The new version of the site will feature a simplified layout and an updated appearance (something sorely needed as the current design is 3+ years old now). If you have any suggestions, I’d love to hear them.

Thanks!

Jason

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

UPDATE: I was contacted by the company that sent the emails outlined below, and was informed that the person who contacted me was new. I was also offered a prompt apology. For that reason, I have removed the references to the individual and the company he works for from the post.

The following article is two parts: The first part is the story of how someone working on behalf of a well-known university went out of his way to insult and annoy me in the course of requesting I publish a guest post. The second part is the free marketing advice.

If you’re not interested in the story (and I don’t blame you if you’re not), feel free to skip to the marketing advice  in the “What We Can Learn From This Story” section.

Some Background

One of the services we provide at Spork is guest blogging on behalf of clients. For a fee, we will:

1. Generate article ideas that incorporate our client’s business focus and the keywords that they’re trying to rank for
2. Massage these ideas to fit the focus of a specific blog (or type of blog)
3. Pitch these articles to bloggers and hopefully, place them all quickly and easily

It’s been my experience that most bloggers will be happy to accept a guest post if it’s relevant, interesting, and of course well written. To date, we’ve placed 100′s of guest posts on a wide variety of topics and sites. I’m not saying we’re the best of the best here, but we’re definitely not bad.

What’s more, because of my experience with this process, I always take the time to seriously consider “pitches” that are sent my way.

The Story

Last week, I was pitched an article about Six Sigma inventory control methods for auto parts retailers. The article was well written, and while it was perhaps a bit on the long side, I liked it well enough to publish it.

However, the person who pitched the article (let’s call him Grant) wanted me to publish the article on AccurateAutoAdvice.com (a site I own that I created years ago and now just sort of sits), and I declined. My reasoning? AccurateAutoAdvice.com is a website that offers car buying tips and advice to consumers – not really a resource site for parts retailers interested in using six sigma.

However, rather than dismiss the article out of hand, I instead offered to publish it on the SporkMarketing.com blog. Grant’s response to my counter-proposal was off the mark – and the start of where things went wrong. First, he offered to write me another guest post for Spork and reiterated his interest in placing the post on AccurateAutoAdvice.com. Next, he talked down to me a bit saying:

When I visited your site accurateautoadvice.com, I took the time to read through the site to make sure that the article I provide you would fit well. To be a bit more specific, accurateautoadvice.com is obviously about auto advice which is the premise behind the article I wrote and provided to you. Sporkmarketing.com is a well built site and I do see the value in it but this particular article does not fit this site at all. I try and write articles that fit the sites where they will be posted as Google gives more link juice/credit when articles are related to the site itself or they give you less credit or even demote page rank when links point to sites coming from unrelated sources.

This was wrong because:

1. It’s silly to tell a blogger whether or not a guest post is good for their site, especially as in such a way to make it sound like I’m missing the point. It’s my blog, it’s my call, and even if I’m wrong (and I don’t think I was in this case) this isn’t a good way to get me to reconsider.
2. The explanation of how Google treats links is a bit condescending considering my background. When we contact bloggers, we try to learn about them first so we communicate to their experience. That way, we don’t try to explain how SEO works to an SEO consultant.
3. None of the business about link juice matters here. When you contact a blogger about a post, you shouldn’t try to teach them about the way SEO works – you should focus on providing quality content that sparks their interest and that’s it.

At this point, I’m over it. The post doesn’t work for AccurateAutoAdvice.com, and since Grant doesn’t seem to understand why, I’m not interested in either his original article or anything else he would write. We’re just not on the same wavelength. I sent an email to Grant saying thanks but no thanks.

Grant’s response was, at a minimum, uncalled for. Here it is word for word:

Your site, “accurate auto advice” is all about giving accurate auto advice. This is literally posted within the first few lines of your “about section”. The article I spent time writing  is very relevant and does speak to the correct audience. It seems you’re looking for low quality content that you can simply use to occupy space on your site but I I can’t help you with this so I will have to decline your request for a post on sporemarketing.com (sic)

Since it seems you’re looking for low quality content that’s free and packed with random keywords, I would suggest mass spam content sites like keywordacademy.com. They probably will have more of what you’re looking for.

If you change your mind and would rather have a quality post that has focus, let me know.

