your link to better business solutions

Facebook v. MySpace In The U.S. Market: The Music Factor

by on Aug 22, 2008 (0) Comments

Facebook is now the largest social network in the world. But they continue to trail MySpace by a massive 36 million users in the U.S., and at current growth rates it will take them 18 years to overtake them.

Most of Facebook’s growth is international, where they’ve executed on a brilliant strategy for quickly rolling out localized versions of sites by getting their users to do the translation work for them (MySpace, by contrast, expands via a command-and-control infrastructure that puts people on the ground in each new international market). But the commercial value of some of those international users is far less than the U.S., the UK, Japan and a handful of other countries with robust online advertising markets.

Is Music Perpetuating MySpace’s Lead In The U.S.?

Music is MySpace’s territory. They host millions of artist and band pages, and one of the first thing any new band does is create their MySpace page. MySpace says 35 million people per month visit their music sites, including MySpace Music and various artist pages. Some artists have millions of “friends” and the pages allow streaming music, artist control over the look and feel of the site, etc.

Facebook, by contrast, has no real internal music strategy. Artists can set up Pages to promote themselves, but the pages are no different to any other fan pages (for example, no streaming music) – there is nothing music or artist specific on the site.

Next month MySpace is rolling out a new music joint venture with the major labels that will have music streaming, playlists, downloads, merchandise sales, ring tones and other features. It’s not only likely to be a major destination site for music but also a significant revenue driver for MySpace and the labels (a little may trickle down to the artists as well).

Music is a huge part of what drove historical MySpace growth, and I believe it is a major factor in perpetuating their lead over Facebook in the U.S. market.

Facebook’s Response To MySpace Music: iLike

Facebook doesn’t appear to be engaging in any direct music strategy at all. Instead, they’ve placed their bet on iLike, a third party application that has no streaming deal (they piggyback on Rhapsody). Last month Facebook announced that they’ll give iLike special access to Facebook through their new Great Apps program. All official and most off record messaging we’re hearing is that iLike is Facebook’s music partner for the long run.

Wix: Web Design Without Training

by on Aug 22, 2008 (0) Comments

Although many of us who read this blog are experienced web developers, others are just looking for a little assistance in creating their own website. There are many free site builders offered but none with the capacity and control of Wix.

Wix is a web-based application that allows average users to create flash-based websites and content. It is a completely free service and is not template based meaning you can create an unconstained design. With google learning to crawl flash content, there’s few reasons not to start building more websites in flash and Wix offers complete control over photos, video, images, text, animation etc, without difficult and confusing configuration files.

Wix doesn’t compare with a premium website but a competent web designer but it is the best thing on the web for users with no experience and at free, you can’t beat the price. Everything is easy to use and doesn’t require training.

Wix offers an intuitive interface and native support for multiple flash photo gallerys, video players, text animations and other flash widgets. Wix enhances artistic self-expression by allowing anyone to publish media rich content on the web.Wix.com itself is created by the Wix platform so give it a look today.

When Keyword Research and Search Data Deceives

by on Aug 21, 2008 (0) Comments

As search engine optimization (SEO) professionals, we obsess with search data from a wide variety of resources. Which one is best for our clients? Which keyword research tool reveals the most accurate search behaviors when rebuilding a site’s information architecture? Does our web analytics data validate our keyword research?

And, more importantly, did these tools provide your most desired information? Some answers might surprise you.

Keyword research data

I love keyword research tools. I use all of them because I can discover core keyword phrases, which are commonly used across all of the commercial web search engines. And I can also tailor ads and landing pages to searchers who typically use a single, targeted search engine (and it isn’t always Google, as one might imagine).

However, keyword research tools are not a substitute for a knowledgeable and intuitive search engine marketer. All too often, website owners and even experienced search engine optimization professionals launch into a site’s information architecture without gauging user response. As good SEO professionals, we should understand when it is appropriate to implement keywords into a site’s information architecture: when keyword usage overwhelms users, and when keyword usage needs to be more apparent.

The optician that guarantees visibility!!!

by on Aug 21, 2008 (2) Comments

It is never good to just exist. Getting known is part of the desire of every human mind. When it comes to the Internet, you have to be known in order to even exist! Search Engine Optimization is a process by which you are able to improve the number of visits to your site and rank among the top few pages of any search engine. To put it simply, getting visible gets easier and your business increases manifolds.

