There is an interesting and oft repeated debate taking place on the front page of WebmasterWorld. The debate resides in the thread entitled “Why does Google give so much weight to keyword domains?”

I’ve read similar threads on a variety of webmaster and domaining websites discussing “keyword in domain and search engine ranking” and, after my own consideration of a) the Googles SERPs, that is “what I can see with my own eyes”; b) reflection on the back-and-forth in the threads, including the general lack of concrete evidence/data to back up the assertions of a specific significant advantage; and, c) my own experience as registrant of keyword domains I’ve come to the following conclusions:

• Once upon a time, some years ago, keyword domains plus anchor text briefly rocked the SERPs, which is why a) you saw so many versions of buy-cheap-blah.com URLs in the SERPs; and, b) why that phenomena was abruptly dispatched by Google to the archives of SEO history
• For a time, if you were the potential seller of keyword domains and you posted in forums, you had a lot to say about the benefits of keyword domains, likely adding at least to the perception of an advantage
• Some webmasters, particularly new or inexperienced ones having a tough time ranking, may have a tendency to want to report, by any means available, any and all SERPs ranking disadvantages they believe they are suffering from unfairly. Ergo such threads provide an opportunity to at least anecdotally report on the issue
• I have yet to see any form of public heavy data lifting that would demonstrate that any given website is, in fact, benefitting “from a lift solely attributable to the keywords in the website’s domain”

Do I believe that “keyword in a domain offers some small benefit, like the benefit afforded by a “plus sign” attributable to 1 of 200+/- ranking variables? Yes. Sure. Why not? Why shouldn’t a website’s domain name have some significance in sorting out where the website belongs, what its theme is, what purpose it serves? A keyword based domain name offers another tiny bit of (semantic) data, so why not afford it some slightest of weight?

Likewise, when keyword domains are viewed from the perspective of ranking, it is possible that some keyword domains may rank a bit higher not because of the keywords alone but because the juicy keyword domain was registered a long(er) time ago, when such keyword domains were available, and therefore the site may a bit older, as well as any inbound links being a bit older.

Do I have any empirical evidence or data to back up my assertion that having keywords in a domain and having the benefit of an older domain offers little concrete advantage, especially in competitive SERPS?

Sure I do.

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, on the subject of the ranking weight of keyword domains, I give you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 1:

http://Internet-Marketing.com

Do you see this old keyword domain crushing the SERPs for the search phrase “internet marketing“? I don’t. It would be nice, but that’s life. I’ve got my work cut out for me. :p

Might the invisibility of Internet-Marketing.com in the SERPs be because “internet marketing” is a highly competitive field? Might ranking in competitive SERPs require a bit more?

Go ahead and register a keyword domain or pay a premium for a keyword domain in the aftermarket. Then you, too, can move beyond anecdotal evidence that keyword domains have an unfair advantage in ranking in the search engine results and reach your own conclusions.

IF it really is true, as if often argued, that keyword domains have special ranking juice then I, too, have a complaint I  wish to file with the Mt. Kilimanjaro-plex Search Quality Engineering Department:

Yo! Up there! Matt! Where’s my ranking advantage?

God I love this whole internets thing. :p

I’ve been reading a great deal about social media marketing and building of one’s personal network. There’s abundant advice and gurus ready to speak about how social media and “engagement” is about relationship building.

I say that, for the most part, that phrase or concept, as applied to what actually takes place across the vast majority of social media platforms, is bullshirt. From my POV, all the talk about relationship and relationship building has begun to debase the meaning of the word, just like “friending” or “friends” – as used by MySpace or Facebook – began to eviscerate the essence of friendship from the word or idea of “friend”. The adoption and abuse of the words by social media mavens removes the “I SEE YOU” or “I KNOW YOU” – deeply, not superficially – quality of what it really means to be a friend or to be in a relationship with someone. “Trivial Pursuit” would be a better phrase for most of what passes for “relationship building”, as that phrase – relationship building – is employed by social marketing gurus. Given where the proponents of the idea that marketing=relationship think they can take the definition of relationship or “relationship buildint” (to enhance their position as a thought leaders?) – I must conclude that the sending of a “buy from me now” marketing email isn’t that far removed from relationship. “Surely, YOU DO really MATTER to me, that is as much as having another name of my mailing list matters to me.”