Good luck

I’ve pitched a lot of bloggers before, and I’ve been turned down or ignored by a lot of them. Frankly, I appreciate a decline because it gives me an opportunity to engage them and – hopefully – build a relationship. Just because they said no today doesn’t mean they’ll say no next month.

But Grant’s response, telling me that my site is full of keyword spammed low quality content? Explaining to me what my own site says in the ‘about’ section? Wishing me an obviously insincere “good luck” at the end? Personally, I thought this was very rude, but more importantly (for this discussion) it’s just wrong. This is no way to get a guest post placed.

What We Can Learn From This Story

1. Target your guest blog post topic to match both a blogger’s interests and his or her audience. Personally, I’m interested in parts inventory control (no really, I am) but it’s not what the audience of my blog wants to read about.

2. When someone offers you a placement, take it. There’s this myth going around that bad links can hurt you. While there are some special cases where bad links could, possibly, under the right circumstances, hurt your site (regular blog readers hopefully chuckled at that), 99.99% of the time they’ll be neutral or beneficial.

More importantly, when you place an article with a blogger, you can use that fact to place another. Email them and say “Hey Jason – thanks again for posting that article for me. I have another one here and I thought of you – what do you think?”

3. Don’t argue with a blogger. This should be common sense, but if I ask someone for directions on the street, and then I start to argue with them, I’m being rude, aren’t I? It doesn’t help me get a guest blog post placed to argue, does it?

4. Rejections are a good thing. When you’re pitching a guest post, the worst thing that can happen is nothing. No response, no interest, nothing. It means that the time I took to come up with the idea, and then craft an email pitching that idea to a blogger, was completely wasted.

Therefore, when I get a rejection, at least the lines of communication are open and I can try another pitch or two. When a blogger says “thanks but no thanks,” don’t get mad. Ideally, you’ll have another idea ready to go. When you send that second idea along, you could even try asking them for a suggestion. Something like:

If you don’t like this article/idea, I would be very happy to write something up on the topic of your choosing. I just really want to get a post on your blog!

5. Don’t, ever, under any circumstances, annoy or insult a blogger. Guess what happens when you annoy a blogger? They blog about you and your company. It doesn’t ever end well. Don’t accuse them of using keyword laden low quality content, or act like they don’t know what they’re doing…it doesn’t help you and can absolutely backfire (as it has here).

Anyways, something to learn from.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

Even today, five years later, there are still people using the fax machine daily. It’s an established form of business communication, and despite the rise of email, the fax hasn’t disappeared.

Yet clearly, the days of the fax machine are dwindling. At some point, they will disappear. It’s inevitable.

I talk about the fax machine because I think it illustrates the manner in which desktop PCs will decline. Eventually, they will be overtaken by mobile devices, a.k.a. smart phones and tablets.

Here’s why:

1. Tablets and mobile devices are more user friendly. Why sit down at a terminal – or lug around a hefty laptop – when you can pull a device out of your pocket or backpack? While business users will sit down at a desktop terminal for a long time to come, consumers are already showing that they prefer the convenience of a mobile device.

2. Voice recognition software - such as “Siri” on the iPhone 4 or Google’s less publicized system that was available on most Android smartphones years ago (yes, that’s a burn directed at Apple) – makes a keyboard a little less essential. Dictation software like Dragon’s NaturallySpeaking is a viable replacement for a keyboard now, and as time goes by this type of software is only going to improve. At some point, the limited touchscreen keyboards found on your average tablet or smartphone are going to be “good enough” for consumers and light business users when used in conjunction with voice recognition.

3. Touch-screens are vastly superior to mice and touchpads for most consumer-type computer activities. Draftsman and designers will probably use mice for a very long time, but the rest of us will be leaving them behind sooner rather than later.

4. Cloud-based storage and software – such as Apple’s new iCloud and Google Docs – offers the storage and software capabilities most consumers have on their home desktop PCs. Yet unlike a PC, iCloud and Google Docs can be accessed on all of your devices (phone, tablet, etc.) with ease. This facilitates the use of more and more devices, not to mention mobile use.

5. Mobile devices are only going to get more powerful, diminishing the speed and performance advantages of desktops. My G2x smartphone, for example, has a 1Ghz dual-core processor. That’s about as much computing power as you could buy in a  reasonably priced desktop a few years ago. As time goes by, the processor power found in a mobile phone or tablet is going to be more and more comparable to desktop PCs.

