I don’t do much (Ok, none) buying of ads via Google’s AdWords platform. However, an AdSense publisher I find it very useful to stay up to date on AdWords program features and developments. Just like a T.V. executive must have a firm grasp on what advertisers want in a T.V. show — and, more importantly, the audience it delivers — a successful online writer needs to have a grasp on what advertisers want in a website, and the readers it delivers.

What I have noticed is how many AdWords advertisers do a very poor job in using exclusions to keep their ads properly targeted. For advertisers paying per impression (CPM), this is throwing money down the drain, pure and simple. Even for cost per click (CPC) poorly targeted ads are likely to have poor conversion ratios and do nothing but chew up your online ad budget faster.

Negative Keywords for Better Ad Campaigns

The big national advertisers and the ads from online-focused endeavors tend to use the negative keywords feature of Google AdWords to exclude poor matches from eating up their ad dollars. Local businesses and those that are not as online savvy tend to be the ones who make poor choices in this regard. More specifically, local small businesses need better negative keywords to make their advertising perform well.

Here is an example.

I happen to live in Denver, Colorado. So far, no problem there.

I also happen to write a lot about computers, including Microsoft Windows.

Can you see the potential problem coming?

Take a quick look at the ads displayed on this very webpage. See any ads for a Denver company that sells or installs Windows? Glass windows, not software windows?

There might be some of those ads there right now, and there might not. I never know what ads will appear at any given time and it is completely in the control of Google, not me. However, I have seen on previous articles advertisements that seemed strangely out of place only to realize that the issue is improper use of negative keywords. In this instance, Denver window companies would do well to use microsoft as a negative keyword, especially considering that in the technical world of online publishing, it is at least 50-50 that on a given webpage, the text refers to the software and not the glass used in houses.

As an advertiser, there may be a fear that using negative keywords will exclude your ad from somewhere you want it to be. While that is always a concern, there are so many places for ads to be displayed that most advertisers have trouble with the dollars side of the equation and not the display side. Err on the side of too many negative keywords and adjust from there. You’ll find your ad budget goes further and your conversion ratios will go up.

Oh, and just as an aside, it works out better for us publishers too because people are so much more likely to click on a related ad than a random one that is poorly matched to the content.

Use AdWords Negative Keywords to Target Ads Better is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

Has anyone ever tried to count how many users run Firefox with the NoScript add-on?

How many users have JavaScript disabled in Google Chrome?

Do a lot of IE users have JavaScript turned off or restricted somehow?

Most importantly, if you added up all of the users with JavaScript unsupported or JavaScript disabled in their web browser, how big of a user group would they be as a percentage of all web users? Would that number be larger than the number of people still using IE 6? If so, wouldn’t it be prudent for website owners and webmasters to ensure that their websites function correctly without JavaScript, especially when so many of the elements using JavaScript are superficial like animated menus?

I for one test every WordPress theme or website template in Firefox with NoScript running to see what it looks like when it “breaks” because JavaScript is not enabled in a browser. If it still doesn’t render and function at a basic level, then I won’t use it.

Does anyone else do something similar?

Can the noscript tag be used effectively enough to compensate for non-JavaScript enabled browsers?

Support for NoScript JavaScript Disabled Browsers is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

My conclusions remain the same. I will turn off my AdBlock Plus, actually I will disable AdBlock Plus, on good websites with ads that do not interfere with my ability to interact with the site. However, I will NOT turn off NoScript for any site until advertisers stop using super-cookies to track me, and Flash ads stop sucking up so much CPU and memory that having just 10 tabs open means crushing my machine just because Flash insists on continuously animating all those ads I am not looking at.

Steve Jobs may not have pure motives, but he is not wrong. Adobe Flash is a bloated, crash-prone, piece of junk. Its widespread use is in no way an endorsement of its quality, much like the box office receipts of the three newer Star Wars movies are in no way representative of how good they were. Other factors pushed both way beyond what they actually deserved.

