Inside the Marketers Studio - David Berkowitz's Marketing Blog

Jakob Nielsen, What Are You Smoking?

Here's today's column, originally in MediaPost.

Dear Jakob Nielsen,

I almost missed the last newsletter you sent me, as it was delivered directly to my junk mail folder. Maybe Microsoft was so dismayed by your recent commentary that Outlook rebelled against you. Whatever the reason, I’m of two minds about your section on “What MS Can Do Without Y!” First, I thought you were joking and dismissed it outright. Then, I thought that if you were serious, someone needed to provide a rebuttal.

In your newsletter, you turn to Microsoft’s future and what it should do with the $50 billion which you say Steve Ballmer “needs to do something else with” now that it won’t acquire Yahoo (though you don’t mention why). Your entire enterprise is devoted to how publishers, marketers, and others can improve themselves by focusing on the consumer’s experience, but your ideas here would do the opposite: They’re in the worst interests of the consumer and they’d cripple Microsoft. I’ll address your points one by one.

Your concept overall is that you want Ballmer “to refund some of the outrageous sums harvested by search engines.” If Yahoo and Microsoft were making such outrageous sums, why would they need to join forces? Shouldn’t you address this letter to Google, which is making the most outrageous sums of anyone in online advertising? And if you did turn to Google, would you chide Google (and its sister nonprofit Google.org) for investing in such potentially beneficial technologies as WiMax, electric cars, and aerospace? What about giving back by hiring and paying taxes? How much needs to be refunded anyway?

Then you write what Ballmer should do. First, “Give back to the websites that create the content that search engines currently scrape for free: pay sites for only being indexed in one search engine and refuse the other engines. In particular, allow access to deep link archives of value-added content for users entering from your search engine. Value proportion [sic] to users: When you search on engine X, you find stuff that’s otherwise not available.”

Wouldn’t users achieve the best value by being able access the entire Web from multiple sources? How would users even remember what’s in which engine? Instead, Microsoft and other engines could learn from vertical search engines and better tailor results pages to vertical-specific queries. Just look at search engines such as Retrevo for consumer electronics and Kosmix for various verticals, including health, and how they add layers of intelligence about the query to improve the user experience. Then again, Microsoft acquired health search site Medstory and shopping site Jellyfish, so maybe it’s just an issue of using those assets better.

Here’s your next idea: “Give back to the users. For example, pay IT departments for redirecting all searches emanating from their company to engine X. Value prop to advertisers: if you want to reach the B2B audience, you need placement on our SERPs [search engine results pages] because that’s all business users see in 70% of the Fortune 500.”

I’m not a big fan of IT departments. It’s a really bad idea for me to write this publicly since no one will ever fix my computer again, but most IT people I’ve worked with are so condescending and insulting that I’d rather call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for tech support than deal with them. They have this great way of giving me shoddy machinery and blaming it on me when it breaks. Your idea accomplishes one feat I never thought possible: You found a way that would make me loathe IT people even more.

If I’m trying to search on my favorite engine and it redirects to an engine I did not want to use, I will raise hell, and I may even start interviewing with other companies where the first question I’ll ask them is, “Can I use whatever search engine I want here?” I’m sure advertisers will pay a premium to reach these frustrated users wondering where their favorite search engine went. You’re essentially advising a corporate version of state-sponsored censorship.

Lastly, you write, “Finally, and most importantly: improve basic search performance. For example by creating human-readable summaries of the search results instead of the horrible 2-line snippets currently used. One idea is to hire a million people (probably no more than ~$1B/year) to use an instrumented browser that requires them to pass judgment on the usefulness of every search hit they visit. This data could allow sorting the SERP by usefulness instead of popularity and thus vastly improve the quality of searches.”

I agree with the “improve basic search performance part,” but you miss the boat on the rest. First of all, site owners can already improve those snippets by engaging in basic search engine optimization. Yahoo’s Open Search initiatives give sites even more power to make listings more useful, and other engines should follow suit. Why would some random person earning minimum wage (or the going rate in their home country) provide a better result description? For non-optimized listings, engines can still use their technology to better craft those descriptions automatically. Finally, search engines sort SERPs primarily by relevance and not popularity, which the engines need to do to minimize the results being gamed.

