Part 2 of the occasional series of overly-gimmicky blog posts that takes an iconic movie of the 1980s and tenuously ties it to a business marketing idea.

---

Plot Synopsis

In the 28th funniest movie of all time (official!), 3 disgraced parapsychologist professors leave academia and form a private firm providing paranormal investigations - calling themselves Ghostbusters. After some initial set backs the business takes off, they defeat the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and save the world. Obviously.

Business Analysis

When people think about Ghostbusters they think of the big climactic ending, “He slimed me” or Signorney Weaver writhing around on the bed (incidentally, this is very uncomfortable to watch with your six year old), but they tend to forget the first half of the movie is the gang sitting around with no clients, no income and lots of expenses.

After all, nuclear accelerator proton packs don’t come cheap.

But, with the success of their first ‘busting, all of a sudden there are more and more calls for their services, as the Sumerian deity Gozer tries to open an inter-dimensional doorway which will destroy the world.

And this is why businesses should be embracing social media today.

Lessons Learned

We meet a lot of clients who are definitely interested in podcasting/a blog/Facebook page/etc. Just not right now. Not with the economy the way it is. Once things pick up. And so on, and so on.

Did Venkman, Spengler and Co think like that?

No way!

They were prepared. So when Zuul threatened, Ghostbusters were already primed and ready to go. In fact more people were hired to help with the workload. They had their infrastructure in place, TV ads were already promoting their slogan - “We’re Ready to Believe You” - and, most importantly, they had a huge head start over any potential competition.

So, in this increasingly tortuous analogy, their Ghost Containment Grid is your social media involvement and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is a booming economy. If you’re prepared, and your competition isn’t, you can be a Ghostbuster.

We all know the financial situation is, um, less than perfect right now, and advertising/marketing dollars are tight - but things will pick up sooner or later. The beauty of social media marketing is that it is free-to-cheap. You can find someone to do some of the work for you (ahem), or spend a little time and do it yourself.

Start building your Facebook Group now and by the time Happy Days Are Here Again, you’ll probably find you have a good following of people ready to work with you. Jump into monitoring Twitter before your competition even knows what it is and pinch some business from right underneath them. Just remember that there is no time like the present.

In the truly timeless words or Dr Peter Venkman, “I love this plan! I’m excited to be a part of it! Let’s do it!”

Google announced on Monday that the Quality Score Improvements would be going live this week, with what they claim are tweaks which will benefit both advertisers and search users.

Well, they would, wouldn’t they!?

The changes, removing the ‘Inactive for Search Status’, real time ‘Quality Score’ and new ‘First Page Bid Estimates’ seem to me to be more about generating extra revenue than improving quality.

Even among those SEMs who work with AdWords for a living there is a lot of confusion about what is going on. A lot of the targeting improvements seem, well, arbitrary at best. For instance, here’s one of the search terms from an account I manage (click the image to enlarge):

It’s not ‘Great’, but a fairly solid 7/10 ‘OK’. Even some nice words of encouragement,

“What should I do?
Keep it up! Your keyword, ad text, and landing page quality are high.”

So, how is the ad performing? Let’s see:

Hmm, the ad is not showing. Must be the bid then, right?

Well, no:

Estimated bid to show on the first page:	$1.25	Based on the quality score below
Your bid:	$1.75	Max CPC

I have an keyword that is rated at 7/10, and I’m bidding 40% more than Google estimates I need to to be on the first page, and yet, “No Ad is Showing”.

No wonder people are confused.

If Google is not showing the ads, then they’ll lose money then. Well, I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

I’ve been watching my keywords pretty closely this week to see what would happen, and Google’s main suggestion seems to be that I raise my bids. Funny that.

How about this one for instance:

That’s an exact match keyword, which fits the site perfectly, has a historically high click-thru rate and used to average less the $1/click. Google now says “Bid is below first page bid estimate of $25.00″. $25! And yet yesterday, it was in the 1.5 average position.

