Archives for 

seo

Brainstorm and Execute Killer Content Ideas Your Audience Will Love

Posted by Isla_McKetta

A fantastic idea is the heartblood of any content campaign or project. Excitement around an idea is what sustains you through the (sometimes) long slog of creation, and it’s part of what gets your audience to share, share, share.

Putting time and energy into a bad idea is a waste of your resources and has the potential to turn your audience off. Plus, if your decision maker sees too many resources invested in too many ideas that fail, you could lose credibility, autonomy, and—worst case scenario—your job.

Which all makes coming up with the idea sound kind of intimidating. But finding the right idea doesn’t have to be difficult. And finding a truly great idea can result in traffic, conversions, and the adulation of the masses.

You too can find a truly great idea. To help you, we’re going to cover:

Where ideas come from

Ideas are all around us. Sometimes we need to focus to find them, and sometimes we need to let go a little. These tactics should help you and your team find your best ideas.

The swipe file

Some of my swipe files, dating back to undergrad. I still use these when writing.

If you aren’t already keeping a file of ideas/images/approaches/technologies that inspire you or you’d love to learn from, start now. Keep feeding this file and refer to it whenever you need inspiration. If your swipe file gets thin, go back in history a little because great ideas get used over and over in different ways throughout time. Reviewing ideas that have inspired you can be a great way to prime yourself before a brainstorming session.

A swipe file can take any form that works for you: email folder, app, or physical file, as long as the system works for you. Some favorite programs to collect your ideas include Pinterest, Trello, and Evernote. Some higher powered applications like Musepeak and Mural.ly also give you more sophisticated options for collaborating on swipe files (and brainstorms…).

Successful brainstorms

Image by Juhan Sonin, licensed under Creative Commons.

Everyone brainstorms, but few people do it well. To set yourself up for success and avoid group think, follow these guidelines and remember the brainstorming space is sacred. That means that whether you’re meeting in a room or building a shared board on Pinterest that all ideas are good ideas (at least for now). This is crucial, because even one person who insists on questioning ideas or dwelling on practicalities during a brainstorm can shut down the creativity of the whole process.

Participants

A good brainstorm gathers two or more brains around a shared goal whether in person or online. You can have as many people involved as you want; just know that larger groups (five or more) may need to be broken down into smaller teams that can then report back to the whole.

It can be helpful to include people who have no familiarity with the project in a brainstorming session because they’ll come in without preconceived notions to weigh them down. Also include members from other teams. Sometimes it takes a designer to tell you about the latest great visual technique, and if you don’t have a designer in the room, you might be starting over again later.

Some people are great brainstormers and some… have other talents. Don’t be afraid to switch up your groups as you plan various brainstorms to find the right mix.

Parameters

Outline a few crucial parameters at the beginning of your brainstorm (Is your audience 10 or 100? Does the project merit 50 hours or 500?), but it’s important not to get your group too hung up on constraints—”don’ts” can limit the creative thinking in the room. If your group is unusually quiet, try an icebreaker or two to get them into the brainstorming spirit. A good moderator can keep all the important constraints in mind and dole them out when the person at the end of the table insists that space monkeys are the only answer. Again.

Because all ideas are good ideas at this stage, it can be really important for the meeting organizer to keep the conversation on a “yes, and” level rather than a “no, but” one. That means recognizing the validity of each idea and helping to find a way to incorporate it. For example, to our space monkey obsessed friend, you could say, “Yes! Space monkeys are a really creative idea. And what do you think is the best way for them to showcase [product]?”

Capture all the ideas (however nuts) on a whiteboard or any place that the group can feed off of them. Take a picture or good notes. It’s always important to have a record of your process in case you need to find a second idea (or remember the nuances of the first one). A few tools you might want to try out include bubble.us, MindMapper, Stormboard, and Scapple (for Mac).

Competitive research: How to find out what’s working for the other guy

Obviously you’re reading your competitors’ content and watching what you think works and what doesn’t (no, really, you have to do this on a somewhat-frequent basis). But there are also ways you can sneak a peek farther behind the curtain of what your competitors are working on.

A note before we get into the “how to do the research” part: you likely have two kinds of competitors. This can get confusing for a lot of businesses, especially when it comes to adding SEO into the content marketing mix. You have your traditional competitors—for example, if you’re selling coffee in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, that cafe across the street is still your competition. But you also have competition in the SERPs (search engine results pages) who you’re vying against to rank for “Seattle’s best coffee.” There is often overlap between these two groups of competitors, but don’t leave out either group as you’re checking out the competition because you can learn a lot from both.

If you’re a visual learner, here’s a great video that will show you how to use some of the Moz tools to start your competitive research. We’ll also cover some of this below if your preferred learning method is reading. If you want to dig a little deeper or use a wider toolset, read on for ideas. Either way, this SEO workflow chart might give you a few ideas of things to consider as you start your analysis.

What’s getting links?

Use Open Site Explorer to see which pages on your competitors’ sites are getting the most links and who those links are coming from. This can offer insight into what topics and types of content might resonate with your audience. You can also use the link opportunities tool within OSE to find places that are linking to your competitors but not to you.

