Alliance Blog Reviews » microsoft

Bing Needs to Say Something Different

admin — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:18:40 +0000

If you are easily the number 3 horse in a three horse race does it do you any good to start saying negative things about how you race? Probably not. In fact, it’s probably better for you to act a little more confident, train a little harder and do something that will move you out of the basement. This horse I am referring to is Microsoft’s Bing. One of the ways that they have decided to move up in the race is to ingest the number 2 horse (Yahoo), which is a decent play but the final product is still very far off. In the meantime it’s best not be saying the following in a Bing forums thread as reported by Search Engine Roundtable , especially if you are Program Manager at Bing Webmaster Center, Brett Yount It is well known in the industry that MSNbot is fairly slow. Ok, maybe it is well known to the industry insider but the rest of the world may not have that level of understanding. When you say something like that though now they can and not much good can come from that kind of ‘exposure’. Bing has had a pretty quiet start to the new year thus far. With all of the talk of mobile devices and mobile ad platforms and things of the future maybe that warrants Bing being left out of the conversation? Whatever the reason, maybe the better way to make the news is to be reporting on upgrades and improvements like the number one horse has been doing for the past three plus months. Ooops, I forgot. Steve Ballmer was busy promoting Bing at CES this week with inspiring words of innovation like these which I found in Forbes “More than ever we are delivering the experiences that people want, where they want them, wherever they are,” Ballmer said in his second-ever keynote speech at the Consumer Electronics Show on Wednesday night. “And of course we Bing we Bing we Bing we Bing Bing Bing all the time, at least in my world.” I don’t know about you but this kind of ‘activity’ isn’t exactly inspiring me to confidence that Bing may never be more than a distant second with its Bingahoo offering to Google for a very long time. Your thoughts?

See the original post:
Bing Needs to Say Something Different

The 10 Most Popular Marketing Pilgrim Posts of 2009

cgseo — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:49:10 +0000

I trust you had a great Christmas! As our minds dream of how fantastic 2010 will be, it’s time to look back at the hot topics of 2009. Here are Marketing Pilgrim’s top ten most read posts in 2009. Bing.com; Is it Worth Switching from Google? – A home run for Microsoft? While Bing certainly deserves credit for being the first serious challenger to Google, it didn’t hurt that 2009 was the year that Microsoft stepped-up its media outreach to us. Social Media Monitoring Tools: 26 Free Online Reputation Tools – This post was written in 2007 and has been in our top five for the past 3 years! Social Media Marketing Beginner’s Guide – A great guest article by Jon Rognerud and it still stands-up as a great primer for social media marketing. 8 Essential Free Social Media Monitoring Tools – A smart blogger knows not to simply update a popular post. Instead, you think of ways to expand on it–with a new post! This post from December 2008, added 8 more great monitoring tools for reputation monitoring. 200+ Internet Marketing Gurus on Twitter – Back before there Twitter Lists were just a twinkle in the eye of Twitter’s founders, Brian Chappell authored the definitive list of marketers on Twitter. If we hadn’t introduced a policy to close comments on older posts, I believe this one would have easily broken 1,000 comments by now! 21 of the Best WordPress Plugins for New Blogs – Just a little over a year ago, I spilled the beans on the plugins that power Marketing Pilgrim. Look for a new, updated list, in the New Year! Google Offers Cheap Online File Storage With a Catch – How in the world did this benign looking post from 2007 make it into our top ten list of 2009? Good keywords! The Five Pillars of Social Media Marketing – My good friend Ben Wills authored this post in 2006–which at the time was groundbreaking. In fact, I blatantly–with his permission–used it to frame an entire chapter of Radically Transparent! Google Reputation Management: Fix Your Google Reputation & Remove Negative Results – Do you get the feeling that we have a good grasp of reputation management issues? This post is over 2 years old, but, aside from the Google Pages reference, is still remarkably relevant. Facebook Really Does Make Mone y – When it comes to Facebook, I tend to defer to Jordan’s critical eye. She never fails to deliver! Some observations: As of today, Marketing Pilgrim consists of 6,792 (make that 6,793 with this one) posts and more than 45,000 comments! That’s a lot of words! Traffic was up 17.54% in 2009 compared to 2008. Not a bad growth rate! Referrals from Twitter were up 120%!!! Referrals from Yahoo were down 13%. Our own URL shortener– Gri.ms –let us track the origination of around 10,000 visitors! We know where you live! Want to see previous years’ top posts? Check out 2006 , 2007 and 2008 .