Google integrated Flash into the Chrome Browser, partly to take Adobe’s side against Apple (the company had a very different tune prior to the whole Apple v Adobe blowup), and partly to have some control over how badly Flash behaves. The Mozilla Firefox browser was forced to separate out plug-in processes to reduce browser crashes. While they identified all the players, make no mistake, it was Adobe’s Flash plug-in that forced the issue after developers grew tired of being blamed for problems caused by Flash. Of course, this says nothing of the gaping security holes the plug-in propagates across browsers.

If you ever want to see just how resource intensive and craptacular Flash is, open your Google Chrome web browser. (You’ll need Chrome because it separates each tab into its own process.) Now, open two tabs, one with a "standard" flash advertisement on it and one without. See how much more memory and CPU that tiny insignificant flash animation soaks up. For further proof, install the Ad Block Plus extension for Chrome and view the resources used by the same website with and without those ads blocked.

As a professional freelance writer, I do a lot of online research and reading. Staying on top of current events in the tech industry is the most important skill a freelance technology writer can have. Doing all of that in a time efficient manner means opening tabs, and lots of them.

If I let Flash ads run on all of those tabs, my browser will be sucking up a gig of memory in no time, and that just isn’t going to fly.

So, website designers, and purveyors of quality information online, your message has been received. I will disable my ad blocker on your site if you agree not to put user hampering advertisements (I’m looking at you Chikita) on your sites so that you may fairly earn advertising revenue for your hard work. However, that will be no help to you so long as your advertisers are predominantly flash-based.

Good day.

Blocking Advertising Hurting Good Sites is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

Facebook

Recent stories, like this one from Reuters, continue to suggest that Facebook is growing fast and that it is raking in tons of advertising revenues. The source of all this incoming cash, of course, is paid advertising. Some investors expect Facebook to earn more money than Google from advertising in the near future. The idea is that, unlike Google, Facebook users can be shown ads that are relevant to users even when they are not searching.

“We can provide really good, relevant advertising to people because they tell us exactly what they are interested in, and who they know, and those people tell us what they’re interested in,” Facebook Chief Executive Zuckerberg said at the All Things Digital conference this month.

Relevant Ads Worth More Money On Facebook

The business strategy behind Facebook’s rising advertising revenue is sound enough.

A user fills out a profile in which they state that they have “Interests” in various things. For example, a user might say that they are interested in chess. Then, theoretically, that user would be more likely to have advertisements related to chess appear than a user who had indicated interest in other topics. But, does the reality of Facebook ads bear this out?

If you are a Facebook user you may have noticed the various ads that appear on the right side of the screen. These ads are the ones that are supposed to be relevant and “targeted” to users based upon their profiles and other preferences. However, to most users, these ads appear to be thinly targeted, if at all, to their interests.

Recently, some advertisements tried to make use of the personal information in Facebook profiles by using the person’s age in the advertisement. Ads like “If you are 24 years old, you can get car insurance for $20 a month” appeared. Is this what Facebook means when they say, relevant advertising?

Other ads seem to be vaguely geographically targeted. For example, users in Phoenix get advertisements that make use of the word Phoenix (even for national brands and ads) or, in some cases, ads for actual Phoenix businesses. This is indeed useful, but hardly revolutionary. Unless you take advanced measures to frequently wipe out your Google cookies and other information you’ll get plenty of local ads there too.

Ironically, ads that are actually irrelevant and uninteresting to users will frequently appear on the user’s Facebook screen. For example, users that block Facebook games like Farmville or Cafe World still often see ads for those games despite having indicated that they are not interested. Users who are members of a Ford fan club, have tons of posts by themselves and friends about Fords, and have hundreds of “likes” for Ford related sites and information still see ads for Chevrolet. In fact, members of groups like Chevy Sucks or I Hate GM will still see advertisements for those products on Facebook.

Facebook Ads Not Relevant To Users – Worthless?

It is often said that reality is perception. Facebook frequently states how they can target users based upon their personal preferences and information and that concept is often repeated by journalists and analysts. But, is anyone actually checking to see such targeting is being done?

Going beneath the surface and doing some actual business analysis takes more time than many pundits can commit. Savvy technology writers, however, may uncover some interesting nuggets about Facebook’s so-called relevant advertising. The question is, can Facebook establish its “reality” or get a Facebook IPO stock for investors strategy executed before the world starts asking the hard questions?