Frankly, the only reasons to stick with a desktop or laptop are:

• Screen size. It’s still not easy to read or surf the web with a smartphone, but it’s better than it used to be. If smartphone and tablet engineers can figure out a way to make folding or “rolling” LCDs inexpensive and reliable (learn more about folding LCDs), this won’t be as much of a concern.
• Data entry. No way I’m creating and then manipulating a big spreadsheet with a mobile device or tablet. I need arrow keys and a 10key for that.
• Ergonomics. As pointed out in this somewhat flawed article on PC Magazine, the ergonomic benefits of desktops are clear. It’s one thing to use a phone or table to check email, surf, or watch some videos, but quite another to work with one for 8+ hours.
• Power. If you need to have multiple applications running at once, there’s no disputing that the desktops have more capability for you…but for how long? History shows that computer hardware advances incredibly quickly.

So there you have it. For consumers, tablets and mobile phones are the future and desktops are the past. For business, desktops will still be in use for quite a while.

The point? If your business sells products or services to consumers, it’s time to optimize for mobile phones and tablets.

Special thanks to my father for inspiring this post.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

Whether you hire someone or do SEO yourself, it’s time consuming work that requires attention to detail as well as an understanding of how search engines work. If you hire someone, they need to be compensated for their skills and their knowledge. If you do your own SEO work yourself, you need to be prepared to invest significant amounts of time.

Still, there are companies that provide so-called SEO services on the cheap. Some companies sell “SEO” for $39 a month, promising top rankings for dozens of keywords at a price that’s lower than your cable bill. The thing is, if you know even the basics of SEO, you know that $39 a month really doesn’t come close to covering the costs of real work.

Think about it this way: SEO can make or break a business. If you rank #1 for your target search term on Google, you’re going to get hundreds of website visitors and (hopefully) dozens of calls and emails. Generally speaking, dozens of calls from potential customers are worth far more than $39 a month…and we all know that you usually get what you pay for. If you buy $39 worth of SEO, you’re going to get something that – at best – offers $39 of value.

Still, there’s no getting around the fact that some businesses can’t afford to budget more than a handful of dollars to SEO. If this is your business, the following is for you. I’m going to talk about good alternatives to cheap SEO companies.

First, a definition: A cheap SEO company is any company that’s willing to perform SEO services for less than $100 a month. While I won’t say that these companies are bad – sometimes, they can be a good deal – I will say that the lower the cost, the more likely you are to buy something of negligible value.

Cheap SEO Alternative #1: Read

If you are looking for low-cost SEO services, I suggest you bust out your reading glasses and review the following sources of information:

1. SEO 101 by MarketLeap: A very basic guide to SEO, it’s a quick and easy read. Get your feet wet without getting too technical.
2. Google’s Beginner’s Guide to SEO: All the basics explained very nicely, as well as some more in-depth info that will give you a good understanding of how Google and most other search engines function
3. Beginner’s Guide to SEO by SEOMoz: I’m a huge fan of this guide, and I refer clients to it regularly. Everything you need to know about SEO is here, and quite frankly if you read and understand the guide beginning to end, you’ll know more about SEO than some SEO consultants (sad as that is).

When you’ve read all of the following, you’ll know more than enough about SEO to get your business website some search engine visitors. Depending on how competitive your market is, you may even be able to rank #1 for your target terms. All it takes is time and a little effort.

Cheap SEO Alternative #2: SEOMoz Membership

I’m a huge fan of SEOMOz, not only because of their awesome SEO beginner’s guide, but also because of their Pro Q&A forum, a great place for beginners to get answers to specific questions. You can also take advantage of the SEOMoz campaign tool, which will guide you through the optimization process step-by-step.

Membership is $99 a month, but you can get a free trial by clicking this link. So check it out for free and see what you think.

Cheap SEO Alternative #3: Save Up Your Pennies

I’m of the opinion that paying for some cheap SEO service is very often a waste of money. Therefore, why not put away the $50 or $100 you were going to spend on on cheap SEO and save it up to spend with a professional? Most SEO consultants (myself included) can help you out quite a bit for $500.

