Facebook is for Friends!

An open letter to some of my dearest Facebook friends–

I’m talking about you, organizer of Jewish/Israeli educational seminars; you, SEO extraordinaire; my dear women’s causes activist friend; me amigo, the graphic artist; the interior designer, the photographer; all of you out there who’ve ever built their own website; and many many more:

Please, don’t confuse our friendship with a free-for-all license to advertise your talents, services and products on my Facebook page. Not cool!

While it’s okay to once-in-a-while invite me to a special event (once in a while!), I’m begging you: pleeeease, separate between your personal life (and our friendship) and your job/cause/business. Create a dedicated page for those, and I’ll be happy to consider joining.

Otherwise, I’ll have to hide you from my news stream.

Whooh, I feel much better now!

 

The SEO Imperative

Does the White House website need SEO?

Let’s rephrase that: should special content be created for the sole purpose of SEO?

I can think of a possible reason–mainly, because we equate the site’s performance with the number of visitors it attracts, and by proxy we’ll evaluate the site builder using the same yardstick.

I’m not saying that search engine performance shouldn’t be a consideration when a website is built. But beyond creating relevant content and following the basics of styling the different elements, is there a point in pouring tons of money into a site that is a singular brand?

So let’s try another example. Does BMW need to invest in SEO?

If you’re in the market for a luxury car, you know about and considered a BMW. No one in their right mind will search for “luxury car” and stumble upon the BMW website. Even if the site is optimized to pop up when you type ‘Lexus’, that won’t do any good.

My company faced the same dilemma, being a well known player in a relatively small field. If you’re in the market for the type of software we sell, you already know about us.

When we built my company’s previous website, about three years ago, we made sure to optimize it to a long list of general industry related terms–the equivalent of the keyword “luxury car” in our industry–and by and large, our efforts were very successful.

However, no one used those search terms in order to access our website. Almost all of the search terms used were specific to the company, its products and features. Whenever we created a page with with good content, it fared well.

SEO is extremely important for most companies, but not all. I built a website for a chiropractor in Lower Manhattan a few years ago. Almost all of my work went on optimizing the site for the search terms “Chiropractor 10003″, “Chiropractor Lower Manhattan” and such. We didn’t even try aiming at “Chiropractor NYC” because it was too broad a term. Some businesses compete locally, some globally, and there’s no point in optimizing a site for terms that will never be used, or to attract uninterested visitors.

What’s the downside of investing in SEO? The cost. Take the thousands of dollars you’ll spend on unnecessary optimization and invest in better and compelling content (or even put the money to work elsewhere in the organization.) You’ll get fewer visitors, true, but also a higher conversion rate.

What do you think?

Targets and Nazis, Rabin and Giffords

The attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords threw me back to the rhetoric that preceded the Rabin assassination.

It’s the fall of 1995, and there’s a sense in Israel that a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is imminent, and that Rabin is going to realize the Oslo accords signed just two years earlier. Rabin’s mandate is shaky – the Israeli populous, still reeling from the horrendous terrorist attacks of 1994, is skeptical as to Arafat’s sincerity in recognizing Israel.

The political and religious right, led by Bibi Netanyahu, launches a huge anti-Rabin campaign. Posters of Rabin in S.S. uniform and public statements by prominent rabbis that Rabin is a traitor and should be eliminated–basically a Jewish fatwa–pop up in newspapers, poster boards and demonstrations.

The culmination of the anti-Rabin campaign was the Likud rally in Zion Square, Jerusalem in October 1995, less than a month before the assassination. From the speakers’ balcony Netanyahu and the Likud leadership could easily hear the masses chanting “in blood and fire we shall do away with Rabin”, “he’s a traitor!” and “death to Rabin”. Many demonstrators carry signs depicting Rabin wearing a kafiah (eluding to Arafat) and in S.S. uniform.

Likud leaders, from the balcony, call for the ousting of the ‘Quisling’ government (after the WWII Norwegian traitor). Netanyahu claims that Rabin’s government is based on a non-Zionist majority – the five Arab MKs associated with the PLO.

Rabin counteracts with a pro-peace rally in Tel Aviv, at the very square that would eventually bear his name. Minutes after the last chord of ‘Song for Peace’, which ended the rally, Rabin is shot to death by Yigal Amir, a right-wing activist and follower of a rabbi that called for Rabin’s elimination.