There are many factors you need to take into account while implementing this process. The content is most important. There is a common term used in computer languages known as GIGO and stands for Garbage In Garbage Out. It is the content of your site that shall attract visitors and help retain them. The presentation matters a lot along with the coding and structure. It is also advised to have knowledge about the algorithm of the search engine in order to enhance the number of hits. As an example, for their algorithmic search results, the leading search engines namely Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft use crawlers to find pages. Generally a program or automated script browsing the Internet in an automated manner is known as a crawler.

Now there are many techniques to achieve this. Broadly classifying, there are some techniques that get the recommendation of search engines on the basis of design and there are others that do not get that nod of approval. They get termed as a White Hat or a Black Hat on account of the techniques you use. Sounds confusing? Well, if you are using cloaking or deceptive methods to get indexed on the list of search engines, you are using Black Hat techniques and run the chance of getting blacklisted or even removed from Search Engines. Deception techniques may range from “spamdexing” to making keywords invisible or merging them with the background. However, if you create content for users and tricking the Search Engine algorithms is not part of your “hidden” agenda, then be rest assured, you are safe and you are using White Hat techniques. Good news is that the White Hats generate results, which last for quite a long period. This should make it obvious for you about what you should choose.

Maybe the title should have been “The magician that guarantees visibility”. Judge for yourself!

Web 2.0 definition for non-techies

by on Aug 21, 2008 (0) Comments

A few readers mentioned how most definitions for Web 2.0 are overly technical and hard to grasp. I happen to agree. As with any complex topic, it’s easier to use complex descriptions: list out everything that it is, rather than actually define it.

In my view, the most basic definition for Web 2.0 is a site that does something unique, practical, and powerful while creating a social connection. Web 1.0 sites are more static, rely too heavily on HTML, lack strong social connection features, and are often poorly designed. I think design plays a crucial roll in what makes a site qualify for the Web 2.0 distinction: sites that emphasize usability and simplicity over a cacophony of features and a sprawling array of text and graphics. You can go to a Web 2.0 site and find out within just a few minutes what the site does and how to use it. A Web 1.0 site throws everything at you at once, splat.

What If It Isn’t Linkworthy?

by on Aug 20, 2008 (0) Comments

Some client scenarios can be uncomfortable. Among them is when the client has worked especially hard to create a content area that they feel is linkworthy, and thus should attract links, but you, as the person who has to go get those links, aren’t quite as enthusiastic about the potential for success.

The Scenario:
A client comes to you with content they are certain is worthy of links from certain class of web sites. Let’s say the client has specifically asked for a quote for a link building project to target and obtain 25+ new inbound links from qualified and logical target .edu’s to their new content which they designed specifically to be of value to college students.

As I looked at their new content, I agreed it was extremely well done. I agreed it was of absolute high value to college age students. I agreed that universities would certainly be logical targets for link seeking.

However, I did not agree that they would succeed in attracting new links, because even with great and targeted new content, the hoped-for university inbounds will be granted by sites based on many factors other than great and targeted content. As a fictitious example and to make my point, just because Trojan creates the College Student’s Guide to Responsible Sex, doesn’t mean university based health clinic web sites are going to link to that content, no matter how badly Trojan thinks they should.

The cloud is not the answer to every question

by on Aug 20, 2008 (0) Comments

Recently, in my normal job as a journalist, I’ve been finding that every new story pitch, interview request, product inquiry or – well, pretty much every e-mail I’ve sent has led to the response that: the cloud can solve that problem. Need better security on your laptop? Use the cloud. Need better scalability in your data center? Use the cloud. Have an itch that just won’t subsist? Use the cloud.

The problem is that the cloud doesn’t actually solve every problem today. It may actually only solve a small percentage of problems. If I am doing my accounting on my laptop using Microsoft Excel because that’s what my boss told me to use, then the cloud doesn’t help. If I am a data center manager and my company just installed a new storage array that has to meet the needs of a growing marketing department, then the cloud is not going to help me. It may help eventually, I know.