So how would I have social media mavens think of or define relationship, so as not to debase the word and transform it into marketing=friend/relationship?

When YOU- Mr./Ms. social media maven or social network connection – lay awake at night, due to an awareness of and concerns about the state of my well-being THEN you might have license FROM ME to begin to ascribe to our connection in the world the word “relationship”.

I say that what those who are concerned about the effects and importance of social media really want to build isn’t a relationship. What you really want to build or advance, via social media and engagement, is awareness -> respect -> trust -> reputation.

“Building relationships” is NOT what the so-called social media revolution is about. Such “social media relating” is far too attenuated – far too removed from real human connection – to have any depth of meaning. The REAL honest to goodness outcome of what may be taking place in the evolving social media world is more akin to a) better communication (“Yes, we listen”, but not really like you BFF might); b) trust building (“Yes, we told you to expect X, we didn’t deliver, we did get it wrong and here’s the proof that we’re making it right”); and, therefore c) reputation building (The public speaks, not YOU, and the masses say “You can be counted on for X”. The classic “What you say about your company is advertising. What consumers say about your company is your brand.)

You want to call what takes place across software platforms “relationship building”? Knock yourself out, but from where I stand (sit, actually) you do NOT have what I would call a relationship with me until such time as a) we have broken bread together; b) hung out in close proximity for some period of time (just the 2 or 3 of us); c) talked at some length and openly and without agenda or pretense and “personally” (Who are you, really?); and likely a good deal more.

Mashable has offered up a long list of social media and tech events to attend in 2010.

Reading the list of social media marketing conferences, including the express and implied promises of benefits – and threats to corporate existence (Engage or Die!) if your company doesn’t attend – I’m left once again to wonder: “How, ever, did a company extend its brand and engage its customers without the aid of the social media marketing crowd?”

Instead of agonizing over which events to attend and which to miss, or busting the budget by attending half of them, can’t we craft the Social Media and Customer Engagement Short Course? Say something akin to the courses once offered by SNL’s Father Guido Sarducci? (My favorite was his short course that offered to teach your child everything he or she would likely remember after 4 years of college.)

Here’s my first attempt at the “Social Media Expedited Learning Short Course“:

Lesson 1: The best social media strategy is to deliver on the express and implied promise of customer experience that your company’s marketing department and advertisements has attempted to associate with “your brand”.

O.K. Lesson over. Now, to review.

Isn’t the best “social strategy” to be honest and open about the delivery of that experience, as in “if you get it wrong admit it and fix it”? Don’t lie about it. Don’t cover it up. Don’t play games.

The social media word du jour for this is transparency. In other words, when the world knows about your dirty laundry then playing pretend just makes your company look bad or worse.

Effective social media strategy? How about just doing the right thing or make what was done wrong right – by some reasonable means or method?

How many more seminars and speeches by experts will it take before the self-evident becomes obvious? Deliver on the express or implied promise of your brand. If your employees or agents gets it wrong then promptly and fairly investigate any issues and fix what was mishandled.

If the “unhappy customer” had made a public spectacle of the bad experience then visit the places where he/she has “gone public” and explain what you have done to address the issue or otherwise publish a fair and factual response to the allegations. The con men, complainers, fraudsters, bullies and all their ilk are equally subject to the effects of social media – such as exposing your maligners for who or what they really are.

If you really want to invest your time and money in a course that will have a positive impact on social media difference then you should stay whereever you are and focus on ALL your employees and agents delivering on delivering to the customer the experience known as your company’s brand.

You do that – you deliver on the promise – and this thing called social media will do the rest.

Promise.

Querycasting ~ broadcasting/transmission of queries to/amongst select (qualfied, willing, able) “friends”. The future of search as a social platforn enabled function.

New thread at WebmasterWorld, about Facebook Launching Facebook Questions beta triggered a memory of a discussion I launched at WMW several years ago entitled “The Death of Facebook – Social Networking on the Fly. (Sorry, original thread is posted in the part of WMW that requires a paid subscription. )

Here’s what I posted in 2007. What follows are MY posts/comments only, republished here as a) it’s only my comments, and no one else’s, so no one else’s semi-private thoughts are revealed; and, b) I hold the copyright on everything I post, only granting a “soft license” to WMW or any other place where I publish my thoughts, so “it’s perfectly legal” to republish them. (If you want to read the entire dialogue then it’s time to pony up, as I did, to join WMW’s “Supporter’s Forums”. Over the years, since my membership in 2003, I’ve certainly got my money’s worth back.)