At Spork, $500 would get you a nice report that lays out how your site compares to your competitor’s sites, as well as some good advice and a list of specific steps to complete to improve your rankings. It would also include about an hour’s worth of phone consultation time so you could ask your most important questions.

Bottom Line

Avoid cheap SEO services. Not because they’re bad, but because it’s hard to get good value. Most quality SEO professionals charge $125-$400 per hour for their services, which means that a $39/month SEO service buys you 20 minutes of a professional’s time (at most). There’s not a lot anyone can do to help your business in 20 minutes.

Instead, take the time to educate yourself. You can do quite a bit on your own, and when you’re ready to hire a pro consultant, you’ll know how to find a good one.

Good luck!

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

Without an ounce of sarcasm, I say that the guy is a fantastic SEO. If I someday acquire half of his knowledge and skill, I’ll be lucky.

So, you can imagine my disappointment when Mr. Gray dropped the following tweets in response to my article:

I call BS on this article narrow minded BS http://ow.ly/1wst3T…If you don’t believe there are poison link networks you are a naive idiot and should step away from the keyboard … NOW

Ouch, right? He’s referring to me when he says “naive idiot.” My problem is, I just don’t get it.

UPDATE: James Carson, an SEO in the UK, wrote up a blog post about Mr. Gray’s response to my article. He’s said that he doesn’t agree with me (fair enough), but I think he’s done a good job of giving an outside point of view, so feel free to check it out.

I fail to see how a “poison link network” could cause any sort of damage for any period of time. If a network of spammy sites all link to this website, for example, it’s possible that Google could roll SporkMarketing.com in with the network of spam and penalize my site…yet this assumes that the link network would have enough weight to counter all the “good” links my site has already acquired. SporkMarketing.com doesn’t have a massive link profile, but I’ve worked hard to acquire a variety of links over the years and I think that counts for something. This little site does get some search traffic, which I think could be an indicator that it’s developed some trust that would be hard to mistake for spam later. Seems like an improbable scenario that a bunch of links all of the sudden could undue years of work.

Perhaps this is why Mr. Gray offered this caveat on Twitter:

U can never kill a site like CNN with bad link but 50,000 links from a .ru hacker network at mom&pop and watch what happens

So maybe bad links can hurt you, but only if your a ‘mom&pop’ site with few links.

For the record, I’m sure that getting 50k links from a .ru hacker network could result in a Google penalty for a small site with no real link profile. But by definition, this type of small site has very little to lose to begin with…based on my interpretation of the meaning of ‘mom&pop’, it sounds like they weren’t really ranking for anything anyways, right?

It’s sort of like saying you can keep me from joining the NBA by spreading rumors about my bad feet, never mind the fact that I’m in no danger of playing the NBA because I have no talent!

But let’s assume that Mr. Gray is right and that a poison link network could hurt SporkMarketing.com. For how long? I think it’s safe to assume that a poison link network is really only worth building if you can use it more than once, which means that the network of sites is going to go after a few targets over time…raising the likelihood of discovery. At what point does Google detect this network and devalue it? This blog post at GoogleCache makes it sound as if detecting undetectable link networks is relatively easy.

I asked Mr. Gray on Twitter if he might tell me how to find a poison link network – of if he could point to a site that had been hurt by one – to which he responded that asking where to find a poison link network is like “asking for drugs in public.” When I pressed, he told me that he wasn’t going to tell me because I’d just “out” the network.

SO let’s summarize what Mr. Gray has said so far:

• Poison link networks exist, but he can’t tell me how to find one, nor can he share an example of a site that’s been hurt by one
• Bad links can’t hurt trusted sites, but they could hurt ‘mom&pop’ sites, which I assume are small sites that probably weren’t ranking anyways

Is it just me, or is that the definition of a circular argument? Poison link networks exist, but no one can tell me how to find one, nor can anyone show me an example of one in action. What’s more, poison link networks only work in situations where the target is small.

Google’s Matt Cutts wrote a post back in 2005 about how Google handles paid links (Mr. Gray commented on that post, in fact, with a comment that essentially argues in favor of paid links), and in that post Matt Cutts talks about the fact that paid links aren’t counted in a site’s link profile as soon as they’re discovered. Google’s guidelines on link schemes say that penalties can occur, and then offers the following examples of situations that might result in a penalty:

link schemes can include:

• Links intended to manipulate PageRank
• Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web [emphasis on to was added]
• Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging (“Link to me and I’ll link to you.”)
• Buying or selling links that pass PageRank

While these are just examples, it seems that Google understands the difference between links from a bad neighborhood and links to one.