Here is the original post:
The 10 Most Popular Marketing Pilgrim Posts of 2009

Search Neutrality?

cgseo — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:02:44 +0000

As expected it looks like this week may be a bit light in the news department. That’s fine. Everyone needs a break from time to time. So as I am looking around this morning I come across an op-ed piece in the New York Times that is written by Adam Raff, a co-founder of Foundem, an Internet technology company. From what I can gather, Mr. Raff is upset that his site was banned from Google’s index. There is no explanation as to why this happened so I am not going to assume anything although an article from eConsultancy looks at his plight and we get some insight as to why Google is so ‘mean’ to him. As a result, Mr. Raff contends that Google simply is too powerful and that the government should be considering a ‘search neutrality’ platform that falls in line with the ‘net neutrality’ platform. Here is a bit of his concern: Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance. I had to shake my head that this was actually put in print but I kept reading. I bumped into more ‘complaints’. Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning. I guess my question is “What is a company supposed to do in that situation”? Why should anyone in the free market be obligated to being relegated to a ‘public service’ status just because they do something better than most? I admit that it seems a bit creepy at times to see just how far reaching Google is with regard to services. I also believe that as they get bigger there are likely to be many vulnerabilities that will be discovered and exploited as the free market has seen in the past with seemingly invincible powers like IBM and Microsoft. It just happens. There’s a lot more to this op-whine piece that I am surprised the Times even allowed to see the light of day. Without search neutrality rules to constrain Google’s competitive advantage, we may be heading toward a bleakly uniform world of Google Everything — Google Travel, Google Finance, Google Insurance, Google Real Estate, Google Telecoms and, of course, Google Books. Some will argue that Google is itself so innovative that we needn’t worry. But the company isn’t as innovative as it is regularly given credit for. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android and many other Google products are all based on technology that Google has acquired rather than invented. Ask Cisco if they ‘invented’ everything they own. The folks who make Flip cameras are thrilled that Cisco likes to buy good ideas. Interestingly enough, Mr. Raff actually shows that Google PROVIDES market opportunity for the little guy. There are small companies out there that make good things that Google could buy thus making the companies that were innovative enough to be recognized successful beyond what was likely to happen on their own. Maybe Mr. Raff needs to think about making something worthy of being purchased by Google rather than worming his way into the media to complain about his issues. I do have a solution for Mr. Raff. If there is this need for an impartial search engine (which is a ridiculous concept because in order for anything to be ‘ranked’ in numerical order there needs to be some guidelines thus implied ‘partiality’) that is based solely on merit (Whose definition of merit? Someone has to be judge and jury here, right?) and relevance (as defined by whom?) why not let the government build its own search engine? Why put this constraint on the private sector? Our current situation here in the US is that the government wants to be knee deep in everything so why not let them create the engine ‘for the people and by the people’ then let the people decide? Are there any Googlers out there who would like to address this kind of thinking? As for Marketing Pilgrim readers how do you really feel about Google’s place in the market? Is there any validity to this argument? Is Google’s dominance something to be concerned about or just accepted? Is there a real threat of this becoming a Google world? What if that did happen? Is there any validity to the concept of ’search neutrality’? Weigh in please. I have a better idea. Would someone please make some news so we can move on to other things?

Visit link:
Search Neutrality?