****************** (< - Indicates separate post I made)

Something has been bugging me, so allow me to just spit it out. It likely won't make perfect sense as it's an idea in motion.

Social media platforms clamor for "members" to "join" their social media platform, and will do so long as there is a buck to be made. The social media model of "owning members" - i.e., registered users - uses membership as a market value metric. (Lucky you. You're a commodity.)

AFAIC, membership driven social networking is a dinosaur waiting for its meteoric extinction. Any number of forces can or will serve as the meteor: marketing excess, privacy concerns, decreasing returns on time invested, market specialization, etc.

Here's the future of social networking, which I say isn't that far away. It is, in part, a forecast emboldened by a) my discovery that folks have been laboring on the issue of "portable identity"; b) the fact that online socializing is a force to be reckoned with; c) the fact that paid "dating sites" appear poised to financially take it on the chin, and struggle to validate their value by suggesting they offer a secret sauce of screening members; and d) a dozen other forces in motion, including some bizarre evaluations of the value of Facebook and the fact that Facebook has opened their API and looks to be opening their member's personal data:

Social Graph, a/k/a "Who are you? Why should I bother?"

* XML or "standards based" social data.
* 100,1000, 10000 tags, I don't much care: High School, College, 1st Employer, Whatever.
* Social Graph, a/k/a My Personal Data, Storage? Ya, on my own darned PC or PDA or whatever. "It's my damned data, you cannot have it all, thank-you very much!"
* Data Verification? Are we ready for it? Sure, I am. I'd really like to know a bit more about "you". Those who are compelled to hide, remain anonymous can do as they please.
* Verification: 1 or 2 lines are "verified", i.e., "You are, in fact, you." I don't care who verifies it: Thwaite, Credit Reporting Agency, whatever. I'm assigned a unique encrypted identifier that says "THIS is the REAL Webwork". (Lucky you)
* Other than verification I control - locally - how much "about me" is released at any moment. Not everyone, all the time, needs to know about my first job, my children, whatever. (Note to World: Profiles really need not be all that inclusive "to work" - in any given interaction.)

"Membership" in Social Networking 9.0?

* Forget being a member. This is real world social networking "on the fly". Not by login but by broadcast and reception or listening.
* Broadcast? A desktop application? Register a query: "Buy from India bulk green tea". "Talk about last night's candidate debate". "Man, age 34, looking for dinner date in Philadelphia Friday night".
* The query is cached & matched.
* Cache? Ummmm . . Google, can you do this?
* Cross-match, qualify, validate and feedback. "The following people/companies have responded, fit your query interest, etc."
* Qualify? You choose. "Only validated businesses." (Filed as entity with Government + Credit Reporting Agency status? BBB? Their equivalent in any country.)
* IF QUALIFY & VALIDATE: Specify social networking media -> IM, Forum, Blog
* Anonymous? Possible, up to transaction point. Opt out for any party previously validated that rejects anonymity.

Social Networking “On the Fly”?

* Social media as a service.
* Paid? Monetized by ads? I don’t much care. Probably ad based.
* Does my identity have to be passed to “the social networking space host” or need on the fact that I am validated be passed? Methinks only the validation (digital certificate) part need be passed.
* “On the fly”: Social networking space is created and destroyed within the specified time limits. “The forum” space exists for 72 hours as a hosted app with assigned storage then it’s wiped. “Do business or die.”
* Want to organize a class reunion or get together? Rent more space. Pay more to have the application(s) serve the space for longer times?
* Bidding to “host the space”? Sure, why not.
* Open source apps versus pay for the social network space (server metrics), storage (server metrics), bandwidth? Yep.
* Social networking space is only accessible/visible to those qualified and invited. (Possible pre-qualification steps.)

I don’t see this version of social networking as far off in the future. Validating “who am I”? Not too hard. Social networking “as a service”? I’m not a programmer but my guess is “not too hard”, mostly an issue of data access and storage. Cross-matching interests of verfied participants? Hmmmm. It’s been going on for awhile in a variety of applications. Uncertain about a match in the “new social networking world”? Then offer the service as an escalating system: Email query -> IM sessions -> Forum/Blog session -> Video conferencing. All destroyed after X days/hours, including email addresses. All with the option to extend as an adjunct service.

