April 25, 2008

Londoners faceoff online in support of their candidates for the Mayoral Election

If the popularity of Facebook fansites was an indicator of how Londoners will vote on May 1st then Boris would be a clear winner with 7466 supporters whilst Ken and Brian trail behind with 2152 and 2130 respectively. Thankfully it seems that Londoners will vote with their feet rather than faces but latest results from a social media study reveal that online PR strategies could count for something in the electoral race.

Nielsen Online revealed today that London Mayoral candidates Ken and Boris are top of the blogs, dominating 80% of the social media conversation. Liberal Democratic candidate Brian Paddick is third with 9% of comments, followed by the Green Party’s Sian Berry with just under 4% and the BNP’s Richard Barnbrook with 2%.

According to Alex Burmaster, Internet Analyst from Nielsen Online, Londoners penchant for social networking continues to thrive and users are taking their opinions mainly to non-political forums, blogs & message boards including those of national newspapers and sites like Twitter and Facebook.

“Ken and Boris are the two leading candidates, neck and neck in the polls and the levels of conversation in the social media space utterly reflect this. If conversation levels were a guide, Ken would narrowly pip Boris to win. However, it’s when we look at the sentiment of these conversations that a far more interesting and revealing picture emerges.”

Controversy, positivity, negativity: sentiment towards the five leading candidates in social media

• Controversy: Boris is the ‘marmite’ candidate – being the most likely of the top five to generate some form of opinion either way. Only 30% of posts relating to him were of ‘no opinion’

The Green Party’s Sian Berry generates the least controversy / most apathy – having the highest percentage (54%) of ‘no opinion’ posts

• Positivity: Whilst Boris is most likely to generate positive sentiment, 29% of posts being ‘positive’ – Sian Berry had the highest overall ‘net’ positive score of 15% (positive sentiment % minus negative sentiment %). Brian Paddick is the only other candidate to come out with a ‘net’ positive score (11%)

• Negativity: Richard Barnbrook is most likely to generate negative sentiment, 38% of posts being ‘negative’. He also had the lowest overall ‘net’ positive score of -19%

Indeed Nielsen's results seem to suggest that, shock horror, actually participating in blogs, forums and social media is effective in helping other people to form opinions on issues that affect them. The most active candidates online garnered a net positive score in total comments posted on social media sites. Brian Paddick employed a web ace, signed up to twitter, where he hosted a policy debate and also broadcasted himself via uStream.tv. “Of the three leading candidates in the polls it’s not surprising that Brian Paddick is the only one to have an overall positive sentiment score in social media. His campaign, involving a US web strategist firm, has focused the most heavily on social media including a pioneering British political use of sites like Twitter, Facebook and UStream.TV – and it certainly seems to have paid dividends.

However, judging from the sheer levels of social media conversation on the election, it may not be enough to grab victory over Boris or Ken. If social media were a crystal ball it might tell us Boris is likely to get more votes than Ken. However, positive comments on Boris more often centre on personality rather than policies and only time will tell if this is a strong enough factor for voters when faced with putting the cross in his box to change the status quo.”

So, positivity is not the cure for apathy and clearly Londoners like myself, vis-a-vis this post, whether online or on the underground, don’t know what we really really want but we sure do love a good rant!

Posted by Jonathan Allen at 12:33 PM | Permalink

February 17, 2008

SEO, Social Marketing & Scientology

My last post, about how YouTube’s new features will affect internet marketers, garnered a lot of attention—but not from SEO and PPC professionals. It was my first paragraph, about YouTube’s response to the Anonymous-vs-Scientology online battle, that got attention.

Shortly after I posted that YouTube had not removed Anonymous’ initial YouTube threat/message to Scientology, SEW was flooded with replies that YouTube had just removed it, citing a Terms of Use violation (which in theory was valid, although rarely, if ever, enforced on YouTube). Today, perhaps owing to the protests of members and the mainstream coverage this conflict is beginning to get, the video was back up (although honors for it are not being tracked correctly).

My interest piqued, I began to look even more into Anonymous’ plan of attack against Scientology. DDoS attacks aside, this secretive collection of hackers is behaving, well, much like we would when we market a client in the search engines and social platforms. They are using SEO techniques to get their sites to outrank official Scientology sites; they are banding together to influence Digg and social bookmarking results. And as with any internet marketing campaign, there is a lot we can learn from their actions.

