Algorithms Cha-cha-cha

Google burst to the top of the search engine market in 1998, not because it could index webpages faster, but because it did a better job at ranking and weighting them. In other words, it had a better system of algorithms for assigning relevance. Google then concocted its own supply and demand, as it were, by selling the results of searchable keywords through AdWords; A pay-per-click service (PPC), which still generates the majority of Google’s revenue.

Unfortunately, Google’s system was vulnerable to “content farms” which are websites that optimize their pages with mass amounts of content for the sole purpose of beefing up their own (PPC) ad revenue. These farms don’t care about content quality or the redundancy of information. Content is often poorly written or aggregated from other sites without concern for relevance. Consequently, Google’s value is diminished with cluttered and misleading search results.

Kung Fu Panda 2

Between February and November of 2011, Google targeted content farms by implementing new search algorithms that would provide better search results. While developing the new release, Google-insiders called the project “Farmer,” until DreamWorks’ Kung Fu Panda 2 was released in May. Coincidentally, Panda was the nickname of the lead engineer on the project and the name caught on. Remember Google’s other releases? Fresh? Caffeine? Me neither, I had to look them up.

Google changes its algorithm system all the time. What makes Panda monumental is that it changes the core basis for how Google ranks webpages. For the first time, Google is able to assign search relevance based on webpage design and content quality. It’s been evaluated that 35 percent of all Internet searches are being affected by Panda. To put this in perspective, Panda can affect up to 10 percent of searches made by any one individual.

After the second released version of Google’s Panda in November of 2011, infographics started to pop up everywhere.

So let’s review . . .

Google uses algorithms primarily based on keywords so that it can sell keyword results through AdWords. Content farms usurp Google’s revenue stream by using Google’s own search algorithms to attract and sell PPC ad revenue. They do this by hosting tons of worthless content affecting Google’s search quality. Google then changes its algorithms to rank well-designed websites with quality content higher in searches, leaving content farms high and dry. To maintain search rankings, webmasters bomb their sites with infographics. I think I just blocked out my first infographic.

What better way to conclude than with a real infographic about Google’s Panda release:

Not that I had anything against the shampoo, nor Heather Locklear for that matter, but it does make me wonder. Why did the shampoo go off the market in 1992? Why does Herbal Essence, a product introduced during the same era, thrive today, while Faberge’s Organic Honey & Wheat Germ Shampoo tanked with so many other competing products? Remember them all: Protein 21, Halsa, Touch of Yogurt, White Rain, Body on Tap (made with 1/3 beer), and who can forget “Gee, Your Hair Smells Terrific”?  All gone. Why? What did Proctor & Gamble do that Faberge and the others didn’t?  Was it making Herbal Essence more fruity-smelling to attract a younger demographic? Was it the tongue-in-cheek commercials about the woman having an “organic experience” in the shower, giving the brand sex appeal?

Emerging media is redefining the definition of “brand” and the role of brand managers. It used to be “let the brand drive the product and the product drive the brand,” however, today the product metaphorically speaks for itself in a marketplace where consumers literally talk for themselves. It’s like there’s been a cosmic power shift between product, brand, and consumer, while the marketer’s main role has changed from director to that of facilitator.

So maybe I did make use of the always-available Faberge Organic Shampoo commercial as an easy introduction to my topic . . . but don’t tell anyone.

What original shampoos do you wish would make a comeback?
[contact-form]

A study commissioned by Yahoo and Nielson found that 86% of mobile users are on the web while watching their favorite shows, especially sports and reality TV. This phenomenon is part of the social TV movement called the “second screen.” That’s right, as a species we are instinctively evolving. These dual activities are reinstating a natural order by stimulating our left brain with verbal and problem solving activities, while appeasing the other half with imagery and entertainment. TV. An addiction, or a necessary evolutionary step toward a higher state of consciousness?

But wait, there’s more…

We can’t talk about mobile web without talking about apps. The development of wireless applications continues to give us unprecedented connectivity. For many people mobile apps are a part of everyday life, and app use is growing. Social media moguls are counting on this, which was very evident during Super Bowl XLIV where the second screen apps spent millions of dollars battling for market share. GetGlue, Shazam, and IntoNow, to name a few, are reporting peak logins, registrations, tweets, votes, and tags during the game. Debuting at the Super Bowl was a newcomer named Viggle.

Viggle is the creation of former American Idol executive Robert Sillerman, owner of the Function(x) corporation. Sillerman distinguishes Viggle from other second screen experiences as, “Everyone else is really operating a social-TV product, not a real loyalty program with real rewards,” emphases on REAL. Viggle rewards are larger and more accessible than its competitors. This is a reflection of Viggle’s strategic launch partners: Verizon, Pepsi, Gatorade, Capital One, and Burger King.

This is how it works. Viggle is a “check-in” app that syncs up audibly to your TV show. A point system rewards check-ins, quizzes, polls and even charitable contributions, however, what distinguishes Viggle from its competition as a loyalty program is that points are also awarded for every additional minute the show is being watched.

Checkout the video below.  Sorry for the link. The network hasn’t released this video to their YouTube channel yet.  I love when Annalee Penny introduces technology.

At the heart of this polling mishap was the use of “quota sampling” that didn’t take into effect the bias telephone ownership had toward the wealthy who were more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.

