1 – They’re easy to read, easy to absorb and easy to forget.

2 – The main message they communicate is that you’re no more original than the other 1.4 billion writers (see point seven).

3 – They never fail to disappoint.

4 – It’s almost impossible to maintain quality. Points 1-3 may be semi-reasonable, but 8-10 will little more than padding.

5 – Putting forward ten ideas will result in either barely scratching the surface or drowning in laborious and lengthy detail.

6 – A worthy idea deserves undivided attention.

7 – Single digit numbers should/n’t be written as text. Google show 1.4 billion results for 10 reasons, and only 127 million for ten reasons.

8 – I’m not the only person in the world to generally ignore any such numbered lists. Statistically one or two of the 1.4 billion lists may have been interesting. I’ll never know.

9 – I did tell you it’s almost impossible to maintain quality, right?

10 – Most are little more than space fillers or promotional plugs.

In short: surely you can do better than just another pointless and crappy list?

Pointless images often feature on pointless lists

About four months ago I paid for speed reading software.

I know. But I thought that if I learned one good tip or technique, it would be worthwhile.

And being completely honest, the company’s no-nonsense money back guarantee reassured me.

Fast forward a few months.

After realising that I wasn’t going to find the single tip I’d hoped for, I requested a refund. I did eventually get it, but to describe the process as no questions asked was laughable.

I also recently bought a new TomTom unit, as my old one had decided to commit suicide two days before we set of for France in our car.

Once I bought it I was pleased to notice that as part of a promotion, I could get £50 towards the cost of refuelling my car.

The steps involved in doing so were (1) register the unit, (2) take and upload a photograph of the TomTom’s receipt, (3) enter the serial number of the unit, (4) take and upload a photograph of the serial number, (5) scan and upload the receipt for the fuel, (6) enter my account details online after uploading the required evidence, (7) wait for up to 30 days for my claim to be (hopefully) successfully validated.

Many companies offer rebates, relying on a significant number of customers to simply not get round to requesting them.

Companies like TomTom choose to further weigh the odds in their favour by creating an inordinate number of hoops for the customer to jump through.

Rebates and money back guarantees used to be effective sales tools; often giving the slightly-hesitant purchaser that gentlest of pushes towards reaching for their wallet.

But the money back guarantee ain’t what it used to be.

The money back guarantee has unfortunately gone the way of quality.

If a person creates an item of genuine quality, it’s almost impossible to communicate this. Labelling the item as “high quality” cheapens it, as the phrase has been over-used to the point of it being rendered meaningless.

So what is an unconditional money back guarantee?

We’re not talking about complex ideas here. No questions asked should mean no questions asked.

And if your company offers a genuine no questions asked guarantee, you need a way to communicate this more effectively than the fake badge or button loved by so many.

FURTHER READING:

Google’s definition of unconditional

Dictionary.com’s definition of unconditional

Merriam-Webster’s definition of unconditional

You probably already know that Google aren’t reporting all your organic keywords, but the problem may be more serious than you realise.

The background in brief:

In October 2011 Google announced that they would no longer be reporting on the organic keywords used by anyone logged into Google.

In other words if someone is logged into Gmail (for example) and searches on Google then clicks your link from the organic results, you won’t know what keyword was searched for.

Instead it will be reported as (not provided).

If you want the longer explanation you may like to read (not provided) may pollute your Analytics data.

The reaction:

Whenever change is afoot in Google, most people don’t know or don’t care, and the rest are split being understanding & panicking and understanding & not caring.

The general response from those who (at least thought they) understood the issue was to either be concerned or indifferent.

But the interesting thing about fear is that if left without nutrition, it eventually wanes to indifference.

The solutions:

The most popular approaches to dealing with the problem seemed to be one of the following:

- ignore it.

- hope that what you see is representative.

- use Google Webmaster Tools as a source of more reliable information.

- use Google AdWords as a source of more reliable information.

The problems:

The first problem is that the scale of the issue is growing.

When I first wrote about this in November 2011, we saw 16% of the organic keywords reported as (not provided) for our own website.

Today it’s closer to 50%. Yeuch.

And most of our clients are seeing a similar trend over time.

