But say you find TPM on Flipboard, decide it’s great and add it to your viewing routine on Flipboard. Probably you just keep reading us on Flipboard. Clearly you like Flipboard or you wouldn’t be using it. So why would you start visiting TPM? You likely won’t. That may be great for you. It’s definitely great for Flipboard. But is it great for us? Not really. It boosts my ego, I guess. And more people may know about us. But where and how does that turn into our ability to convert that ‘audience’ into a revenue stream that allows us to create our product? I don’t think it does. Or it does in so in such a trivial and unquantifiable way as to be meaningless.
How does he know that users don’t connect the dots back to the site after using Flipboard to discover them? He’s basing a ton of his opinion here on that assumption. I know for my own experience, I love using tools like Flipboard, Feedly, etc. to discover new sites, and when I like them I add them to my reader, and I visit those sites and open those links and share the articles I like here and other places. Maybe the majority of users don’t convert in that same way. That said, I do understand his issue with the fuzzy logic around how things like reach and brand awareness are benefiting them when their goal is to find revenue streams to keep producing their work. I totally get that.
However, if you’re cutting off from your readers in an attempt to own every page view so your banner ads are more valuable (not saying that’s his plan, more so pointing out that the plan in general is a bit more traditional and focused on hard data like CTR and direct streams), you’re holding yourself back from real potential in terms of both revenue and reader growth. I don’t quite get it, despite understanding (and sympathizing with) large-scale digital news sites that are now struggling to manage million dollar solvency issues annually, much like newspapers scrambled to do years ago. It’s about a clear-cut cost-based analysis for Marshall, but I’m not sure he’s correct as he cuts off values that don’t ‘directly’ influence revenue.
“The Hummingbird update will put less emphasis on matching keywords and more emphasis on understanding what a user is most likely hoping to obtain in their search results. If I can give businesses one piece of advice after this update, it’s to prioritize a well-rounded online marketing strategy that continues to deliver a clear message. Every business in America has an audience, but not every business in America understands the needs of their audience. The companies who prioritize the needs of their users and create content to satisfy those needs will see the biggest successes in the future.”
That blogger also demonstrates his linguistic ignorance when he explains that he likes to be an arsehole whenever somebody uses the term ‘internet’ to mean ‘my access to the internet’ instead of the internet itself. As in ‘the internet isn’t working’.
I mean, just how stupid do you have to be to not realise that almost everybody who says this knows very well that the entire internet hasn’t stopped working? It’s analogous to saying ‘the TV channels aren’t working’ when your cable TV set-top box is on the fritz. It doesn’t mean you think those channels aren’t broadcasting. It means that you don’t have access to any of them.
It isn’t just stupid to misunderstand language like this, it demonstrates a wilful ignorance of spoken English, wilful because he’s clearly heard the phrase often enough to understand what people are actually trying to say.
As long as the URL resolves, a feed can still surprise you. RSS is the true web: a loose net of dark filaments. These faint tendrils of connection are almost invisible when quiescent, but then out of nowhere—hello!—they light up again. I am happy to have them.
This is a great article and super informative for folks who might still feel like a good mobile experience is too complicated for the return.
Mobile-only users aren’t some strange new breed of customer, signaling their desire for different messages, content, and services through their choice of screen size and form factor. They’re just your customer. You can and should speak to them in same way you address all your other customers. They just want to engage with you on the device that’s most useful and convenient for them.
Meeting the needs of the mobile-only user doesn’t mean agonizing about “the mobile use case,” trying to determine which subset of content would be most useful to users “on-the-go.” Google reports that 77 percent of searches from mobile devices take place at home or work, only 17 percent on the move. Mobile users should get the same content. It’s frustrating and confusing for them if you only give them a little bit of what you offer on your “real” website. If you try to guess which subset of your content the mobile user needs, you’re going to guess wrong. Deliver the same content as your desktop user sees. (If you think some of your content doesn’t deserve to be on mobile, guess what — it doesn’t deserve to be on the desktop either. Get rid of it.)