Jakob, please stop giving search engines unsolicited advice. I’m not a huge fan of Steve Ballmer; ever since I saw that monkey dance video of him, it’s been hard to take him seriously. But I clearly don’t hate him as much as you do. Apparently, I think more highly of consumers, too. Hey, it’s not all bad; I’m sure you’re at least winning more points with IT departments.

Your Favorite Search Insider (or one of ‘em),

David

Twitter Alerts Comic

Thanks to Howard Greenstein for inspiration.

Indiana Jones Plays Ball

This was a surprise when I was checking out the Mets schedule this month: Indiana Jones is pictured on the calendar for opening day. Only after looking did I notice the ad to the left. It's definitely an attention-grabber. He's there for every team, though growing up in Princeton, NJ (according to Wikia), I fear he's a Phillies fan, and I'd have a hard time rooting for him.

Wait, he was born in 1899, two years before the Philadelphia Athletics were founded. The A's moved to Kansas City in '55, and then Oakland in '68. He's definitely an A's fan. I can live with that.

Mobile, Local, Social, Invisible

This column appeared earlier this week in MediaPost.

Trying to get people to care about privacy is like trying to get people worked up about the amount of fiber in their diet. Everyone knows they should do something, but hardly anyone wants to go out of their way. That may change when mobile adds a new dimension to search. As mobile goes mainstream, where people search from matters as much as what they search for, and people will have to consider how much they'll want to share their mobile whereabouts.

People may not always want to be found. While consumers are starting to pay to use mobile social networks like Loopt that show where their friends are, soon people may pay to be invisible. It can be considered part of the natural evolution of mobile.

Much of the value of mobile search for consumers will come from local search queries — searches for weather, maps, nearby lodging, restaurants, and in-stock products. Mobile social networks then build on the local component, allowing consumers to find friends wherever they go; such networks include Loopt, Brightkite, Dodgeball (acquired by Google), and Fireball (an emerging application using Yahoo's Fire Eagle and Upcoming). One of the most important features of these networks is their privacy settings.

For some great indicators of how important privacy is for mobile media, read a recent column by Steven Levy in Newsweek where he interviews Loopt's 23-year-old CEO Sam Altman. Levy asks, "What's the right number of people to share locations?" Altman estimates it's about 20, noting that he only has around 45 such contacts. Compare that to Facebook, where founder Mark Zuckerberg recently mentioned the average person has around 150 friends, while some encroach on the network's limit of 5,000 friends (Robert Scoble says even that limit's too low). I also experienced this firsthand when I signed up for BrightKite; I was excited to join the beta, but then I realized I didn't want that many people knowing where I was. Fortunately, with BrightKite, I could choose different levels of trust for each friend, which makes it easier to sort my real friends from my contacts.

Modest Needs, Major Impact

When considering philanthropic endeavors, sometimes it's great to go right to the source so you know where and how you're making an impact. In some ways, sites like Kiva (previously mentioned here) go a long way there, though microloan sites like Kiva take investments, not donations - you get the money back which you can then keep reinvesting.

To help out in your own back yard, you might want to check out Modest Needs, a site where you can help people in dire straits pay bills to prevent them from falling deeper into poverty. Here's a description from the site:

Since 2002, by working together in this very 'modest' way, Modest Needs' donors have stopped 5012 low-income individuals and families from entering the vicious cycle of poverty and a lifetime of dependence on the public welfare system for their survival.

And, in the process, with our 'small change,' we've freed up millions of dollars in state and federal funding that would've been used to support these people - our neighbors - had we turned our backs and done nothing to help them in their times of short term crisis.

Modest Needs verifies the information from the applicants to whatever extent possible and transparently discloses that on the application profiles. Here's a sample petition that was recently fulfilled:

Water Bill- Disabled Mother of 4 | Cost to fully fund this application: 327.00 Modest Needs Points

I am permanently disabled and I have custody of my four children. We receive SSI benefits and child support. I am medically not supposed to work, but last January we had an unexpected expense that caused us to fall behind in our household finances.

Last January, our family dog was sick and I had to take him to vet and pay for his care and medicines. I have been catching up slowly on our fixed income. Last month I started working again part-time, at a job that I probably should not be doing due to my health. But, I have to work to keep our family afloat.

I am asking for help to pay our water bill. I have been unable to pay it for the last few months. With my new job I should be able to pay this in the future. Thank you.

