Why CBS shouldn't care about Colbert's ranking and why the traditional CPM model is broken

Take a gander at this somewhat concerning title below about Stephen Colbert's slip to 4th place after Seth Myers in the late night rating battle:

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/colbert-slips-to-4th-place-in-late-night-race-beaten-by-seth-meyers-who-airs-one-hour-later/

Another very short analysis below:

Colbert's ratings can be attributed to several factors -

• Colbert's divisiveness as a host (certainly not neutral on topics)
• As an extension, CBS' likely trepidation as to letting him go back to his formerly bitey-er commentary style makes the divisiveness useless
• Nerdiness factor that alienates both older and less educated viewers
• Classiness factor that bores younger Youtube era viewers

On the other hand, I think CBS would be wrong in trying to pressure Colbert or threaten to cancel in any way while he catches his stride and can redirect any pressure coming from advertisers that want to push the traditional Cost-Per-Thousand(M) model to how valuable Colbert is to them out of 1 simple factor:

His viewers are likely a lot more valuable on an individual basis.

To put this into perspective, do the following fuzzy math in your head:

How many Wal-Mart shoppers are worth 1 George Lucas?
How many 13 year old Pew Die Pie subscribers are worth 1 Ivy League graduate?

It's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point.

Interestingly enough, the ever-evolving online CPC/CPM marketing and the databases associated with them will lead to an interesting change in how viewers/demographics are valued, and will lead to more diverse and quality programming across all media.

Hopefully the Discovery/History/TLC guys will understand this as well and go back to their roots.

[Cynical view below]

On the other hand, this will likely extend into more in-depth valuing of social media shares due to marketer's ever growing demand for more information (than they actually need), drive creation of more intrusive and annoying styles of digital marketing, and what should be a great thing for content creators will turn into something ugly and mutated past its intended application like most things.

C'est le vie.

Facebook Prompts Remind You that FB "Cares About Your Privacy" :D

Does Facebook Suddenly Care About Your Privacy?

Article from TechCrunch:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/25/facebooks-privacy-checkups-remind-users-to-stop-posting-publicly/

Some blurbs from the article:

"Though a seemingly minor informational prompt, the addition arrives at a time when Facebook is facing increased competition with a bevy of mobile, social services offering more private sharing – WhatsApp being one which the company notably acquired for a mind-boggling $19 billion.

Earlier this month, Facebook also rolled out new private photo-sharing tools that offer an easier way for users to select specific people to share a photo album with via Facebook’s News Feed. The selector itself is reminiscent of Snapchat since it also lets you pick individual friends who can see your private photos."

"It’s also interesting to see Facebook shift its course to refocus on more private sharing in this post-Snowden era where users are beginning to feel more wary of the public nature of online sharing. Meanwhile, a new generation of users has been born into a world where their identities and private lives were already over-exposed by mom and dad while still in the womb and learning to crawl. It’s the perfect storm for a backlash against public socializing."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Reality:
They just realized that by sharing your data with search engines they're bleeding value from their ad platform

:D

Nintendo is Pushing Big on PR for the Wii U on Reddit - A Mostly Unsubstantiated Theory

Is This Social Media Marketing Done Right?
Is Nintendo Cleverly Gaming Reddit/r/Gaming for the WiiU?

Disclaimer: This is just a half-baked thought exercise.

Whatever, they've got nothing on Korean Starcraft players

Here at Rabbit, we think it's kind of beautiful in a perverse way when companies can seemingly trick/buy-en-masse/convince social media users to do their marketing job for them.

To be able to do so properly on a marketing aware website such as Reddit, a brand must be able to slip itself into a meme, spark discussion/nostalgia, and/or light a fire under the rear ends of "Karma Whores" (the white washed sepulchers of the community) to make them imitate the previous meme in hopes of accumulating those sweet sweet approvals from strangers upvotes.

Did Nintendo manage to do this successfully this past week to regain their footing right after their 18% post-forecast announcement stock plunge and are they buttering up the Reddit community to get them ready for a new batch of titles, mobile gaming, pre-hype the Nintendo 'Fusion', or just get their stock back to normal (which already happened)?