Top traffic earners

Search for your competitors on Similar Web to see what keywords they’re pulling traffic for and what their top referring sites are. Or go straight to Ahrefs to see what their top performing content is. You may just spot a couple of concepts that serve as seeds for a tool or killer piece of content you can create. For example, if you’re a cafe and “peach cobbler recipe” is a top keyword for a competitor, you may decide to share some of your delicious recipes online.

Or use Simply Measured to do your own analysis of your competitors’ top posts.

Social: who follows whom and what they share

Use a tool like Followerwonk to analyze who your competitor is following and followed by on Twitter. You can even analyze their tweets to see what their audience retweets and favorites along with who they mention most often. If our cafe competitor is followed by people who use “freelance designer” in their Twitter bios, you might be able to get their attention with a series of interviews of successful freelancers who started out at your coffee shop.

BuzzSumo is a good place to see what content is popular on social. Paddy Moogan goes in depth on that here.

On Facebook, you can type “Pages liked by people who like [brand]” into the search bar to get an idea of other interests that brand’s followers may share. For example, using our coffee shop located on Capitol Hill, you might find that your competitor’s fans love the Capitol Hill Block Party, which could inspire you to write a blog post series, “Where the Stars of the Capitol Hill Block Party Fuel Up Before Their Sets.”

A couple of other tools that can help you get information on your competitors’ social efforts are RivalIQ and the Share Metric plugin for Chrome.

Top brand mentions

A tool like Fresh Web Explorer or Google Alerts will help you find brand mentions on the web which will help you see what kind of content is earning attention for your competitors. This is also a great way to find link opportunities and get intel on what people are saying about your brand.

Competitive research beyond the blog

Don’t forget to include your competitors’ other types of content when you’re doing your analysis. Here’s a look at how to do competitive research on email. At the very least, subscribe to all their email campaigns to keep an eye on what is (and is not) working. Some things to consider are: subject lines, length, tone, time of day, and imagery, but anything that catches your attention is worth noting.

You should also be looking at and analyzing their landing pages, white papers, and even product descriptions to see what they’re doing well (and not so well). You never know when (or where) an idea is going to strike.

A note about your competitor’s ideas

It can be really easy upon noticing that your competitor gets most of their traffic from that peach cobbler recipe to want to run out and make your own, better peach cobbler recipe. You might have success with that tactic, and it can feel safer to build off of someone else’s success, but imitation always puts you behind your competitor.

A better way to build your own empire through content marketing is to take that inspiration from your competitors as a starting point for your ideation. You may decide that you’re really famous (or would like to be) for your danishes. Or, you could decide that recipes aren’t your bag at all and you want to focus on something entirely different. There isn’t a wrong answer as long as you’re true to your own brand. And if you’re really stuck for ideas on what that brand is, the next section should help.

Horizontal thinking

Sometimes the best way to get a fresh take on a new idea is to come at it sideways. That’s what many artists do and it’s called lateral, horizontal, or tangential thinking. So if you’re finding yourself in a “how do I write one more article about the internal workings of a toilet?” kind of rut, it’s time to look at your subject from a new angle.

To get that fresh take, first take a giant step backward to the place where you have just your original subject (or keyword, if you prefer). Here we’ll focus on plumbing fixtures (because if you can find creative new ways to talk about plumbing fixtures, you can find creative new ways to talk about anything). As we said, the rut we’re trying to get out of where we’re thinking too straightforwardly about the subject matter, and the very best way to do that is to explore all the tangential relationships. If you do this with a bubble chart, it’s even fun (the image below was created using Coggle but pen and paper still work).

ideation for difficult industries - plumbing

You could take this a lot farther, but let’s analyze what we’ve got here. The “installation” tangent is pretty good, but you’ve probably explored that pretty well already.

Where things might start to get interesting is in the “materials history” area. For example, if it’s true that more expensive toilets are made from more expensive materials, you might swing an upsell with a post waxing metaphoric about how porcelain helped forge trade between the ancient Islamic and Chinese worlds. Or, you could tell stories of the most indulgent toilets ever purchased.

If you also sell bathroom accessories, get your customers interested with that “Cultural Bathroom Traditions” idea. It’s interesting that some Japanese restrooms are equipped with noise machines to preserve ladies’ modesty or that Indian toilets sometimes come equipped with a hose. A series like this might result in some really unusual and shareable content (and give you a fresh way to look at toilets for the next little while).

Looking at the various angles on “shower heads,” there’s a lot of room to explore based on whether you’re going for an upscale audience, eco, or even DIY. And once you start talking bathroom decor (from shower heads to the perfect guest bathroom) you’ve got a huge potential audience (along with some pretty stiff competition).

Related to lateral thinking, never rule out serendipity when looking for content ideas. If you hear the Senate has just spent some crazy amount on rehabbing a bathroom, consider that a gift from the content idea gods. And there are loads more of those types of gifts out in the ideation ether if you keep your spidey sense tuned.


