still make a lot of sales - but Apple is raising the bar by making their previous products obsolete with the invention of the iPhone.

What if we did the same thing with cars? Sure, Nissan and Honda make quality automobiles and are profitable companies, but they have Henry Ford to thank for that. Now it's time to make their previous auto line up obsolete. Solar cars have existed for a while now, but not as practical daily transportation. Electric cars are gaining popularity, but still have less power than their gas powered counter parts. Other fuel sources are emerging but not gaining popularity. What if cars incorporated solar power, electricity, a little American oil, and one more missing key ingredient. What happens when a car drives? Wind. If we could harness all of these energy sources into one automobile, you can't tell me that this automobile would not have equal or greater power than a gas powered car. If we can power a space station on solar power alone, I'm sure we can do better than the current automobile.

So, if our Big 3 incorporated innovation instead of only simple traditional methods of increasing profits, what are the possibilities? National security would vastly improve - our enemies would no longer be counting our cash. The average American would have more money in their pocket - renewable sources of energy don't cost as much as buying gallons of fuel to keep on the move. The American deficit would reduce - foreigners would want to import our fantastic automobiles, just like they want mp3 players, phones, computers, etc. Unemployment would decrease - we need more labor to meet higher demand. And as an added bonus, more Americans would have healthcare (our Big 3 are unionized, they have healthcare) so our Congress could work on something else.

So instead of listening to Congress (an institution that has done nothing but cost America trillions) and returning to the basics of being #1, America can have a strong automobile industry again. Given current history, it all seems so far fetched. But with a more extensive study of American economics, this is what has worked time and time again! So here's my advice as a Profit Consultant to Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler: tell Washington, "With all due respect - shut up." Get to work on a car that our competitors aren't producing rather than building cars that quite frankly, they've made better. And, PRESTO! We have a much healthier America!

As always, if anybody disagrees (this includes you too Congress), please let me know where I'm wrong. But, if you believe I just might be right, how can we get this message where it needs to go? As my website states, "You don't pay a dime 'till we boost your bottom line." This means you, too, Big 3. While blogging advice is free, I wouldn't argue if any of you Big 3 would like to pay my consulting fee, only after I boost your bottom line of course (contact me). For readers who don't own automobile manufacturers, but still favor American cars (or just a stronger American economy), I started an organization (American Auto Supporters) with the goal of re-engerizing the American auto industry.

- Mark Rogers

Custom Business Marketing & Sales Consulting, Inc

Internet Marketing for Mobile Web

The Internet has historically been a moving target for many corporations. Most missed the first .com bubble, but now it’s hard to find a company without at least a web site or email address. With the introduction of mobile web, I think many already missed out on implementing a mobile web strategy that beat the competition. So far, only a few web savvy companies and a handful of dominant brands have given any attention to this new trend, creating useful content for mobile devices. But with technology improvements that enable users to access the regular web on mobile devices – does it matter?

The mobile web started as a much simpler version of the Internet. Surprisingly, the first mobile web devices were introduced in 1996, in Finland. Japan launched mobile web specific content in 1999. Since it’s inception, what impact has mobile web had on consumers?

Fortunately for most companies slow to act, I think little opportunity was missed by not developing mobile web specific content. Google and Yahoo were quick to make useful content for mobile web, which enabled users to conduct searches, and check gmail and yahoo mail. Maps are widely used on mobile web, and many users catch up on news on the go. At least in America, most banner ads could not be displayed due to small screens and slow Internet access, however, in 2007 mobile web advertising revenue was $2.2 billion – mostly from text ads available on Google and Yahoo. On most web enabled mobile devices, this is still the case in North America. But with QWERTY keyboards or smartphones w/ touchscreens (Windows and Javascript enabled), netbooks, notebook “minis” and WiFi hotspots, the Internet will be available to most consumers in its full size on mobile devices sooner rather than later.

For the companies that did develop mobile specific content, I doubt it added much new revenue (except Google and Yahoo.) In the days when XHTML or WML content were necessary to browse websites, the mobile web was so slow it was too much of an annoyance for most consumers to use. Still today, with much faster access and more devices that are able to display HTML content, shopping is rare on mobile devices, even in Japan where almost half of Internet users connect via mobile web. When you’re hungry, it is much easier and faster to call Pizza Hut than place an order on pizzahut.com with a mobile device (you might get the phone number online for free instead of calling 411, though). On many devices, it’s actually faster to drive to the Gap than to log on to gap.com and browse around. I believe this is the reason users mostly read news or email while waiting for or riding the bus or train, catching a flight, and unfortunately, even driving their car.