Do people care to be “owned” – be compelled to “membership” – in order to socialize?

What about putting time and effort into one’s membership only to have a new corporate boss trash the elements of the service that made it attractice?

UNLESS there is a compelling reason for “memberhip in order to socialize” why should we bother? What is that compelling reason for membership? Exclusivity? Well, hell, do I have to be a member in order to achieve “exclusivity” OR can I all the better achieve exclusivity – inclusion/exclusion – by specific invitation? (Yes, they’re working on this issue at social network sites, because it’s a real issue.)

What about a social network where you are able to specify who yhou are – to whatever degree you believe disclosure “for that issue” will help – and to further specify “I want to speak with A who is trained in B and has X years experience”. AND to broadcast to an entire world of folks who are prepared to not be anonymouse.

I don’t necessarily want to keep loading up my personal data. I suspect I’m not alone so I’m prepared to guess that one imperative of the “social graph” is likely ubiquitous: “Is it really worth it to me to sign-up again and again and again”.

Do I want to expose my social graph? No, not really. I don’t need nor want the who world to “know me”. I’m not embarrassed nor am I particularly private. I just don’t feel a strong desire – or feel overwhelming benefits from – “putting it out there”. Too bad for the hungry marketers.

My very best guess of the future is that social media membership will run up against the law of diminishing returns. I can think of a dozen reasons why the existing social networking model will lose a great deal of steam when “on the fly” networking takes hold.

Who needs to ally one’s self with 30,000,000 million “other members” of Facebook when your living room only seats 12?

I may still enjoy the fruits of “club membership” but, as far as I can tell, the model will be suffering a breakdown in the near future and it will be a healthy one.

Alrighty, if you’ve reached this point you either see the same things I see evolving or have been pondering the same or I simply sucked you into some mindless rambling. I hope it’s not the latter. ;-P

So, I guess I’ve got a question: For all the excitement and crazy evaluations surrounding Facebook is there a good chance that Facebook will face an inglorious death in the next 5 years? My money is on a big YES.

My best guess is that, despite all the talk about the big valuations and big number surrounding Facebook those numbers will not materialize in a big payday for Facebook – unless some knucklehead company without vision and ability and with a fat pocketbook ponies up. (Read: Microsmurf)

Why? Because social networking is an application that serves people and not a website. Build me a better application and I’m gone. Facebook is attempting to add value – by opening the API – but “it’s” still only a social application – the modern day equivalent of the popular new bar or restaurant.

Can anyone predict that they will squeeze $10 billion in value out of Facebook before another social networking application emerges? I doubt it. Who has the clout and technology to take social networking to a new level? New possibilities? Social networking where YOU create networks, on the fly, with not commitment and no external ownership “of you”.

I don’t want to be owned. I don’t want my personal data owned. I don’t want to keep updating my data everywhere. I dont’ want to have to keep signing up. I don’t want to have to expose my “social data” any more than is necessary. I would really prefer to socially network in a platform independent way. I want my freedom. I don’t care to, again and again, be defined as “member”. I’m a member of the human race and would very much like access to the entire human race. I would like to be able to say “This is who I am. Do you know me? Do you want to know me? Well, hell, the door is open IF . . ”

Social networking on my – your – own terms. Wanna bet someone is working on it and that, when realized, Facebook is either a) dead; or, b) makes its coin as an entity that offers social networking services.

Ya, so there it is. A future of social networking as a service and not a club or website where I belong or am somehow “owned”.

Facebook as you know it is dead. Wanna bet? ;-P

********************

Allow me to simplify this a bit.

I’m not saying “this thing” – the concept being worked out called a social graph – spells doom for “community”.

Will it kill your forum? Not necessarily, but it may serve as a vehicle for the spawning of special issue/interest forums on the fly.

“Social networking” is software that enables people to do what they do – communicate, relate – online, within the construct of digital relating. But that’s ALL there is to it – software. No people? Pointless software.

What do people really want?

What does on online service provider really want?

Bored people? Unfocused people? People whose time appears to be of little value to themselves, who can spend hours searching, sifting, whatever?

