ROI Archive

A few days ago, The New York Times broke a story titled “The Dirty Little Secrets of Search,” which has found its way into the website’s “Most E-mailed” list. Apparently, J.C. Penney has been manipulating Google’s PageRank algorithm to artificially boost SEO. Using a high volume of J.C. Penney-bound links on spam sites, the brand’s online store found its way into the number one Google result for queries about “dresses,” “bedding,” “carry on luggage” and lots of other generic terms. After investigation and confirmation that J.C. Penney was in violation of its guidelines, Google took “manual action,” striking a huge blow both to J.C. Penney’s SEO and reputation. Was it really worth risking such a setback just for the extra clicks? The answer is a resounding “maybe.”

After Facebook, Google is the #1 most visited website in the world. It’s a simple and not-so-surprising stat, but the fact that the #2 spot is filled by a tool rather than a content-rich site says a lot about how our online behaviors are changing. According to a study quoted on NPR’s On The Media, one third of Google users click on the first result when performing a query — that’s four times the number of clicks on any result ranked two through five. Look at the stats, and Penney’s approach starts to sound pretty lucrative.

But on the other hand, only 7% of traffic to J.C. Penney’s online store come from organic search results, already taking their shady SEO tactics into account. This seems like an error in judgement considering the widespread negative publicity that resulted when the news broke (recall that this story was on the NY Times ‘Most E-Mailed’ list). To their credit, Penney fired their SEO consulting agency, SearchDex, but it’s hard to believe they weren’t aware of the strategy. Somewhere along the chain of decision makers, someone failed to properly evaluate risk and reward.

The Huffington Post has also gotten a lot of attention lately for their SEO strategy, which exploits Google’s algorithm while playing by the rules. The most popular example of this is a headline article titled “What Time Does the Super Bowl Start?” Correctly predicting how users would search for the answer (typing that very phrase into Google), HP found its way into top Google results over and over again. HP regularly crafts headlines with key search terms to maximize its SEO. Subversive, or just plain clever?

Because users can’t be expected to alter their search habits (after all, what is more natural than asking a direct question?), the public eye is on Google to keep its algorithm up to date, dynamic and well-guarded against subversion and low quality content. It’s oft quoted motto of “Do no evil” has transformed into a public expectation that Google fight all evil doers of SEO manipulation. To shamelessly quote Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

[Also published on Social Media Today]

Social Media “frenzies” are over-analyzed as they are happening but are then inadequately remembered after they pass, making their true impact hard to understand.  For example, I would really like to know what was the true impact of the so-called “Motrin Moms” incident?  Did it affect sales, reputation, favorability?

The Skittles experiment in March was hugely effective in generating buzz and traffic but what effect did that truly have and was it sustainable? In these cases it really is just conjecture.  Sales and other brand metrics are not readily available as they are just products within larger organizations, and after initial interest wanes these “social media frenzies” are somewhat forgotten and do not get re-examined.  As this practice area develops, I do believe that Social Media professionals should develop a habit of re-examining these examples as case studies in order to better understand their impact.

One recent example that is interesting to re-examine with having the benefit of time is the Domino’s social media scandal from March 2009 (initially discussed here).  The fact that it is a public company and the top level brand at the company makes it easier to go back and understand the impact of that crisis.  This was actually a frequent discussion point on the company earning’s conference call for that quarter (transcript at Seeking Alpha).  Apparently, the company will not suffer long-term losses, but did suffer sales 1%-2% in that quarter (WSJ article).  So it seems that the damage was pretty heavy, yet limited since that truly was the worst case scenario of a social media crisis.  Domino’s will obviously survive this.

I am not questioning the importance of social media to today’s business. I’m simply suggesting that we should remember to re-examine these events long after they take place as that will give us a clearer understanding about their the long-term significance.