With the advance of mobile phone technology like Apple’s iPhone, Google & T-Mobile’s G1, and netbooks (computers made specifically for internet access) available for cheaper and cheaper prices, there is no need to register .mobi (mobile web specific sites that utilized the old mobile web technology) domain names – if you haven’t already, they’re probably obsolete. If you need to access the web on the go, it is cheap and easy to use the “traditional internet”, now also referred to as “mobile web” by manufacturers of mobile devices, especially with Wi-Fi access in every major commerce center.

There is still a lot of buzz around mobile web specific content. I found that companies who registered .mobi domains were mostly already leaders in their industry like Hershey, Hilton, BMW, State Farm, Bank of America and Victoria Secret. American Airlines is another, but their rapid development of .mobi content made no impact on their market share with competitor Southwest Airlines still dominating, and American Airlines losing money in most years. And, when have you known anybody to buy a candy bar or BMW using the mobile web?

A quote by an anonymous blogger calling himself “fearless” sums up my opinion in an article titled Apple iPhone could hurt the .mobi extension: “.mobi fanatics are in one of two situations: they either have resold some .mobis and want to keep the gravy train going or they've invested money in .mobis and they are desperately hoping they can at least get back even. The problem is that no amount of .mobi preaching by domainers will help much in these two situations. Bloggers like Frank Schilling are bringing in new gullible people to the domain name world. If myself and others didn't counter all this .mobi euphoria, they would certainly be the .mobi victims left holding the bag.”

For most corporations, I would say leave developing mobile web content to mobile phone manufacturers to make their phones more enticing and search engines that represent over 90% of mobile Internet usage. If you do a lot of international commerce, it definitely might be worth making sure your website is accessible on technology used around the world. If you do business in just your own country, your probably fine just the way you are. Internet consumer behavior is likely not largely impacted in your industry by mobile web – unless you rely on serving news, maps, directories, or email – but then you probably already have a mobile web strategy (if your company has any relevance.)

If anything needs to be done to make sure everyone has access to your web content on every device they use, the normal behavior of SEO applies - making fast loading pages, and developing relevant content. Google does reorganize web results for mobile devices based on sites that are easily viewed – so make sure you have content that’s not too FLASHy, mostly text, includes smaller versions of all your pictures (most e-commerce sites already do this), and you’ll probably do just fine on the mobile web of today. I think with the advancement of technology, mobile web specific content will not even be used in a few years.

According to internetretailer.com, e-commerce sites that load faster and provide good product descriptions make the most sales and keep the most return shoppers. If you’re looking to please consumers on the Internet, that is the best advice to follow – mobile or not. Companies that serve news, mail, directories, and search content – do so with text only versions if you want to give access to users on older devices. Advertisers should offer text only ads (banner ads have questionable results, anyway). For companies that haven’t developed mobile content – if you survived the latest recession, then mobile web capability will probably display all standard HTML and Javascript to most users – no need to change anything already working. I guess my summary of mobile web would be that it is adapting to websites and consumers, there is no need for websites and consumers to change for the mobile web.

I’ll back my summary with one last bit of evidence from personal experience. Almost everybody I know has a phone that accesses the Internet. I asked my cousin about her use of mobile web and she said she uses Google to get answers to test questions while studying at work. I spoke with several owners and employees of cell phone stores when I made my last cell phone purchase, and all said that most people cancel their internet service on phones that don’t browse “traditional internet,” if they bothered with it in the first place. I decided on a Blackberry at the time, I had just lost my laptop and I needed access to “traditional internet” on the go. I am now considering canceling my Blackberry Internet service (actually I did it today, I may reconnect it later as it can be tethered to my laptop to get nationwide Internet access, but it’s likely I’ll wait until I have an iPhone). It came in handy a few times, but now I have a good laptop and haven’t used my Blackberry’s slower, smaller Internet since.

After trying phones with Internet access, users typically make one of the following conclusions. Their device accesses the Internet too slow to be useful, or they have a smartphone and are pleased that they can access the “traditional internet” on their phone - with decent speed. If they conclude the latter, they may eventually end up shopping on their device, but at most occasionally, when convenience is of the utmost importance, because their desktop or laptop is still much faster. If they conclude their Internet service is too slow (and it matters to them), they decide their next purchase will be a smartphone with faster access to the traditional Internet. So, if a mobile device is not capable of delivering an Internet experience consumers are used to, it ends up just getting used as a phone or messenger. Consumers are often not welcome of change, especially if it’s for the worse. If a consumer is to be happy with mobile web, it has to be the real thing - fast access to “traditional internet”; and manufacturers are racing to meet this demand.

- Mark Rogers

Internet Marketing Consultant

Custom Business Marketing & Sales Consulting, Inc

References

comScore. (2007, September 20). Mobile phone users nearly equal PC based internet

users in Japan. Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.comscore.com.

