When launching a new website or blog, you have a variety of outlets to market yourself. The possibilities are endless, but there are common strategies to successfully promote yourself online.  You can add yourself to directories, submit your URL to search engines, start a Pay Per Click (PPC) campaign, engage in affiliate marketing, or hire an seo company; there are many online resources to help boost your web real estate.

If you are looking to get an immediate influx of visitors, rss subscriptions or feedback from people online, one of the most efficient methods is through social media networks.  In this post I will be comparing the two of the most popular Social Bookmarking Sites on the web to date: Digg.com and StumbleUpon.com, and analyze the quality of their visitors.  Both networks have become extremely popular in the last 3 years with an estimated 2.7 million registered users on Digg.com and 5 millon registered users on StumbleUpon.com.

Here at Best Rank we’ve released several stories that have become popular on Digg and StumbleUpon.  In this post I’ve included analytic statistics to show you the difference in user characteristics across both social networks.  The following traffic estimations vary for each popular story, and are dependent on the amount of diggs, time on Digg.com’s front page and quality of article.

Below is a screenshot of one our site’s analytics data, showing a traffic spike, from an article hitting the Digg front page.

Digg Positives

• Drive 1,000 – 50,000+ unique referrals within 1 week.
• 2.7 million registered users

Digg Negatives

• Average time on site was only 8 seconds per visit.
• Users only browsed 1.06 pages per visit.
• Bounce rate was very high at 96.76%.
• If you’re story doesn’t become popular relatively soon (around 24 hours) after submission, chances are that your story will never see large traffic volumes.

Below is a screenshot of an article that hit the Buzz.StumbleUpon.com section of StumbleUpon.

StumbleUpon Positives:

• Drive 1,000 – 30,000+ unique referrals within 1 week.
• Inbound traffic was more spread out than Digg: not all in one day.
• Average time on site is higher at 1:36 seconds per visit.
• Users read 1.73 pages per visit.
• Bounce rate was lower than Digg’s at 39.41%.
• 5 millon registered users
• If your story never hits the “buzz” section, the article can still become popular and receive large amounts of traffic if users begin to “review” or “thumb up” your content.

StumbleUpon Negatives

• Traffic is fairly generic and not as themed or targeted as places like Digg who seem to revolve around tech and politics.

Conclusion

Digg has been known to send a substantially higher number of visitors in a shorter amount of time per popular story than StumbleUpon, while StumbleUpon’s traffic seems to have a longer attention span than Digg’s.  Recent studies have also shown that the traffic on Digg.com has been steadily decreasing per popular story.  As seen in the screenshot above, StumbleUpon has a higher average time on site, higher number of pages visited per user, and lower bounce rate: these factors point to the conclusion that the quality of traffic can be considered superior on StumbleUpon vs Digg, especially if you’re looking to help build your brand.  As a search marketing consultant I would recommend building your profile on StumbleUpon just as much, if not more so, than Digg because of the potential for higher quality traffic.

 Loading …

Unless you’re over 90 years old, live in a nudist colony on a remote island, or have been in a coma for the past 10 years, you know that Google is an internet giant. Google processes over 20 petabytes and handles somewhere around 250 million searches daily (there isn’t really a way to get an exact number). With nearly 70% of all searches being conducted using Google, the California-based web company has effectively put a stranglehold on internet search results. Serving up search results, however, is just the tip of the ice berg in examining how far Google’s reach extends throughout the web.

As of March 2008, Google has acquired a total of 51 companies. These acquisitions include high-profile companies like AOL, YouTube, and DoubleCLick, which Google purchased for $3.1 billion. Google also owns well over 500 domain names, with that number growing everyday.

Aside from the numbers, Google’s internet reach is exemplified by the wide array of products and services they offer. From web applications to business solutions to advertising networks, Google has positioned itself into as many profitable niches as possible. Today, the list of products and services offered by Google includes Gmail, Google News, Google Product Search, Google Goups, Google Maps, Google Video, Google Checkout, Google Apps, Google Earth, and Google Labs, just to name a few.

Perhaps the most well-know (and most profitable) Google service is Adwords, which allows advertisers on the web to reach a highly-targeted segment of potential customers at a fraction of traditional media costs.

Because of it’s affordability and ease of use, thousands of business owners and webmasters have chosen to make Adwords their main advertising vehicle. Google has also established an ad-serving network, called Adsense, in which website owners can allow other Adwords ads to be shown on their site. Because of the widespread use of Adwords, it is not uncommon for a website owner to make a living entirely from Adsense revenue.

The widespread use of search engines, and specifically Google, has also given rise to an entire industry dedicated to improving a website’s search rankings. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) has become less a commodity and more a necessity for businesses looking to establish their presence on the web. A major goal of SEO companies is to increase the rankings of a client’s website for certain keywords. Because Google is the most widely used search engine on the web, increasing organic exposure on Google has become a main focus of the search engine optimization industry.