Google to Acquire DocVerse

admin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:03:41 +0000

According to TechCrunch sources , Google is nearing the final stages of an agreement to acquire DocVerse , real-time Microsoft Office collaboration software company founded in 2007. Sources say the purchase price is $25M. The acquisition seems to make sense as Google and Microsoft square off for battle . The DocVerse website bears the title tag “Make Word, PowerPoint and Excel Work Like Google Docs.” Although Google Docs can already import Word, PowerPoint and Excel files, and already offers the real-time (or pretty close) collaboration, they could certainly improve, especially in the file conversion area. However, we can’t tell yet whether this will be enough as a competitor to Microsoft Office. Microsoft already has a stripped-down, cloud-based version of Word, PowerPoint, Excel and OneNote in testing with some Windows Live SkyDrive users, with public rollout to come in the next six months. Although the initial version of Word didn’t have real time collaboration, Excel did, and they hope to add more collaborative features in 2010. (And the online apps integrate with their offline counterparts, updating off- and online versions simultaneously.) On the other hand, as TechCrunch points out, this purchase will give Google Docs a direct connection to Microsoft Office documents. This could also become a feature for Google Wave, although Google recent bought a company (Appjet) with similar software (EtherPad), which they may integrate with Wave. They’ve already opened up the software code. What do you think? If the deal goes through, how will Google use DocVerse? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

See the original post:
Google to Acquire DocVerse

Twitter Profitable in 2009?

cgseo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:43:56 +0000

OK, I have learned my lesson. I am going to tell you right out of the gate that when I read this piece of information about Twitter turning a profit in 2009 I was a bit skeptical. Now, the second part of this is that the source, BusinessWeek, is well, BusinessWeek so I tend to pay attention a bit more. Well, the times they are a changin’ for sure because the distinction between the venerable BusinessWeek and the rest of the Internet space may be less noticeable than before. As I went through the article I read the following In October, Twitter said it had struck multiyear arrangements that make users’ short blog postings available on Google.com and on Bing, which is run by Microsoft. Those agreements carry sufficient value to help Twitter achieve a small profit for 2009, say two people familiar with the company’s finances , who asked to remain anonymous because Twitter’s books are not a matter of public record. I added the italics because I now immediately place this story in the category of rumor. I suspect that if Twitter wants people to know that it turned a profit, no matter how big or small, they will let us know. Do I think they actually did turn a profit? I honestly don’t know because I don’t do their accounting and I haven’t spoken to ‘sources’ who think that leaking corporate data is cool. Now, of course, let’s not discount the possibility that Twitter allowed the leaks but now we are getting into silly territory. What this looks like though is that BusinessWeek is starting to sound more like the tech blogs and new world media that it has fought against. Verify facts with the company being covered? Nope. Two anonymous insiders will do because the story is “hot”. Oh boy. The one thing that is certain is that the biggest revenue generator (maybe only?) are the deals that were struck with Google and Microsoft for the Twitter feeds to be indexed in the search engines. These are rumored to be in the $25 million range with $15 million from Google and $10 million from Microsoft. If these numbers are indeed accurate I have to wonder what the $5 million difference is since the two companies are essentially getting the same data. Your speculation is welcome in the comments section here, as always. Another part of the ‘information’ that was ‘leaked’ to BW was the fact that Twitter has been cutting expenses and has now been left with people being the bulk of the expense to run the service. The company used to pay a lot of money to telecommunications companies for distributing billions of text messages over wireless networks. Twitter users can send and receive messages over both its Web service and text messages. Now that Twitter has become so popular, it has gained bargaining power with telecom companies and has managed to renegotiate so many deals with carriers that the company pays far less for the services. With 105 employees and estimates placing the needed money to run the operation at $25 million per year either those 105 people are making some nice coin or they have deals that are starting to look like being a pre-IPO Google employee. Either way, good for them. So as always is the tendency when looking at Twitter we must try to figure out just what will happen in the future to make more money through the widely used service. The BusinessWeek article tells us Over the last year, however, executives have started to talk about the various ways the company has been exploring to generate revenue. In addition to the search deals, Twitter plans an advertising program for early next year. The company also will charge for commercial Twitter accounts that would let businesses analyze tweet traffic. Get ready for 2010 to be a big year for Twitter as the world watches how they integrate advertising into the Tweet stream. Also, if you are a company you better make a little budget room for whatever commercial account services become available. Nothing was ‘leaked’ about how much that would cost so your guess is as good as ours or BusinessWeek’s or some anonymous guesser source.

See the article here:
Twitter Profitable in 2009?