Internet retailer. (2001, October 21). Fireclick streamlines site operations with

Netflame2. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://internetretailer.com.

Microsoft. (2008). ASP.NET mobile web development overview. Retrieved

September 21, 2009, from http://msdn.microsoft.com.

Moll, Cameron. (2007). A beginner’s guide to mobile web development. Retrieved

September 21, 2009 from, http://mobiforge.com.

FairWindsPartners. (2007, October 25). Mobile web. Retrieved September 19, 2009

From http://www.fairwindspartners.com.

Author Unkown. (2006, May). Mobilizing scholars: using mobile devices in scientific

Research. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://firstauthor.org.

Rabin, Jo. (2006, November 2). Mobile web best practices. Retrieved September 21,

2009, from http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/.

Passani, Luca (2006, October). Global authoring practices for the mobile web.

Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.passani.it/gap/.

Fearless. (2007, June 10). Apple iPhone could hurt the .mobi extension. Retrieved

September 24, 2009, from http://www.dnforum.com.

WikiInvest. (N.D.). American Airlines (AMR). Retrieved September 25, 2009,

From http://www.wikiinvest.com.

Internet Marketing in Politics

Normally my blog is reserved for marketing information - tips, useful marketing software, Google trends, personal experiences with weight on the subject, etc. But let me say this, marketing isn't just for products, it's also for people. Every four years we get a few unique individuals who think they are the best person to run our country (the United States if there are any outside readers), and they have to get their message out. How do you get your story out to 200,000,000 voting Americans? You need a good team to market yourself and organize locally. Before I go any further, I will say we do these projects, too; but that is not the purpose of my writing today.

Marketing is more important in politics today than it has ever been. When America was formed, communication was still in it's infancy and reaching voters was difficult. In today's political environment, communication is spread easily throughout the populous using our many channels of media. TV and radio ads are still popular, but the Internet is playing an increasingly important role in this. To not get your message out to all interested parties, not just the ones that already like you, can be potentially fatal.

Take President Barak Obama for example. He is widely recognized as a great communicator. He entered the office with some of the highest approval ratings ever seen, yet dropped below 50% approval faster than any president in history. Why? While campaigning, Obama frequented every media channel available, even those that ask tougher questions, allowing him to sell his ideas to people otherwise not likely to vote for him. The result was a landslide victory. Now the Obama administration is at war with Fox News, claiming they are not a real news station - never mind their ratings are #1 in cable news (let's also not forget most Americans get their news from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, tell me that's not entertainment!). When congress was debating healthcare, CNN was covering Chris Brown and Rianna. The administration turns this around and says Fox is not covering the big stories, and frankly I'm baffled. When polled, the typical American will say their top concerns are the economy, immigration, Iran and Afghanistan (or national security), taxes, healthcare, ethics in politics, etc. Fox is the only network to cover all of these things, bringing on both Democrats and Republicans to debate both sides. Other networks (that give the white house the favorable coverage they want) will cover trivial issues ignoring what people are really interested in, or offer just one side of the story. This can be seen in the healthcare town hall debates - Americans are pissed and only one station covered it!

When marketing yourself to the public, you cannot avoid negative press. If you do not counter arguments that you claim are untrue, than you appear to be weak or lying or both. When one news medium gives you negative press, but invites you on to talk about - TALK ABOUT IT! This is the only way to rebuild credibility. The Obama administration has taken the run and hide approach to Fox News, stating they won't go on their shows until they get favorable coverage. This appears weak and validates your opposition. This is one of those appropriate times to throw in the age old anecdote - there's no such thing as negative publicity. By taking your opposition head on, sure, some will remain opposition, but at least those that are still on the fence can be swayed. With Obama's juvenile approach to Fox News, he has allowed himself to become an untrustworthy villain to any Fox News fans, while at least arguing your point will help you appear like you care what ALL Americans think, not just the ones that already like you. When Obama visited every Sunday morning news show except Chris Wallace's on Fox, he alienates popular supporters such as minority, Democrat Fox contributor Juan Williams of National Public Radio.