Time will tell.

Facebook Ad Revenue Growth Real? is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

(See! What did I tell you! That’s a LIKE button right there on this very webpage.)

This super-powerful Facebook weapon, called F8, is a Google killer and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. If you are not a Facebook user, you must sign up NOW. If you are a website owner, webmaster, content publisher, Internet marketer, writing to make money online, an online business marketing expert, or even if you are the guy who pumps the stuff out of the bottom of Porta-Potties, you must start using Facebook now! You must add Facebook LIKE buttons to every website, webpage, mobile phone, iPad, iPhone, iStore, iFacebook — I forgot where I was going with this sentence, because I just can’t stop thinking about the awesome new power of Facebook!

Whew!

Sarcasm can be hard to pull off in writing, even for a professional writer. How did I do?

I might be exaggerating a little bit, but only a little bit.

• The Mercury News says Sorry Google, Facebook Is the Web’s Most Important Company
• A Newsweek blogger headlines Facebook’s Play to Take Over THE ENTIRE INTERNET
• The co-founder and CEO of Mashable, via CNNTech, goes all past tense on us with How Facebook Won The Web
• The Tech Section Velocity at Forbes notes Facebook’s Plan for Internet Domination

You get the idea.

And, that’s just the "responsible" journalism subset of websites. You can about guess what this all sounds like out in the rabid echo chamber of social media, or social marketing, or Web 2.0, or whatever people are calling it these days.

If all of this sounds just a little too over-hyped, then you just don’t understand what is going on!

Right?

Wrong.

Facebook Like Button Is No Google Killer

Don’t get me wrong, Facebook’s new F8 initiative could potentially be pretty great. It might even grow into a useful tool, but that is a long way from being anything more than a blip on the technology radar. The problem, of course, is that the people writing about the big new development from the Facebook developer conference are people who would go to, or read about, a developer conference. This is not a cross-section of middle America. These are techies.

Read my parenting skills tips or my credit card rewards reviews.

Again, don’t misunderstand. I am a techie. I spent years as a high-end computer systems consultant. Although I bailed on the tech industry right before the Internet Bubble popped and the computer industry melted down, I have never given up those techie roots. Thanks to my time as a computer consultant working at numerous companies from senior management down to local desktop support, I have a lot of experience with Information Technology and the issues and problems IT Departments and IT managers face. I leveraged my background to become a freelance technology writer and built that into a pretty nice little freelance writing business. — In all fairness, my expertise after my computer days came in personal finance where I was a Certified Financial Planner. I leveraged that into becoming a freelance financial writer, and the two combined were what gave me enough clients and income to go from start-up entrepreneur to building my own small business.

However, these days I interact with a wider circle of people both professionally and personally, thanks in part to Facebook. Like many people, a few years ago I had no interest in being on Facebook, in large part because I didn’t really know anyone else who was on Facebook. More specifically, I thought I didn’t know anyone else on Facebook. The ONLY reason I even signed up was that an increasing number of freelance writing gigs started asking for people who were "experienced with social media," or even "experts in social marketing." It’s hard to say that you are an expert in social websites if you don’t have an account on any of them.

With a Top 10 Social Websites You MUST Have a Presence On from some magazine, I proceeded to sign up for six social networking websites. (The other four were so obviously not germane to anything even remotely business related that I didn’t bother.) One of those sites was Facebook. I think three of the others no longer exist, or if they do, are most certainly not anything that you MUST be a part of anymore.

I filled out the little profile thing, plugged my freelance writing website (www.arcticllama.com) as much as possible and posted a handful of things. It might have ended there, except for one little thing. A former high school classmate who still consider a friend, but who I hadn’t talked to in years, sent me a friend request. Soon, I was linked to a dozen or so high school classmates. Then, my sister sent me a friend request and mentioned that I should do the same for a cousin who was living abroad, and so on and so on. Eventually most of my family was on Facebook and an increasing number of my friends and former colleagues.