It isn’t hard to see that Google is a major force on the internet landscape. When your company name becomes a verb (”Google” was added to Webster’s Dictionary in 2006), you must be doing something right. And they show no signs of stopping. Google has recently begun to expand into television and radio advertising. They have also been developing mobile services software called Android, which is an open platform allowing users of any cell phone type to access a range of features including the web, messaging, storage, and media support.

Any way you look at it, Google’s influence on the web is far reaching to say the least. With growth and revenue continuing to increase, that influence is only going to become greater.

Since the start of Google’s Adwords program, the company never provided much hard data when it came to search volume numbers - only providing relative search volume comparisons between keywords - up until now. Go on, see how many searches are being conducted for your favorite search term (on Google)… whatever they may be!

Why did Google release search volume numbers?

As more and more companies get better at tracking and reporting search volume numbers and user behavior (compete.com, keyworddiscovery.com) Google realizes that edging in on those markets’ value will help pull people ever closer to the “Google” brand. I mean, Google has the actual search numbers for the lion’s share of the market and wants to capture more mindshare, so what better way to keep us loyal? What’s interesting is that they have not yet updated their Keyword Traffic Estimator Tool to reflect actual search volume numbers.

But what does this mean?

• Google is slowly eating away at the value created by services like Keyword Discovery and WordTracker - if I had a stake in those types of companies I’d be shaking just a bit. 3rd party services never really had accurate search volume numbers but were the closest thing outside of actual analytics data that we had on search volume numbers. What they did provide, however, were relative numbers based on a sampling of total searches in order for us all to have a way to “project” keyword volumes using our own analytics as a base line. Keep in mind that Keyword Discovery and WordTracker’s data are not derived completely from Google but are a sample of the internet population as a whole. This might be more useful if Google weren’t so dominant…
• Basic keyword research can now be done with a lot more accuracy - Adsense allows you to drill down on broad, phrase and exact match where other services do not. If a keyword has a huge broad, or better, phrase match search volume then it’s a good bet that you’ve found a keyword with a long tail that your site can build into and take advantage of. If you see an exact match with a relatively high search volume then go buy yourself a domain with those keywords in it as you may find a lot of domain/direct traffic and that virtual real estate will start to act like it’s physical counter part in the years to come.

What third party keyword tools still have going for them

• Keyword Discovery, for example, mines long tail searches much better than the Adsense tool, so you can get a better picture of what people are searching for - while the Adsense tool still forces you to look at phrases between 1 and 4 keywords long. Google wants you to sign up so they can sell you on broad keyword advertisements.
• 3rd party keyword research tools have an array of features that Adsense doesn’t offer (keep in mind their data is based on samples). For example, Compete’s referral tool shows you which keywords are driving traffic to competing sites and lets you view a domains growth pattern. Seodigger gives you a quick snap shot of a site’s keyword ranking popularity - this can be good if you want to see if a competitor’s website content actually brings in any long tail traffic by looking at the size of the keyword list provided - or if they are just a bunch of fluff. Spyfu gives you the ability to see ads that competitors bid on - good for knowing what keywords the competition tends to cluster around, which might be a good bet for a profitable ppc campaign.

A couple of weeks ago Spot Runner contacted us by phone stating that the following post “Google TV vs. Spot Runner” contained inaccurate information about their company. They asked that we either remove the post or correct the inaccurate info.

We have corrected the inaccurate info in the original post and we are posting their official responses (below) to our previous statements. We have also provided a link from the original post pointing here for updates.

Here’s the exact response to our points that Spot Runner submitted to us in it’s entirety.  I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this info but I’d love to hear what you all have to say about their services.

The items marked in bold are the original descriptions written by Best Rank from our previous post. Directly below Best Rank’s description is Spot Runner’s revisions:

1. BestRank: Customers can select from a huge video library, Spot Runner charges a modest fee of around $500 to personalize your video.

1. Spot Runner customers can select from an extensive library of professional, high-quality ads which will then be customized with a customer’s images, messages and a new voiceover for as low as $499 depending on the level of customization. Spot Runner can also produce a completely custom ad from scratch, and can deploy the Spot Runner Production Network to any business in the United States to capture on-site footage of our clients’ businesses – such as images of their storefronts, customer testimonials, employees at work, product demonstrations and local landmarks. A customer can also use an ad they have created themselves.

2. BestRank: Spot Runner owns and controls your ads.

2. If a customer already has an ad, they can bring it to Spot Runner for placement and they retain ownership of the ad. When using a Spot Runner library ad, Spot Runner retains ownership of the template; however that ad is reserved for the customer’s exclusive use in the selected geographic area for the duration of their campaign and for a period afterwards.

3. BestRank: The minimum amount for a television schedule is $1000 per day

3. Spot Runner does not have established minimum buys. Based on its extensive experience in this space, Spot Runner works with clients to determine the minimum budget necessary for a campaign to be effective, especially relating to a client’s geographic target and campaign type.

4. BestRank: Spot Runner manages your ads according to your budget and preferences, you don’t have control on any negotiations.

4. Spot Runner’s media planning division works closely with a client to define their target audiences and locations to develop a media plan. Spot Runner then negotiates the buy on behalf of its clients.

