I haven't been able to figure out the Indian Premier League (IPL) yet. On the face it, IPL and its basis is pure marketing hype. The fanfare of its auctions, the bollywood influence all of it is meant to attract eyeballs but I don't know what is it that IPL has, that will make it a lasting phenomenon.
The IPL has been compared to the EPL on several occassions but what makes EPL so different is that these clubs enjoy tremendous support and that the loyalties have been developed over a century. The loyalty has come in due to stark differenciation between teams. For Eg: a Manchester United Team is distinctly different from an Arsenal Team and this stark division in turn builds loyalties and hence creates rivalries, which, I feel is most important in such a format.
But the big question is does IPL have the power to create such loyalties? Given that its the first season, on the face of it, I say NO, simply because the IPL model is rather superfluous when it comes to loyalties
Take for example the 6 teams in the fray. The stark division in this league is supposed to be based on city but what about the Mumbai Indians is Mumbai oriented? Considering that they have robin uthappa, shaun pollock, Dwayne bravo and only 4 mumbai players (including sachin), does one really expect all the mumbaikars to cheer for the team? The likely hood of the team changing completely next season for profit reasons also makes it likely that regional bias will not be given top priority. The Chennai Super Kings have only 4 Tamil Nadu Players out of a squad of 25 players!! The EPL on the other hand is dedicated to developing home grown talent. David Beckham and Wayne Rooney have come off the Man U and everton academies respectively. These clubs have the loyalties of their fans precisely because they are dedicated to the local community. The La Liga in Spain mandates that about 50% of the team must contain spanish players or local boys. This naturally ensures that regional identity is reinforced through the team.
My opinion is that the management needs to work keenly on honing loyalties and creating rivalries. That needs to be of top most priority in order for the league to work. Instant gratification is short lived and hopefully IPL won't pander to that.
An interesting article on the economic times examines just that. I completely agree with the article in that "Sustaining the excitement around the format depends squarely on the ability of various teams to build loyal fan bases". The article is also spot on about the marketing of all the teams. Its wholly undifferentiated and one really can't tell them apart from the others. Like what makes the Mumbai Indians different from the Deccan Chargers? the author rightly points out that "For eventually, a team is more than a motley collection of individuals; it must represent a point of view, a style of playing the game."
The article also has an interesting perspective in that the IPL might evolve into a unique format of its own and incorporate elements of reality television like innovation, surprises, twists and high drama
Read the Article Here
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Only to come running back again
Just when I thought that the internet had just gotten entertaining with the delicious prospect of MicroHOO!, balmer, the original Monkey Man(watch this if you don't believe me) has gone and pulled the rug under Yahoo. Not surprisingly the latter's share price dropped an amazing 14% after the pull out. Well most people think its a ploy to put pressure on Yahoo! through its shareholders. That's the general view anyway, that Microsoft will eventually bid again but at a lower price. Well that's how his letter to Jerry Yang looks. Well here below, the letter in all its awesomeness.(I'm kidding ofcourse, about the awesomeness I mean, I prefer his inspirational speeches anyday, Balmer not Jerry Yang)
Dear Jerry:
After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team, and Yahoo!'s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal...
I am disappointed that Yahoo! has not moved towards accepting our offer. I first called you with our offer on January 31 because I believed that a combination of our two companies would have created real value for our respective shareholders and would have provided consumers, publishers, and advertisers with greater innovation and choice in the marketplace. Our decision to offer a 62 percent premium at that time reflected the strength of these convictions.
In our conversations this week, we conveyed our willingness to raise our offer to $33.00 per share, reflecting again our belief in this collective opportunity. This increase would have added approximately another $5 billion of value to your shareholders, compared to the current value of our initial offer. It also would have reflected a premium of over 70 percent compared to the price at which your stock closed on January 31. Yet it has proven insufficient, as your final position insisted on Microsoft paying yet another $5 billion or more, or at least another $4 per share above our $33.00 offer.
Also, after giving this week's conversations further thought, it is clear to me that it is not sensible for Microsoft to take our offer directly to your shareholders. This approach would necessarily involve a protracted proxy contest and eventually an exchange offer. Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo! undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.