Content freshness

Image by tanakawho, licensed under Creative Commons.

Some companies can base an entire content strategy on newsjacking (responding to the latest news either directly or indirectly), but, especially if you’re just starting out, you’re going to want to find a balance between timely ideas and those that are evergreen and will stay fresh for a good long time.

One way to come up with more timely ideas is to look at when your content will go live and what might be happening at that time, e.g., holidays, big movie releases, seasonal changes, music awards shows. It’s amazing how easy it is to forget about the back-to-school season when you’re pitching ideas in March. Build yourself a calendar of events that are important to your industry, and save it for next year’s ideation.


Inspiration for boring/difficult industries

Image by peasap, licensed under Creative Commons.

We already covered how to write about plumbing fixtures. What could be harder? Banking, roofing, hydrology services, you name it. Many people consider anything outside the fashion/entertainment realm (aka anything you can’t link a celebrity’s name to) to be a difficult topic to write about.

That’s just not true. There are no truly difficult topics if you can key into what makes you excited about something. Because there are people out there who are very much like you and are curious and nerdy about the same things you are.

  • How can you maximize your benefit from the new IRS IRA laws?
  • What are the best kinds of fasteners to use with cedar shingles?
  • How much erosion is too much erosion?

These are all completely reasonable (and interesting) topics for the right audience.

If you feel like you’ve exhausted the easy wins and answered all the FAQs, go back to lateral thinking, grab a buddy, and brainstorm what makes your industry fun or interesting to you and your audience. Watch the movies they watch, read the news sources they’re into, and listen to the music they like. Learn about the industry and keep your mind open for questions that occur to you along the way, and then turn answering those questions into your next set of content ideas.


Recognizing the right idea

Image by Maxime Raynal, licensed under Creative Commons.

Now that you’ve got a whiteboard, swipe file, or notebook full of ideas, it’s time to winnow those fantastic ideas and select some top contenders. This is usually easiest either alone or in a small group. You’ll want to:

  1. Cross off anything that bores you.
  2. Set aside anything that doesn’t fit within your parameters (like if it takes too much time or budget). You might be able to preserve some of the idea later if you love it. So don’t throw it out the window or anything 🙂
  3. Make a separate list of the ideas that call out to you. You don’t have to know why you love them at this stage, you can always build a justification later, but trust your gut. You’re going to need that excitement over the long haul as you shepherd this project.
  4. Think about whether this idea works for one piece of content or if you can turn it into a series.

Applying these parameters to your list of potential ideas should help you find an idea or two that’s ripe to work on. If not, go back through ideation and use what didn’t work this time as your starting point for discussion.


Targeting and providing value for an audience

Image by Yann Duarte, licensed under Creative Commons.

If you didn’t already do audience research as part of your content strategy, you can start at any phase of ideation. Some people like to use this information to create personas that shape your ideas from the very beginning. Others like to let the ideas flow first to see how crazy they can get and then narrow down the choices using audience information.

To get your feet wet, go through the same process for your company that you did while gathering all the intel on your competitors. Then it’s time to get specific, because you should have access to a lot more information about your own company and customers.

Building personas

Creating a set of archetypal people to represent your target customers can be a very in-depth process. You can start with basic demographic information and a few guesses at pain points and goals, but to understand the vast array of qualitative and quantitative research you can do to build a persona, read Mike King’s comprehensive guide to personas. Another helpful read is Kyra Kuik and Harriet Cummings’ look at audience research.

Whether you choose to create detailed personas or basic persona sketches, anything you can do to understand your audience is a good thing for planning and executing your content. Here are some other ways you can get at what ideas your audience might find engaging.

Understanding your audience’s needs

Remember as you’re pulling together this information to consider audience intent as part of your process, because it’s not enough to know that your audience is interested in a topic. You have to understand what they want from information about that topic (are they researching? shopping? reselling?) to make your content marketing truly conversion-worthy.

Don’t forget to look at places where your audience is already talking with you, too. Customer service surveys, social interactions, and Q&As are all amazing resources. Find out what all your customer touch points are and what kind of intel you can uncover.

Random affinities

Once you know who your audience is and what they might be looking for, it’s time to take the extra step and find content that will engage their interests. Random affinities are a great way to do this. Related to tangential thinking, you’re looking for an overlap in interests that can help you build a stronger relationship with your audience.

We did this a little above by bringing the Capitol Hill Block Party to the ideation table. But by digging a little deeper you might find that people who like coffeehouses often also like yoga. Although that makes for a smaller audience overall (some people who like coffeehouses probably hate yoga), if you cater to that specific intersection of interests, you’re likely to build a deeper connection with those yoga-loving coffee addicts. Let Ian Lurie show you how to discover random affinities.

What makes content valuable

As a final check in your ideation process (or any time you get stuck), consider what people find valuable about content (from this presentation by Rand):

criteria for modern content investments

If your ideas aren’t meeting these criteria, keep thinking. Often something you were working with just needs to be tweaked a little. Sometimes you’ll need to start fresh. It’s all worth it when you find the idea that rocks your readers’ worlds.