And here's the end result - the testimonial after it was granted:

I would like to thank every donor and the Modest needs foundation for helping me and my 4 children out. I did not know what we were going to do if we were not able to get help from modest needs and the donors( our anglels ) I had given up hope because I had been to local township offices and they turned me down. I thank you all so much that words could never express my gratitude and I thank GOD for you all and pray that GOD will bestow a blessing upon you all.

Thanks to Manhattan Users Guide for its write-up that informed me about Modest Needs. It's a great daily newsletter about culture, events, and other insights into New York City.

Calorie Labeling's Laws of Unintended Consequences

Yesterday I went to lunch at Cosi to check out the results of New York City's new calorie labeling law that requires restaurants with 15 or more locations nationwide to post calories on their menus. The City started sending out violation notices yesterday, and while it's still being contested, fines are due to be sent out starting July 18. See NY1, my favorite local news source, for the news, and this PDF from NYC for full details in the compliance guide.

At Cosi, a restaurant I don't go to much, I suddenly had a new appreciation for the menu. Some of the smoothies there had calorie counts in the quadruple digits; even food guru Marion Nestle was surprised.

I ordered the wasabi roast beef sandwich partially because at 626 calories, it's one of the more moderate menu items. It has 200 fewer calories than the veggie muffaletta sandwich (see the nutrition info online at getcosi.com). I love it. It was such a thrill to be able to see everything out in the open.

I know I'm not the average consumer. I'm fairly well read on nutrition, I have a fairly high metabolism that I take advantage of far more than I should, and - full disclosure - a family member works for the NYC Department of Health, so I know a ton about this issue in particular. But I'm still a consumer, one who eats out a lot (though usually not at chains), one who likes food, and one who still has that reptilian brain for hunger fulfillment, so I don't think I'm totally out there.

When I saw that Cosi menu, I could balance a number of factors in making my decision: how tasty an item looked, how hungry I was, what else I had to or planned to eat today, how much I felt like making the right decision, how much I felt like spoiling myself, and how many calories certain items had relative to the others. The last point's especially salient here: if the items average 800 calories, then ordering an 800 calorie sandwich makes me seem like I'm doing a so-so job at monitoring my intake, but if the items average 1,400 calories, then getting an 800 calorie item makes me feel like I'm a dieting superstar. In the latter scenario, I might then go for a 1,000 calorie item over an 800 calorie item, or I might stop by the ice cream truck (with no calorie labels) on the way back to work (which I almost did - I SO wanted the chocolate dipped vanilla cone).

That's the first unintended consequence: restaurants with abominable menus may encourage consumers to eat worse and think they're dieting.

The second unintended consequence is that consumers who care about nutrition may go to fast food restaurants MORE often. I could go to Eisenberg's Deli and get a BLT with mayo, a fantastic sandwich at one of the best lunch spots in the city, and wash it down with an egg cream, consuming who knows how many calories in the process. OR, I could go to Cosi, get a lower quality sandwich, but at least know what I'm getting myself into. The decision to go to Cosi starts looking better and better.

Putting the two together, this may mean fast food chains don't lose any business over this. They could even increase business. And while sales of their highest calorie items may drop off, sales of items with slightly fewer calories may actually increase. That means these restaurants would be wise to keep the highest calorie items prominently displayed on their menus. Even if sales drop off for those items, their mere presence could encourage a new form of pseudo-health-conscious gluttony, where consumers think they're eating better in the relative sense. Still, the informed glutton is better off than the uninformed glutton, and a small fraction of people changing their eating habits can make this program pay off many times over.

As for my visit to Cosi, I avoided getting a drink, opting for water at my desk. With lunch, they offer a bag of carrots or a bag of chips. I was so good ordering a relatively lower calorie sandwich. Of course I got the chips.

And later that day I went to Eisenberg's to meet someone for coffee, where I drank my egg cream in blissful ignorance.

How Not to Moderate a Panel, Courtesy of The New York Times

Yesterday my wife and I went to a couple panels at the The New York Times' Sunday With the Magazine event in Times Square. While I've read some great posts on moderating panels (see Paul Kedrosky, Guy Kawasaki, Jeremiah Owyang, and Dan Perry), moderator and Times columnist Virgina Heffernan provided some fresh examples of what not to do.