That’s an extreme one, but we’ve seen maybe 30-40% of our keywords being told they should raise the bid according to the first page bid estimate. If that is happening across other peoples’ accounts, and it appears that it is, then we are going to see the average cost of bids being pushed up. Nobody wants to be on the 2nd or, gasp, 3rd page of results.

I’ve been working with Pay Per Click ads for a good number of years now (hence the GoTo swag shown above), and I think we’ve been down this road before. This is why many people switched to Google AdWords from Goto/Overture in the first place, because the constant battle to be in the top spots drove the cost up and up. Google was a breath of fresh air. They really did reward quality instead of who has the deepest pockets. After all, if Ad1 was paying $1, and Ad2 only $0.50 but had 3 times as many clicks, then Google still made more money. Everyone was happy. That is why I’m worried about the potential bidding wars this may lead to.

Particularly if the Yahoo-Google deal is finalized and approved.

Maybe I’m wrong. It’s still very early days and these may just be some kinks which will have to be worked out. But given Google’s near monopoly and unwillingness to listen recently, I can’t say I’m overly optimistic.

---

Are you an AdWords Advertisers? Let me know what you’re seeing or what you think.

It is often pointed out that one of the major problems with social networking is the blurring of lines between the private and public.

Sure, it was funny when you passed out on the floor at the party, and even more so when your friend uploaded the photos to Facebook - but do you also want your boss seeing that? Or your mom?

A CareerBuilder.com survey published last week shows that 20% of employers are now researching social networks when considering job candidates:

“Top areas for concern among these hiring managers included:

• 41% - candidate posted information about them drinking or using drugs
• 40% - candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs or information
• 29% - candidate had poor communication skills”

It’s very easy to forget in the ever-connected world that anyone can see what you’re doing - as Lyn found out recently - and it’s more important than ever to watch what is said or posted about you online.

However, even more worrying for me, is when people deliberately publish something which would be better left private.

That is why I was stunned by something I read about the Rocky Mountain News yesterday. A tragic accident in Colorado led to an illegal immigrant killing two women and a toddler. Naturally it was a high-profile incident that generated a lot of public interest, but how clueless did the editor have to be to think that live Twittering the funeral of a three year old would be a good idea!?

“RMN_Berny: family members shovel earth into grave
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:40 a.m.

RMN_Berny: rabbi calls end to ceremony
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:28 a.m.

RMN_Berny: rabbi chanting final prayer in hebrew
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:27 a.m.

RMN_Berny: earth being placed on coffin.
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:22 a.m.”

Naturally this has upset many people. Michael Roberts at Denver Westworld Blogs, called it “self-satirizing in the most morbid, inappropriate way possible.” The Guardian (UK) said it was “Going straight to the top of our Inappropriate Use of Technology chart”, while Samuel Freenman, professor of Journalism at Columbia University said, in something of an understatement,

“A memorial service for a murdered, for a slain child is not a fit subject for play-by-play updates”

So, why did they do it? Basically because they could. The same ease which allows you to tell the world how drunk you got last night without thinking of the consequences, allowed the reporters to overlook whether or not what they were doing was actually a good idea.

There is a lesson here for all of us: In an online world, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Cuil, who have seen their traffic tumble into free fall since their much-hyped (but severely botched) launch, have suffered another blow today, as TechCrunch reports that VP Product, Louis Monier, has quit the company:

“Louis Monier, Cuil’s VP Product, quietly resigned from the newly launched search engine last week, we’ve heard from a reliable source. “

Monier was one of the big draws for the simply stunning amount of PR that Cuil generated - he was hired  away from Google last year in a major coup for the young start up, but is even more well known as the Father of AltaVista, everyone’s favorite search engine before Google came along. His departure is thought to be related to the path Cuil should take.

With a resume which also includes stints at Xerox PARC,  Ebay and Google, Monier is regarded as one of the big names in tech and search, so the blow will be a huge one for Cuil. After all, he left Alta Vista, then the #1 search engine, after a similar disagreement over the move from straight search to becoming a portal (how 1999!)..and look what happened to AV after that.