We regard with particular concern your apparent planning to respond to a " hostile" bid by pursuing a new arrangement that would involve or lead to the outsourcing to Google of key paid Internet search terms offered by Yahoo! today. In our view, such an arrangement with the dominant search provider would make an acquisition of Yahoo! undesirable to us for a number of reasons:
First, it would fundamentally undermine Yahoo!'s own strategy and long-term viability by encouraging advertisers to use Google as opposed to your Panama paid search system. This would also fragment your search advertising and display advertising strategies and the ecosystem surrounding them. This would undermine the reliance on your display advertising business to fuel future growth.
Accordingly, your apparent plan to pursue such an arrangement in the event of a proxy contest or exchange offer leads me to the firm decision not to pursue such a path. Instead, I hereby formally withdraw Microsoft's proposal to acquire Yahoo!.
Thank you again for the time we have spent together discussing this.
Now to learn what he really meant in his letter, read this hilarious take
Dear Jerry:
After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team, and Yahoo!'s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal...
I am disappointed that Yahoo! has not moved towards accepting our offer. I first called you with our offer on January 31 because I believed that a combination of our two companies would have created real value for our respective shareholders and would have provided consumers, publishers, and advertisers with greater innovation and choice in the marketplace. Our decision to offer a 62 percent premium at that time reflected the strength of these convictions.
In our conversations this week, we conveyed our willingness to raise our offer to $33.00 per share, reflecting again our belief in this collective opportunity. This increase would have added approximately another $5 billion of value to your shareholders, compared to the current value of our initial offer. It also would have reflected a premium of over 70 percent compared to the price at which your stock closed on January 31. Yet it has proven insufficient, as your final position insisted on Microsoft paying yet another $5 billion or more, or at least another $4 per share above our $33.00 offer.
Also, after giving this week's conversations further thought, it is clear to me that it is not sensible for Microsoft to take our offer directly to your shareholders. This approach would necessarily involve a protracted proxy contest and eventually an exchange offer. Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo! undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.
We regard with particular concern your apparent planning to respond to a " hostile" bid by pursuing a new arrangement that would involve or lead to the outsourcing to Google of key paid Internet search terms offered by Yahoo! today. In our view, such an arrangement with the dominant search provider would make an acquisition of Yahoo! undesirable to us for a number of reasons:
First, it would fundamentally undermine Yahoo!'s own strategy and long-term viability by encouraging advertisers to use Google as opposed to your Panama paid search system. This would also fragment your search advertising and display advertising strategies and the ecosystem surrounding them. This would undermine the reliance on your display advertising business to fuel future growth.
Accordingly, your apparent plan to pursue such an arrangement in the event of a proxy contest or exchange offer leads me to the firm decision not to pursue such a path. Instead, I hereby formally withdraw Microsoft's proposal to acquire Yahoo!.
Thank you again for the time we have spent together discussing this.
Now to learn what he really meant in his letter, read this hilarious take
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Site It!
(Another of my published articles. If anybody wants to reference this, I would appreciate a citation or a link back.thanks)
I read a review once of a book (I forget which) where the reviewer said, “I liked it so much, I wanted to run out into the street and tell everyone I knew”. I can totally empathize with that feeling because we as humans have this irresistible urge to recommend. We particularly tend to do that when we have enjoyed a product or service. A friend of mine made it a point to tell everyone of the great service she was getting from her broadband provider and I must admit, I did give them a call to see if I could switch over to theirs. A friend’s recommendation is unarguably more powerful than all the marketing tactics put together, as it is coming from a person who is implicitly trusted. This same implicit trust is being put to use on a phenomenon called Social Bookmarking
According to Wikipedia, Social Bookmarking is defined as “a method for internet users to store, organize, search, and manage bookmarks of web pages on the Internet with the help of metadata”. Social Bookmarking combines the practice of bookmarking a site (which is conventionally done by adding the link to our “favorites” tab present in our browser) and tagging it under specific keywords. It is analogous to filing documents in folders albeit with a Web 2.0 twist! To get started on Social Bookmarking, one has to usually register with Social Bookmarking sites such as Del.icio.us, Digg, Stumbleupon etc and then start saving the web pages that one wants to store or share onto these sites. The sites are usually “tagged” based on various criteria and can be made either public (to viewed by all) or private (to be viewed by the user only). Although, the phenomenon of saving bookmarks online is more than a decade old, the emphasis is now on the “tagged” information and how it can be distributed through a social network. The mantra of social bookmarking sites is not only storing bookmarks but also sharing it with our network and also inturn, discovering the bookmarks of our network.