Facebook Weakens Privacy Then Asks Users To "Like" Everywhere They Go

Which brings me to exactly why the Facebook LIKE button will not replace Google or even threaten to cast a the tiniest shadow over Google and its massive search engine business.

There is no way that I am ever going to LIKE certain things lest my friends, family, and co-workers see them.

Already, I have taken Facebook’s privacy tools to their limits. I have my "friends" organized in lists and with every single post, I carefully select which list gets to see that status update, MANUALLY.

I have to. It is not an option.

I have some friends and relatives who have strong religious beliefs. I have other friends and family members who are very liberal. I have clients who are very traditional (I have to wear a suit and tie when I go onsite) and I have clients who are more freewheeling than my crazy friends (I might have to go onsite naked … if it’s Friday).Whatever I do, I need to ensure that it does not jeopardize relationships that I have spent years, or in some cases, a lifetime, cultivating just so that I "Like" a webpage or website.

There are LOTS of people using Facebook who are in a similar situation. And, with Facebook weakening its privacy standards at every opportunity, it only gets harder to maintain the proper boundaries. Facebook has already made it so that users cannot hide their friends list. That means that some users must choose between keeping an ex-girlfriend as a friend or risk losing their current girlfriend. That also goes for former employers, current employers, former and current bosses, former and current clients, and so on. And that is just one tiny thing.

Facebook has offered no easy to use controls for its users to keep their LIKES separated based on friend lists for example. If I "like" a Save the Baby Seals page will a client that sells clubs stop using my services? Or, will they insist that I "like" a How To Club Protestors site? (I jest, but you get the point.) In other words, users will only be able to recommend websites that they know are inoffensive across their entire friends list. Either that, or they will have to violate Facebook’s Terms of Service and sign up for multiple accounts.

In the end, Facebook has already shot itself in the foot with this current initiative. Far from threatening Google, Facebook’s F8 universal LIKE button is already doomed to fail.

After a handful of Likes cause ripples by being sent back to Facebook profiles, people will stop using the button and go back to using similar services that they can keep separated like Delicious, Digg, or Yahoo Buzz, or whatever. Then, will come the news stories like the ones you see now about employers firing someone, or not hiring them in the first place, because of what they "liked" or even because of what they had not "liked." Usage of the like Facebook function will dwindle until it becomes nothing more than a bunch of techies creating a virtual mirror of the funny news, political wailing, and Apple stories that dominate Digg.

Of course, by then, all of those people writing about Facebook’s New Google Killer App will be writing about the next must use Internet dominating service or feature. Just like they were all writing about Twitter two years ago.

You thought we forgot, didn’t you?

Will You Use Facebook Like Without Being Able to Control It?

*********************************************************************************

Since you can’t separate LIKES using any built-in Facebook privacy features, how will you handle the new F8 Universal Web-Wide Like Button? Will you ignore it or only Like certain kinds of websites?

*********************************************************************************

P.S. If you have any examples of BEFORE / AFTER type news stories from major technology pundits who were writing about the domination of Twitter within the last two years who are now writing about the domination of Facebook, I would love to hear about them. Leave them in the comment below and I’ll even DoFollow your comment link back to your LEGITIMATE website.

(Don’t bother if its a "landing page" for some Internet marketing affiliate thing or whatever. I will only Do Follow links to real content, no cloaked links, no landing pages, no tricks. If you have a legitimate sales ad or opportunity on a webpage containing useful information, that is fine.)

Facebook Like Google Killer ? is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

Want to know how to delete a section group in OneNote 2010?

First, Microsoft codes the product. When it has most of the features and it works pretty well in the test environment, the company releases a technical preview, which used to be called an beta release. This used to only go to select Microsoft partners who has specifically signed up to participate in test Microsoft software. But, the public was invited to download and use Microsoft Office 2010 Technical Preview off of the Microsoft website.

The new strategy of releasing beta or test software to the public has proven highly successful for Microsoft. Unlike the crash and burn release that made everyone hate Windows Vista, Windows 7 was released to surprisingly few problems and generally positive press, in part due to the extensive testing that Microsoft did by allowing the public to download, install, use, and complain about Windows 7 test versions. It’s no surprise that the boys in Redmond went back to the well for Office 2010, allowing a very public, very functional test release of the Microsoft Office 2010 Suite upgrade to be downloaded by anyone.

