My Villain of the Year


We’re back! After a year’s hiatus for no other reason than sheer exhaustion this time last year, by popular demand I am resurrecting my annual heroes and villains blog (yes, some people really do like reading this rubbish, I’m as surprised as anyone!).


Politics as ever throws up its fair share of villains and this year has been no exception. The Prime Minister deserves a bucket load of something unmentionable being poured all over him for his blatantly partisan and tribal reaction the day after the Scottish Referendum result. Faced with a moment that called for healing and statesmanship, the PM’s call for English votes for English laws was an act of supreme self-interest which did neither him nor the United Kingdom any good.


However, one politician has stood head and shoulders above the rest this year for sheer pigheadedness and blatant violations of international law (as if that ever mattered!). Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the Crimea set off an international crisis, resulted in a passenger plane being shot down, has all but collapsed the Russian economy and caused a run on the rouble. Well done Vlad!


On the sporting front it hasn’t been a vintage year. One suspects it will be some time before we get another Tiger Woods and the fire hydrant circa 2008 scenario. However, American golfer Dustin Johnson has attempted to lower the bar this year, being forced to take a sabbatical from the US Tour due to allegations of cocaine use and multiple infidelities with other tour player’s wives. He has, unwittingly, also provided my quote of the year, courtesy of his former coach who said, “Dustin’s so dense, light bends around him”. Excellent!


I really can’t let this year go by without bringing up the World Cup and Roy Hodgson. Even before he had got to Brazil, the England manager, who should have an Adidas boot permanently sewn into his mouth, had insulted the locals in Manaus. That was just a foretaste though for the appalling performance of his team during the failed group qualification campaign. Given more than 18 months to work out a plan to cope with Italy’s Pirlo and then Uruguay’s Suarez, he resorted to flailing his arms around on the touchline while offering both players acres of space in which to inflict maximum damage. How much longer are we supposed to put up with this man and how much longer will sycophants like Henry Winter in the Telegraph keep defending him?


I try to avoid celebrities, but this really has been a vintage year for talentless people being given the oxygen of publicity and invading my television. Claudia Winkleman’s enforced absence from Strictly Come Dancing, which led to the temporary inclusion of Zoe Ball, only served to highlight how awful Tess Daly is. It spoke volumes when #Keep Zoe Not Tess started trending!


However Tess’ awfulness is nothing compared to a woman who regularly appears on morning television. Katie Hopkins (why is this woman on my TV?) has this year insulted Kelly Brook, Peaches Geldof, Kym Marsh, the Palestinians, breastfeeding mothers, Jessica Ennis, Stereo Kicks and the obese, whilst praising the police officer who shot Michael Brown. She has, in fact, almost singlehandedly invented the term “professional troll”.


However, my irritating celebrity of the year is Jeremy Clarkson, a man rapidly making the journey from national treasure to outcast. The whole number plate fiasco in Argentina really was the final straw. “It was a coincidence” says Jeremy. Yeah right!


Nevertheless there is some good news for celebrities this Xmas. When the Tulisa Contostavlos drug trial collapsed, few suspected that up to 24 separate cases which hinged on evidence given by the News of the World’s Fake Shiekh would be reopened by the Crown Prosecution Service. To cap it all, Panorama revealed his real identity by plastering his image all over national television – which hopefully will put a stop to his career for good.


In fact, few people have done more to damage the journalistic profession, so my villain of the year is former investigate journalist (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense) Mazzer Mahmood.

Read More ?

The Zoella Controversy

A twenty something woman called Zoe Sugg caused quite a bit of controversy this week and has caused a bit of a storm on social media too. Who is Zoe Sugg? Well, she’s a vlogger of course.

Still not sure?

Zoe has run a vlog (video blog) called Zoella since 2009 and as her visitor numbers grew, so did her profile. Talking about everything fashion and beauty, followers loved her natural, relatable style and brands loved the statistics when it came to her blog reach and engagement levels.

Breaking through from being just another face on YouTube to becoming a ‘personality’ in her own right, Zoella now boasts over 6.6 million subscribers to her YouTube channel, more than 300 million video views and was named by The Telegraph last year as one of Britain’s most influential Tweeters. She’s even one of the voices, with her other half Alfie Deyes (a fellow blogger, don’t you know), on this year’s Band Aid single, despite the fact she’s not a musician – that’s how far her reach has spread.