The second problem is that it’s a mistake to believe that the data is representative.

Most techies will be logged into one of Google’s services – Gmail, Calendar, Reader, Analytics, Adwords and so on.

So most searches carried out by techies will therefore fall into the not provided bag.

The problem is that most techies will probably search quite differently from non-techies.

And when I say probably, I of course mean definitely.

So the greater the percentage of searches logged as not provided, the less accurate the logged keywords.

So what should you do about it?

Start by being aware how inaccurate your organic keyword data may be. This is important in itself.

If you don’t yet have a Google Webmaster Tools account, now would be a good time to open one and work out how to use it.

And if you’re using Google AdWords, now may be a time to start looking at the keyword data in a new light.

I’m just starting some research into comparing keyword data from AdWords, Analytics and Google Webmaster Tools – so watch this space.

Why Your McD’s Burger Doesn’t Look Like the One in the Ad has left me feeling slightly confused and dirty.

In it, the director of marketing for McDonalds Canada shows why there’s such a gap between reality and what’s presented in their ads.

A few questions spring to mind.

- Did Isobelle really write to McDonalds and ask that question? Really?

- Is the reason the actual burger looks worse (a) the steam in the box (as McDonalds claim) or (b) the fact that the person making the real one doesn’t give a shit?

- Is anyone else amused by how skinny the head of marketing for McDonalds is?

- Was anyone, anywhere remotely convinced by “….mmmm looks good… look at this baby…“?

If the real product looked so good, you probably wouldn’t need to melt cheese with hot knives and apply ketchup with a syringe.

On Thursday June 21st I will be running an experiment.

I will be distilling over 11,000 hours of Google AdWords experience into a 45 minute presentation.

I guarantee that if you attend you’ll walk away with actionable information that can be used to improve your ROI.

I also guarantee that you won’t have heard my views and ideas elsewhere.*

This will be an exceptionally well spent 45 minutes.

If you’re using (or thinking of using) Google AdWords, you need to attend the webinar.

And in return I’m asking for a donation to a very worthwhile charity.

This is a chance for me to share my 11,000 hours of experience, knowledge and insight. And by doing so we can help entrepreneurs in the developing world achieve their dreams.

Please join me on the 11th of June.

You will gain and they will gain. It’s win-win.

- Thursday 21st.

- 45 minutes of your time.

- Make more money from Google AdWords.

- Change someone’s life forever.

If you can’t attend, please consider making a donation anyway.

Any donation would be greatly appreciated.

>>> SIGN UP FOR THE WEBINAR HERE <<<

* – if you attended MicroConf 2012 you’ll have already seen the presentation. But I’m around 70-80 hours further along now!

The psychology of pain is fascinating. We can remember incidents involving pain, yet we can’t precisely recall what the pain felt like, other than the fact that it was unpleasant.

We can recall tastes, smells, sounds, images and touch with far greater clarity.

Yet the more recent the pain, the greater our recall of the sensation, and the more we try to avoid it.

So after having a particularly deep and painful session at your dentist, you’ll most likely be extra-diligent with your teeth-brushing and perhaps even avoid items such as fizzy drinks.

Yet fast forward a month or two at the most, and the memory of the pain will be sufficiently blurred, and you’ll probably be back to where you were before the last dental drill incident.

A loose exception to the rule is when the pain involved is exceptional. Anyone who’s been unfortunate to experience terrible pain will tell you that even though they can’t recall the pain in the same way as other sensations, the after-effects can live on far longer than the temporary behavioural alterations caused by a cavity.

When it comes to software, the same principles apply.

Around fifteen years ago I installed a Windows Update that more or less trashed my system, and it took me a few days to repair all the damage.

To this day I generally avoid installing Windows Updates until they’ve been around for at least a few days. I prefer not to be an unwitting Microsoft guinea pig.

When it comes to upgrading software on my system, I have to weigh up a number of factors.

How much I need it.

How much I gain from it.

How great the risk.

How great the pain.

What’s interesting is that even though I weigh up these issues in the order that they’re written, any of them have the potential to make me go no further.

If I don’t need or gain from it, I go no further.