This has been a strange week. On Tuesday I was very worried about two things - Hurricane Hanna looked to be heading for a direct hit, and one of our clients took a major dive in Google for their key search terms.

It’s now Sunday, Hannah has passed by with little more than some extra rain, and the client has moved back up, better than before. So, a wasted week? No!

Here’s what I’ve learned from this:

Examine the Situation

Hurricane: We weren’t as ready as we should have been. What needed to be done? Where would we stay? When would we leave? What would we bring?

Website: Had any major changes been made? Were other companies affected the same way? What was being said at Webmaster World and other boards?

Taking Action

Hurricane: We made hotel reservations which could be canceled right up to the last minute with no penalty. We sorted through documents, cleaned out the old and organized the relevant ones. Bought extra candles, water and supplies.

Website: Looked through the code for anything that had gotten ‘messed up’. Checked out some competitors to see how they were looking. Analyzed the traffic that was still being sent from Google.

Waiting. And waiting.

In both instances there was a lot of waiting.

Hurricane: Once we had established that we were ready as we could be, there was little to do but check the NHC tracking maps and listen for local advisories regarding a possible evacuation.

Website: There was still plenty of traffic coming from Google, it was just some of the most searched phrases that had taken a hit. We weren’t banned at least! We still had good back links. Nothing was obviously wrong on the site. So…we wait.

Happy Endings

Hurricane: By Thursday it was pretty clear we should dodge the worst of it. Schools were closed as a precautionary measure on Friday, but other than some stronger than usual wind, and a little extra rain, we were fine. Yay!

Website: We tried to limit checking to once (okay, maybe twice) a day. On Saturday things were still not looking great - we had second page positions, but they were bouncing around between #19 and #20. Then, on Sunday, the storm blew past and the sun came out - back up to top 5 for both the affected search terms. Yay!

Conclusions

Somethings are just simply beyond your control. Yes, you should prepare for hurricanes and you can optimize for Google, but that doesn’t stop bad things happening.

What is important is that when it looks like trouble, then you know what to do.

It is said the when Alexander realized the size of his domain, “he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer” - Google, however, just moves out to space.

Yes, having won the search engine wars, dominated the pay-per-click sphere and, presumably, it’s just a matter of time before becoming the number one browser, Google has taken the next step and left Earth’s orbit.

Well, OK, not quite, but they did launch their own satellite today, from a rocket emblazoned with the Google logo.

The Delta 4 rocket owned by GeoEye will provide Google with exclusive satellite imagery for Google Maps. According to the press release,

“GeoEye- …(is) designed to take digital images of the Earth from 423 miles and…the satellite camera can distinguish objects on the Earth’s surface as small as 0.41-meter or 16 inches in size.”

However, U.S. Government restrictions mean that Google will only be allowed to use resolution of 50cm - but with most commercial mapping right now at 60cm, it’s still a big improvement.

So, Google will have at least one satellite capable of reading your license plate from space.  And to think, some people are still worried about Google tracking their online behavior!

OK, this maybe something of a cheat, but I have a good excuse. I had fully intended to download Google’s new browser Chrome yesterday, test it out and write up my thoughts, but with that hurricane looking like it was heading directly for my house, I had more pressing matters.

Now Chrome has been available for almost a complete day, the Twitterverse, the Blogosphere and maybe even some people in the real world, have had a chance to chime in with their thoughts. Which leaves me wondering what I can really add to the conversation with just a brief test time.

So, not wishing to seem redundant, I thought a round-up of reactions might actually prove more useful.

History

Wired pretty much has the definitive article about how Chrome came in to being, Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the Web. Highly-respected tech journalist Steven Levy gives a birds-eye view of the whole project, from its beginning to the actual release. Includes some interesting stuff - would you believe that Google actually, um, ‘fibbed’ about building their own browser?

“After a 2004 New York Times article quoted “a person who has detailed knowledge of the company’s business” saying a browser was in the works, Schmidt had to publicly deny it.”