Hmm, sampling bias, phones, emerging media, presidential election.

The 2008 presidential election brought validity to the power of emerging media. Then-Senator Obama was the first presidential candidate to Tweet, Facebook, and blog.  This phenomenon led the Pew Research Center to conduct a study in 2010 titled, “Politics Go Mobile.” They concluded that polls conducted in households with only a landline phone gave Republicans a five-point edge. Some things never change. On the other hand, polls conducted in homes using both a landline and mobile phone leaned Democratic.  The assertion was that mobile phone users are younger and trend toward being Democrats. The study also reveals that whether Democrat or Republican, mobile phone owners who are politically involved rank higher in the adoption of emerging media.

This leads me to another Pew study conducted 6 months ago, titled,  “35% of American Adults Own a Smartphone,” which concluded that smartphone owners on average tend to be wealthier and better educated. The study also reveals a strong sub-culture of approximately one quarter of smartphones owners who use the device primarily for Internet access. This group is predominately young, non-white, with a relatively lower income, and has limited access to broadband.

This upcoming election proves to be interesting in terms of the use of emerging media and its effect on polling. As usual, political extremes are amplified, measured, and made into opinion. Two extremes that shouldn’t be overlooked in 2012 are the landline only vs. mobile only crowds.

To some degree, we are all voyeuristic creatures. Whether we choose to embrace or repel the urge to look into the lives of others, the instinct is still a compelling factor in our collective behaviors.

So how did we go from a society that believed some things are best left unsaid, to “it didn’t happen unless it’s on Facebook”? What brought the masses out from viewing the few to being the viewed?

Philologist Dr. Pamela Rutledge hypothesizes that that two factors contributed to the development of social media. The first is the longing people have for their 15 minutes of fame, a.k.a. Andy Warhol. The second is the vast void of content, created by the Internet, that needed to be filled.

Fifteen minutes? Void? Tell that to my teenage daughter who would spend 15 hours a day, if she could, on social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube), and who’s quickly approaching her 5000 friend limit on Facebook.

Is it possible that reality TV was a necessary precursor for the expanse of social media? Was initial shock, followed by disgust, then acceptance of common (and not so common) people’s lives lived out on TV necessary for us to embrace social media? I’m only half kidding.

Perhaps it’s more like an evolution than a precursor, which leads me to yet another quandary. Will such a thing as social TV replace reality TV?

According to the Reality Insights Survey Report, 67% of reality TV fans use some form of social media while watching reality shows. The survey found that 38% were active on Facebook, while 35% were on Twitter. It was also found that 93% of those who did participate in social media while viewing reality TV where influenced by product advertising and brand placement.

With numbers like these, marketers would jump at the advertising opportunities social TV (whatever that may be) would bring both on and off the air; not to mention, real-time reaction to storylines (yes I know reality TV is contrived) to produce a better product.

Facebook Survivor? Maybe.

Miss America Laura Kaeppeler

Okay, beauty pageants don’t hold the sway of days gone by, but you have to admire the pluck of this year’s 2012 Miss America pageant committee www.missamerica.org.

In Idol-esque fashion, last Saturday night the pageant allowed the public to vote online for a single candidate to compete as one of the five finalists.

The pageant utilized an elaborate mix of emerging media. Each contestant created a video that was part of a Facebook survey allowing enthusiasts to view and vote. The videos were also available on YouTube, and when “liked” also cast a vote. Voting could also take place via text messaging.

It’s been reported that the pageant’s TV ratings rose 13% from last year in the coveted 18 to 49-year-old demographic (www.examiner.com).  It didn’t hurt that that the Broncos were being blown out by the Patriots; but then I’m not in the 18 to 49-year-old demographic.

This year’s video vote winner…Miss Oklahoma, Betty Thompson. Unfortunately she didn’t go on to win.  This year’s honor went to Laura Kaeppeler of Wisconsin who, as lovely as she is, can’t hold a candle to Miss Oklahoma’s quirky video presence. I wonder how long before pageants are only online?

Our executive team tasked me with expanding our core business to include multi-touch, multi-channel marketing and communication solutions, referred to then as “multi-media” marketing. I was chosen because of my background was an odd combination of technical and creative. The results were a successful “marketing service provider” division that was embraced by our marketing and fundraising clients.

That was nearly five years ago, and my company is still a respected MSP, but nobody calls it multi-media marketing anymore; and no one cares about the multi-touch, multichannel marketing. Not really. The “emerging media” mindset has changed the paradigm of media in marketing. I say mindset, because emerging media is not encumbered by traditional views of media.  Emerging media looks beyond media and beyond devices.

For purposes of this blog, emerging media will be the social, economical impact of digital content accessed or provided through the Internet, in such a manner that it provokes thought, emotion, interaction, entertainment or commerce. This definition is crazy vague, I know, but it’s my goal to expound upon the meaning and understanding of emerging media for my readers, through this blog.

Where do I work?  Does it matter? The experiences I am sharing are universal to any business. Why so cryptic? Those pesky nondisclosure agreements leave me no other choice than to remain anonymous. On the plus side, I get to refer to myself in the third person. Cathartic? Yes. I need an outlet for how emerging media affects my life and work—Hello world!