If the risk to my data, application or system is too great, the needs and gains are irrelevant.

And if the needs, gains and risk are all acceptable but the level of pain involved is too great, it’s probably never going to happen.

But this is where the psychology gets interesting.

If, for example, the amount I gain from the update is incredibly appealing, then I may foolishly choose to disregard all other considerations, despite knowing that I’m playing Russian Roulette with my system.

So I really need to change the wording. It’s not just about how much I need the update, but also how much I want it, or think I need it.

This is where marketing comes in.

I will upgrade to the latest version of your software if I need or want to.

Convince me that the need is great enough and nothing else matters.

Want something badly enough and the pain will be overlooked.

And as an aside, a lacklustre approach is plain stupid.

I’m far more likely to upgrade to a new version of my existing solution, as I’ll (naively) assume that the risks and pain are lower.

But this won’t do it:

Convince your customers that they want something enough and everything else will fall into place.

I’ve been using Twitter for forty-two months, have around 10,000 followers, and have tweeted in the region of 3,000 times.

For the first forty-one months I received a total of 560 visitors, almost all of whom spent an average time of 1-2 seconds on our website. Low quality is an understatement.

During the forty-second month of Tweeting I received 16 visitors, who spent an average time of one minute and 11 seconds. The figure is too neat to be made-up.

Two of the sixteen visitors turned into sales leads (two more than the previous forty-one months combined); one has now turned into a client.

Here’s how I worked out how to use Twitter.

The wrong way – allow a minimum of three years if you want to follow in my footsteps:

(1) I used Twitter as a megaphone to shout at anyone and everyone.

(2) I saw Twitter as something that should be done – more or less for the sake of it.

(3) I kept meaning to get round to working out how to use Twitter, but got precisely nowhere for the first forty-one months. (Note: apparently buying a couple of books but not reading them doesn’t work. So much for information osmosis).

The right way:

(1) I listened to Sarah Hatter of CoSupport at Microconf. (I still haven’t sent her the Amazon Voucher but I will.)

(2) I started to tweet about things that were not only relevant to what I do, but also of interest to some of the people following me.

(3) I started trying to make my tweets more eye catching. For instance instead of “”12 Things You *Must* do After Writing a New Blog Post“” using “”12 Things You *Must* do After Writing a New Blog Post” – I count six that are really bad ideas. You?” I won’t win any awards, but it is winning business.

(4) I started to track what I do with my usual obsession. Tracking is easy but paying attention to what works (see the next point) is vital.

(5) I have three goals with my tweets. To share items of interest, to share my personality (sorry), and to remind/convince  Google that I’m someone who knows these things.

(6) I added my Twitter account into my email sig. I send a lot of emails each day, and this works. I now have new (targeted) people following me every single day – people who are interested in what I write about.

I track everything that we do with a slightly demented fervour, and as this one is suddenly proving to be productive, will watch it closely as I experiment further. And I’ll report on my findings in due course.

The nutshell explanation: it’s all about relevance – with a hint of marketing and personality (the two are not opposing).

I just had a phone call with a company interested in using our SEO services.

The following is an almost word-for-word transcript of part of the phone call – as best as my memory and notes can handle.

Bob: “Okay this all sounds good, just we’re looking for. But can I ask you a question?”

Me: “Of course – fire away.”

Bob: “I get the whole ‘white hat’ approach, and understand that you have to stand up and say these things. But I assume you’re going to be going beyond that, right?”

Me: “……….. um….. actually no. Not at all. If you’re looking for tricks and black-hat techniques, we’re not the company for you.”

Bob:  ”I get that, I get that. But off the record, I can tell you that I don’t mind if you push a few boundaries. Everyone’s doing it, right?”

Me: [inadvertently using an incredibly snooty British accent] “Probably less today than a few weeks ago. Are you familiar with the Penguin update, and what’s been happening over the last couple of weeks?”

Bob: [laughing gently - flaming my British snooty attitude] “Hey come on, you don’t really believe that shit, right? So they crap all over a handful of high-profile websites to scare everyone. Big deal. This stuff has always worked and nothing’s going to change any time soon.”