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Continue reading →

Your Daily SEO Fix: Week 5

Posted by Trevor-Klein

We’ve arrived, folks! This is the last installment of our short (< 2-minute) video tutorials that help you all get the most out of Moz’s tools. If you haven’t been following along, these are each designed to solve a use case that we regularly hear about from Moz community members.

Here’s a quick recap of the previous round-ups in case you missed them:

  • Week 1: Reclaim links using Open Site Explorer, build links using Fresh Web Explorer, and find the best time to tweet using Followerwonk.
  • Week 2: Analyze SERPs using new MozBar features, boost your rankings through on-page optimization, check your anchor text using Open Site Explorer, do keyword research with OSE and the keyword difficulty tool, and discover keyword opportunities in Moz Analytics.
  • Week 3: Compare link metrics in Open Site Explorer, find tweet topics with Followerwonk, create custom reports in Moz Analytics, use Spam Score to identify high-risk links, and get link building opportunities delivered to your inbox.
  • Week 4: Use Fresh Web Explorer to build links, analyze rank progress for a given keyword, use the MozBar to analyze your competitors’ site markup, use the Top Pages report to find content ideas, and find on-site errors with Crawl Test.

We’ve got five new fixes for you in this edition:

  • How to Use the Full SERP Report
  • How to Find Fresh Links and Manage Your Brand Online Using Open Site Explorer
  • How to Build Your Link Profile with Link Intersect
  • How to Find Local Citations Using the MozBar
  • Bloopers: How to Screw Up While Filming a Daily SEO Fix

Hope you enjoy them!


Fix 1: How to Use the Full SERP Report

Moz’s Full SERP Report is a detailed report that shows the top ten ranking URLs for a specific keyword and presents the potential ranking signals in an easy-to-view format. In this Daily SEO Fix, Meredith breaks down the report so you can see all the sections and how each are used.


Fix 2: How to Find Fresh Links and Manage Your Brand Online Using Open Site Explorer

The Just-Discovered Links report in Open Site Explorer helps you discover recently created links within an hour of them being published. In this fix, Nick shows you how to use the report to view who is linking to you, how they’re doing it, and what they are saying, so you can capitalize on link opportunities while they’re still fresh and join the conversation about your brand.


Fix 3: How to Build Your Link Profile with Link Intersect

The quantity and (more importantly) quality of backlinks to your website make up your link profile, one of the most important elements in SEO and an incredibly important factor in search engine rankings. In this Daily SEO Fix, Tori shows you how to use Moz’s Link Intersect tool to analyze the competitions’ backlinks. Plus, learn how to find opportunities to build links and strengthen your own link profile.


Fix 4: How to Find Local Citations Using the MozBar

Citations are mentions of your business and address on webpages other than your own such as an online yellow pages directory or a local business association page. They are a key component in search engine ranking algorithms so building consistent and accurate citations for your local business(s) is a key Local SEO tactic. In today’s Daily SEO Fix, Tori shows you how to use MozBar to find local citations around the web


Bloopers: How to Screw Up While Filming a Daily SEO Fix

We had a lot of fun filming this series, and there were plenty of laughs along the way. Like these ones. =)


Looking for more?

We’ve got more videos in the previous four weeks’ round-ups!

Your Daily SEO Fix: Week 1

Your Daily SEO Fix: Week 2

Your Daily SEO Fix: Week 3

Your Daily SEO Fix: Week 4


Don’t have a Pro subscription? No problem. Everything we cover in these Daily SEO Fix videos is available with a free 30-day trial.


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Continue reading →

The Alleged $7.5 Billion Fraud in Online Advertising

Posted by SamuelScott

“This is the biggest advertising story of the decade, and it’s being buried.”

So wrote Ad Contrarian Bob Hoffman, the retired CEO and chairman of Hoffman/Lewis Advertising, in June 2013 on a $7.5 billion scandal that has been developing under the digital radar in the advertising world for the past few years. The three main allegations, according to those who are making them:

  1. Half or more of the paid online display advertisements that ad networks, media buyers, and ad agencies have knowingly been selling to clients over the years have never appeared in front of live human beings.
  2. Agencies have been receiving kickbacks and indirect payments from ad networks under the guise of “volume discounts” for serving as the middlemen between the networks and the clients who were knowingly sold the fraudulent ad impressions.
  3. Ad networks knowingly sell bot traffic to publishers and publishers knowingly buy the bot traffic because the resulting ad impressions earn both of them money—at the expense of the clients who are paying for the impressions.

These charges have not seen much discussion within the online marketing community. But the allegations have the potential to affect everyone involved in online advertising—ad agencies, in-house departments, agency and in-house digital marketers, online publishers, media buyers, and ad networks. An entire industry—billions of dollars and thousands of jobs—is at stake.

And it all starts with a single impression.