And now she has stepped out from behind her video camera and put pen to paper.

Well, almost.

She signed a two book deal with Penguin earlier this year and when her first tome, Girl Online, a fictional story of a 15 year old anonymous blogger, was launched last month, it fast became a best seller and broke the first week sales record for a debut author at 78,109 copies and it’s become the fastest selling book of the year to boot.

This in itself is to be commended but the reason why Zoella has been making headlines this week is because the authenticity of her book was called into question and such calls were answered with an admission from Penguin and Zoe herself that “she did not write Girl Online on her own” (cue outraged gasps from the blogging community).

The response to this has been quite unforgiving with many followers, bloggers and the media commenting, tweeting and stamping their virtual feet that she wasn’t upfront about having a ghostwriter and saying the whole matter has undermined her authenticity. Ultimately, some people feel that at the peak of her fame, she’s sold out.

Is that a fair assessment? Does a self-made blogger / vlogger who has achieved uncharted success in a relatively uncharted field let themselves down when receiving help on their first printed penned work?

The main controversy was because the assistance she had wasn’t overtly mentioned upfront, hence the immediate backlash and subsequent statement response from Suggs and Penguin. However, in her words, it was her first book and “of course I was going to have help in telling my story”. She’s since said that she’s taking a break from the internet, albeit a few days, but this statement also seems to have shocked so many who have become used to her constant stream of social shares.

What this case shows is how the power of opinion, anyone’s opinion, is a very powerful thing. Little did Zoe know that her hobby one day would see her as a public personality just a short while down the road and several beauty posts and shopping haul videos later.

Her followers want to hear what she has to say and invest a lot it trust, and in turn expectations, in her and the admission that her first book isn’t 100 per cent Zoella seems to have burst the blogging bubble for some.

What can’t be denied is how fame and success can now be found in many guises and that we, not just the media, have our part on making and breaking the household names of tomorrow. As long as they say what we want to hear.

Read More ?

Should The Horror of War Sell Christmas?

The Sainsbury’s advert has, according to the Telegraph, “upped the ante in the seasonal adverts battle”, but I found myself feeling more troubled than touched on first watching it yesterday.


Yes, John Lewis evokes a reaction from us just like Sainsbury’s, and yes this is used to boost sales (see my previous blog, John Lewis: Making the Nation Cry and Buy), but there is, I believe, a crucial difference in the way that the two retailers have gone about linking emotion to commercial gain.


John Lewis manufactures the sentiment with make believe: CGI penguins and a sweet song – Sainsbury’s utilises a very real and very powerful feeling of heartbreak based on the sheer futility of the slaughter of millions.


Most of the people on the screen would have died, and this is where our feeling of hollow sadness derives from – and the historian in me, and the moralist, can’t help but feel that their memory should be revered, not utilised for commercial benefit.


Of course it can be argued that this is a charity initiative, with all sales of the chocolate bar from the advert going to British Legion – but let’s also be realistic – this was a brand building exercise, and, given some of the rave reviews, an effective one. The sale of the bars to raise money does temper the commercial edge, but doesn’t serve to erase it completely, and the nasty taste is still left in the mouth.


However, the more I think about it, the more I feel that this issue is perhaps more complex than a matter of wrong and right, and I find myself conflicted when considering the broader issues. It could be argued that adverts now exist to create feeling, they are cinematic and edifying and carry messages far beyond the scope of their usual branding (think the P&G Olympics advert). So was Sainsbury’s simply marking an important memory in a way they knew would resonate with the British public? Do they have a responsibility to do this?


If the British Legion had produced the ad, perhaps it would be seen solely as beautiful and non-exploitative. They obviously don’t have the budget to do this, so is it down to those that do have the budgets to honour the moment, remind and in some cases educate the nation? I think so, but I would add the caveat that ‘beautifying’ the war in the way Sainsbury’s has done – I saw no signs of faeces, mud, rats and blood that typified the First World War – is dangerous and insulting.