Social Bookmarking is a radical new way of organizing & categorizing the information on the web. The most significant aspect of Social Bookmarking is the creation of “Tags”. A tag refers to a label that classifies the information on a page. These tags can then be made publicly accessible, thus enabling us to connect with other users of similar interests. Indeed, Social Bookmarking sites are often heralded as the new wave after search engines as the facility of tags makes it easy for anyone to search for any information relating to that tag. Another advantage of tags is that the classification is done by humans who understand the content as opposed to search engines, which determine the content of a page based on an algorithm.
Social Bookmarking also allows for another interesting phenomenon. As sites get bookmarked, tagged and shared, the site that gets bookmarked more is obviously perceived as more relevant than the others. This inturn results in an organic ranking system that enables users to search for the right content more effectively. For example, a site under the tag of “Social Bookmarking” that is bookmarked by over 100 people would logically seem a better a choice than a site that is bookmarked by only 5 people.
Social Bookmarking is not only advantageous to researchers but to businesses as well. Social Bookmarking sites offer high visibility. These sites attract a lot of traffic from people who are looking for something. Through tags and the inorganic ranking system, they offer a better positioning to any site. Additionally when a particular site is bookmarked on a social bookmarking site it creates a backlink to that site. The more it is bookmarked and the more backlinks that are created, the more it is valued by search engines, as backlinks are a clear indication of popularity. Social Bookmarking can be an effective tool in marketing a website by ensuring that it is tagged on as many social bookmarking sites as possible. Additionally, by adding social bookmarking sites’ icons on a website, one must encourage visitors to tag the page inorder to increase the number of bookmarks. This why most news articles these days offer icons of Del.icio.us, Digg etc to bookmark the pages
As with any evolving technology, there are certain downsides to Social Bookmarking as well. As the most important aspect of these sites are the tags, the efficacy depends on the accuracy with which these tags are created and as there is currently no standard on how tags should be created, various errors relating to meaning, spelling, structure etc often creep up. Secondly, as social bookmarking is driven solely by people, there is a risk of presenting a skewed view of a particular topic and also interpreting it in a certain manner.
Tagging information through keywords could radically change the way we store, share & discover information. More importantly, it has the potential to create a system that understands the human rationale of classifying information as opposed to search engines and their complex algorithms.
Book Review: All Marketers Are Liars By Seth Godin
If you are a marketer and you are about to implode on reading the title of Seth Godin’s book, don’t worry, his book is not about maligning marketers at all. Infact, quite the opposite, Godin believes that “Marketers have the leverage to generate huge impact in less time and with less money than ever before”. This book, instead should have been titled, “All Marketers Are Story Tellers” but then would such a bland title make it stand apart from the hordes of other books on marketing?
That is exactly the premise of this book. Consumers are bombarded with information and data like never before. In order to deal with this influx of information we tend to ignore the ordinary and pay attention to the remarkable. According to Godin, because we are so overwhelmed with all data around us, we tend to tell ourselves “Stories” (in other words, form perceptions). These stories or lies enable us to deal to with all the complexity of the world. Stories make it easier to understand the world around us. Godin argues that only those marketers who tell stories that resonate with consumers will be successful rather than those harping on purely facts or benefits.
When considering how consumers actually make purchasing decisions, this argument is quite compelling. For example, when buying sneakers rarely do people make the purchase based on whether it can absorb shocks, or if its sole is made from X grade rubber. The decision is more often made based on the mental image formed in the mind of the person buying it. Do I look cool or hip when wearing it? What will my friends think? etc. It is precisely this kind of story that needs to be told inorder to “sell” the product to the consumer. A story that consumer wants to believe.
Godin says that a story works when it’s accurate and consistent and more importantly, matches the worldview of the audience being told the story. These early adopters are convinced by the story and they in turn tell their friends. Thus, a small niche market, turns into a trend and then finally into a mass market. In this era of rapid globalization, it is no longer enough that a product is cheaper, faster and better. Anybody can manufacture such a commodity. There is very little differenciation and even if there is, it will soon be replicated. This is where the power of the story comes in. Marketers succeed when they tell a story that fits the worldview of the consumer, a story that is intuitively embraced and then shared with friends.