The company then continues to update and fix the software until it is satisfied with the result (or needs to ship in order to satisfy other strategic objectives). Once that happens, the company “freezes” the code and no more additional development is allowed on the product, although bug fixes can still take place. This is often referred to as the “Gold” code or gold version. This is the last test version of the product ever produced.

Once the code has been frozen, programmers fix any confirmed bugs. When that is complete, the company presses DVD media or CDs and ships those (or allows electronic transfer of the product installs) to the companies that actually make and sell computers so that they can start designing their own installations of the product to be used on upcoming computer sales. At this point in time, the “real” product exists and customers can get it (legally) by purchasing a computer that comes with a pre-install of Office 2010.

Finally, the company settles on marketing materials, logos, box art, DVD art, and so on and puts together a retail package that can be put on the shelves at Best Buy or Wal-mart, or whatever. This is planned for Summer 2010.

In the meantime, if you know how to rock the Bittorrent, you can probably get your hands on a copy if you really must. Otherwise, the last updated preview version you downloaded should work just find until the product is released for shipping.

By the way, Office 2010 is a really great product. If you are upgrading from 2007, there isn’t as much that is immediately noticeable as if you are upgrading from 2003 or earlier, but it is still worth it. Check out my review of the Office 2010 on Windows 7 review of the technical preview edition as an overview, and coming soon, my reviews of Word 2010, Excel 2010, and more.

Office 2010 Released to Manufacturing Buy It In Stores Soon is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

The article, which I highly recommend you read, mentions an oft misunderstood concept about online advertising, namely, that all website advertisements pay per click. While, it is true that numerous popular advertising programs, such as Google AdSense, pay content publishers, or website owners, on a per click basis for some ads, that is not always the case. Even within the AdSense program, there are advertisements that pay based on “impressions”, or how often they are seen. However, for low-traffic websites, these amounts never show up as anything more than a penny here or there. For these website owners making money with AdSense means pay per click.

Because there are many more low-traffic web properties than there are high-traffic properties, and because those same numerous low-traffic websites write more about ad programs than higher traffic websites, they’re experiences and opinions are more widely disseminated. The result is that most people believe that only clicking on ads generates any revenues, and since they aren’t going to click on ads anyway, blocking them causes no damage to websites.

High Traffic Websites Earn Revenue Just By Showing Ads No Clicks Required

However, on a high-traffic website, such as ARS Technica, advertisers often pay based not only based on clicks, but often based on the number of impressions the ad generates as well. The most common standard advertising rate in this arena is based on one-thousand impressions, which is often notated as CPM (Cost Per Thousand). This is occasionally misunderstood as cost per million based on the erroneous assumption that M stands for a number that starts with M, when, in fact, it is the Roman numeral M which is 1,000. (You see the M all the time in movie credits that use Roman numerals for their dates.)

For example, a high-traffic website might get $1.00 for every 1,000 impressions. In other words, for every 1,000 times an advertisement is displayed, the website would get $1.00. (These numbers are all for example purposes only and do not necessarily correlate to real advertising numbers, rates, costs, or payments.) If the website in question gets 200,000 page views per day, that would add up to $200 per day of revenue. Over the course of a month, that is $6,000 which adds up to a nice $72,000 per year.

Even at that rate, you aren’t talking about a full-fledged publishing business with employees and benefits and the like. To get to those kind of numbers, you either need higher rates, or more traffic. Either way, you can see why the number of people with actual real world experience in this area is low. A site like ARS Technica get upwards of 10,000,000 page views per day, according to Alexa.

Re-do the math and you can see the kinds of numbers we are talking about here.

So, when a site like this notices that 40% of its users are blocking ads from being displayed, it isn’t just nickels and dimes we are talking about.

Ad Supported Websites Block Users Who Block Ads

Also in the article, the author talks about what he calls a failed experiment whereby the company kept users who used ad blocking software, most likely the Ad Block Plus plug-in for Firefox and others, from seeing the content on the website. Unfortunately, one of the major problems with the experiment was a lack of communication with the readers to let them know what was going on.