It’s my best guess that we’re going through a period of luxury – the luxury being the indulgent passing of hours – that the world and its economy may not support indefinitely. That’s only one factor that may drive a “new and improved version of social networking”.

Other factors? I’m sure you all can name them. Please do. Spell it out why Facebook, in its current manifestation, will perish.

Please confirm that I’m not entirely nuts about social networking’s future as a non-membership driven “service”, where integral data about people will not be “owned” by any company or its website but will only be exposed on an “as needed” basis, voluntarily, and where social relations can take shape and take place on a non-owned platform, likely open source, that is hosted and that the value is in the value of the hosting and how the service is delivered.

More privacy? Likely.

More control? Likely.

More secure? Validation would likely be a +.

More effective? That’s a software thing.

So, Google offers an on the fly social networking service that offers escalation (IM->on up), that scales (it’s a storage issue), that is query friendly and capable (who has better technology?) and that enables social networking in a less time killing and more focused way.

I’m sure there will still be room for MySpace for adults. It will be called Facebook. ;-P

*****************

Man . . social networking “as a platform, not a place” (access to all the value of best-of-breed social networking apps, unbound from the need to access a specific website) . . plus the emergence of a fully transportable “social graph” (no need to keep building a profile for each site and the possibility of carrying relationships and reputation with you, instead of having to start from scratch at each site) . . plus social networking trending towards niche interest (re-trending, due to empowering tools so small sites, with a social element, can compete) . . plus the social economics of increasing social networking value by increasing exclusivity/selectivity and decreasing social noise by empowering niche sites (empowering niche sites with tools so they can compete with “take all comers sites, such as Facebook) . . . with all that tasty new “data” for Google and all the Google apps likely optimized for easy optional integration with Google’s APIs and Google as a “media – advertising/marketing – partner” to “help you” produce income (and them) by unleashing the capitalist spirit . . .

Imagine all the water behind a dam. To me, that is a fair analogy to forces “for real social networking”, i.e., social networking unbound from a place, profile data ownership (by anyone but yourself), unbound from a particular application provider.

If Google can facilitate the unbinding of the urge or drive “to be social” from the many current constrants – such as place (website) or specific application provicer – and remove the burden of having to constantly rebuild network connections or reputation, well . . that will really be something.

My money is that given the social pressure (implicit demand) a new version of social networking will come roaring on the scene, sooner rather than later. Membership optional.

One big key: Access to and control of my information “is desktop”, not network property. Having the ability to regulate the flow of personal data, on a opt-in and scale basis, will be essential to opening social networking.

*****************

What’s interesting is that as value generating opportunity social networking – as it is now structured or “operates” – is a wee bit inefficient.

Imagine a search engine driven version of social networking that enabled the broadcasting an issue (contract law question) tied to a verified profile (adult, male, business owner, USA) that would operate as the catalyst for the formation of an on-the-fly meet up, introduction, preliminary discussion and choice making “event”. (Somewhat described above as a destructible social network.)

Sure, we have had access to forums for posting issues. We’ve even had access to Yahoo answers, but is that as good as it gets? Is that version the most efficient version “for real business”?

I can see a very real future for on the fly, authenticated member and authenticated member credentials social networking. Authentication is key, as well as personal control of the “by social event” disclosure of personal information.

Again, this operates version of social networking flies if the time you wish to spend online is driven by any business interest, or at least of more issue focused agenda. If you just want to pass the time, chatter, egobate, whatever there’s already abundant channels for that.

*****************

Something akin to a personal ~SSL certificate, which may facilitate both identity authentication and allow for encryption of personal information?

Allow me to save you countless hours spent looking for the answer to the questions you have about becoming an affiliate marketer or making money, working at home, by affiliate marketing.

Here’s the rub of affiliate marketing: If you lack the skills to connect interested parties, with money (credit cards) with offers that internet them you will not succeed at affiliate marketing.

End of story.

No traffic. No success.

Wrong traffic. No success.

Wrong offer for traffic. No success.

Success = right traffic for the offer.

Sure, there’s the matter of landing pages and affiliate programs that track and credit you and pay you, but all of those issues only begin to materialize after you have a web traffic source where the traffic or visitors have the right profile.

So, if you want to play this game then first and foremost address the issue of bringing traffic TO your affliate offer.