This short article is intended to entertain these ideas.


First, Some Non-Nintendo Examples of Reddit/r/Gaming Branding/Reactions:

Done Right: Valve/Steam
Manages to generally get positive reactions (comes and goes in cycles) if a Team Fortress 2 meme about hats is even semi-funny, an article talks glowingly about how awesome the nearly zero-tier corporate structure of Valve is, a rant about waiting for Half-Life 3 is seemingly heartfelt, or if Valve President Gabe Newell is even mentioned.

Done Horribly Wrong: Microsoft/XBox One
Mention of XBox One, or "XBone" as it is often referred to, may cause unnecessary anger, spark the First-World Gamer's equivalent to PTSD, or brings up links to articles and discussions about how Microsoft is trying to buy upvotes and pay people to say nice things about them. Bill Gates is still cool, though.

Nintendo seems to be right in between the two on Reddit, where a perpetual argument between diehard fanboys defending the company against XBox/PS4 gamers takes place, all while PC gamers just step in and throw in condescending remarks every once in a while.

Check out /r/HailCorporate for more displays of attempted viral marketing.

Top Nintendo posts this week

Nintendo has managed to capture the front page several times in the past week - users bringing up old clever ads, submitting product ideas, and even making "get well soon" memes directed at the company after a /r/bestof comment hit the nail on the head regarding the marketing failure of the Wii U:  http://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/1vowvg/how_can_nintendo_right_the_ship/ceuqe4g?context=3

The best response:

"Holy shit I just caught on to the fact that the wii u WASN'T an attachment for the wii.
This is exactly true for me...and now I feel old as shit."

Nintendo has essentially bowed, apologized for their failure, then turned right back around and got their footing back with the help of nostalgic internet gamers over the course of a few days by (possibly) lighting a candle under their butts by flooding the net with content and giving their fanboys a purpose. Don't believe me? Their stock returned to normal and only a few people noticed: http://gaminrealm.com/2014/01/23/nintendo-stock-returns-normal/

Regardless, I think the biggest lesson learned for them (at least in the US market) is that their strength is in their beloved first-party IPs... the things that bullrush many gamers with memories of childhood and hopes that the next iteration will be even better. When Nintendo makes a new console, they need to go down a checklist of games they need in the first year: Mario, Smash Brothers, Zelda, Mario Kart, Metroid, Pokemon, Mario Party, Mario Sports, etc. If they can't throw down at least 5 checkmarks on that list, the console might be done but it is not ready.

I specify the US market because the Japanese market for Nintendo is just fine: 9 of 10 best selling games in Japan last year are all on Nintendo consoles.

So, did Nintendo anticipate the stock drop and plan a brilliant online/Reddit PR strategy that got them right back on course darn near immediately (and made a select few a ton of money in a short period with the stock fluctuation)? Or was it just a completely natural and user-driven recovery?

It certainly is interesting to think about.

Your thoughts? Leave a comment.

Q: How Does Social Media Affect Local Small Business Search Rankings?

A: From Reddit/r/SEO - A thread in the comment section sums up how a local business should look to approach social media for SEO purposes.

The Original Question:

So I have a website for a local computer repair website. And I keep reading how import having social media is to the business. I have a facebook account, a google+ account, and a twitter and youtube. What should I be posting? Should I be posting a service I offer with a link back to my site on every one of those social platforms everyday. 

Should I be posting deals with a link to my site? I am very confused - a basic strategy would be amazing from any of you. 

My services
Computer repair, apple repair, point of sale repair, laptop repair, Thins along that nature

User Ozymandia5 replies:

No, to be blunt, posting services and links is a terrible way to attract attention. Do you use social media at all? If so, you probably have a relativly good idea of what kind of content gets shared/passed around regularly, particularly in terms of blog posts/articles etc. 

Use your facebook/google+/twitter account to post links about relevant blog posts or infographics to your followers, try to engage people by asking questions that relate to your business or products, and maybe consider running a competition or two The idea, primarily, is to build yourself a decent base of 1-2000 engaged followers, and then have them organically share your content with other users to 

• attract traffic to your site  
• show Google that your site is popular and relevant to its niche.