The other problem is that a certain subset of user populations is fanatical in both their efforts to block ads and their “right” to do so. Needless to say, there was some backlash.

But, did some good come out of all this?

I set my Firefox Ad Block Plus plugin to Disabled for the arstechnica.com domain. We’ll see how it goes. I’m perfectly willing to let websites display ads to generate the revenues required to continue their efforts. I am not, however, willing to let those ads slow down my browsing experience, and I am also not willing to let them be overly intrusive. I installed ad block plus when Kontera and its ilk came out and started manipulating text to have links that popped up ads if you so much as got your mouse close to them. That is unacceptable.

Furthermore, I am NOT going to unblock Flash on ARS Technica or any other website. Flash is a horribly bloated coding system that just gets worse by the day. Open a webpage with a few flash based ads on it, and watch your browser’s memory usage double. Since I like to leave tabs open while I do other things, those resource pig flash ads take up more and more system resources and that is not acceptable.

More interestingly, for the time being anyway, I have in the back of my mind the thought that some of my favorite websites (I read ARS Technica a lot whether directly or via RSS Feed) need to have those ads display to keep running. Otherwise, they’ll either disappear, become lower quality, or stoop to writing pay for review or pay for coverage articles.

Does Ad Blocking Hurt Good Websites? is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

Google Buzz Flaw

The primary flaw with Google Buzz is, ironically, the feature that the company is most proud of, it’s tight integration with Google Mail.

The privacy advocates have thrown up a hundred red flags as Google rolled out Buzz, and the company seemed a bit unprepared for the backlash. More tellingly, it seemed to be completely caught off guard by the problems that were pointed out, as evidenced by the numerous changes it made to the platform just days after it was unveiled.

The only explanation is that Buzz was built by Google, inside of Google, by Googlers, who are advanced and dedicated users of all things Google. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except for when that it means that "within Google" is no longer in sync with the world outside of Google. Of course, a ten-year Google employee has no problem linking together all of his Google services. He’s probably been doing it through other means for years. Likewise, he is only too happy to have another way for friends, family, and co-workers to find all of this stuff that he put out there on the Internet for all to see.

However, out here, in the 99.99999999% of the world that is not inside of Google headquarters, we have lives that are not universally linked. Most people have families, friends, co-workers, co-workers who are friends, colleagues who are acquaintances, but not necessarily friends, bosses, ex-girlfriends, and ex-boyfriends, and ex-wives and ex-husbands. Some of us have kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids. Likewise, some of us have parents, grandparents, and maybe even great-grandparents. For each of these groups of people, there are undoubtedly sub-groups, ranging from conservative to liberal, political to non-political, religious and not, those who enjoy British humor and those who think it is stupid, and on, and on, and on.

The point of all this is that in our lives we are not interested in blending all of these layers together. The Wednesday drinking buddy would laugh hilariously as the cartoon we found, while the dad from our kid’s play dates would be horribly offended. Surely, this is the point of lists and groups, but there is more.

Email vs. Social Networking or Gmail vs. Facebook

Which brings us to the fundamental misunderstanding that makes Buzz a non-starter. Who we email, and who we tweet, update, and share with, are not the same.

The super-techie types and the super-marketing types may insist that the power of social networking websites like Facebook and services like Twitter comes from being able to interact with your whole network all of the time. However, the vast majority of those of us who make up Facebook’s 400 million users are neither.

We only link to certain friends and contacts. We shudder when our Great Aunt Matilda sends us a friend request. We don’t want our contact list to be our friends list.

In other words, while my Google Address Book bursts at the seems with people I met at a conference two years ago, and who from time to time, I do send emails too, I am not interested in those people seeing pictures of my kids, my new barbeque, or where my tickets are for Buffs home games. Frankly, I’m not interested in hearing about those things from them either.

If Google wants to play in this space, they have to acknowledge what everyone else has already figured out. The web is not all just one big thing. That’s why social networking is often called Web 2.0. It is different than the "regular" Internet of websites, searches, and emails, and we like it that why.