The impression that you make

(Wikimedia)

Online advertising is based on an “impression”—without the impression, then an advertisement cannot be viewed or clicked or provoke any other engagement. The Internet Advertising Bureau, which was founded in 1996 and “recommends standards and practices and fields critical research on interactive advertising,” defines “impression” in this manner:

a measurement of responses from an ad delivery system to an ad request from the user’s browser

In another words, an “impression” occurs whenever one machine (an ad network) answers a request from another machine (a browser). (For reference, you can see my definition and example of a “request” in a prior Moz essay on log analytics and technical SEO.) Just in case it’s not obvious: Human beings and human eyeballs have nothing to do with it. If your advertising data states than a display ad campaign had 500,000 impressions, then that means that the ad network served a browser 500,000 times—and nothing more. Digital marketers may tell their bosses and clients that “impression” is jargon for one person seeing an advertisement one time, but that statement is not accurate.

The impression that you don’t make

(Wikipedia)

Just because a server answers a browser request for an advertisement does not mean that the person using the browser will see it. According to Reid Tatoris at MediaPost, there are three things that get in the way:

  • Broken Ads—This is a server not loading an ad or loading the wrong one by mistake. Tatoris writes that these mistakes occur roughly 15% of the time.
  • Bot Traffic—Whenever hackers write these automated computer programs to visit websites and post spam or create fake accounts, each visit is a pageview that results an an ad impression. According to a December 2013 report in The Atlantic, 60% of Internet traffic consists of bots.
  • Alleged Fraud—In Tatoris’ words, “People will hide ads behind other ads, spoof their domain to trick ad networks into serving higher-paying ads on their site, and purposefully send bots to a site to drive up impressions.” Noam Schwartz described in TechCrunch two additional methods of alleged fraud: compressing ads into a tiny one-by-one pixels that are impossible to see and using malware to send people to websites they never planned to visit and thereby generate ad impressions. AdWeek found in October 2013 that 25% of online ad impressions are allegedly fraudulent.

Tatoris crunches all the numbers:

We start with the notion that only 15% of impressions ever have the possibility to be seen by a real person. Then, factor in that 54% of ads are not viewable (and we already discussed how flawed that metric is), and you’re left with only 8% of impressions that have the opportunity to be seen by a real person. Let me clarify: That does not mean that 8% of impressions are seen. That means only 8% have the chance to be seen. That’s an unbelievable amount of waste in an industry where metrics are a major selling point.

Essentially: If you have an online display ad budget of $100,000, then only $8,000 of that ad spend has the chance to put advertisements in front of human eyeballs. (And that’s not even taking into account the poor clickthrough rates of display ads when people do see them.)

If you are paying $0.10 per impression, then the $10,000 that you will pay for 100,000 impressions will result in only 8,000 human views—meaning that the effective CPI will actually be $1.25.

How bot traffic affects online ads

(Wikipedia)

Jack Marshall, an alleged reformed fake web traffic buyer, explains in a Digiday interview how the scheme allegedly operates. Here are just three excerpts:

How and why were you buying non-human traffic?
We were spending anywhere from $10,000 to $35,000 a day on traffic. My conversations with [these ad networks] were similar: They would let me decide how much I was willing to pay for traffic, and when I told them $0.002 or below, they made it clear they had little control over the quality of traffic they would send at that price. Quality didn’t really matter to us, though. As a website running an arbitrage model, all that mattered was profit, and for every $0.002 visit we were buying, we were making between $0.0025 and $0.004 selling display ads through networks and exchanges. The biggest determinate of which traffic partner we were spending the most money with was pageviews per visit. Since we were paying a fixed cost per visit, more pageviews equaled more ad impressions. Almost none of these companies were based in the U.S. While our contacts were in the US and had American names and accents, most of the time we found ourselves sending payment to a non-US bank.

In other words, the publisher would allegedly pay an ad network $0.0020 for a visit from a bot, and the resulting ad impression would garner $0.0025 to $0.0040 in revenue—that’s a gross margin of 25% to 100% for the publisher for doing nothing! It’s no wonder that so many websites around the world may be allegedly involved in this practice.

Do you think publishers know when they’re buying fake traffic?
Publishers know. They might say “we had no idea” and blame it on their traffic acquisition vendor, but that’s bullshit, and they know it. If you’re buying visits for less than a penny, there’s no way you don’t understand what’s going on. Any publisher that’s smart enough understand an arbitrage opportunity is smart enough to understand that if it was a legitimate strategy that the opportunity would eventually disappear as more buyers crowded in. What we were doing was 100 percent intentional. Some articles revolving around bot traffic paint publishers as rubes who were duped into buying bad traffic by shady bot owners. Rather, I believe publishers are willing to do anything to make their economics work.

Do networks, exchanges and other ad tech companies do anything to stop this from happening?
We worked with a major supply-side platform partner that was just wink wink, nudge nudge about it. They asked us to explain why almost all of our traffic came from one operating system and the majority had all the same user-agent string. There was nothing I could really say to answer that question. It was their way of letting us know that they understood what was going on. It wasn’t just our account rep, either. It was people at the highest levels in the company. Part of me wished they’d said “You are in violation of our TOS and you have to stop running our tags.” I would have been happy with that. But they didn’t; they were willing to take the money.