I’m not alone in my instinctive lamenting of the crassness of the ad – Ally Fogg from the Guardian calls it “a dangerous and disrespectful masterpiece”, and the twittersphere has in some part echoed this sentiment.


The senselessness of the war made that truce, a single moment of exquisite humanity amidst the tremendous horror, possible, and to sentimentalise it with beautiful cinematography in a Christmas advert – and worse, for a sales boost – is, I believe irresponsible.


P.S. It’s worth pointing out that all views expressed are entirely my own and do not represent the collective views of WPR. The advert has been the subject of heated discussion throughout the agency all morning, and needless to say opinions have been polarised.


Read More ?

John Lewis: Making the Nation Cry and Buy


Oh, the John Lewis advert. It has become as much a national institution as Glastonbury or the Queen’s speech, and cold is the heart that doesn’t melt on viewing the devoted snowman or diligent hare.

 
Everything about the new advert is perfect: from the calculated cuteness of the penguin waddling after his human friend to the moment that John Lewis kicks you in the gut with a heart-wrenching twist – Monty isn’t real after all. In one moment we’re confronted with a plethora of feeling: joy that Monty, denied love in a human world, has a lady friend after all, happiness that the little boy could be so caring as to provide the best present ever, sympathy for the mum who recognises that her boy will one day grow up, and bittersweet awe at the power of a child’s imagination. It is potent, and beautiful – but where does it leave us, and why spend £1million on an ad?

 
Yesterday in the WPR office, we were rendered emotional wrecks for half the morning, and anecdotally discussed Monty’s Twitter account, the price of the Monty plush toy, how much the ad cost to make – was there ever a better example of effective brand awareness? Has there ever been a more perfect template for evoking an emotional connection to a brand to increase sales?

 
Between 2009 and 2011, the John Lewis ads pulled in £1.07 billion in extra sales and last year’s heart-rending story of ‘The Bear and the Hare’ is credited with boosting sales by 6.9% on the previous Christmas.

 
Emotional storytelling produces raw evocative feeling, which drives word of mouth, which leads to enhanced brand awareness and ultimately, purchase intent.

 
I often wonder what it is specifically about these adverts that evoke such a profound reaction, and think it can in part be explained by the fact that, in an increasingly secular society, Christmas has evolved to be more about nostalgia and sentiment than anything else, and we’re looking to reflect values that religion once provided in a new way.

 
It can be argued that in a sense, humans will always require a form of religion to supply meaning to life – that is, they require a feeling of purpose and aspiration, a feeling that there is a bigger picture. With the decline of religion there has also been a subtle cultural shift which puts greater emphasis on an enriched lifestyle: people want to be moved and share content, they want to take beautiful photographs and put a filter on them on Instagram – essentially, they want to fill a gap that religion once occupied: we’re looking for things to stir us.

 
The John Lewis advert fulfils these basic needs, and we’re moved by what we’re seeing because the advert triggers a very personal response connected to our sentimental feelings towards our loved ones and recognition of the better parts of human nature.

 
So, as easy as it is to be cynical about the carefully masterminded corporate intent behind the mawkishness, I can’t help but be grateful for when it rolls round and reminds me that after all, all we really want is to give and receive, and to love and feel loved.

Read More ?

Why we’re all guilty of ‘weekendvy.’

‘Weekendvy’ is a latest term to be coined by Travelodge following the revelation that one in three of us is likely to embellish the truth about our weekend antics to impress friends and colleagues. The most popular lie is that we went out and painted the town red on Saturday night, rather than what we really did: watch Mad Men re-runs in our pyjamas.


Weekends – The Dream

Weekends – The Reality

Personally, I think we’re all guilty of doing this. But is this really a bad thing? After all, isn’t this just human nature?


From Facebook and Instagram to online dating profiles, apart from being all about me me me, they are simply tools to showcase just how much fun we’re having and proving to our ‘friends’ that we lead amazing and exciting lives, similar to those we aspire to be like. More to the point, Facebook and the like only show you an edited version of people’s lives with the boring bits conveniently left out. Even the most avid social media user would get little response checking in at the supermarket on a Saturday.