I like Virginia's writing and blogging, and there's always a risk in picking speakers as moderators, and it's greater than the risk of having them speak. Most good writers can put a few thoughts together on the fly and contribute something if it's their area of expertise, but not everyone can step back orchestrate a panel.

The panel, "What to Watch," included Bravo TV President Lauren Zalaznick, "Project Runway" fashion gutu Tim Gunn, and "Top Chef" judge Gail Simmons. It's hard to get a better lineup than that if you're moderating, and the speakers were able to rescue the panel, but it wasn't a great experience like it should have been. Here are a few things that the moderator could have done better, and which any moderator can look out for:

1) Don't speak more than the panelists. I don't even think I'm exaggerating when saying that the moderator spoke at least as much as the three panelists combined. It got to the point where when she'd start speaking, I'd cringe and wait for her to let a speaker say something. Most of the time when a speaker did chime in, the speaker was actually cutting off the moderator.

2) Don't answer your own questions. The moderator was opining left and right, often with astute analysis, but sometimes with some bizarre observations. I kept wondering what the panelists thought, and sometimes I never found out.

3) Ask questions. Many of the questions were statements. She reminded me in a way of Chris Farley's Saturday Night Live sketches with The Chris Farley Show, where Farley interviewed celebrities and never really asked a question, leaving his guests to squirm uncomfortably (though often graciously) as they waited for the question.

 

4) Remember all your panelists. Most of the questions were addressed to Lauren Zalaznick, and while she provided great insight into the television business, she was only one of three people there. Worse yet, it's safe to say just about everyone in the room was really there to see Tim Gunn, one of the most beloved TV personalities. Gunn received the fewest questions from the moderator, and unfortunately his answers were always concise and to the point, much like his appearances on "Runway." The moderator needed to overcompensate for that to give the audience what they wanted.

5) Keep some notes handy. The moderator didn't have any notes in front of her. While it's a talent to moderate extemporaneously, she at times seemed unprepared, and perhaps a few note cards would have kept her on track. (On the plus side though, she didn't try to Twitter the panel. That would not have worked well today.)

6) Tackle the big questions. My wife noted the moderator neglected to ask what's happening with Project Runway moving from Bravo to Lifetime. We were actually surprised to see Tim Gunn representing Bravo on the panel, though he still has "Tim Gunn's Guide to Style." There's also some potential turmoil with "Runway" judge Nina Garcia. The moderator missed the opportunity to address these questions. Additionally, it took an audience member to ask if the producers ever meddle in decisions of who to boot off a show. (The panelists were adamant the producers never do this. Gunn even said once he was so surprised about a decision that he stormed into the producers' office and accused them off interfering, and they showed him that the judges were solely responsible, as their rating cards proved.)

We also attended the panel after, where writer and author Matt Bai interviewed New York Governor David Paterson. The session felt entirely different. It didn't hurt that Paterson was brilliant, quick, candid, and genuinely happy to be there, but all those traits could have been said about the previous session's panelists (though Paterson gave one of the best interviews I've ever seen - such a treat, and he was supposedly the drier subject).

Bai, as Paterson's moderator, got in the big questions (spending a lot of time on Paterson's relationship with former governor Eliot Spitzer and how the transition went) to the personal (Paterson's blindness, and his previous marriage issues) to current events (what to make of Reverend Wright?). Bai's questions were brief - even getting in a lightning round, he showed a sense of humor without upstaging the governor (who could hardly be upstaged), and he managed to constantly ask questions that Paterson could answer. If the Times does release the views from the event, watch those two to learn how it's done.

 

Plaxo Pulse Feedback

I sent the message below to Plaxo Pulse's customer service team, and I'm sharing it here in case others have any similar experiences that you want to share. Plaxo, Pulse or no Pulse, is for me more of a utility rather than a destination or channel. I'm really glad it's there and I've paid for Plaxo's premium services, but I don't need to get bombarded by daily messages, and I don't need to go there every day. (For me, Friendfeed is the same way right now). In light of that, here's some feedback.

Message to Plaxo

I have four bits of Feedback for Pulse:

1) It's very hard to leave a group. When I clicked a group I'm a part of from my Pulse homepage, it led to a page with some communication from group members, but only after awhile of clicking around did I realize where the group's homepage was where I could leave it. This usability issue should be examined.