If these stories are true, then ad networks do not care that the impressions are from bot traffic and publishers do not care that are getting bot traffic because they are both making money. Who gets hurt? The companies advertising their products and services.

The worst part of it all

(Flickr user Don Hankins)

It’s not only that online display ads are alleged to be amazingly useless and that many publishers and ad networks are allegedly involved in sleazy deals. A March 2015 investigative report in Ad Age found the following:

Kickback payments tied to U.S. media-agency deals are real and on the rise, according to Ad Age interviews with more than a dozen current and former media-agency executives, marketers’ auditors, media sellers and ad-tech vendors who said they’d either participated in such arrangements or had seen evidence of them. The murky practice—sometimes disguised as (undisclosed) “rebates” or bills for bogus services—is being motivated by shrinking agency fees and fueled by an increasingly convoluted and global digital marketplace. “It’s really ugly and crooked,” said one ad-tech executive who described receiving such requests.

Some arrangements go like this: A large media shop, poised to spend $1 million with that ad-tech executive’s firm to buy digital ads last year, asked for $200,000 to be routed back to the agency’s corporate sibling in Europe. The $200,000 would pay for a presentation or presentations by the sibling’s consultants. But these types of presentations aren’t worth a fraction of the price tag, according to numerous executives dealing with the same issue, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing business.

Essentially, here is what is allegedly happening:

  • Clients give money to agencies to purchase online display advertising
  • The agencies give the money to the ad networks
  • The ad networks give a portion of the money back to the agencies
  • The clients’ display ads are only 8% viewable
  • The 92% non-viewable impressions still earn money for publishers and ad networks

I think we can see who the loser is—everyone is making money except for the clients.

During the same month as the Ad Age report, former Mediacom CEO Jon Mandel reportedly told the Association of National Advertisers Media Leadership Conference that widespread “media agency rebates and kickbacks” were the reason that he left the agency business.

Heads in the digital sand

(Flickr user Peter)

I have yet to hear about this issue being addressed in any talk, panel, or session at a digital marketing, martech, or adtech conference. Prior to today, I have seen only one article each in two major publications in the online marketing industry. (Mozzers, please correct me if I am mistaken and have missed something major on this topic.)

Why is no one talking about this?

No marketing agency wants clients to know that 92% of its display advertising spend is wasted. No advertising manager wants the CMO to know that only 8% of the company’s ads are reaching people at 100% cost. No CMO wants the CEO to know that 92% of the entire ad budget is being flushed down the digital toilet.

I myself would probably have not been permitted to write this article when I held various agency positions in the past because I managed clients’ online advertising and some PR and digital marketing clients of the agencies were advertising networks themselves.

(Today, I am the director of marcom for Logz.io, a log analytics startup, and I have the luxury of being accountable only for the results of my in-house work—and I do not plan to use online advertising anytime soon. Still, I was a journalist in my first career years ago, and I wanted to write this report because I think everyone in my beloved industry should know about this explosive issue.)

Hoffman, the retired ad agency CEO who I quoted at the beginning, puts it better than I can:

How does an agency answer a client who asks, “You mean more than half the money you were supposed to be custodian of was embezzled from me and you knew nothing about it?” How does an ad network answer, “You mean all those clicks and eyeballs you promised me never existed, and you knew nothing about it?” How does a CMO answer his management when they ask, “You mean these people screwed us out of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars in banner ads and you had no idea what you were buying?”

Everyone is in jeopardy and everyone is in “protect” mode. Everyone wants to maintain deniability. Nobody wants to know too much. If display advertising were to suffer the disgrace it deserves, imagine the fallout. Imagine the damage to Facebook, which at last report gets over 80% of its revenue from display. Imagine the damage to online publishers whose bogus, inflated numbers probably constitute their margin of profit.

If the comScore findings are correct and projectable, it means that of the 14 billion dollars spent on display advertising last year in America, 7.5 billion was worthless and constituted some degree of fraud or misrepresentation.

But clients, CMOs, and CEOs are going to read one of these articles one day and start asking uncomfortable questions. I would suggest that Mozzers—as well as all digital marketers and advertisers—start thinking about responses now.

Responses to the scandal

(Flickr user Chris Potter)

Google, to its credit, has disclosed that 56% of its digital ad impressions are never actually seen—of course, the report was also released with the announcement of a new ad-viewability product.

Ginny Marvin summarizes at Marketing Land:

Google’s viewability measurement tool, Active View, is integrated into both the Google Display Network and DoubleClick. Advertisers can monitor viewability rates and buy ads on a viewable impression basis rather than by served impressions.

Google also announced an update to DoubleClick Verification last week, which includes viewability monitoring, ad blocking, a content ratings system and spam filtering capabilities.