You may think that only young people are guilty of ‘weekendvy’ but I don’t think so. Whether you are 15 or 50 the need to impress and embellish is hard-wired into us.


If you think about it, what we see in our everyday lives are a form of ‘weekendvy’ – from the 50 year old man with the amazing new Audi (which seems to vastly improve his weekend,) to the 20s somethings drinking rum and dancing the night away every Saturday. Everyone we see in the media is having so much fun and yet can roll into work on a Monday hangover free and boasting about a great weekend.


When it’s thrown in our faces constantly, what reaction is there other than a little of our own inventing? How else are we supposed to keep up?


Even with quite a few negatives coming with ‘weekendvy,’ my overarching feeling is actually that it can be more of a force for good than bad, and there’s no harm in it really.


If ‘weekendvy’ can inspire us to get out and do things and make the most of our free time, then this can only be good news. I’m not saying everyone should take up skydiving or extreme sports just to prove a point, but if it makes you challenge yourself and try something new, this is vastly better than rather than wasting precious time doing nothing.


After all, even if ‘weekendvy’ is the only reason any of us do anything at the weekend, at least we are doing something and in true ‘weekendvy’ style we have something to chat about with our colleagues on a grey Monday morning.


Read More ?

Instagram moves to the dark side of advertising

 

It’s been speculated for months, but it’s now official, Instagram has launched brand advertising in the UK.


A sponsored post from Instagram itself appeared in UK user’s newsfeeds earlier this week launching the platform’s advertising offering.


Sponsored posts will now start appearing from Instagram favourites such as Cadbury, Starbucks, Waitrose and Rimmel London. Users will be targeted with ads using information from the photos and videos they like on Instagram as well as their interests and basic information from Facebook.


Instagram launches sponsored posts in the UK


Similar to Facebook, users will be able to identify adverts that don’t interest them, hide them from their newsfeeds and give feedback for what they do and don’t want to appear.


Although this is music to marketers ears, the response from Instagram users was less then lukewarm, some commenting on the post suggesting the platform had sold out and that they would potentially stop using the image sharing network altogether. However, this seems to be the natural response from users when their so called small independent social network decides to actually make a profit.


From a marketing point of view, it’s Instagram’s time to really prove what value it can add to a brand. However, until the platform allows hyperlinks to drive users from posts back to a brand’s website, I’m unsure how a realistic ROI can be calculated, especially for retail brands.


For now, we’ll all sit back and watch Cadbury and Starbucks ride the wave and eagerly await results on how user’s engaged and responded to the adverts. Only time will tell to see how it rivals its big brother Facebook’s advertising platform.


We’ll wait with bated breath.

Read More ?

Why the Ice Bucket Challenge leaves me cold


The other day I found myself shaking my head in despair after reading a rather sad statistic: over half of Brits polled said they did not donate to an ALS charity after taking part in an ice bucket challenge.


This solitary fact is possibly the most damning statement I’ve come across in highlighting the increasing self-obsession that has become a culture in its own right in the western world (see my previous blog for more on this). Shame on us, who revel in finding new ways to flaunt ourselves, take ownership of a challenge, be the star of our own show, and lose sight of the purpose: to give to and raise awareness of a charity. It’s narcissism masked as altruism.


Possibly the worst element of the ice bucket challenge is the sentiment that it’s viral, i.e. it is fleeting, and ultimately most peopleare content to pretend that they’re doing good while it’s trendy, rather than look to do good in the long term. Because of course, quietly supporting a charity of your choice is not going to do you any favours on social media, right?


From a PR point of view, the challenge ticks all the boxes: charity, instantly understandable, easy to carry out, personal and yet it translates in every country from America to India, and to every person, from Kanye West to Willoughby’s own Rob Jones. Forbes reported that the challenge has raised $100m for the ALS Association, a 3,500% increase from the $2.8 million that they raised during the same time period last year.


With figures like this and an obvious increase in awareness of the charity, I may look to be ranting for the sake of ranting. But I ask you to look again at the stat referenced earlier – most people that did the challenge didn’t donate, and this is disheartening. Is it possible that social value has eclipsed genuine philanthropic value? Once the ice has melted and the likes been collated, the momentum for doing good melts with it, and this is a pretty sad reflection of our times.

