Before a pitch I had recently, I created a little mindmap categorizing the channels I tend to use. I noticed two things: the free Mac app Mindnode makes me look like a rockstar, and I tend to use a whole lot of channels.
Now, my little mindmap contains both channels, and in some cases payment variants for channels. I tend to see CPM and CPA banner advertising as different beasts altogether, for example. I mean, they are used for different purposes. (Right?)
I also showed this document to a group of very talented online developers and communicators in another forum, and quickly got the very insightful question “generating online traffic to what?”. Considering my wide definition of SEO (elevator version: search optimizing is not limited to the own websites’ visibility, but the company’s visibility in SERPS, in essence meaning Wikipedia, universal search, etc. should be included in SEO projects) I felt dumbfounded when I heard myself answer “well, to the corporate website”. This is, of course, wrong. Driving traffic online should absolutely not solely focus on driving traffic to the corporate website. For example, I think that people looking for imagery of new GM automobiles will be happier reaching GM’s Flickr page than they would be reaching the image bank on GM.com.
So - generating online traffic, you say? Yes! In volumes! To what, you ask? To you, your brand, your message - wherever that may be.
For a PDF version of the above image, please click here. I will keep it up to date and present all updates here.
David
This great service allows, as you probably already know, complete transparency into the pageviews of all Wikipedia articles.
Note the great increase in activity on the “darknet” page. Same with the page dealing with the law itself and “Pretty Good Privacy“.
Oh, and just for reference: Swedes have, according to the “Wikipedia Statistics Principle” (I coined it!) lost touch with other equally important (sarcasm? Yes!!) happenings, such as the Darfur Crisis, AIDS, the Sichuan Earthquake and the Middle East Conflict.
David
One of the most central targets of the Swedish public’s outrage in regards to the FRA law is a politician named Fredrick Federley. First of all, I think he is a good guy, so this post will be tainted with that bias.
Fredrick has continually been a good communicator. He manages and runs with decent frequency blogs where he discusses why and how he does what he does.
On one of his blogs, the one which seems to be the most closely connected to the politician Fredrick, he in the last minute tried to motivate why he flip-flopped (US political campaigns coin the best phrases) on the FRA-law.
I see that he did a couple of mistakes. Firstly, he wrote an exceedingly long post. I understand that he wants to cover all the angles, but they will not be read. They will be skipped. (When, oh when, will these long blog posters choose to include a neat bullet point summary, like CNN.com does in all their articles? I mean, come on: the growth of Twitter if anything makes it clear that short and to the point is the way to communicate.)
Anyhow, his post has resulted in an absolute flood of comments. In excess of 500, last time I checked. As I said, I support the guy - but I seem to be the only one. These comments are vicious attacks on him and his choice. Which can be understood, right? People are upset and disappointed. Â Any politician who actually does something should expect this type of reaction now and then. Particularly a politician who has opened and encouraged a discussion in such a democratized forum as an own blog with commenting represents.
So, what does my dear Fredrick do?
Nothing. He is silent. More comments are added by the minute. And he sits idly by.
This is probably the absolutely most destructive action possible on his part, and he MUST handle it NOW.
How? Easy: gather friends, print out all the comments. Summarize all main points of questioning, and write responses. Publish them all (with a summary, of course) and start communicating again.
I have said this to all my clients: “if you open the channel, you must use the channel. If you start and then stop, you will cause more harm than not having the channel in place at all”.
I bet you Mr. Federley today wishes he never started blogging.
David
And like that, it was done.
Strange things have happened during this process. Politicians have been bullied for saying that they are against the law, and smart people have resorted to cheap vulgarities in their arguing.
Exciting, for sure.
The fallout? For the vast majority of us, nothing at all. Sure, people will be mad for a while. When elections show up in 2 years, this will be one of the hundreds of issues discussed. But all things considered, I predict that this rising of the people will simply wither into nothingness with time. Just like everything else.
David
This will be short.
There is great debate in Sweden about something called the “FRA Law”, which basically gives a semi-civilian military agency the right (and ability) to scan all electronic communication to and from the country. In essence, all email will be read. All websites I visit will be logged. All activity I partake in online will be traced.
Horrible, right? The supporters claim that this is law will give the government the ability to track down potential terrorists, organized crime, and advanced cyber-threats. Still horrible?
Think of other similar integrity infractions. Public video surveillance, for example. Infraction? Sure. We are all filmed, basically all the time. Is my personal life worse because of it? Absolutely not. Has anything good come from it? Sure - think of the quick resolution to the finding of the responsible parties of the London bombings, for example.
That is why I fully and wholly support the FRA law. I am one of the few, it would seem, but I stand firm. My life will not be compromised. My emails and surfing habits are not interesting enough.
And I will, to the end of time, support all types of legal and otherwise actions which decrease the probability of horrible things happening.
To me, it is as simple as that.
David
Recent Comments