In the aftermath of the assassination, the right’s mea culpa was drowned by the voices that called for understanding, bridging and healing. “Now is not the time to point fingers, we need to first dress the wounds”. But the time to assign blame never came. Within a few months Israel was mired in another round of fighting in Lebanon, and soon after Likud took the reins. The lessons were never learned, and the mere commemoration of Rabin became a political matter.

Now, I’m not saying that Sarah Palin called for the assassination of Gabrielle Giffords, or that she should be held liable in any way for the shooting in Tuscon. At most she is guilty of applying really bad judgement and using incendiary language (“Don’t retreat, instead reload!” she tweeted).

But the Tuscon shooting should serve as a warning that there are psychos out there that will take the rhetoric and even the imagery too literally. And maybe at the same time, reconsider the gun laws that enabled a known disturbed person to freely obtain a gun and buy ammo at Wal Mart.

Look, I’m #1 in Google! Uh, no, I’m not.

In recent weeks, people all around the world have been seeing their websites rank higher than ever in Google searches.

I’ve been receiving phone calls from customers I’ve built sites for over the years, telling me how finally my SEO has paid off, and that they’re popping up on the first page in Google. It’s then my job to inform them that uh, no, you’re getting your site on the first page because you’re a relentless self-Googler.

What happened? Well, without much (or enough) fanfare, Google rolled out its Personalized Search Results initiative. Now the search results you get are personalized for you based on your browsing and searching history.

Personalized Search is great for everyone. Except if you’re me, because as a part-time website builder, it denies me of one of the most important measures of success—the site’s ranking in Google. You could say it’s the end of SEO as we know it.

To test the new Google search, I Googled the term “bass”. Since I’m a bass player and an Israeli, the top results I got were: the Wikipedia entries for the instrument, the fish and the vocal range; YouTube clips for bass guitar music; the homepage for Avishai Cohen, world-class Israeli bass player; and at #6, Bass shoes and clothing (I’m on their mailing list)

You can disable Personalized Search by deleting your search history if you’re signed in, deleting the G-cookie if you’re not, or using the incognito (porn) mode.

Once disabled, the top results were: Bass Pro Shops (fishing and hunting); Bass shoes and clothing; Bass Fishing Membership and Tournament News; The Wikipedia entry for Bass guitar; Van Heusen – Bass clothing and footwear; and finally Fender bass guitars. Clearly fishier and more focused on the clothing brand, and much less relevant to me. So Kudos to Google!

So is this really the end of SEO? Bottom line is that SEO is important as ever and that Personalized Search doesn’t change the outcome of SEO, just how we measure it. We optimize sites not for the people who know us and search for us, but for those who don’t. I don’t need Google to direct me to Guitar Center for bass strings. But the next time I need bait for bass fishing, my search results page, virginal, unbiased and uneducated in the ways of all thing aquatic, will show me the results the as intended by the gods of the Internet.

Let the games continue!

Riding through Central Park at 180 m.p.h.

If you’re one of many, many loyal readers of my blog, you know that there’s nothing I wouldn’t do for a good story.

This time I put my life on the line and took a wild bike ride through New York City’s Central Park at 180 m.p.h. (288 km/h). That’s right, the entire 6 miles (9.6 km) in under two minutes.

Here’s the result – please click ‘Like’ and share the video if you liked it!

Rude or Stupid?

Look around you. Take a fresh look at the people you don’t know personally, but you nevertheless know of. The celebs, the moguls, the actors, the politicians. The people you see on TV or read about in the paper.

These people are not your friends. They are rude. Or at best, stupid.

FINALLY there is a website that brings order to things – introducing www.RudeOrStupid.com.

Using the wisdom of (apparently very bored with nothing better to do) people who vote for the rudest and stupidest of them all, the cream of the crop is exposed at its best and worst. Loved Mel Gibson’s anti-Semite tirades? Can’t live without Lindsey Lohan’s aversion to panties? Now you can vote and shape your world.

Hours of fun guaranteed!

A woman is not a hamburger

The overarching role of marketing is to create in the customer the imperative to take a desired action, hopefully while doing no evil.

Today, children, we will talk about really evil people.

In my hometown of Tel Aviv, Israel, there’s a restaurant called Agadir which prides itself on its excellent hamburgers. It also prides itself on the attractiveness of its female servers, so much so that for the Jewish new year they issued a calendar featuring wholesome photos of the girls in action.