While searching for some more examples of how Google treats so-called poison link networks, I stumbled upon a comment by Mr. Gray back in 2005 that seems to indicate he may have had some doubts about his theories in the past.

To make sure we all understand you’re saying, those purchased advertising links are being devalued and not helping the sites in question, they are not having a negative effect on them. To clarify why I’m asking there are number of rumors circulating that you can sabotage your competition if you purchase a large enough quantity of text link advertisements and point them at them.

While he may have been trying to get Matt Cutts to say something (sadly, Cutts never responded to Mr. Gray), I have a hard time with the fact that 6 years ago Mr. Gray seems to have had the same doubts I do about poison link networks. Either he’s learned something new about poison link networks, or he’s fallen into the same trap that ‘moon landing naysayers’ and ‘Elvis is still alive’ believers have fallen into: You can’t prove something doesn’t exist. You can only speculate.

So with all of that said, let this serve as public notice that I will gladly engage a poison link network to sabotage my own site to see if Mr. Gray is indeed correct. All I need is for someone (looking in your direction, Mr. Gray) to tell me who to talk to. I’ll sign an NDA, meet you in a dark alley, whatever – just tell me how to hire a poison link network and I’ll try to sabotage my own site.

UPDATE: Twitter user @Rishil (another UK SEO) told me that I should find a network of .RU hackers to build links for my site. If I did this, it would result in a penalty. The thing is, I think there’s a difference between a) hiring someone to hack websites and plant links and b) buying links on a so-called “poison network” someone has setup to sabotage other sites. Option A is criminal, but it’s also *not* a network…there’s a difference between selling you links on poison sites I own and hiring some evil people to hack websites illegally. The difference may be semantic to some, but it seems pretty big to me. Still, as Rishil says the links are poisonous. I’m afraid to try and confirm that, unfortunately, so this whole thing may die right here.

I’ve never been afraid to put my money where my mouth is. (UPDATE: Unless it involves a federal crime, then I’m out. Hiring hackers to break into other’s websites? Crime.)

FINAL UPDATE: While no one who argued with me on Twitter (or left a comment on SEJ) can convince me that bad links can hurt your site with any sort of frequency or certainty, it seems I am indeed wrong. The proof? Google sends out a letter to webmasters if/when they detect manipulative link patterns. In the last paragraph, the letter hints at the fact that sometimes sites are the target of a negative link attack, which in turn means that bad links could hurt you.

However, there’s nothing more than this reference and the word of a few senior (and respected) SEOs to cite as proof, so you’ll understand if I have my doubts. I think any rational person would. The takeaway here is that Google isn’t going to ding you for negative links in all but rare occasions…which means, as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing to worry about here.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

The proof? Aside from hundreds of thousands of examples of successful low-quality videos on YouTube, we also have a Rice University study of Internet video and production quality which says that viewers don’t have a negative perception of a low quality internet video provided the message is good.

In my mind, we can simplify this and say that, unless your video is branding or advertisement, you can get away with lower production quality. Let me give you some examples:

1. How-to videos: This video explains how to remove a scratch from a DVD – yet it uses just one camera, the lighting isn’t really “perfect,” and it wasn’t shot in HD…but it’s a great video with nearly 4 million views to prove it. Q&A videos – such as Matt Cutts explaining Google’s webmaster tools system – are another format where low quality is A-OK (provided the content is good).

2. Socially appealing videos: Examples include viral videos, behind the scenes with the crew videos, check this new gadget out videos, etc. that could potentially fit into the “socially appealing” category. If you think your video would be socially interesting without regard to your company or your industry – such as this bizarre office behind-the-scenes video from ThinkGeek – then low quality is fine.

3. Entertainment for entertainment’s sake: There are tends of thousands of examples of companies producing videos, but very few companies are just trying to entertain. It’s probably because it’s difficult to calculate the ROI on making something funny.

Yet this swagger wagon video is more entertaining than anything else, and I’m guessing it’s sold Toyota a few vans. Of course, the production quality on that one is sky-high, so it’s not really a good example…but we’ve all seen funny yet low-quality videos that made us laugh.