The goals of the Media Rating Council (MRC), an industry organization founded in the United States in the 1960s following congressional hearings into the media industry, are:

  • To secure for the media industry and related users audience measurement services that are valid, reliable and effective
  • To evolve and determine minimum disclosure and ethical criteria for media audience measurement services
  • To provide and administer an audit system designed to inform users as to whether such audience measurements are conducted in conformance with the criteria and procedures developed

The MRC has certified “viewable impressions” as a legitimate metric (as opposed to “served impressions”). The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), mentioned earlier, issued guidelines in December that online advertising networks should aim for at least 70% viewability.

Facebook, for its part, announced in February 2015:

We are working with the MRC and a consortium of advertisers and agencies to develop more robust standards for viewable impressions. Our goal is to work with the MRC, our partners, and industry leaders around the world to help apply further standards for feed-based websites like Facebook, mobile media and new ad formats.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies, Association of National Advertisers, and IAB announced last year that they would create a new organization, the Trustworthy Accountability Group, to fight problems in the online advertising market and do the following:

  • Eliminate fraudulent traffic
  • Combat malware
  • Fight Internet piracy
  • Promote greater transparency

TAG now consists of representatives from Mondelez International, JCPenney, Omnicom, Motorola, Google, Facebook, AOL, and Brightroll.

Canada’s latest anti-spam legislation aims to fight Internet malware and bots—but a big stumbling block is that most of the problem comes from outside the country.

Will these corporate and organizational responses be enough? For the following reasons and more, it’s impossible to know:

  • Industry guidelines depend on voluntary compliance. Industry recommendations do not have the force of law—any business that thinks it can still make a lot of money by ignoring the guidelines will likely continue to do so.
  • Possible penalties for past behavior. Regardless of what reforms may occur in the future, should those who knowingly engaged in such alleged fraud and deception in the past be held criminally or civilly liable? (I’m not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on that.)
  • IAB’s 70% viewability goal. Should advertisers accept this metric as simply the nature of the medium? One estimate of the total display ad market amounted to $14 billion. If the 70% viewability goal can even be reached, should and will advertisers accept that $4.2 billion of their collective ad spend will still be lost before their advertisements are even viewed by human beings?

I have no answer—only time, I suppose, will tell.

But others are coming up with their own answers—those large corporations that are spending billions of dollars a year on online display advertising. As Lara O’Reilly wrote in May 2015 at Business Insider, $25 billion in ad spend is now under review in what Adweek is calling “Mediapalooza 2015.” O’Reilly gives one possible reason:

Media reviews let brands reassess their ad spending, often by offering those contracts out in a competitive bidding process. The companies include General Mills, Procter & Gamble, Volkswagen, Visa, Sony, Coca-Cola, Citi, 21st Century Fox … the list goes on. Some of these — P&G, Sony, and 21st Century Fox — spend more than $1 billion on advertising each year…

It could be that marketers are finally getting fed up with the apparent lack of transparency about where their budgets are actually being spent and why.

What marketers can do

(Image of an Indian online-marketing team I used with rights in a prior Moz essay
on the future of marketing departments)

Regardless of what the future will hold, here are my recommendations on how digital advertisers can respond:

  • Stop doing cost-per-impression (CPI or CPM) campaigns. Traditional digital advertising strategy recommends that people use CPM campaigns for brand awareness, cost-per-click (CPC) campaigns for traffic, and cost-per-action (CPA) campaigns for sales and conversions. In light of this scandal, I see no good reason to do CPM at all anymore.
  • Revise advertising KPIs and metrics in human terms. Earlier in this article, I calculated the following change to a hypothetical CPI value: “If you are paying $0.10 per impression, then the $10,000 that you will pay for 100,000 impressions will result in only 8,000 human views—meaning that the effective CPI rate will actually be $1.25.” In addition, half of all clicks in CPC campaigns might also be bots. As a result, a $2 CPC result may actually be $4 when reaching human beings is taken into account. Ad campaign analysts may want to take alleged bot and fraudulent activity into account when calculating ROI and whether display advertising is worthwhile.
  • Demand full disclosure. Clients should ask agencies and media buyers if they are getting paid directly or indirectly by ad networks. Agencies and media buyers should ad networks how they are combating bot activity and any fraudulent behavior. Ad networks should not turn a digital blind-eye to publishers who intentionally use bots to make profits off of advertisers. If anyone gives vague answers or otherwise disparages such questions, then that is a red flag. Advertisers should demand and receive full, verifiable information in light of what has allegedly been occurring.
  • Block certain countries from campaigns. According to a report in Ad Week, China, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Singapore have “suspicious traffic” rates of between 86% and 92%. (The rate in the United States is 43%.)
  • Use ad-fraud detection platforms. Companies such as Forensiq, SimilarWeb, Spider.io (which was bought by Google), Telemetry, and White Ops compare visit patterns with industry benchmark behavior as well as check for malicious software proxy unmasking, verify devices, and detect any manipulation.
  • Run manual campaigns as much as possible. The only way to reduce wasted impressions significantly is to research and implement digital ad campaigns manually rather than use programmatic ad buying. Digital advertisers should research potential websites on which they want to run advertisements to see if they are legitimate—potentially even running ads on only the largest, well-known sites but doing so continuously. This way, it might be best to focus your ad campaigns on quality viewers rather than trying to maximize the quantity of viewers by also including lesser-known sites.