Hmm…

How it is Different

The most current versions of browsers have been improvements upon older versions, but those older versions were for the original www - not today’s web of applications, JavaScript and ‘constant connectedness’. Google wanted to rip it up and start again:

“All of us at Google spend much of our time working inside a browser. We search, chat, email and collaborate in a browser. And in our spare time, we shop, bank, read news and keep in touch with friends — all using a browser. Because we spend so much time online, we began seriously thinking about what kind of browser could exist if we started from scratch and built on the best elements out there”

I Feel the Need - the Need for Speed!

You bank online. You check your email on line. You work, live and play online. So speed is a bigger and bigger issue. Chrome is certainly a step up, at least according to Jof Arnold:

Many others are saying the same thing. Techcrunch found that,

“After just ten minutes of jumping from site to site, I was amazed by how quickly I was able to get around. And unlike some browsers (I won’t mention any names), opening a slew of tabs doesn’t matter — it’s just as fast with or without tabs.”

Hicks Design call it “fast and nimble. In a Camino way”, Eamon Costello says it’s “seriously fast” and, at the time of writing, there are about 5 tweets a minute with the search string, “Chrome is fast”!

So, let’s assume it’s new and it’s fast - what does this mean?

It’s Google vs Microsoft

Chrome is obviously another shot at Microsoft. Which is why Google waited until they were dominant enough to really challenge in the browser wars. Clinton Skakun is rooting for an IE-Killer:

“Hopefully this browser reaches the eyes of enough IE6 and 7 users. If it kills IE it was all worth it!:D When it’s all said and done, we might just have a Internet Explorer Killer on our hands:) If it doesn’t kill IE, maybe it will cause a slight shrink their user base.”

But Hank Williams isn’t so upbeat:

“Microsoft has been fighting the browser wars with spitballs and plastic knives and they are still beating Firefox handily. So Chrome, from a business perspective, for the foreseeable future, is totally irrelevant.”

Some, however, think that the real challenge is not to Internet Explorer, but to Microsoft Office. Google has been rolling out it’s own Ajax applications, Google Docs, Spreadsheets, etc - a browser which can handle Javascript better, making these faster and more stable, will take yet more users away from desktop applications.  Preston Galla’s take is that,

“Google’s Chrome browser…takes dead aim at Windows 7 and Microsoft Office, and attempts to make both irrelevant. Google’s long-term goal is clear: Dominate the enterprise and small business market in the same way it now dominates Internet search.”

Actually, it’s Google vs Mozilla

There is already one great open source browser available, and it claims around 20% of the market share. Mozilla has also just renewed its deal with Google - so why would Google want another competitor in the mix?  Joe Wilcox has a suggestion:

“Google wants to keep that money it gives Mozilla and other browser developers…Chrome will compete with Firefox and other Google search-supported browsers. Oh, yeah, if that’s you, Google is doing evil. If you’re Mozilla and dependent on Google paid search revenue, your browser’s future is perilous. How ironic if Google does to Firefox what Microsoft couldn’t: Kill the browser.”

What Do I Think?

I’ve been playing around with it for the last day or so (I’m writing this post using Chrome right now), and it’s, sort of, well, underwhelming. Considering it has 3% of the market share in under 24 hours I expected something more. Although I’m not sure what.

Maybe I need to get used to it a little more. It took me a while to feel fully comfortable with GMail when I first began using that, and now it’s all I use. It’s certainly fast, no doubt, and it has the Google-feel to it that Docs and so on have too, but switching browsers is a pain, and I’d need a strong incentive to do that. I don’t currently think Chrome is it.

I also have a few concerns about monopoly and privacy. Do we really want Google to dominate in another field like it does in search? They have made the software Open Source, so perhaps developers can port some of the better parts over to the Mozilla project, which would be good for everyone. Right now, however, I’m not going to be switching from Firefox.

Have you tried it out yet? What do you think?

***Update***

Looks like I was right to have some fears about privacy - Jacob Morgan has the goods…