Last month Google announced dramatic changes that seem to have fallen below the radar for many businesses.

In a nutshell, they will no longer be reporting on the organic keywords used by anyone logged into their Google accounts.

So if, for example, you are logged into your Gmail account, carry out a search on Google and click one of the organic results, the keyword you searched for will not be reported in the website’s Analytics account. It will simply be classed as (not provided).

As Google put it:

“We hope that today’s move to increase the privacy and security of your web searches is only the next step in a broader industry effort to employ SSL encryption more widely and effectively.”

This raises a number of questions.

1 – Why does this only apply to organic search results? If Google are genuinely taking a stance on protecting privacy, why not apply the same rule to Google AdWords?

The cynic might assume that Google can’t afford to upset their paying advertisers, but have no qualms about doing so to their free Analytics users.

I might class myself as a cynic.

2 – This all stems from Google’s recent move to force logged-in users to the secure version of Google. So why not force all Google users to their secure server? SSL became the default setting in Gmail almost two years ago.

3 – The big question:  How big a problem is this?

The scale of the problem will depend on the people you’re trying to target. We’ve been looking at some of our client’s Analytics accounts, and have seen that the number of affected organic searches seem to average around 10-12%. Sometimes considerably higher.

The above screenshot shows a sample of data from our blog. Over 16% of the organic keywords used to find our content are not being reported.

If we’re lucky, the 16% will consist of a representative sample across the board.

If we’re unlucky, it might contain some incredibly useful data that is now beyond our reach.

By taking away such a large sample, our data has to all intents and purposes been polluted.

To see how much of your data you’re losing right now, go into your Analytics account and choose TRAFFIC SOURCES, Sources, Search, Organic.

You will then probably see (not provided) in the top ten keywords.

If not, you can count yourself lucky – for now at least.

Share and Enjoy

One of the recurring questions from last weekend’s European Software Conference was how to draw the line between legitimate and dangerous SEO.

Interestingly a common pattern tends to emerge.

Companies engaged in legitimate SEO are often concerned that their efforts may land them in trouble, resulting in possible bans or a dramatic drop in rankings and traffic.

Companies engaged in questionable, black-hat or downright illegal SEO tactics often seem to think that they’re immune from such penalties. They think that they’re smarter than Google and won’t be caught. At least until they watch their Google traffic dry up overnight.

As a rule of thumb, Google are usually reasonable.

I like to say that if you could sit in a room with a representative from Google and answer all of their questions with absolute honesty, and without the fear that they might spot that page or technique on your website, then chances are you’re not going to get in trouble with them.

If you could answer every variation of “…why did you setup that page in that way?” with an honest and reasonable answer, then you’re probably in the clear.

If, on the other hand, the honest answer would be that you were trying to boost your traffic from the search engines, then you may have a problem.

And if the only honest answer would be that you’re trying to trick Google, then your day of reckoning will most certainly occur at some point.

Good SEO is about making sure that people looking for what you sell find it. Without having to lie to Google.

Share and Enjoy

Good marketing is about clear communication. When did it become the norm to use half-truths and lies in marketing? When did this become acceptable?

I was looking through a recent print issue of PC Pro magazine and saw the following ad for a monitor:

A monitor that lets me do more than ever before? I know there’s a play on words, but is this honest?

Jason Cohen shared a fascinating insight into honesty in business at the recent Business of Software Conference in Boston, and it made me think.

The About Us page on our web site told no lies. But it stretched the truth a little.

Note the problem with the whole honesty thing: it’s addictive. Let me rewrite the above.

The About Us page on our web site told no actual lies. But it stretched the truth considerably.

We reworked it.

When the truth is stretched, it loses clarity, meaning and credibility. And it’s harder to read.

Honesty is better for the soul, better for your business and helps you sleep at night.

Share and Enjoy

Three ways to sell more software (or anything else). They’re all different flavours of the same idea, but with different degrees of complexity.

B-A test: the basic-but-better-than-nothing option.

Take an important page that gets a healthy volume of traffic.

Look at the last 7, 14, 21 or 28 days of data (see the points below) and note the basic page performance indicators. Eg: bounce rates, exit rates, time spent etc.

Create a new version of the page – but make it noticeably different.

Changing “Download our trial!” to “Download our trial!!” won’t blow your visitors or your results away.

Let the new page work for 7, 14, 21 or 28 days and compare before with after. Hence the B-A name.

One version of the page will almost certainly out-perform the other.

Use it and test it further.

Split test: the intermediate-and-feeling-good option.

Take an important page that gets a healthy volume of traffic.

Either create a script that divides traffic to one or more variations, or use a service (see below) that makes life easier.

Compare the various versions.

One version of the page will almost certainly out-perform the other.

Use it and test it further.

Multivariate test: the expert-and-don’t-I-know-it option.

The same as above, but instead of pages you create variations of individual content. Eg: different headlines, texts, buttons, offers etc.

These are displayed in conjunction with each other.

It’s more complicated to understand and easier to misinterpret, but in the right hands can produce better results.

Points that apply to all of the above.

- Only work in full units of 7 days. Every website demonstrates a clear seven day trend, so don’t contaminate the data by looking at mixed samples.

- Only compare like-with-like data as far as possible. A write-up on Hacker News will boost your traffic but pollute your data.

- You might be able to write your own system for the tests, but why reinvent the wheel? Services like Visual Website Optimizer, Optimizely or even Google Website Optimizer are easy to setup, use and understand.

- Anything is better than nothing. We’ve run hundreds of split and multivariate tests for our clients, and if I remember correctly I’ve only ever seen two experiments that didn’t result in an improvement.

Do it today – you can be up and running in less than 20 minutes.

Share and Enjoy

Last week I was at the incredible Business of Software Conference.

The quality of the speakers and attendees were once again unlike anything I have ever come across before. Aside from last year’s conference.

In fact I only have one complaint: awesome.

At risk of sounding older and more set in my ways than I am, I can’t even begin to count how many times I heard the word awesome.

I know that I’m from a country that use language differently – we tend to be more correct * – and I understand that there are different linguistic trends in what’s popular, cool and hip. None of which apply to me.

The problem with awesome is that the more it’s used the less impact it has.

Awesome isn’t synonymous with great, nice, cool, good, very good. really good or impressive.

It means something else entirely.

Two problems with using gratuitous language.

The first problem is that most of us automatically block-out and ignore superfluous words. They have as much impact as a 640×80 banner in your web browser.

The second problem affects people who genuinely do sell (for example) quality goods.

They need to find a way to communicate this, without using the bastardised language of popular choice.

A search on istockphoto for awesome produces hundreds images of rock climbing, aeroplanes, paragliding, a bridge, lighthouse, body builder, shopping, pineapple, sunset, photographer, news, alpine trail, tiger, businesswoman, cake, laser tag warriors, waterfall, elegance, clouds, flowers, mosque, rock…. you get the idea.

Language sells. You can do better than awesome.

* – I’m British. I’m supposed to be sarcastic and arrogant.

Share and Enjoy