Another reason why authentic stories need to be told, according to the author, is because we live in an age of choices and unbelievable customization. The mantra of one-size-fits-all type television advertising no longer works. The media like the internet has made it possible for marketers to tailor messages for a niche audience. In order to tell the story more effectively and in order for it to be believable, Marketers need to live the story through various experiential outlets
Godin also adds a caveat on the thin line between fibs and fraud. Fibs are stories that are exaggerating the truth but a fraud is when a story is intended to deceive the customer. The power and responsibility of marketers is amply demonstrated in an example in the book of how a prominent multinational company marketed a powdered formula to mothers in developing countries. The company weaved a story of how a powdered formula was better than breastfeeding. According to a UNICEF report this kind of deceitful marketing led to the death of millions of babies in developing countries.
The book is a quick and fun read with the language being rather breezy. It almost feels like you’re having an informal chat with the author. Many of the insights offered are backed up numerous examples. But the constant repetition and belaboring of points could have been avoided and the content could have been organized in a better fashion instead of seeming like random jottings. Another drawback of the book is that all the examples listed in the book is US centric and as a result, it is hard to ascertain if it such strategies will work in emerging markets where internet penetration is not high and television is still the sole medium of advertising.
Overall I felt that this book provided valuable insights on marketing psychology and on a new trend emerging in marketing. This book would be very useful for startups or small businesses who want to get a toe-hold in the market and grow fast. I’m not entirely convinced that this strategy would work for big and established brands.
Update: All Marketers Are Liars is even a blog. Check it out
That is exactly the premise of this book. Consumers are bombarded with information and data like never before. In order to deal with this influx of information we tend to ignore the ordinary and pay attention to the remarkable. According to Godin, because we are so overwhelmed with all data around us, we tend to tell ourselves “Stories” (in other words, form perceptions). These stories or lies enable us to deal to with all the complexity of the world. Stories make it easier to understand the world around us. Godin argues that only those marketers who tell stories that resonate with consumers will be successful rather than those harping on purely facts or benefits.
When considering how consumers actually make purchasing decisions, this argument is quite compelling. For example, when buying sneakers rarely do people make the purchase based on whether it can absorb shocks, or if its sole is made from X grade rubber. The decision is more often made based on the mental image formed in the mind of the person buying it. Do I look cool or hip when wearing it? What will my friends think? etc. It is precisely this kind of story that needs to be told inorder to “sell” the product to the consumer. A story that consumer wants to believe.
Godin says that a story works when it’s accurate and consistent and more importantly, matches the worldview of the audience being told the story. These early adopters are convinced by the story and they in turn tell their friends. Thus, a small niche market, turns into a trend and then finally into a mass market. In this era of rapid globalization, it is no longer enough that a product is cheaper, faster and better. Anybody can manufacture such a commodity. There is very little differenciation and even if there is, it will soon be replicated. This is where the power of the story comes in. Marketers succeed when they tell a story that fits the worldview of the consumer, a story that is intuitively embraced and then shared with friends.
Another reason why authentic stories need to be told, according to the author, is because we live in an age of choices and unbelievable customization. The mantra of one-size-fits-all type television advertising no longer works. The media like the internet has made it possible for marketers to tailor messages for a niche audience. In order to tell the story more effectively and in order for it to be believable, Marketers need to live the story through various experiential outlets
Godin also adds a caveat on the thin line between fibs and fraud. Fibs are stories that are exaggerating the truth but a fraud is when a story is intended to deceive the customer. The power and responsibility of marketers is amply demonstrated in an example in the book of how a prominent multinational company marketed a powdered formula to mothers in developing countries. The company weaved a story of how a powdered formula was better than breastfeeding. According to a UNICEF report this kind of deceitful marketing led to the death of millions of babies in developing countries.
The book is a quick and fun read with the language being rather breezy. It almost feels like you’re having an informal chat with the author. Many of the insights offered are backed up numerous examples. But the constant repetition and belaboring of points could have been avoided and the content could have been organized in a better fashion instead of seeming like random jottings. Another drawback of the book is that all the examples listed in the book is US centric and as a result, it is hard to ascertain if it such strategies will work in emerging markets where internet penetration is not high and television is still the sole medium of advertising.
Overall I felt that this book provided valuable insights on marketing psychology and on a new trend emerging in marketing. This book would be very useful for startups or small businesses who want to get a toe-hold in the market and grow fast. I’m not entirely convinced that this strategy would work for big and established brands.