Read More ?

Does Twitter need to sell itself a little more?

So, last month Twitter announced £86m losses up to Q2 of 2014 – triple their losses for the same period last year, but supposedly there is no cause for panic. CEO Dick Costolo, claimed: “strong financial and operating results for the second quarter show the continued momentum of our business”.


It would appear the old adage; ‘you have to spend money to make money’, is key here. Although it is undeniable that Twitter has become one of the most influential mediums of the 21st century, it has yet to become profitable. The ‘build a hugely popular social network that millions of people across multiple nations use every day – get companies to use it to talk to those people – then start charging them to promote their messages’ business model adopted by Facebook first, has been coming to fruition for over 4 years now for Twitter.


The little blue bird first launched its ads API in April 2010, but in a rather risky move chose to adopt a more elitist approach than Facebook. For several years the rule of thumb was – ‘if you ain’t got £10k to spend in a month then don’t bother calling!’ – Considering Twitter was a completely unproven advertising platform at the time this model was ill-thought-out at best.


Perhaps the justification was that they wanted to test the water with the great few first to make sure it was effective before rolling it out to all and sundry. Fair enough you might say, but why did it take almost 4 more years to open up their advertising products to the wider businesses community?


In 2012, Twitter announced that selected small businesses could advertise with them in the US, providing they were American Express business customers. Again presumably a phase that would allow them to test the limits of their features with less risk. But this was a restricted set up that gave small businesses little control over what was being promoted from their content.


Finally in November 2013, Twitter announced that its full access, self-serve advertising dashboard was available for all businesses in the UK, Ireland and Canada. Since then they have been developing a host of sophisticated products to get digital marketers drooling – such as mobile conversion tracking, lookalike profiles and lead generation cards. No surprise this launch was announced right around the time Twitter was floated on the stock market. And even less surprising that Twitter’s ad products team seem to have been doing some major overtime since then. Seems like Mr & Mrs Shareholder are cranking up the pressure.


So, it’s taken a long time for Twitter to decide that an inclusive approach to its ad products and giving their customers plenty of control was the way to go, now they just need to spread the word and turn a profit.


You’d think that Twitter would be good at self-promotion, after all they own a medium that has 271 million active monthly users, 49% of which check it every day. Yet as a leading digital and social media agency in the Midlands, after speaking to our peers and clients, we were amazed to discover how few marketers were aware that this service was now available for any British business or organisation to utilise, no matter how small their budget. This of course wasn’t helped by certain global media buying agencies still telling our clients that to run a Twitter ad campaign you need a minimum £7k spend within one month! I can happily reveal that we can manage Twitter advertising campaigns from as little as a few hundred pounds for our clients. The word is out.


So Twitter, if you need some help PRing your new adverts dashboard in the UK, then give us a call or tweet us @wpragency. Alternatively, maybe you should use Promoted Trends to share the news, you’ll probably get a good discount!

Read More ?

Did you forget how to be kind?


The world woke up yesterday to the gutting news that actor Robin Williams had died.


Suddenly the internet was buzzing with quotes, film clips, pictures and memories. You name it, BuzzFeed has probably already created a gif for it. Hollywood giants tweeted touching words filled with respect and admiration for their talented friend. Fans went out and covered the Good Will Hunting bench in Boston with film quotes. His daughter’s quote from The Little Prince has been retweeted 70,000 times and I saw at least four friends listening to the Aladdin soundtrack on Spotify. People shared content from mental health charities and celebrities encouraged open and stigma-free discussions on depression and the help available.


Most importantly though, all the words were kind.
























And then by comparison, a sample of the Red Tops front pages this morning:


 




































Now, yesterday I saw this article shared on Twitter, it’s advice for journalists on how to report suicide and self-harm from Time to Change – England’s biggest programme to challenge mental health stigma and discrimination. Here’s what they say:


Not really advice that’s been adhered to. The language is graphic, behavioural details are given and assumptions are made on causation. It’s profoundly unkind reporting. Times deputy political editor Sam Coates raised the issue during a paper review: “It’s where trying to find out what happens clashes with questions of tone. One of the problems we have is that the American public authorities…spew out really personal details almost immediately, almost always live on air”.