“…on the device that’s most useful and convenient for them.” Which could be a mobile device, might not. But they deserve the best experience regardless of their choice. In this way, we’re trying to talk about proximate use, not strictly ‘mobile only’ use. I don’t think we’re convincing businesses that mobile is every part of the customer pie so to speak as long as we continue to segment out the users when we talk about the site experience.
All customers deserve great site experiences regardless of device, and many users are choosing their devices based on what’s near them, not by some mysterious code we can’t break. Since many of those users are indeed coming from mobile devices and those numbers are rising, it’s more important than ever to treat them as well as the ‘traditional’ customers you’ve developed desktop site experiences for.
“Archive Team is a band of rogue archivists rescuing dead and dying websites from destruction. To assist their efforts, they’ve developed ArchiveTeam Warrior, a virtual appliance that makes it easy for anyone to help archive dying websites and upload the backups to their server.” Learn more.
Festival culture itself is one of the other things linking those two Americas; in 2013, it’s almost impossible to find a music festival that isn’t branded and sponsored. What is unusual is finding a festival of branding, which is what SXSW has become. More unusual still is that its unembarrassed and uninhibited celebration of the modern capitalist spirit has not made South by Southwest an object of ridicule among the young and the hip. In fact, it is rather the opposite.
I guess this is the part where I make the cliche “Well, I’m officially old” joke. Not that I want to ridicule SXSW necessarily, I just find the whole situation so hilarious at this point, and worth talking about. The problem is that people (particularly people in Austin) get very emotional about SXSW, and it’s hard to have a conversation about the progression the festival has undergone in recent years. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just interesting.
Read the whole article, though, it’s all very interesting. I wonder how many times one of us has been in a bar somewhere overhearing a conversation where someone yells, “Write about me, I deserve to be written about!” That should be SXSW’s new tagline. Or that whole “You’re the brand” thing.
“But a visionary is an implementer of visions, not an acquirer of dollars. And if you consider yourself a visionary, the only honest response to your own acquisition is to admit your failure, dust yourself off, and start building your next company.” Jake Lodwick
So there is this, which is sort of explaining with a study what we already know from experience: Facebook makes us miserable. But I have a couple observations. 1) Germans. 2) Of course someone else’s raise, beautiful baby, weight loss, vibrant social life, amazing vacation, or pseudo-intellectual tidbits make us sick. But it’s not because we’re jealous or exhausted by someone else’s success. It’s because there’s a quiet understanding (or maybe an assumption) that it’s not real. Read more…
“I am certainly not of the opinion that there is and should only be ONE definition of the term. It should go without saying that language is flexible, and behavior even more so. But I will say that it is critical –if we hope our conversations to go anywhere– to acknowledge a basic difference between the definitions of trolling offered by those who self-identify as such and those who take it upon themselves to bestow the category onto others. Currently, that’s one aspect of the conversation that tends to be overlooked, I think because everyone assumes everyone else’s words mean the same things as their own words, and then proceed to rail against any number of straw men. Or straw trolls, as the case may be.”
Whether we’re talking about trolls or any other genre or people identifier, Whitney’s comments here seem more than appropriate, they feel important. Everyone who talks about things that aren’t them should always be considering these two things: 1) language is flexible 2) what something means to you isn’t the same as what it means to someone else.
Meaning is almost philosophical in this case, we can simplify by saying something like “Usage evolves in a broad cultural sense as well as in an individual lexicon sense.”
Makes you feel like it’s incredibly easy to say the wrong thing, but really, this kind of evolution of usage ultimately informing meaning on a larger scale is exactly how communication works, and it’s totally natural and it’s only when we ask questions around ‘difficult’ words (like ‘troll’) do we start to think about it too hard.
Read more of Phillips’ research and thoughts on defining Internet trolls here, and listen to the episode on On Point in which Phillips appeared with Jonathan Zittrainhere.