Here are a few samples:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The man behind the campaign is actually a woman, one Keren Arnaldes, creative director for the Mu-Ar ad agency. Here are excerpts from an interview with her published in The Marker Online magazine (translated by me from Hebrew):

“You can choose to see them as humiliated and abused, but nothing there was staged…”

“Q: Does this mean that the waitresses chose to be photographed on all fours?… A: Totally… it reflects the kind of reality these girls live in… [these girls] are women, not little girls.”

“There’s nothing grotesque or pornographic about it…”

“Not every girl shown on all fours is submissive. Could be that she just wants to [bend over] that way. It comes from a place of strength. You shouldn’t take it to a sexist place…”

“They all do it out of loyalty to Agadir” (duh…)

Listen. I know sex sells, and I’m no prude, and bla bla bla. I have no problem with erotica or pornography or whatever. But there’s a big difference – from Maxim to Hustler to any amateur porn site, the models and actors are self-aware adult entertainers. This is not the case. Encouraging the servers to pose in compromising positions (the photos will haunt these girls for years to come), and taking advantage of their loyalty to the workplace, crosses a big, fat line.

From the creative director to the restaurant’s owner, you are nothing but self-righteous smut peddlers. And that’s evil.

How a web design goes straight to hell

This one needs no introduction, just a big sympathy hug to the guys at TheOatmeal.com. I’ve been there.

The never-ending IM farewell

Back to the subject of digital communication as a proxy for real-world interactions – this time, the never-ending farewells when you IM.

If you’re like me, your IMs end this way:

- well, I’m kinda late for the opera. Gotta go.
- ok, cu tmw!
- Sure. Looking forward.
- bye
- ciao
- ttyl
- later!
- xoxo
- xoxoxoxo
- bye

At this point you stare at the IM window, wondering if it’s rude to close the window, and whether we’re done saying our goodbyes. There’s no sense of closure, just a feeling that the chat session ended abruptly, even though you’ve spent the last two minutes of it trying to end it.

In real life we have clear cues for when a conversation is over. It’s usually when you turn your back and/or walk away from the other person. Try saying goodbye to a person without moving away – it’s awkward, like there’s something still to be said. It’s like the awkwardness saying goodbye while exiting a restaurant, only to discover that the other person is walking to the same subway station as you are.

On the phone, we have the hang up. There’s a whole protocol for ending a phone call: summarizing what has been said, reiterating future programs, obligatory niceties, and finally the ‘bye’. It’s feels awkward to me to end a phone call without exchanging goodbyes. I know that some people do it – just watch any episode of ‘Entourage’ – but that’s Hollywood talk. I need my goodbye. I need closure.

SO HERE is what I propose – a universal symbol that is the equivalent of the walking away and the hangup. A digital gesture that means “this is the end of this communication. There will be no more conversing after this”.

My proposed symbol is (drumroll):

//

With //, the above exchange would now be:

- well, I’m kinda late for the opera. Gotta go.
- ok, cu tmw!
- Sure. Looking forward.
- bye! //

That’s a 60% saving! Just imagine the ramifications on the world’s economy if this sign is universally adopted.

I’ve been testing this symbol lately in my IMs, and lo and behold, it works. Not one IMee ever continued blabbering after //. There’s something about it that is intuitively legible.

So spread the word, and save us from never-ending IMs!

//

personal branding, i.e. your name

I came across this great tool for finding out the popularity of your name (or for making sure your kid won’t be among six other same-namers in kindergarten.)

In 1995, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner dedicated an entire chapter in “Freakonomics” to the correlation behind socioeconomic status and baby names, and how names ‘trickle down’ from highly-educated to less-educated parents in just a few years. Levitt and Dubner even went as far as projecting the most popular names in 2015, and what do you know, some of the upcoming names they predicted (especially for girls) started appearing in the top ten as early as 2009.

There are those names, of course, that always populate the top 20 or 30. Most are biblical male names, like Joshua, Michael, Matthew and David (Sarah and Rachel are the only resilient female names.) These mainstay boys’ names are crossover-proof (unlike Tyler, Alex or Billie) but are still subject to ebbs and flows – Jacob is the most popular male name all through the 2000s, but was ranked 20th in 1990, and was not even in the top 20 in 1980. Go figure.

An extreme case of falling from grace is Mary – from #1 in 1960 to #102 in 2009.

Here’s another big surprise: “Eyal” is not even among the top 1000 in the U.S., and never was!

I admit that there are some advantages in having an exotic name as mine, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend it. Nobody with a strange-sounding name ever made it big. Just ask Barack Obama.