TwiTip Call For More Content!

cgseo — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:41:13 +0000

Okay, so hopefully everyone’s gotten used to the new design and layout around here by now! Honestly, we’re really loving it. We did “tone down” the graph paper background a bit, after some feedback from readers that said it was a bit too dizzying. Hope everyone agrees that things look great here now! So this post is to outline the newest way we’re accepting articles from you. A few things have changed, and there have been a few submissions that don’t quite seem to be working properly, so I wanted to put this out there to help out some. First and foremost, if you’d like to submit an article for TwiTip (and see your face “up in lights” on our sidebar and on the post itself) then you need to submit it here: Add A Tip . We’ve got a whole new format now that I think is pretty rockin’. Before, you’d email me your “pitch” and then I’d send you the guidelines, and then you’d write it and submit back. Then I’d have to put the post into the back end, format it (because typically posts would be sent written in Microsoft Word, and that puts really icky code into WordPress), and then post it. Now, you simply go to the form, fill out the fields, and submit! I get notification, and if the post is approved, I do a little font formatting and all is well! The coolest part, is that if you know basic HTML, you can submit your post in HTML. Or you can write it in your own blog editor, and copy the HTML version and paste that in there. That saves even more time, because then all the formatting is done, and I can just read and publish. The whole point of setting up this form this way was so that we could get more content in from you guys, and get it published more quickly than before. So far, it’s been a great tool to have here on the site, and you can consider this the official “Open for Business” invite to submit all your great Twitter related posts! Just keep in mind a few basic things: It cannot be a post you’ve already published elsewhere. We want original content that’s only ever going to appear here. You also shouldn’t plan on, or allow others to publish it on any other site after the fact. Also, don’t submit links to your site, or to your already published post, please. If you have images you want to include, send them to Lara [at] TwiTip [dot] com with the title of your post so I know which one to include it with. The form we’ve got is fantastic, but it doesn’t have image upload capability at the moment. Please make them decent posts. I’ve had a few come through that are basically a paragraph or two that talks about some random Twitter tool no one’s ever heard of (or would care to), or are very basic “6 Reasons To Use Twitter” type things… we’ve got enough of those! Be original and creative. Check through the site to see if we’ve written about, or posted the same type of article before. (If I get another post about HootSuite , I think I’ll scream! ) So there you have it. We’d love some fresh, new tips and posts from you, our dear readers! Oh, and if you have a Twitter related question, feel free to put that in the form as well, and we’ll post it up so other readers can have a chance to help you out! Looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with! © 2008 TwiTip Twitter Tips . TwiTip Call For More Content!

See the original post here:
TwiTip Call For More Content!

Cup of Joe: The Seeds of Google Destruction Are Within

cgseo — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:01:59 +0000

Last week I talked a bit about experience marketing. At the end of the post I linked to a video of a talk given by economist Joseph Pine . In Pine’s talk he briefly articulates a transformation from an agrarian economy to what we now know as an “experience economy”. Pine tells us that goods and services have become commodities, and experiences have become the growing consumer demand. It’s the same reason that so many people will pay $4.00 for a cup of coffee – the experience of connecting with a trusted brand is important to them. Pine then tells us that not all experiences are equally sought after, the dominant experience within the consumer conscious is authenticity. …authenticity is therefore becoming the new consumer sensibility — the buying criteria by which consumers are choosing who are they going to buy from, and what they’re going to buy. Authenticity is responsible for fueling the independent music and art industries. It’s the reason that original concepts , that would have been written off as foolish 10 years ago, are changing the way we communicate. And it’s the same reason why Google has grown in popularity over its competitors. But Pine then fills us in on a little secret: There’s no such thing as true authenticity. This is because every experience is created by external stimuli and thus our experiences are only as authentic as they are rendered to be. In the end it is the illusion of authenticity that drives consumers to engage. To quote Rae Hoffman , “Good spam never looks like spam.” As marketers and business owners it is our job to render authenticity. If we fail at doing so, we will lose the consumer’s trust and risk being “fake”! OK, so what’s your point Joe? Last week, Google announced a gamut of changes that they will start to implement. The most significant of these changes is default personalized search . Around the same time, Google’s CEO made some pretty alarming comments regarding privacy concerns. In short, Google now collects all sorts of data about its users and then customizes its search results and other services to reflect each users unique behavior. It collects the user’s location, the web sites that they have visited, and various other pieces of data. All of this is done with relatively no consent from the user and without notifying them. It is clear that Google’s mission statement that now reads “…organize the world’s information…” should read “… exploit the world’s information…”. All of these changes reflect a continuing trend at Google to create a highly sophisticated personalized platform that not only produces the best results but also the best ads. This disregard of user privacy completely goes against the feel good, do good image that Google has worked hard to create. As a result Google is killing its rendered version of authenticity. Pine gives us three tips to staying authentic: One, don’t say you’re authentic unless you really are authentic. Two, it’s easier to be authentic if you don’t say you’re authentic. And three, if you say you’re authentic, you better be authentic. A large part of being authentic is staying true to yourself. Which is why classifieds giant Craigslist is fighting eBay with everything they have to retain a majority of seats on their own board. For them, running the company they founded the way they always have, is that important to them. Which is the same line of thought that ultimately lost Jerry Yang his job as the CEO of Yahoo. Yang refused to sell out in the beginning to Microsoft because he believed in his company, he believed in staying true to his ideals. At the end of the day it won’t matter who has the better search engine. If Google loses the trust of its users and cannot retain authenticity, Bing, will be more than happy to step up to the challenge of earning that trust and building its own brand of authenticity.