Incidentally, if it is any consolation to the search engine king, this same concept is why, for all of its attempts and numerous re-designs, Facebook search and Facebook email is doomed to failure for anything outside of the Facebook environment. While I might love to hear what my buddy Frank has to say about his new high-definition LCD TV, I don’t care what he thinks about the benefits of knee surgery, spas in Crested Butte, or where to take my children for their birthdays.

Facebook and Google, social networking, and the regular Internet are all different, and never the two shall meet.

Google Buzz Gmail Fails Against Facebook & Twitter is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

At issue is the AT&T coverage map shown in Verizon’s ads. The commercials parody the Apple iPhone commercial’s line, "There’s an app for that" with the line, "There’s a map for that." The map in question shows AT&T wireless coverage for its 3G network, the one that is supposed to be handling the iPhone and it’s users because it is a faster data network. With 3G connections, accessing the Internet on an iPhone or any other mobile phone for that matter is much faster than on the old cell phone network technologies.

AT&T sued saying the ads were misleading and then started airing its own ads starring Luke Wilson in which Wilson says that AT&T has way more coverage than shown on that Verizon map. Then, he goes about flinging post cards around the map.

So, what happened? Who is lying, Verizon or AT&T?

The answer, as it often is in marketing, is that no one is technically lying. How can that be possible?

Well, as it turns out the map Verizon shows of AT&T 3G coverage is accurate. In fact, it is lifted from AT&T’s own maps of its 3G coverage area. So, what is AT&T complaining about?

AT&T said in its lawsuit that the ads implied that AT&T cell phone network has no coverage of any kind in the non-red areas on the map. It claims that casual T.V. viewers would be confused by the map and think that AT&T’s dismal 3G coverage was the same as its marginally better coverage with older slower technologies.

The Luke Wilson counter-commercials in which Wilson says, "Verizon has been making an issue about maps," uses a map of AT&T coverage that includes any kind of coverage whatsoever.

So, who is telling the truth?

Well, if you want to use a smartphone, iPhone, or any other mobile phone that accesses the Internet using the latest fast networking technology, then Verizon is telling the truth. You will only get that faster 3G coverage on the map with less red.

If you just want to make a phone call, then AT&T is telling the truth with the map that has a lot more red.

The question is, which is more deceptive? An ad portraying a network better suited to handling the kind of traffic used by "an app for that" showing how bad AT&T’s fast 3G network coverage is, or an ad depicting that ad as inaccurate by showing a map that displays where old network technology should allow any cell phone to at least make a call?

I’m going to give this one to Verizon as being more truthful. They are essentially saying that iPhones aren’t going to work very well in a lot of places because 3G coverage is not available in many locations. While AT&T is trying to show counter that they "cover" a much bigger area without mentioning what kind of coverage they are talking about.

As always, with marketing it comes down to parsing the exact wording in the advertisement.

AT&T Coverage Versus Verizon Wireless Coverage – What a Difference Wording Makes is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC

Update: It seems that Amazon is going out of its way to make me look foolish   Just kidding. Actually, just got an email update, partially excerpted below, from the Amazon Associates folks about a new way that the affiliate program will integrate directly with Twitter. Basically, it makes the rest of this post moot, but if you want to read, go nuts

The Share on Twitter feature is easy to use. Simply log in to your Amazon Associates account and then visit any detail page on Amazon.com. By clicking on the Share on Twitter button in the Site Stripe, a new window will open and an Amazon-generated message is pre populated in the ‘What are you doing?’ text area of your Twitter account (you may be asked to log in to your Twitter account). That message will include a shortened URL that already includes your Associates ID. You’ll have the option to edit this message or simply hit the ‘Update’ button to post to your Twitter account. When Twitter users click on the link in your post and make a qualifying sale, you’ll earn referral fees. That’s it.

A bit of a rumble making its way around the Blog-o-Go-Round regarding Amazon’s denial of commission payments for sales made via links shortened and then posted to Twitter.

