Was Brands In Public Run Out Of Town?

• Those with a keen interest in online reputation management will have detected the stir caused by Brands in Public – Seth Godin’s Squidoo spin-off. You might also have heard that a tide of criticism caused a bit of a rethink and change of approach.
• In essence there was a mis-match in perceptions. The Big Idea behind Brands in Public was to bring together all the online conversations about big brands into one place – then for a monthly fee allow brands to engage with those conversations.
• On the face of it, this seems like a fairly low-controversy idea. The conversations are happening anyway; on Twitter, Facebook and countless forums. Tracking these is incredibly difficult and time consuming. Brands in Public charges a not inconsiderable fee but offers a ready-made solution. All the big brands need to do is engage and, hopefully, enhance their reputation and standing with their customers. They can also quickly get ahead of any negative stuff that might, otherwise, snowball before it even comes to their attention.
• To illustrate the point, Brands in Public created a range of big-brand pages all ready to go. But since the brands in question didn’t get to engage with their own feedback unless they signed up, it seems they took exception to this. Words like “extortion” and “Brand Hijacking” have appeared in various reports and so these pages were taken down.
• Which is fine. If there’s one thing the Squidoo management understand and embrace it’s receiving and acting upon feedback. The perception of their Big Idea was in danger of being seriously undermined with the very people they were wanting to pay for the service. Rapid adaptation therefore was in order.
• But for those of us sitting back and watching, what does this tell us about the wider picture for online Reputation Management?
• I looked at several of the Brand pages before they were taken down. There WAS some negative feedback included for a balanced picture, but for the most part feedback was positive. The list of initial pages read as a “who’s who” among the big brands – to be on that initial list would, I’d have thought, been cause for some satisfaction for the various marketing departments; a validation of their brand status.
• Instead, though it seems there was a gut reaction “we don’t control this – and we’re not about to pay for the privilege”. It seems they recognised that this was big enough to pay attention to, but only insofar as they wanted it shut down RIGHT NOW – and this despite generally positive feedback and being in some pretty lofty company.
• Which all seems to suggest that Seth Godin still has some work to do on the attitude front. If Reputation Management means controlling EVERY mention of a brand online and monopolising the discussion of the brand then marketing departments across the globe are placing their fingers in the proverbial dyke.
• What reputation Management will have to ultimately become is ENGAGEMENT with the discussions; a balanced approach to the good and bad feedback any company will get over time. And whether or not Brands in Public becomes the main forum for this, the basic idea behind it will surely be at the heart of this approach; draw the conversations into one place, then engage with them efficiently. Oh, and by the by, in doing this promote the brand itself!

SEO on a new website – Why make life hard?

• Whether you are re-launching an existing website or starting from scratch, the chances are that at some point in the evolution of any “new” website you are going to think about search engine visibility. The finest, most user-friendly, visually stunning website ever created still needs people to find it after all!
• From my experience, though, the “some point” that a lot of people consider this is several months after the site has gone live when the expected traffic and income hasn’t materialised.
• This can occur even when clients have been strongly advised at an early stage to consider SEO as part of the project. The problem, I think, is that when looking at a reasonably large and important project, which is not cheap, spending more money on something as “ethereal” as SEO doesn’t always seem attractive.
• But here’s the thing: If SEO is front and center of the design process from day one you get better and more sustained results – and so the return on your investment is much improved. There are some very good reasons for this.

1. In considering keywords at an early stage you also think in detail about target audience, the purpose of your site and from that you create relevant, keyword rich content.
2. The design team can integrate this into the site with relevant, intuitive navigation that draws the target audience into the site towards the desired conversion point (be that a sale or enquiry).
3. From this process comes a website that from day one is fully focused and relevant to the search terms for the business. Titles, tags and text seamlessly match to create a website with a clear, search engine friendly identity that also meets the exact needs of the target audience.

• The result is a site that is visible AND that performs. Linking to such a site is much easier then for one with little clear identity or, worse, a site that is attempting to be visible for one set of search terms when the content is geared to another.
• A well-thought-through website, with a clear identity ATTRACTS links. It attracts traffic, it ranks well because it is relevant, it is friendly to social media because people know what the site is about and, in turn, can market it for you by sharing with their friends.
• SEO isn’t just about traffic volumes, therefore, but something that can enhance the DESIGN outcomes of the project by generating a better end result. The fact that it also has a direct correlation to traffic volumes and so income generation (whether through leads or actual on-site sales) is just one more very good reason to think about it early on.
• So, why make it hard? Thinking about SEO from day one will pay dividends – leave it until later and you have a much harder task.