TIP: Funny isn’t easy, and when it goes wrong it can be a disaster. Tread carefully.

The big take-away: You don’t always need to spend money on top-notch production to make a great Internet video. If your video is informative or entertaining, it can get by on a shoestring budget.

Here’s my unofficial video production quality decision tree that sums all of this up:

Some things to think about before investing in production quality for your company's next Internet video.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

1. we wanted to build some links and
2. we wanted to raise awareness of a pretty big problem – debt

After putting together a lot of the data for the graphic myself, I’ve come to the following conclusion: America has a culture of debt. Our government (at the local, state, and federal levels) has budget problems, yet voters expect government to provide numerous services…even when they don’t have the funds to do it.

Our cultural icons – movie stars, athletes, business tycoons, etc. – all emphasize the accumulation of “stuff.” It’s not enough for us to admire or emulate someone…we have to buy their perfume, wear their clothing, etc.

Finally, our tax and financial laws are written to encourage debt. Borrow money to buy a house? Get a tax break. Borrow money for college? Get a tax break. But if you pay for your house or your college education with cash, the law doesn’t give you a break, nor does anyone offer you a ‘cash discount’ on tuition or property (well, at least not often).

I know I’m ranting here, but my point is that the following infographic made me think. I hope you like it.

Created by Spork Marketing on behalf of Wink & Wink, P.C.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

Therefore, it pains me to say this, but here goes: There’s a new social ‘thing’ that you must get involved with. It’s called Google+, and I think it’s a serious threat to Twitter and Facebook. Here’s why:

1. Google+ offers Facebook users a chance to press the ‘reset’ button. CNN.com ran an interesting article about Google+ last week that said many Facebook users are unhappy with their profiles. The reason? Many Facebook users are “friends” with people that they’re really not friends with, i.e. old high school pals, former co-workers, etc. There’s been a lot of social pressure to become “Facebook friends” in years past, and now some people see Google+ as a way to escape those people politely.

2. Google+ offers more privacy controls than Facebook. If you ask me, what killed MySpace (and boosted Facebook) was that MySpace was a free-for-all. Anyone and everyone could tag your wall, which meant spammers had a field day. Facebook offered people more control over their wall than MySpace, so consumers made the switch. Following that trend, Google+ offers more levels of privacy control than Facebook…and some of them have already made the switch.

3. Many in the tech community love Google+, and they’re the trendsetters. Google+ has had 10 million users join in about 2 weeks, and it’s hard to find a person in the web industry that isn’t at the very least impressed. With promises of more innovation on the way, Google+ has the hearts of the tech elite…the very same people that design consumer software, build popular websites, etc.

4. It’s not just a social network. A lot of people hear “social network” and tune out, but Google+ isn’t just a way to organize your photos and wish people a happy birthday: it’s a great communications tool. Much like Twitter, it’s easy to share links. Much like Facebook, it’s easy to vote for things you like.

5. It’s tied into Google.com. As if you didn’t already have a good reason to check out Google+, consider this: It’s directly tied into Google.com. If you want to influence the Google search results of friends and acquaintances, you need to get on Google+, invite these people into your circles, then start voting for the content you want them to see. It’s really that simple.

6. Business profiles are coming. Google+ is limited to individuals right now, but it’s likely that businesses will be able to create profiles in a few weeks. At that point, I wholeheartedly encourage business owners, marketing managers, etc. to jump into Google+ with both feet.

7. Twitter is in trouble. Twitter has a lot of the same problems MySpace had just before it died:

• Spam is rampant – I can’t tell you how many bogus profiles I see every day
• Everyone is talking, but no one is listening
• Anyone and everyone can tweet at you, which means spammers are having a field day
• The Twitter churn rate is rumored to be very high
• During Twitter’s heydays of 2009 and 2010, growth was flat

If there is a network that’s going to kill Twitter, I think it’s Google+. Google+ allows people to follow anyone they want, but unlike Twitter it’s very difficult to spam some stranger with a invitation to “make money at home” on Google+.