Beyond the current responses of the ad industry and my present recommendations for marketers, I do not know what will happen. My goal here is simply to explain to digital marketers what has allegedly been occurring. What the future will hold—well, that’s up to we marketers and advertisers.

Additional resources


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Continue reading →

The Colossus Update: Waking The Giant

Posted by Dr-Pete

Yesterday morning, we woke up to a historically massive temperature spike on MozCast, after an unusually quiet weekend. The 10-day weather looked like this:

That’s 101.8°F, one of the hottest verified days on record, second only to a series of unconfirmed spikes in June of 2013. For reference, the first Penguin update clocked in at 93.1°.

Unfortunately, trying to determine how the algorithm changed from looking at individual keywords (even thousands of them) is more art than science, and even the art is more often Ms. Johnson’s Kindergarten class than Picasso. Sometimes, though, we catch a break and spot something.

The First Clue: HTTPS

When you watch enough SERPs, you start to realize that change is normal. So, the trick is to find the queries that changed a lot on the day in question but are historically quiet. Looking at a few of these, I noticed some apparent shake-ups in HTTP vs. HTTPS (secure) URLs. So, the question becomes: are these anecdotes, or do they represent a pattern?

I dove in and looked at how many URLs for our 10,000 page-1 SERPs were HTTPS over the past few days, and I saw this:

On the morning of June 17, HTTPS URLs on page 1 jumped from 16.9% to 18.4% (a 9.9% day-over-day increase), after trending up for a few days. This represents the total real-estate occupied by HTTPS URLs, but how did rankings fare? Here are the average rankings across all HTTPS results:

HTTPS URLs also seem to have gotten a rankings boost – dropping (with “dropping” being a positive thing) from an average of 2.96 to 2.79 in the space of 24 hours.

Seems pretty convincing, right? Here’s the problem: rankings don’t just change because Google changes the algorithm. We are, collectively, changing the web every minute of the day. Often, those changes are just background noise (and there’s a lot of noise), but sometimes a giant awakens.

The Second Clue: Wikipedia

Anecdotally, I noticed that some Wikipedia URLs seemed to be flipping from HTTP to HTTPS. I ran a quick count, and this wasn’t just a fluke. It turns out that Wikipedia started switching their entire site to HTTPS around June 12 (hat tip to Jan Dunlop). This change is expected to take a couple of weeks.

It’s just one site, though, right? Well, historically, this one site is the #1 largest land-holder across the SERP real-estate we track, with over 5% of the total page-1 URLs in our tracking data (5.19% as of June 17). Wikipedia is a giant, and its movements can shake the entire web.

So, how do we tease this apart? If Wikipedia’s URLs had simply flipped from HTTP to HTTPS, we should see a pretty standard pattern of shake-up. Those URLs would look to have changed, but the SERPS around them would be quiet. So, I ran an analysis of what the temperature would’ve been if we ignored the protocol (treating HTTP/HTTPS as the same). While slightly lower, that temperature was still a scorching 96.6°F.

Is it possible that Wikipedia moving to HTTPS also made the site eligible for a rankings boost from previous algorithm updates, thus disrupting page 1 without any code changes on Google’s end? Yes, it is possible – even a relatively small rankings boost for Wikipedia from the original HTTPS algorithm update could have a broad impact.

The Third Clue: Google?

So far, Google has only said that this was not a Panda update. There have been rumors that the HTTPS update would get a boost, as recently as SMX Advanced earlier this month, but no timeline was given for when that might happen.

Is it possible that Wikipedia’s publicly announced switch finally gave Google the confidence to boost the HTTPS signal? Again, yes, it’s possible, but we can only speculate at this point.

My gut feeling is that this was more than just a waking giant, even as powerful of a SERP force as Wikipedia has become. We should know more as their HTTPS roll-out continues and their index settles down. In the meantime, I think we can expect Google to become increasingly serious about HTTPS, even if what we saw yesterday turns out not to have been an algorithm update.

In the meantime, I’m going to melodramatically name this “The Colossus Update” because, well, it sounds cool. If this indeed was an algorithm update, I’m sure Google would prefer something sensible, like “HTTPS Update 2” or “Securageddon” (sorry, Gary).

Update (June 18)

Gary Illyes from Google said that he’s not aware of an HTTPS update (via Twitter):

No comment on other updates, or the potential impact of a Wikipedia change. I feel strongly that there is an HTTPS connection in the data, but as I said – that doesn’t necessarily mean the algorithm changed.

Update (June 19)

The rise in total HTTPS URLs has continued for the past two days:

Interestingly, though, MozCast temps have been fairly normal in those past two days. So, I dug into how the HTTPS increase looks if we don’t count Wikipedia URLs:

Long story short – virtually the entire HTTPS increase in our data set was due to Wikipedia’s update. Although, Wikipedia’s movement did likely cause SERP disruptions, it looks like this is not the explanation (or, at least, the full explanation) for what happened on Tuesday.


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Continue reading →