So we’re not going to work with this particular company – not because of any principle that I have, but because he thinks we’re naive and I have “some growing up to do”.

To clarify: I don’t think that dodgy SEO techniques are immoral, they’re just stupid.

The Penguin update has one goal: to significantly reduce the quantity of spam in Google’s organic search results.

Users of Google gain – as they see sites that are more relevant to their terms.

White-hat SEOs gain – as many of their sites are seeing a slight increase in traffic due to the garbage that’s been removed.

Black-hat SEOs lose – as many have seen their traffic drop quite dramatically.

Learn from this.

If you use black-hat SEO techniques you may benefit from doing so, you may even benefit enormously, and you may get away with it for a long time.

But sooner or later Google will catch up with you.

And when they do so, the results could be catastrophic.

Matt Cutts from Google gave some useful advice on what to do if you’re hit by penguin, including one chilling comment:

“If you’ve cleaned and still don’t recover, ultimately, you might need to start all over with a fresh site.”

Do yourself, your business and your website a favour. Dismiss black hat SEO as a viable option.

Notes:

(1) He wasn’t called Bob but sounded like one.

(2) This was written on Friday May 11th, but not posted until a few days later. Isn’t technology amazing?

(3) I’m attending an SEO conference in London on the day that this is posted. Bob probably won’t be there.

Something unexpected has happened to me. I’ve finally seen the light.

I now understand how to use Twitter for my business.

Three years ago I wrote Twitter Flu – Win a $100 Amazon gift voucher, where I offered a $100 Amazon voucher for anyone who could tell me how to use Twitter for my business.

Four months later I raised the incentive to a $250 voucher, but the reward remained unclaimed.

But I’m now claiming the prize for myself. Actually that’s not really fair. Let me explain.

Last week I had the pleasure of speaking at MicroConf in Las Vegas. A truly horrible city, but one of the more exciting conferences that I’ve been to for some time.

What set this event apart was the number of moments when an idea suddenly clicked into place.

Sarah Hatter of CoSupport gave one of the best presentations I’ve seen in a long time, and her views on using Twitter have turned my cynicism into respect, and made Twitter a part of my workflow.

Turning British cynicism into respect is a serious achievement, by the way.

Oh and so far I have two potential sales leads from Twitter. That’s two more than I’ve ever had before.

So in fairness, Sarah deserves the $250 Amazon voucher, and she’ll probably notice this blog through Twitter, so should claim her reward.

See – Twitter works in other ways too.

And when I sat down after my presentation, the first thing I did (after breathing) was to look for feedback on Twitter. And there was lots of it.

In days gone by you’d finish a talk, and everyone would tell you how great it was. Even when it wasn’t. After all you’re not going to tell the person who’s just been on the stage that you spent the last hour catching up with email and trying not to fall asleep, right?

Now you get good feedback – and it’s more or less live.

For now I’m going to continue using Twitter to share what I know and feel, to vent and rant, and to pull in people interested in our services. I may even complain about being tired from time.

Most SEOs are today breathing a sigh of relief. The long-awaited over-optimization algorithm update is now live, and if our client’s sites are anything go to by, there’s little to worry about.

The reason that our clients are more or less unaffected, aside from generally seeing a gain in organic traffic is simple.

We only employ what are considered to be White Hat SEO techniques. In other words when we optimise a website, our goal is to help Google recognise the content of the pages, without in any way affecting the usability of the website.

But not everyone is so happy today.

The Google Webmaster Help forum, for example, is full of complaints:

This post is not in any way gloating. Many of those affected negatively are now in trouble, and this has the potential to have an enormous knock-on effect on their businesses.

But there is an important lesson to be learnt here.

Google have gone to great lengths to explain what they consider to be acceptable SEO, for instance in their Quality Guidelines.

I know of many people and companies who blatantly ignore this advice.

Many feel, for example, that the risks of Black-Hat SEO are outweighed by the benefits.

Yet the risks continue to get increasingly higher.

This is not a one-time effort by Google to improve the quality of their results.

Today might be a good time to reassess the risks of Black-Hat SEO, and perhaps consider the very tangible benefits of playing by the rules.