There are many different ways to make money using the Internet. One of the most common is by enrolling in what is known as an affiliate program. Basically, “affiliate program” is an euphemism for getting commissions for sales or traffic that you generate by linking to the website or products of the selling website.

Amazon Associates is the brand name of Amazon’s affiliate program which pays commissions to people who refer buyers to Amazon’s website via links. In the Utopian version of this referral program, people sign up to become Amazon Associates and then link to various Amazon products that they recommend or endorse based upon either personal experience or research. In the real world version of the program people try numerous ways to game the system, oftentimes providing links either indiscriminately, or deceptively.

Of course, such trickery is only valuable to those in it for the quick buck. The Internet Marketer (another euphemism) doesn’t really care if the person who follows the link feels like they were treated well, or honestly, as long as they buy something after they follow that link to Amazon.  Amazon feels differently, and for good reason. They are a multi-billion dollar business that depends, in no small part, on its overall reputation as a legitimate online retailer for sales.

Consider the number of people willing to pay a few dollars, to many dollars more for a given product in order to buy it from Amazon, instead of some other website that they have never heard of before. Couple this with free shipping for orders over $25 and the trust that people have about Amazon’s return policies and you have one of the only ways possible to defend against smaller cheaper competitors.

I, myself, routinely shop around online using a variety of websites, tools, and just plain old Google searches of the shopping type and to a lesser extent Microsoft shopping searches that offer cash back. In the end, however, unless the price difference, including shipping, is at least ten bucks or more, I’ll just buy it from Amazon. It is worth the extra money to avoid the potential hassles of not knowing whether or not that other online store is a good one or not.

Twitter, Link Shorteners, and Scams

Amazon has decided to not pay affiliates who link to their products via links that have been shortened. There are multiple reasons for this, but the main one is that by shortening a link, it conceals what the link is, and where it goes. It may be the case that most people don’t watch the status bar when they mouse over the a link to see where the link goes, but for those who do, a shortend link is a unknown link.

Another reason Amazon is not too keen on shortened links is that the destination of those links can be modified at will. The idea behind Amazon’s program is not to link to Amazon whenever their commission is the highest, or there is a hot product available, but rather to link to products and pages as part of a bona-fide recommendation.

Obviously, making arguments against these points is difficult. However, those opposed to the Amazon policy to not pay commissions for referrals via short links have finally found their rallying cry. As with all unsavory things, it is necessary to find a squeaky clean example to lead the protest, otherwise, people just tune out the cries of the “gray area” crowd as the whining of people who are getting what they deserve.

For the no short-links policy, the rally point is Twitter. Since Twitter messages, or tweets, must be a relatively short 140 characters or less, a full Amazon link including the associate ID or affiliate ID is pretty much out of the question. The only answer, for these clean cut, all-American, Twitter folks is to use a link shortener for their earnest, well qualified recommendations.

The reality is that the vast majority of Twitter users spewing out affiliate links via short links are exactly the kind of hucksters that Amazon doesn’t want using its program in the first place. Twitter’s number one danger for becoming a second-rate, spam only, destination, on the Internet is the number of charlatans using the service to find suckers customers. The traffic they send is less likely to convert, and worse, more likely to complain.

Of course, there are those who make legitimate recommendations via Twitter. They would have to use link shorteners as well. However, even they, have a bit of a weak spot. The idea that Amazon considers something like, “I love these new Chewy Chips Ahoy Cookies – http://bit.ly/NOTAREALLINK” to be one of the ways they want to get traffic to its site isn’t very convincing. Sure, publicity is good, and so are well-meaning referrals, but Amazon knows that whatever good these limited cases might bring, it pales in comparison to the negatives the vast majority of link shortened links provide.

In the end, the Amazon policy is better for the “straight” Amazon Associates membership, better for Amazon, and better for Amazon’s customers. It stings the sneaky, weasel, membership right where it hurts by taking away one of their most prevalent tricks. It may catch a handful of good guys along the way, but I think given real unbiased consideration, without the emotional attachment of a missed commission, even they would approve.

Amazon Affiliates Shuts Down Twitter and Link Shorteners is a post from Best Hubris. All content exclusively written by Freelance Writing Business of ArcticLlama, LLC