I approached this subject after viewing a YouTube posting by Scott Rosenburg, owner of salon.com (who's site I will not credit with a link.) While I agree with most of what he says regarding blogs, I don't support his Berkeley California approach to broadcasting news. He features articles slandering Libertarian Glenn Beck, the front page says it's OK for rogue nations to have nuclear weapons, and lot's of other left wing moronic ideology with no conflicting points of view. While totally off subject, I will state that fellow Libertarian Glenn Beck can be a little off the wall sometimes, but no one bothers to discredit his theories that liberals claim are conspiracy theories. If they are easily disproven, DISPROVE THEM! Simple as that!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, use ALL media available to you when in the public eye, not just the media you agree with. That can be the difference between a 70% approval rating and a 49%. If you are planning a political move - running for office, lobbying a particular issue, getting out the vote, or just fund raising - we can help with getting your message out to the widest possible audience online. And if you really want to show some backbone, don't shy away from those that disagree or are undecided on your important issues - a little Internet marketing can put them in your corner. It's a good idea to incorporate a blog to any Internet marketing strategy to open up a two way dialogue, not just with your supporters, but also to your critics so that truly unbiased coverage can be presented to the public. Abandoning partisan strategy and talking with Republicans, Democrats, Independents and 3rd party citizens will add legitimacy to you as a person and get your message to ALL interested parties, not just those who already supported you. It's also important to remember that if news were not entertaining, nobody would watch it - so discount news programs that also have entertainment value, late night shows have long been a great source of approval ratings.

Mark Rogers

Internet Marketing Consultant
http://eprofitpros.com

Digg.com & Del.icio.us - Marketing Research & Web PR

Digg and del.icio.us: Compare & Contrast new uses for Internet marketing research and Web PR


What are the similarities and differences of Digg.com and del.icio.us.com? I am not new to Internet marketing, but my expertise lies mainly in pay-per-click campaign management and website content development. After reading “The New Rules of Marketing & PR,” by Meerman Scott, I became vastly more aware of the importance of social media marketing and it’s effective uses. Scott discusses the importance of developing “buyer personas,” which triggered the idea of using del.icio.us as an organizational tool for developing effective marketing plans, using both Digg and del.icio.us for valuable marketing research, and using Digg for initiating viral marketing.
Both Digg and del.icio.us can provide valuable marketing research. Both sites allow users to view websites, blogs, and articles based on what other users researching same or similar topics found useful. Users of both web tools “digg” or bookmark web content deemed valuable or interesting, allowing registered users to search content based on popularity rather than algorithms developed by traditional Internet search sites such as Google and Yahoo. This unique searching mechanism can provide easy access to valuable web content buried deep within search engines or not yet indexed. This provides the user with fresh, popular content valuable for researching clients, their products and competition, and prospective marketing targets located within blogs, RSS feeds and sites not easily accessible through traditional methods, and information can be tagged and utilized as needed at later dates.
Digg and del.icio.us also provide tools to share content with friends and colleagues. However, their are some major differences in this capability. Digg allows users to sync with Facebook, Twitter, and locate “friends” utilizing the user’s contact list in various email platforms. Del.icio.us only allows you to send content to other del.icio.us users who’s contact information you already know. This feature makes Digg more valuable for promoting content, which can be easily used to promote viral marketing. Users who are active in social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and who also actively participate in blogs, can spread the word quick and easily using Digg’s content sharing tools. Del.icio.us, on the other hand, is more easily utilized for sharing content between , say, co-worker’s within the same marketing department where everyone is on a shared network.
Where del.icio.us excels is it’s ability to organize groups of websites for a common purpose, like developing buyer personas. Using Scott’s example of “Sam the Athlete,” one can tag all websites that this particular persona visits on a regular basis with a tag used exclusively for that buyer. Tags can be created for each buyer persona and important websites easily assigned to each group. Websites can be given multiple tags if they are useful for multiple purposes, such as targeting multiple buyer personas or categorizing for product or competitor research.
Both Digg and del.icio.us allow registered users to create profiles. However, Digg offers a detailed profile including photos, interests, contact information, links to social networking sites and your own website, friends, and categories of interest. Del.icio.us, in contrast, only offers a very limited profile including display name, email address, and website.
In conclusion, while Digg and del.icio.us are both valuable tools for conducting marketing research and bookmarking important content, Digg is more like a cross between a social network and bookmarking tool, and del.icio.us is definitely primarily useful for bookmarking, while offering limited abilities for networking. This makes Digg useful for research and viral marketing, while del.icio.us is most useful for research and categorizing important marketing content. To summarize, use Digg to accomplish viral marketing strategies, and use del.icio.us for developing marketing plans.



by Mark Rogers


 References:




Agrawal, Harsh (December 11th, 2008). Digg: The beginners guide.
www.shoutmeloud.com/digg-the-beginners-guide.html
Retrieved August, 2nd, 2009 from Google.com, search phrase “common uses of Digg”
Roach, Kim (May 24th, 2007). Top 10 Ways to Use del.icio.us.
www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/top-10-ways-to-use-delicious.html
Retrieved August, 2nd, 2009 from Google.com, search phrase “common uses of del.icio.us”
Scott, David Meerman (2007). The New Rules of Marketing & PR. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.