Google+ Prediction: At the very least, a profile on Google+ will be important for SEO reasons. The ability to vote for content you like – and then see these votes influence the search results of people in your network – is reason enough for business owners to participate. But considering the rapid growth and numerous positive reviews, I’d say Google+ is a serious threat to Facebook and a very dangerous threat to Twitter.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

I count myself among the latter – I don’t hate Comcast, but I’m not a fan either. Unfortunately, Comcast offers the best Internet service in Colorado…here’s how I’ve come to that conclusion.

1. Qwest DSL isn’t as fast or as cheap as Comcast. If you check out Qwest DSL, you’ll see that they advertise speeds as high as 40 megabits per second (mbs) on their high speed Internet service page. However, if you start putting in addresses around the Denver metro, you’ll probably find that you can’t get the 40mbs service. Instead, you’ll see that you can get their 20mbs service…which has a list price of $60 per month. Comcast will sell you service with the same download speed for $45 (list price).

Upload speed is even more tilted towards the cable company. Qwest DSL has a max upload rate of .9mbs, whereas Comcast advertises 2mbs. That might not seem like much, but doubling upload speed will make it easier for you to use cloud services from Apple and Amazon, save backups online, upload videos to YouTube, etc. Again, no contest – Comcast beats Qwest DSL on upload speeds too.

Comcast also offers a cheaper low-end service that Qwest. Comcast’s ‘economy’ Internet service is rated 1.5mbs down, .4mbs up, and costs $27 a month (list price). Qwest offers 1.5mbs down, 0.9mbs up, but that slightly better upload speed has a $40 monthly list price.

Finally, at the high end, Comcast offers 105mbs down, 10mbs up for $129 a month (list). That’s a steep price, but if you need the bandwidth Comcast is the only game in town – Qwest maxes out at 40mbs down.

2. Local WiMax isn’t any better than Qwest. While hunting for an alternative to Comcast, I checked out Clear wireless Internet. I love the idea of wireless Internet service, but the cost/speed isn’t any better than DSL. You can buy 4G home service from Clear for $45 a month, and you’ll average 3-6mbs down and 1mbs up. There’s also the fact that 4G wireless Internet isn’t available in all areas. However, I love the idea of taking a wireless Internet connection with me wherever I go in the service area…this technology is advancing quickly, so I’m not going to give up on the dream just yet.

3. Satellite Internet isn’t even close. I love this idea too, but the cost is sky-high compared to DSL (let alone cable). Check out this pricing from HughesNet…$60 per month for 1mbs down and 0.2mbs up…and a 200mb daily download limit. Brutal. The only way satellite Internet service makes any sense is if you live in the mountains.

4. Verizon’s 4G network is fast, but it’s not cheap. If you check out Verizon mobile’s 4G options, you’ll see that you can get 5-12mbs down and 2-5mbs up. Of all the options, this one came closest to Comcast in terms of speed. However, Verizon caps total downloads per month. If you can live with 2 gigs of downloads each month (check out Verizon’s download calculator to see how fast you can burn 10 gigs of bandwidth), you can get wireless Internet for $30 a month…which isn’t bad provided you don’t watch Internet video or surf a lot of websites. I would need at least 10 gigs per month, and that costs $80.

So, there you have it. Comcast is the best option. Their customer service is notoriously poor, but they’ve got the best solution in terms of performance and cost. Maybe someday that will change.

NOTE: All of these companies are constantly re-pricing services to the point of being both confusing and annoying, so beware of any deals you see. While I was working this out over the last couple of weeks. all the companies mentioned changed their promotions and prices.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.

Last week, when faced with the prospect of manually creating dozens of ads on Facebook one-at-a-time, I decided to test a Facebook ad management tool called Keybroker Social. Here is a quick review of the Keybroker Social Facebook ad management tool.

What It Does

Keybroker Social (which was recently known as Dryleaf Social) has listed off a handful of key benefits on the Facebook Ad Tools Vendor List that I’ll address one by one.

• Keybroker Says: Fixed monthly subscription fee for Basic and Premium services, always with a free 30-day trial
• Keybroker Says: No download or sign-up required, just log on with your Facebook account and go

True on both counts. I’m really impressed with the sign-up process, in fact. It’s an ‘app’ that connects to your profile and you’re good to go.