Update: All Marketers Are Liars is even a blog. Check it out
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
MicroHOO! update - Microsoft Very Quiet, but Something Is Happening
A superb article on Wired.com on the Microsoft -Yahoo merger. The industry has appropriately termed it the MicroHOO! affair. Well this article looks at the future scenarios that could pan out and methinks this is an excellent insightful review on the pains of M & A between two industry giants with such an acrimonious history. Surely, this is a business school case study in the making (hehehe)
The various case scenarious have been aptly analyzed - what if a higher offer is made or a hostile takeover is done or if Microsoft walwaks away altogether and finally if Microsoft sticks to its half cash, half stock bid. the winners, losers and what would happen next have neatly analyzed.
My two cents on this whole issue:
1. Its going to be very painful. 2 big monoliths have never merged successfully and there are going to be tonnes of integration problems not to mention the basic cultural issue - silicon valley start up (Almost) meeting seatle software big daddy. ouch, it feels painful
2. The big winner in all this is going to be Google. Ironically, the big G is the reason why Microsoft made the offer
3. M & A's are successful only when there is very little overlap between the businneses of overlapping companies. MicroHOO! has way too much overlap and this could also pose a lot of painful issues on what products need to be jettisoned, thus leading to alot of internal strife. I wouldn't want to be in on a meeting between the product heads of MSN and Yahoo Messenger. Actually I would.
4. Microsoft has no choice but to go ahead with this merger if it ever hopes to steal a march from google and Yahoo has been in a limbo due to various internal issues. The basic issue - both Microsoft and Yahoo need each other but really cannot stand each other. If they merged, it would make for an entertaining Marriage.
5. And oh, lets not forget Microsoft's Anti-trust issues. With both of MicroHOO!'s instant messaging systems, email services, web portals, I bet the Justice department is rubbing its palms in glee (being egged on oh so subtly by Google) oh what fun!
6. Like I said before, The only person gaining out of this hooplah is Google. They'll get all the great, creative Yahoo folks due to mass exodus and all they had to do was stand on the sidelines!
I read somewhere, that inorder to stir things up a bit and raise Microsoft's hackles, Eric schmidt gave yahoo a call on how..er..may be they could work together on things. lol
Another good article on what makes for good M & A's here. M & A's work, as the article says, when both companies have unique but complimentary products on offer. That way the integration can be smooth and there is greater consolidation
The various case scenarious have been aptly analyzed - what if a higher offer is made or a hostile takeover is done or if Microsoft walwaks away altogether and finally if Microsoft sticks to its half cash, half stock bid. the winners, losers and what would happen next have neatly analyzed.
My two cents on this whole issue:
1. Its going to be very painful. 2 big monoliths have never merged successfully and there are going to be tonnes of integration problems not to mention the basic cultural issue - silicon valley start up (Almost) meeting seatle software big daddy. ouch, it feels painful
2. The big winner in all this is going to be Google. Ironically, the big G is the reason why Microsoft made the offer
3. M & A's are successful only when there is very little overlap between the businneses of overlapping companies. MicroHOO! has way too much overlap and this could also pose a lot of painful issues on what products need to be jettisoned, thus leading to alot of internal strife. I wouldn't want to be in on a meeting between the product heads of MSN and Yahoo Messenger. Actually I would.
4. Microsoft has no choice but to go ahead with this merger if it ever hopes to steal a march from google and Yahoo has been in a limbo due to various internal issues. The basic issue - both Microsoft and Yahoo need each other but really cannot stand each other. If they merged, it would make for an entertaining Marriage.
5. And oh, lets not forget Microsoft's Anti-trust issues. With both of MicroHOO!'s instant messaging systems, email services, web portals, I bet the Justice department is rubbing its palms in glee (being egged on oh so subtly by Google) oh what fun!
6. Like I said before, The only person gaining out of this hooplah is Google. They'll get all the great, creative Yahoo folks due to mass exodus and all they had to do was stand on the sidelines!
I read somewhere, that inorder to stir things up a bit and raise Microsoft's hackles, Eric schmidt gave yahoo a call on how..er..may be they could work together on things. lol
Another good article on what makes for good M & A's here. M & A's work, as the article says, when both companies have unique but complimentary products on offer. That way the integration can be smooth and there is greater consolidation
Sunday, April 27, 2008
What's da Number?