Reply 

Hello,
When linking to a blog article going to another site. How does Google see that I am engaged as a company sending a link to someone elses site and not mine. 

So I basically do not have to keep linking back to my site just find good articles somewhere post it on my facebook like check out this cool new hard drive or something and link to the blog post or article. 

How often should I do this... should I do this everyday for every social media account? 

I still don't see though how this will rank my site better if nothing points back to my site and is going all over the internet how does google now that my site is social media presence. Cause I keep seeing everywhere that google is looking for your presence all over social media. Thanks again for all your answers as well.

Final Reply from Ozymandia5

Generally, the idea is to leverage social marketing in order to build an engaged client base that will post links to your content elsewhere - which WILL improve your rankings. The initial stages of this do, admitedly, involve posting links that wont reap you any immediate rewards. Such is life. 

You have to think of it as more of a long term investment. That said, your social media accounts should all be linked to, and pointing towards your main website (you input your website when setting up company profiles on most media platforms) and engagement there will contribute to your 'social proof' which may have some small effect on your rankings in the short term. 

In terms of frequency? Experiment. A/B test. post once a day for two weeks, then post every other day for two: has your engagement dropped or improved? Post in the mornings for a month, then switch to afternoons. Any change? 

I'm sure you get the idea. The thing to remember is that nobody will find you engaging if you recklessly promote yourself, and nobody will engage with you if you take a purely narcissistic approach to social media. 

If this all sounds like a giant waste of time, then it might wll be: From personal experience, social media is something that only really works for a small niche of businesses. Of course a presence is always good, but I've never seen facebook or google+ as a particularly integral part of most people's SEO efforts, despite what Moz and co. will tell you. 

The only thing I will say is that I've personally noticed that Google+ has been having more of an impact on local rankings, but only time will really tell. 

Social Media Explained by Donuts

G+ is also: "Why the hell do I need a Google+ account to comment on a video about donuts?"

Remember: SEO, SEM, and SMM are 3 Different Things

This article is here to make you a better client for any Web Marketing firm or freelancer.

Too often do I see people assuming SEO is everything about the website's marketing efforts, and are confused that there are different costs associated with it. To be fair, nobody outside SEO experts cares about the difference between SEO and SMM, but as a client, knows the difference, you will likely prevent frustrating the person managing your website's marketing efforts.

SEO: Search Engine Optimization
Proper page structure, header tags, meta and alt tags, backlinks - all things to allow search engines to better browse your site and determine the quality of your page

SMM: Social Media Marketing
Using Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and other social platforms to build trust and as a PR interface

SEM: Search Engine Marketing
Some view this as the same as SEO, but I place Adwords Pay-Per-Click advertising and the like under this label


Just for the record, those three things are tied together which is why so many service companies offer them all. Don't be stupid and deny they aren't directly related, as in doing one is doing another as well.

Web design and SEO go hand-in-hand. They're not the same thing but there's a ton of overlap.

I can't tell you how many times I was approached to get a site into the search engines that had image menus, javascript links, dynamic content, a complete lack of h1, h2, etc, and even just things like overly complex page structure, or too much on one page. In terms of actually differentiating, it's arguable that you can differentiate those simply by pointing out the type of contract involved:

• Web site design is a fixed-task type contract. "Build a website and stop."
• SEO is a long-term ongoing engagement.

The part that pains me: accept that fact that going forward, if you want to improve at SEO, you're going to have to learn how to excel at SMM. And the market is going to reward those that do. It pains me because on a personal level, I think Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the rest are stupid, and the development of these things as marketing and social platforms help no one but marketing companies.

Finally, I always advise moving on to SEM/PPC advertising AFTER getting the SEO and SMM down. The reasoning is simple: Adwords takes your Page Quality into account when determining what your bid and subsequent ranking will be. Without the SEO and SMM, you would have to pay more for the same keywords.

Hope that helps, and best of luck to you and your website!