2) While there are lots of communication options, I couldn't control how groups communicate with me in general or how a specific group communicates with me. I had to leave a group instead of constantly getting messages related to it.

3) The weekly updates from people I know bit is now totally useless. If you have a number of contacts who blog or Twitter, then there's no point. I unsubscribed, but I still wouldn't mind an update solely about their job changes. Allowing that granular customization would be a big improvement.

4) I no longer get the emails when people add me as a connection. That's fine because I get too much email anyway. But something might not be working on your end, as I confirmed I am opted in to receive those updates.

Thanks.

David

How Twitter is Making Blogging Better

In the comments to CK's post about my media sponsorship policy, she recommended that I open up a forum on my blog during events that I cover for others to interact, ask questions, take polls, and bring the events to life as much as possible on the blog. I have tried doing this to some degree, but as I noted back to CK, Twitter's much more effective for this.

This is just one way Twitter's making blogging better. Here's a quick recap. I welcome your ideas in the comments, whether you agree or disagree.

• Bloggers post their quick thoughts and links on Twitter so they don't need to post them on their blogs.
• Bloggers get feedback from people who can reply instantly from wherever they want rather than going to the blog and taking the time to compose a comment.
• Bloggers can engage in real-time dialogues with their readers and followers rather than the time-shifted conversation on the blog. This further narrows the gap and deepens the relationship between bloggers and their audiences.

And here's one way Twitter can make blogging worse:

• One prominent blogger, who I won't call out here, includes a daily summary of his Twitter posts on his blog. Very few of those posts are worth syndicating. They only make sense if you follow him. I find myself reading his blog less now because of it.

I do think the pros outweigh the cons though. It's the classic paradigm: it's not the tool; it's how you use it.

Global Communications: Connecting Across Borders and Understanding Cultural Differences (Partner Plug)

Read more information about this blog's media sponsorship policy, always available to the top left of this page.

Global Communications: Connecting Across Borders and Understanding Cultural Differences

For more information and to register visit www.bdionline.com/globalcommunications. Use promo code MSCOM for a discounted rate of $345.

Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008   
Time: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Place: The Graduate Center/CUNY: 365 Fifth Avenue; New York, NY 10016
Registration Fee: $395
Website: http://www.bdionline.com/globalcommunications

It has been reported that a substantial number ofU.S. based multinational companies’ primary source of growth and profits are linked to global markets.  New generations of consumers are growing at a rapid pace in China, India and many other emerging markets. However, it’s not business as usual when communicating, connecting and branding on world-wide basis. During this full day conference, we will examine case studies from leading multinational companies who will share their lessons learned from a communications and branding perspective. 300 communications and marketing professionals from both the corporate and agency communities are expected to attend the conference.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Case Studies:

What Does Global Communications Look Like Today?
Dave Armon, Chief Operating Officer, PR Newswire

How SAP Connects With Customers, Media and Employees Worldwide
Saswato Das, Global Media Relations, Global Communications, SAP AG

A look at LatAm Communications Landscape and What US Communicators Need to Know to be Successful
Marco Franca, Vice President, Latin America, PR Newswire

How Mars Makes the World a Little Sweeter
Marlene Machut, Director of Health and Nutrition, Mars

Xerox's Global Rebranding Campaign
Michael Moeller, Director, Corporate Public Relations

HSBC's Global Corporate Social Responsibility Program
Linda Recupero, EVP, Public Affairs, HSBC

Additional Speakers include thought leaders from Benbow International PR, High Context Consulting LLC, XPLANE, Burson-Marsteller, MON REVE Cultural Diversity, Felician College, rEvolution, Lifestyle International Productions, GTK Marketing Group, Global Media Relations

Topics covered:
- Understanding the communications landscape in China, Europe and emerging markets
- Lessons learned about understanding culturual differences when executing global communications campaigns
- Building community and collaboration with global customers
- Strategies for connecting with global media
- Global communications career trends

Sponsors: PR Newswire, LinkedIn, D S Simon Productions Inc., The FeedRoom, GuestPass.com, Hispanic Trending, LatinVision, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, MarketersStudio.com, NY:MIEG, New York University, PR News, SEMPO Institute, SmallBizTechnology.com, Taproot Foundation, WOMMA           

For more information and to register visit www.bdionline.com/globalcommunications. Use promo code  MSCOM for a discounted rate of $345.