• Keybroker Says: Efficiently build and publish your social campaign in minutes

“Efficient” is a relative term, isn’t it? Compared to manually entering ads, Keybroker’s tool is light-years ahead. However, it’s not as if Keybroker is fast. Let me tell you how I used it:

1. I had 7 different headlines, 7 different lines of body text, 8 images, and 1 destination URL. Keybroker built 500+ ads for me in about 30 minutes.
2. I had to edit all of the ads I created after I pressed “publish,” which meant that I spent more than an hour editing my ads in groups of 45 at a time. This is because – as of this review – Keybroker recommends that you edit fewer than 50 ads at one time.
3. The edit process takes a while to complete – it’s as if Facebook’s API is only allowing one slow request at a time.

As I hinted, I suspect that Facebook’s API bears part of the blame for the lack of speed. Still…it’s not fast, and therefore not as efficient as I’d like it to be (but still better than manual entry).

• Keybroker Says: Comprehensive campaign performance reporting

True – as comprehensive as you can get, assuming you utilize all the available features.

• Keybroker Says: Export all your data to Excel
• Keybroker Says: Make direct improvements to your campaigns and ads

True on both counts. You can really quickly zero in on a single ad in a specific campaign and make an edit. As for exporting data to Excel, it’s exactly what it sounds like. Facebook’s native reporting tool offers similar output, so I don’t think the Excel feature is as useful as it seems.

• Keybroker Says: Bulk optimization – edit one or many ads at the same time with easy multi-edit feature

True, but you need to understand that ‘bulk’ editing is limited to 50 ads at a time. Also, this type of bulk editing is slower than you might expect.

• Keybroker Says: Easy overview and management of multiple accounts

True.

• Keybroker Says: Built-in image library for all your favorite images

This is actually very cool – great little system for uploading images, then storing them for later use in their own folder.

• Keybroker Says: Manage all demographic and geographic targeting options offered by Facebook
• Keybroker Says: Get in-line feedback on the number of people matching your target profile
• Keybroker Says: Drive traffic from your ads directly to your Facebook page, place, event, group and app

All true. Keybroker Social functions very much like Facebook’s built-in ad tool in this regard. Same type of targeting options, same type of feedback.

• Keybroker Says: Create detailed targeting variants, like age buckets or interests, with no additional effort

This is, without a doubt, the 2nd most important reason to invest in a tool like Keybroker Social. Because the tool does everything for us, we can take our most successful ad creatives and then see how they perform across our audience. If you have enough budget and you’re smart with your optimization strategy, I think Keybroker (or any other type of similar tool) would pay for itself very, very quickly.

• Keybroker Says: Track and optimize easily on all of your Facebook actions

I didn’t have a lot of data to mess with (the campaigns I tested didn’t have much social

• Keybroker Says: Intuitive and fast user interface – try it on your iPad!

Undeniably, the interface is easy to use. I only referenced the help page once during my initial use of the product – very simple, very logical.

Additional Notes

Keybroker Social seems to pull ad stats faster than Facebook. On a newly launched campaign, I could see data via Keybroker Social that I couldn’t see right away on Facebook.

I uploaded hundreds of ads to Facebook that were all approved almost immediately…makes me think that Keybroker Social might be a great tool for affiliate marketers who struggle to get creative approval. Perhaps investing in a premium tool gives one the benefit of the doubt at Facebook ads HQ?

Keybroker Social Facebook Ad Manager – Pros and Cons

PROS:

1. Great time saver – manual ad entry is much, much slower.
2. Ability to divide campaign targeting up into neat little demographic brackets makes fine-tuning ads by gender, age, etc. very simple.
3. Easy to use, intuitive interface.
4. Unlike all the other Facebook ad management services I looked at, Keybroker Social was the only one that was willing to give me full access to the tool without speaking with a sales rep. Also, their pricing was up-front and in my opinion very reasonable.

CONS:

1. It’s just not that fast. I think Facebook’s API is probably part of the problem, as the native Facebook ad tool runs slowly too. Still, if you’re hoping for something quick (like the Google AdWords Editor), you’ll be disappointed.
2. The bulk editing feature isn’t as “bulk” as it could be – no more than 50 ads can be edited at one time. The bulk editing feature is also a lot slower than I’d like it to be.

Overall, if you have a large Facebook campaign you need to load or if you find yourself managing a lot of different campaigns, I’d recommend testing the Keybroker Social Facebook ad manager.

Visit SporkMarketing.com for all your Denver Search Engine Optimization needs.