The motive isn’t exactly rocket science; it’s all about selling, selling copies of papers, advertising space. Shocking headlines get clicks and the goal is increased web traffic. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fluffy inside? No me neither.


Apart from being just downright disrespectful, there’s a line that’s been crossed where this is just bad journalism, and with print media dying – there is no place for it.

Read More ?

A Guide to Facebook Life after the Like-Gating Ban

So now you’re finally up to date with Facebook policy – looks like it’s time for another new update.


Facebook has just released Graph API v2.1, an update that includes two changes to the social network’s policy, the most significant of which is a ban on like-gated competitions, apps and social plug-ins as of 5th November 2014.


It’s been a while since social media was viewed as ‘free tool’ but now, in 2014, we can be absolutely agreed that it isn’t. In the wake of the Edgerank algorithm becoming even tighter and fan generation more difficult, using Facebook’s sophisticated advert system is now a requirement rather than an option.


So, use ad spend strategically and employ our tips to ensure that fans keep ‘talking-about’ your content.


1.      Social Plug-ins on Your Website


Make it easy for your customers to access your Facebook page at every possible opportunity – the first point of call being your web page. Position your plug-in right at the top of the page (the primary optical area) where it’s instantly viewable, rather than below the fold where it can be easily missed.


You can find everything you need for this here.





2.     Keep your crowd happy


Community management remains hugely important. Staying active and engaging with your immediate community is key, not only will it help you build your fan-base but it’ll stop you losing fans.


A proven way of getting new likes through community involvement is to interact with pages which are aligned to your audience’s interests. Obviously we’re not telling the likes of Dyson to start up a conversation with Hoover (although that probably would generate some coverage), but start engaging with complimentary brands or businesses in the same area whose fans are likely to enjoy your social conversations too – think more Yorkshire Tea and Mr Kipling.





3.      Be Truly Interesting


This latest change from Facebook simply illustrates that the platform is focusing on its original mantra; inspiring conversation and keeping the world better connected. The key word there is better – brand pages now have to work harder to gain fans, and this needs to be done through relevant and truly interesting content and conversation (i.e. better!)


Since the latest Facebook algorithm change, on average only 1-2% of your fans will see your content in their news feed, so choose wisely. Posts with images often encourage more interaction, but copy only posts get a higher reach so you need to assess which is more important for each individual post.


The first rule of engaging content is quality vs. quantity. A stream of company updates will quickly turn existing fans off. Winning pages tap into their fans passion points by regularly reviewing post success and trying new things. Variety makes all the difference.





4.      Use Insights


In particular use content engagement and post interaction stats as these are ideal for working out what works and what doesn’t. Analyse your content through these to build on more popular content and remove the messages that didn’t inspire.





5.      Strategic Ad Spend


Finally, investing in ads is the fastest, most sure-fire way to generate new, relevant Page likes. To make sure you’re utilising your spend fully use custom audience targeting and look-a-like audience functions – this will give you maximum relevancy and a solid return.


Facebook now also offer up adverts dependent on your core objectives i.e. gaining likes, generating awareness or driving traffic meaning you can more easily demonstrate how spend achieved campaign targets. It also means that you should start thinking of Facebook as the world’s largest consumer database who can be accurately targeted dependent on your needs.



All in all, this change shouldn’t have a dramatic impact on your brand page as long as great content and well considered advertising is at the core of your strategy.


Our advice? Embrace it. Get to know your audience and give them interesting, engaging content that will organically grow your page.  And finally, don’t worry about generating hordes of new fans as it’s genuine engagement that counts.


You can view the full update here or join the conversation @WPRAgency


Read More ?

Panda 4.0: The Fall Out.










Last month, Head of Webspam at Google, Matt Cutts confirmed the news every SEO practitioner had been debating for the past 6 months: Google were rolling out their latest algorithm update – Panda 4.0 – and it was going to be a big one.


Even those who aren’t overly-familiar with the practices of SEO are likely to have heard of the critter-themed updates, Penguin and Hummingbird to name two others.  But what is often not clear (except to Mr Cutts maybe), is when these updates will hit, what their aims are, and what the effects will be.