See original here:
Cup of Joe: The Seeds of Google Destruction Are Within

There’s Something about Microsoft Users?

admin — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:49:18 +0000

New data from Chitika indicate that Microsoft users—both browser and operating system— click on online advertisements more often than other users. And considering what a significant portion of the market those segments constitute, that’s pretty dang good news. From a sample of over 130 million impressions, Chitika saw a click-through rate of 1.05% from Internet Explorer users, versus 0.66% from Firefox users, 0.50% from Safari users and 0.21% from Chrome users. Similarly, Windows users outclick their Mac and Linux counterparts, 0.92% to 0.52% to 0.46%, respectively. According to TechCrunch, even Bing has higher click-through rates than other search engines. So why is this large audience clicking so much? Are they “gullible,” as TechCrunch asks, not savvy enough to switch browsers or recognize an ad, or simply more engaged? For whatever reason, this large group of the market certainly constitutes a valuable segment for marketers. What do you think? Why do Microsoft users click more?

Ow! Ow! Google Brain Freeze!

cgseo — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:13:28 +0000

Ow, brain freeze! Brain freeze! You know that sensation. It usually accompanies the consumption of too much of a good thing, such as ice cream, milkshakes, or…Google updates?!? Yeah, apparently we’re at that time of the year when Google initiates its own “brain” freeze–effectively shutting down innovation until the New Year. Writes TechCrunch … …people at Google are still working, but apparently Google has a “code freeze” policy that goes in place sometime in December. If you don’t get your product/service out the door by then, it gets pushed til when the freeze is lifted, likely sometime in the new year. A few Googlers confirmed this policy off-the-record, but all seemed concerned about publicly acknowledging it. It certainly makes sense–based on the recent flurry of new Google updates–but I’m not entirely convinced that we won’t see any updates over the next 4 weeks. All it would take is some big announcement from Microsoft, and Google will be just a matter of hours behind it–with its own announcement. You can take that to the bank!

Continue reading here:
Ow! Ow! Google Brain Freeze!

Microsoft and Yahoo Seal the Deal

cgseo — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:35:05 +0000

Friday brought Microsoft and Yahoo one step closer to the search deal they announced in July . The terms of the deal received final approval from two very important groups— Microsoft and Yahoo . Although the two were supposed to have the details hammered out by late October, they took a few extra weeks to refine their agreement. This agreement still needs regulatory approval, and such agencies as the US Department of Justice are on the record as saying they will scrutinize the deal closely . Meanwhile, the deal isn’t projected to warrant much concern from the European Commission —but the DOJ is probably the bigger concern. Not only are both companies headquartered in the US, but also scrutiny from the Department of Justice—and threats of anti-trust action—ultimately killed a search ad deal between Yahoo and Google last year—will the Bingahoo deal suffer the same fate? Should the DOJ treat Microsoft and Yahoo differently since they’re not the dominant search engine, or would that be unfair? Is the Yahoo-Microsoft deal the lesser of two evils, and the only chance to unseat Google in the near future? Or does the deal merit more scrutiny from the DoJ? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read the original post:
Microsoft and Yahoo Seal the Deal