5. BestRank: Spot Runner controls when and where your ad will show. You can see where the ad was shown only after the ad was aired

5. Spot Runner relieves their customers of the complex issues of buying airtime themselves and provides every customer with the services of an expert media planning team. After working with the customer to define their targets and the goal of their campaign, Spot Runner’s media buying team places the ad buys accordingly. Customers are well aware of what channels their ad will be running on as well as the daypart.

6. BestRank: You are not allowed to control your ad on any shows

6. Customers work closely with Spot Runner to define the best channels to advertise on to reach their target consumer. Spot Runner can also negotiate advertising during specific programming.

7. BestRank: You can buy local and National, the company is going after National Advertisers

7. With Spot Runner you can purchase local, regional and national advertising. Spot Runner’s proprietary geo-targeting technology allows customers to target down to individual neighborhoods. Spot Runner focuses both on local and national advertisers.

8. BestRank: You are allowed to run political ads

8. Spot Runner recently launched its Political Advertising Program catering specifically to the needs of candidates and causes. With this program, Spot Runner aims to leverage the internet and new technologies to open the door for candidates and cause-related initiatives to run highly targeted ads on TV, radio and online.

9. BestRank: You do not have the ability choose specific TV programs

9. Spot Runner can negotiate advertising during specific programs.

10: BestRank: Spot Runner controls when and where your ads will show

10. Spot Runner builds an airtime schedule to reach a customer’s target consumer on the channels they watch in their area of operation, providing detailed reports after the ad airs so they can track their results and grow their business.

11. BestRank: Spot Runner cannot tell you when your ad will air ahead of time

11. Spot Runner provides clients with information on when and where their ads are going to air.

12. BestRank: Greater Broadcast with mostly cable providers which provide a bigger coverage. Dish Network and other direct broadcast combined reach less than 17% of U.S. households, according to Nielsen Media Research (source Spot Runner FAQ section).

12. Spot Runner’s reach includes national and local broadcast and cable networks, a significantly larger portion of U.S. households than what is reached by satellite direct broadcast alone which, all providers combined, reaches less than 17% of U.S. households. Not only does Spot Runner have a geographical reach throughout the U.S. but it also has the proprietary technology to geo-target down to individual neighborhoods.

We still believe that Google TV has a more friendly service, which is easier to integrate with other marketing efforts. But we apologize for any inaccuracies in the original post. Sorry Spot Runner, no hard feelings.

Historically, search engines such as Google and Yahoo haven’t been able to index or “read” Flash (SWF) files very well due to their web crawlers’ inability to natively understand a flash object’s “language”.   Consequently, websites who have flash objects or whose entire websites are built in flash were not being ranked in search engine results or were limited to do so.

Adobe, who owns the popular flash technology, has announced that they are making it easier for Google and Yahoo to better index dynamic Web content and rich Internet applications that include the Shockwave Flash file (SWF) format. This new technology acts like a virtual user going through the runtime of each Flash application and translates it into something the search engines can better understand.

This all sounds great but when you cut through all the media fluff, you may come to the conclusion that…

Improved flash file indexing does not provide much help to webmasters

• Links within a flash file can now be followed by a web crawler but there is still no indication those links will ever pass link equity as HTML links normally do
• The improvement doesn’t give search engines the ability to index video flash files, i.e. you still need to submit to places like Youtube
• Javascript, in some cases, holds Google back from indexing flash files
• Images inside the flash files will not get indexed
• It’s not yet clear how to order and deliver text within a flash file, like you can with divs and CSS technology - this means search engines may still be taking your text out of context, which means lower than optimal rankings
• You can also tell Adobe’s announcement is a bunch of hype when many “search marketers” simply regurgitate the same press release information with no real purpose or added value other than hoping to skim some keyword traffic and look like they’re authoritative (we all know Adobe made the original press release, guys).

What to know before you act…

• I wouldn’t start designing flash based web sites - not for a long time.  With adobe’s announcement, it may be easier for flash based files and sites to get indexed, however, not all web browsers have flash installed by default - so Google, for example, isn’t likely to start including flash files into their web search results for popular searches.  More likely the case is that search engines will be able to discovery parts of the HTML based web that were never seen before, linked to only by the flash application’s previously un-followable links.
• Flash files in search results will still suck: When a flash file is indexed and then accessed via the search results, only the flash file is loaded into the browser and not the containing page - so you wouldn’t be able to get your message across, to a person, that normally appears on your web page in close proximity to the flash object.
  • Until search engines have a dedicated search vertical for searching through flash content only, I don’t see flash files ever becoming a popular target for HTML based web searches
  • Now there’s an idea… a vertical for searching flash
    

Search engines reap the benefits

I’d say improved flash indexing at this point is more of a shelf space increase activity for search engines to advertise their affiliates on, since it’s their goal to find new, relevant web pages and serve up potential ads.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Google and Yahoo payed some big bucks for Adobe to do this.  You might notice in Adobe’s press release that MSN has not been given the same level treatment as the other two big engines.  I wonder why?