Three weeks after the algorithm update, it is still tricky to assess the damage (or benefits) to websites. However, there are a few theories starting to emerge from the fall out, which all provide food for thought.


Google is attacking press release sites


One outcome that has come to light is that press release sites have been hit hard by Panda 4.0. In his blog for Search Engine Land, Barry Schwartz takes a look at the top PR sites and how their website traffic has changed. What he discovered was alarming – big hitters such as PRweb.com, PR Newswire, Business Newswire and PRlog have all lost significant ranking within Google.


Theories as to why Google has decided target press release sites are being thrown about – from Google updating its link scheme guidelines, which now include ‘links with optimised anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites’.


Chris Crum from Webpronews.com also makes a good point that in a recent hangout John Mueller referred to press release sites being used as an SEO tool.


Google is attacking aggregator sites


Another consequence being reported is that aggregator sites have been affected. Sites such as ask.com, which have been badly affected, aren’t made up of original content. Rather, they collate content from around the web in one place. Whilst they are still widely considered useful websites, technically they do not stick to Google’s content guidelines.


Does Google have a vendetta against eBay?


Perhaps the most talked about result to come from Panda 4.0 was the huge effect it had on eBay. Or so we first thought. It was reported that eBay suffered a 78% loss in search visibility following the roll out, which many assumed was an effect of the update. However, Re/Code reported afterwards that eBay had in fact been hit by a manual penalty from Google as punishment for bad SEO practices. As neither party have confirmed nor denied this, it is difficult to determine exactly why eBay was hit so hard. If it was a Panda penalty that was responsible for their loss in visibility, similar websites are sure to be biting their nails right about now.


It is going to take a bit more time before we can be sure of the effects of Panda 4.0. One thing is clear though, Google is making life increasingly difficult for those practicing black hat SEO, even those who had previously evaded penalty. As with everything though, there is a flip side to this, and I’d like to leave you with an interesting concept from Tim Worstall, featuring on Forbes.com comparing SEO with evolution. This theory debates whether as quick as Google is developing its defences against bad practice, these ‘parasites’ are evolving at just as quick a speed, meaning the search engine and practitioners are engaged in a never ending game of cat and mouse.



Read More ?

For Christ’s sake Ed, put your hands in your pockets like everyone else!


I’ve had enough. I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt.


I’ve tried to place policy above superficial appearance. I’ve tried to take solace in the fact that he’s got some of the big calls right – phone hacking, bankers, the Daily Mail.


I even had some sympathy with the whole bacon butty cock-up. And I have to say, if asked, I wouldn’t know how much we spend at Chez Leatherbarrow on our weekly shop either.


But what I cannot forgive is Ed Miliband’s hand gestures, they are driving me to distraction. Who speaks to a member of the public, teacher or nurse with their finger-tips pressed together like they’re thinking through the Theory of Relativity?


Oh and the voice coaching and believe you me there has been voice coaching. The average speaking rate is somewhere around 125 words per minute. By my reckoning Ed is down somewhere around 70-80 and all it does is make everything he says sound intensely patronising.


Meanwhile, Nigel “Man of the People” Farage is on a celebratory pub crawl through every watering hole in Southern England. Nigel is the very epitome of a man at ease with himself. No forced hand gestures here, mind you he can’t as he usually has a pint in one hand and a fag in the other.


And then there’s the one liners, they’re the best bit. My favourite was the one after the Eastleigh By-Election, “We’d have won but the Conservatives split our vote”. Even my Dad, who is a Pro-European, wine-loving, baguette-eating Francophile, currently residing in the Limousin, thought that one was funny.


Nigel’s legacy may well be something like that of the 1950s French politician, Pierre Poujade, whose populism coined the phrase, ‘Poujadism’, which is still used today whenever a politician blatantly courts public opinion. Expect ‘Faragism’ to take a similar place in the UK’s political dictionary.


Mind you, Ed has tried populism as well with his Fuel Price Freeze, fat lot of good it did him. Perhaps if he just put his hands in his pockets?

Read More ?