Let’s start with their Googlebombing campaign. In the past few days, Anonymous members have joined together in two linking efforts; Scientology.org now ranks #1 for the phrase “brainwashing cult” and anti-Scientology site Xenu.net now ranks #3 for the keyword “Scientology.” What’s amazing about the Googlebomb is not just the speed in which it was accomplished, but that it was accomplished at all. Google changed their algorithm last year to prevent Googlebombs, by requiring the phrase to appear at least partially on the site in question. That’s why a search for “miserable failure” doesn’t return George W. Bush’s bio—except for one week when a new story about Bush on WhiteHouse.gov unfortunately featured the word “failure.” But the phrase “brainwashing cult,” not surprisingly, does not appear anywhere on Scientology.org, and yet the Googlebomb worked. Maybe Google’s love for fresh, new links is more powerful than their new algorithm. Or maybe Anonymous got to Google too. Only time will tell.

Anonymous also announced a plan to flood Digg and other social bookmarking sites about their war with Scientology. And a few days later, eight out of 10 stories on Digg’s home page were about Anonymous vs. Scientology. But Digg’s new algorithm should have prevented that, by restricting the value of groups of friends voting on stories, and limiting the power of new users. Except that Anonymous had built up enough excitement via its many submissions to Digg, Reddit, YouTube and more sites that they had many non-members voting for them too.

Lesson learned: Google can protect the president of the U.S. and Digg can take down the “Ron Paul Cabal,” but both seem kinda powerless in the face of Anonymous—and really well-executed internet marketing.

Posted by Eli Feldblum at 3:42 PM | Permalink

January 8, 2008

The Paid Search Presidential Primaries

In honor of today’s New Hampshire primaries, we decided to hold our own Paid Search Presidential Primaries. Let's see how campaign dollars flowed to paid search, through buys on Google, Yahoo, MSN Live and Ask.

Our winners? In New Hampshire, the Republican race is too close to call. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney continued to battle it out without a front-runner by posting time. On the Democratic front, we'll have to sit tight too. Those candidates have been relatively quiet, though Barack was emerging by press time. As we move nationally, Rudy Giuliani has already declared an early lead because he's been buying candidates (names) from both parties.

Interestingly, these leaders were similar in the related display ad race. According to ClickZ's presidential reporting, McCain, Romney and Barack have spent the lion's share there too.

Returning to the Paid Search Primaries, there were also other advertisers that appeared on the stage. These included hawkers of t-shirts and memorabilia, particularly CafePress; as well as media outlets like ABC and NYTimes, who sought more audience.

Anyway, we began the Paid Search Primaries by conducting more general searches: * New Hampshire – McCain (G,A), Gravel (G,A) * New Hampshire Primary, Primaries – Romney (G,Y); McCain (A) * President – McCain (G,Y) * Democrat – Barack (G,Y), Paul (Y) * Republican – No ads

Then we moved the to the main Paid Search Primary races, by searching for candidates. It was amusing that some candidates bought their own names, as if the organic results just weren't enough. These included Barack, Rudy, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson. Here were results for all candidates.

Democrats: * Hillary Clinton – Rudy (G,A) * John Edwards – Rudy (G,A) * Barack Obama – Barack (Y,A); Rudy (G) * Other Candidates – No ads

Republicans: * Rudy Giuliani – Rudy (G,Y,A); McCain (G,A) * Mike Huckabee – Huckabee (A); Rudy (G,A) * John McCain – McCain (G,A); Rudy (G,A) * Mitt Romney – Huckabee (G,A), Rudy (G,A) * Fred Thompson – Fred (G,A); Rudy (G,A) * Other Candidates – No ads

Our expectation after these Paid Search Primaries? That candidates will follow Rudy's lead and jump on board in coming months. After all, these names aren't brands -- and that means the candidates are allowed to buy and advertise against other candidates.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 11:51 AM | Permalink

October 15, 2007

Debby From The Block: U Penn Long Tail Blockbuster

No way I could pass on pointing to the Debby Richman blockbuster post.

Wharton says: Online recommendation engines may chop off Long Tail of Search.

Prick up your ears, Chris Anderson Your Long Tail doberman (below) is under attack: