media seo analytics | push2digital

What do I do with my video? For media properties, it's a much-debated question that's central to their web strategy.

Should I post my best stuff to YouTube where it will undoubtedly outrank my original version, be difficult to monetize and come wrapped in Google's ads?

Or, should I hoard my video (I'm picturing Golum from Lord of the Rings caressing his "precious" moving pictures) and ignore the thousands of potential visitors that could be exposed to my site, brand and content?

Kate Matsudaira, from SEOmoz, posted one of the best primer's I've seen for getting your head wrapped around your video strategy. But more importantly, she struck upon a strategy "sweet spot" for media groups that could offer the best of both worlds with a little thoughtful planning.

The "Mini YouTubeVideo" strategy plays well to media properties' strengths in that they can offer multiple lures back to the originating site if presented properly -- including better quality video, extended video, related video, related text content and archives of each of the above. It also avoids the SEO pitfall of duplicate content. Granted it would require some change, separate production of video snippets for sharing sites, but could provide a measurable and effective way to tap into these huge audiences for video without giving away the farm.

If you don't like change or don't feel you need to ... see my favorite parable, "I'm not changing, you change."  If you're open to new solutions to new problems, check out KateMats below. 

"These sites can provide a powerful marketing channel to your site, brand and content. However, if your ultimate goal is conversions you need to have clear plan on how to get traffic and viewership on that track (and that for most of us, means back on your website).  This means that you need to think carefully about a strategy that makes sense ... of course you don't have to pick one or the other, you can use a hybrid strategy."

Here is an example of a Yoga web site trying to sell their DVDs - in this case they are trying to build up their YouTube brand (see the call to action encouraging users to subscribe), but are also trying to drive traffic to their site by enticing you with the first part of a DVD series.  =

Creating an Online Video Strategy | SEOmoz.org

You ever read something and say, "hmmm, interesting" and then move on without another thought?

Then a day later, it pops back into your head after you see it applied in real life. Then it happens again two hours later, then three days later, then over Christmas vacation -- well, you get the idea. Or at least I got hammered with this one, over and over, until I decided to make it my SEO-analytics-new media mantra for next year.

It could apply to life in general (why not mix philosophy and SEO, it's New Year's Eve). And it came from a much bigger thinker than me. Seth Godin pointed out in just 60 words an idea I just can't shake -- that there are two kinds of challenges: ones that center on events, and ones that center on a process.

It's a process, not an event.

Dating is a process. So is losing weight, being a public company and building a brand.

On the other hand, putting up a trade show booth is an event. So are going public and having surgery.

Events are easier to manage, pay for and get excited about. Processes build results for the long haul.

Seth's Blog

Being in the media biz, I can attest to the fact we love events. The Super Bowl, election night, an ESPN New Year's No-Limit celebration that involves death-defying displays of daredevildom. We're good at them, we gear up, we work late, we adjust on the fly -- and then we usually drink. That's an event.

It's much harder when there's no finish line, when your mission requires coaxing, planning, measuring and, dare I say it ... even development. These are the things that cause many to say, "it's just too hard, takes too long, requires too many people, and I'm not even sure it'll work." And therein lies the incentive. Most people won't invest in the process. They'd rather pursue events.

So when two of my kids this week pedaled away from my grasp on their new bikes after several days of practice, I said to myself -- long live the process. 

Here's to 2010, may we have the stomach to pursue the tedious, the painstaking, the complicated and the difficult. And next year, perhaps we'll bask in the glow of our dedication to the long haul. 

Happy New Year everyone.

Have a question? Comment below, or e-mail me | Subscribe via e-mail or RSS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

"Content is the one area on the Web that hasn't seen the full potential. Hopefully, we will spark a revolution of people doing content at a different scale," says [AOL's] Mr. [Tim] Armstrong, a former advertising executive at Google.

AOL is betting it can reinvent itself with a numbers-driven approach to developing content, based on what Web-search and other data tell it is most likely to attract audiences and sponsors.

wsj.com

As more of AOL's content play is revealed, it appears that Tim Armstrong's strategy is focused on leveraging actionable data from search and ad sales to create pre-sponsored content channels via low-cost freelancers and an editing staff directed at least in part by algorithms. Yes, it sounds a little '1984,' but the one discussion we should not have is, "Should this or shouldn't this be?"  The fact of the matter is ... it is.

And even if we don't agree with the entire approach, there are elements of this plan that could allow traditional media companies to add more value to their web content that, as of yet, has not been able to replace the declining revenue of its offline properties. 

Have a question? Comment below, or e-mail me | Subscribe via e-mail or RSS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Is it OK to "pass" on a major news story?

In this case, I say heck yeah. Bravo to the Texas Tribune for being comfortable in its own skin. Rather than chasing a story they could add very little to -- they remained focused on their mission, on what they were assembled to do. They resisted the urge to chase the first rabbit that crossed their path and pushed where they can stand out -- unduplicated Texas political coverage, not spot news.

Have a question? Comment below, or e-mail me | Subscribe via e-mail or RSS

While reading up on the Adobe acquisition of Omniture, I came across this post by Eric Peterson which includes an oft-overlooked nugget of wisdom for those who (self included) share metrics data with the masses.

It's all too easy to say, "Sheesh I can't believe they don't get the importance of this metric" while taking no responsibility for them "not getting it." I've done it myself and this post reminded me of the importance of communicating visually and clearly so that the people and companies we're in business to help start "getting it" more often. And if they don't -- it's as much a reflection on the presenter as the presentee.

 "Given the very mixed reviews about the acquisition I think we as an industry should take a step back and consider the larger ramifications. Personally I don’t think web analytics is going ANYWHERE — hell, I’m recruiting at Web Analytics Demystified — but we can all admit we collectively haven’t done the best job explaining what we do and what the data we live and die by means."

-- Eric T. Peterson

Below is a great example of how to communicate a complex topic visually, courtesy of SEOmoz.com, something we need to employ with metrics presentations to increase the ultimate conversion -- those who "get it."

Have a question? Comment below, or e-mail me | Subscribe via e-mail or RSS

Story stolen from U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings; Max Lucado, "In the Eye of the Storm," 1991.

"Two battleships assigned to the training squadron had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility was poor with patchy fog, so the captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye on all activities.

Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing reported, "Light, bearing on the starboard bow."

"Is it steady or moving astern?" the captain called out.

The lookout replied, "Steady, Captain," which meant we were on a dangerous collision course with that ship.  

The captain then called to the signalman, "Signal that ship: 'We are on a collision course, advise you change course 20 degrees.'"

Back came the signal, "Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees."

The captain said, "Send: 'I'm a captain, change course 20 degrees.'"  

"I'm a seaman second-class," came the reply. "You had better change course 20 degrees."

By that time the captain was furious. He spat out, "Send: 'I'm a battleship. Change course 20 degrees.'"

Back came the flashing light, "I'm a lighthouse."

We changed course."

Call me crazy, but I like change. It's a great antidote for boredom. And by now most journalists get it -- they have to embrace change if they hope to be a journalist five years from now.

The danger is that change often comes in a form of transitioning old ideas to a new medium. "Be sure we post that script and video package on the web after it airs." or "Let's build an online archive of all my previous stories."

These are examples of moving content from the legacy platform to a new one with little thought of how the audience, users' needs and means of consumption change. It's basically old news on demand -- yippee.

In the history of journalism, major developments in media channels have been accompanied by changes in journalism itself.

Take the American Civil War, correspondents used telegraphs to transmit their stories back to their newspapers to speed the delivery of their news. But it also spawned a more concise and tighter style of writing. Certainly details and descriptions were omitted for the sake of speed, but readers saw the value of a more current story. The journalism was not lessened, it evolved to take advantage of a new tool to deliver a product of greater value to the reader. 

"In the past print, TV and radio have all figured out how to adapt and reposition themselves when new channels have emerged. Digital neither compromises nor changes the standards for journalism."

-- Jim Brady, Executive Editor of Washingtonpost.com

So it's not just changing, it's adapting.

Hmmm, should I pose nude?

Trust me no magazine, Web site, periodical or person for that matter, short of my wife, has ever expressed even a joking interest in that.

But there’s an idea that’s been percolating for a while and it’s time to expose it.

The media landscape grows messier and more painful each day. Century-old newspapers are folding, good journalists are out of work and friends are asking do I need a new career?

The hard news is that for some of us – the answer is yes.  But from what I’ve seen in 20 years in journalism, it becomes clearer each day that we need to rebuild rather than renovate. We need a relentless dedication to what the user needs, wants, deserves and expects. Not what’s the most convenient change we can make to our existing systems.

“Maybe, just maybe, the existing model for generating, distributing and monetizing content could benefit from a Ctrl-Alt-Delete reboot.” -- Brian Solis, TechCrunch

Now there are lots of smart people out there who have theories of what can, should or should not be done to re-invent journalism in this new media landscape. That’s not me. What I’d like to do is point out bold attempts that are worthy of consideration and share some crazy ideas of my own.

But most of all I’d like to connect with open-minded people willing to try, share and develop new means of storytelling.

This is where the nude part comes in.

What if my boss reads it?

What if my friends read it, (either one or possibly both)?

What if my wife, kids, coworkers, church members or mailman reads it?

What if my U.S. congressional representative (sorry to drag you into this Frank Pallone Jr.) thinks it's dumb?

What if no one reads it?

Well, this will be as much an experiment in conquering the fear of "what will others think" as much as "how do we reinvent journalism."  So here goes nothing, hopefully it means something. How’s that for a weak mission statement?