Oh well, more dope on the new vodafone customer care AD. Well we all were surprised that the trademark pug came back. I was sure that after transitioning to Vodafone, the brand managers would use the pug sparingly inorder to reinforce the new brand into everybody's consciousness. But they've resorted to using it after just 7 months of the transition it seems
According to this article on agencyfaqs, The pug was used in a specific service based ad instead of a thematic brand AD, because according to Mr.Harit Nagpal, chief marketing officer, Vodafone India, "Customer care is the face of our brand, so in a sense, this aspect of Vodafone encompasses the entire brand.” Therefore, the pug
Ahhh, they were trying to remind everybody of what lousy service they offered when they were Hutch. Also did anyone notice that there was no number given? As in which number to call when somebody wants to avail their excellent service? I think thats a major flaw in execution because although everyone is now aware of their supposed service offerings, I'm sure Vodafone customers would have also like to know the service call numbers. And also this campaign would have inspired more trust had they given their numbers out.
I mean Airtel's 121 is pretty famous for customer care and this is one of the major features of why most people I know chose Airtel - their customer service. Service branding methinks is a word of mouth thing. You can make people aware that it exists but the consumer confidence only comes in after it is experienced and spoken about. This works only if more people experience customer service, and if its good, then recommend it to their friends. Its hard to sell a service, more so, customer care. I guess people will be skeptical till they actually try it. So vodafone lost a major opportunity, methinks, in converting a few people into believers and ergo into evangelists.
I can think of why they didn't advertize the number - inorder not to put more strain on the infrastructure I guess. But really it still puzzles me as to why they didn't put the number out there..
According to this article on agencyfaqs, The pug was used in a specific service based ad instead of a thematic brand AD, because according to Mr.Harit Nagpal, chief marketing officer, Vodafone India, "Customer care is the face of our brand, so in a sense, this aspect of Vodafone encompasses the entire brand.” Therefore, the pug
Ahhh, they were trying to remind everybody of what lousy service they offered when they were Hutch. Also did anyone notice that there was no number given? As in which number to call when somebody wants to avail their excellent service? I think thats a major flaw in execution because although everyone is now aware of their supposed service offerings, I'm sure Vodafone customers would have also like to know the service call numbers. And also this campaign would have inspired more trust had they given their numbers out.
I mean Airtel's 121 is pretty famous for customer care and this is one of the major features of why most people I know chose Airtel - their customer service. Service branding methinks is a word of mouth thing. You can make people aware that it exists but the consumer confidence only comes in after it is experienced and spoken about. This works only if more people experience customer service, and if its good, then recommend it to their friends. Its hard to sell a service, more so, customer care. I guess people will be skeptical till they actually try it. So vodafone lost a major opportunity, methinks, in converting a few people into believers and ergo into evangelists.
I can think of why they didn't advertize the number - inorder not to put more strain on the infrastructure I guess. But really it still puzzles me as to why they didn't put the number out there..
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
un-creepy crawlies
I ran a search for this blog and unfortunately it seems that Google hasn't indexed my blog yet :(
So in an effort to understand why the Googlebot didn't pick me, I trawled through some posts on the Official Google Blog and found that Google has a support tool to analyze why your site is not being indexed.
The Google Webmaster Tools analyzes a site and verifies whether a site has been indexed by the googlebot and also provides tonnes of stats and diagnostic tools. There are also links for the crisis ridden folks like us who are agonizing as to why the Googlebot is so ingnoring us. I really have to research SEO its fascinating!
I found this link very useful - How do I add my site to Google's search results? . One lesson to ensure that the site has multiple outgoing links and incoming links. You can already see that I'm employing that strategy already. this post has 3 links to it :)
But it's also very annoying that Google search algorithm is so hush hush and they don't really tell you why you're not featuring in searches. I read on Wired sometime back that companies who paid google for Adwords also saw their natural search results getting featured higher hmmm
So in an effort to understand why the Googlebot didn't pick me, I trawled through some posts on the Official Google Blog and found that Google has a support tool to analyze why your site is not being indexed.
The Google Webmaster Tools analyzes a site and verifies whether a site has been indexed by the googlebot and also provides tonnes of stats and diagnostic tools. There are also links for the crisis ridden folks like us who are agonizing as to why the Googlebot is so ingnoring us. I really have to research SEO its fascinating!
I found this link very useful - How do I add my site to Google's search results? . One lesson to ensure that the site has multiple outgoing links and incoming links. You can already see that I'm employing that strategy already. this post has 3 links to it :)
But it's also very annoying that Google search algorithm is so hush hush and they don't really tell you why you're not featuring in searches. I read on Wired sometime back that companies who paid google for Adwords also saw their natural search results getting featured higher hmmm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!