Organic traffic. PPC campaign traffic. Banner or graphic or video driven traffic. Strategic link driven traffic. Article marketing. Social media marketing. Domain type-in traffic.

So much to learn about “How to bring traffic to an affiliate offer”.

So much is only learned by doing.

Like I’m doing right now.

From the U.S. Patent and Trademark website, discovered by searching reputation management in the U.S. trademark database.

Word Mark INTERNET REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: On-line advertising and marketing services. FIRST USE: 20090105. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090105
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77907989
Filing Date January 8, 2010
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Obtainium, LLC DBA Internet Reputation Management LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA Suite E432 7770 Telegraph Road Ventura CALIFORNIA 93004
Attorney of Record Clinton J. Cusick
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Now, if you go a bit deeper you will see that the “TARR status” indicates that the reviewing attorney appears to have issued an initial rejection. (Way to go reviewing attorney!”

Unfortunately, this practice – of attempting to corner emerging markets by attempting to trademark the words or phrases that the world had adopted to describe the new trend or new service in dialogue – is not all that uncommon. Witness, for example, the attempt to trademark the letters “SEO”.

Unfortunately, some poor soul spent thousands of dollars fighting that application to reign in a backdoor attempt to corner the SEO marketplace. (I, as did many others, contributed to a fund meant to reimburse the person who fronted the costs of the fight.)

Word to the wise: Pay a visit to the USPTO, from time to time, to see if someone is engaged in a bit of . . an effort . . to convince some possibly poorly informed attorney or bureaucrat that they should reign supreme in a world that you are already inhabiting, as a service provider, by the act and artifice of claiming rights to exclude you from calling yourself what everyone else in the industry would call you: SEO, internet reputation management specialist, etc.

Given the pace of change in online and internet marketing do classic print textbooks, for college internet markeing classes, make any sense – except, perhaps, for their historical perspective?

I remember when college professors who “wrote the book” tended to actually be immersed in the subject matter. When is the last time, or first time, anyone has met a college professor actually and actively engaged in . . internet marketing? Like someone actually making serious money online?

How does a college actually manage to “teach internet marketing”? Is the college running “labs” where students launch websites? Does the school offer PPC (pay-per-click) labs, where students actually manage PPC campaigns? Are the students hooked up with companies actively – and successfully – engaged in current credible internet marketing activities? Do the students engage in quality link building campaigns?

I’m beginning to think that the new age of apprenticeship is upon us, where much of what really will matter will only be learned via hands-on engagement with the subject of study. That the “effective classroom” for learning internet marketing will be internships, which – as learning experiences – will be as competitively sought after as was/is entrance to “the ivies”.

I can see college classrooms as a place for learning about internet marketing by dialogue amongst students who are currently interns and apprentices, in groups that may be lead by a school faciliator who secures the participation of subject matter professionals to help guide and inform the classroom dialogue. (Here’s a business model: Offer a service that provides access to qualified internet marketing professionals to colleges and universities.)

But, really, a college professor who is sufficiently experienced and expert to educate and inform a classroom of college students intent on entering the realm of ebusiness and online marketing?

Anyone meet such a person lately? Let me know. I’d like to interview her / him.

When you see the word “free” used online the first question you should ask is “Who is making the offer?”.

If you don’t know the company or the brand like you know McDonalds, Toyota or Tylenol then you better read the fine print.

If you have a hard time finding the fine print or cannot get to the fine print without giving away something, like your email address, then run away.

If the fine print really is fine = small or extra small or in a color that is difficult to read on screen, then run away.

If you can actually find the “terms and conditions” and the terms mention anything about “billing” . . then run away as you are about to enter the world of endless credit card rebilling.

If the website making the offer conceals the identity of the owner by any of a dozen methods (WhoIs privacy for the site’s domain, bogus phone numbers used over and over as Google can reveal, no actual verifiable street address, street address that when Googled and mapped makes no sense, no land line phone, no live person reachable on the phone, and more) . . run away.

If the product or service is touted on the myriad “Make Money Online” by the ever growing number of make money online gurus . . . read the fine print . . and if the other variables I mention hold true . . run away.

If the logo or color scheme of the website attempts to mimic a famous brand then run away.

If the “free product trial” has something to do with weight loss, skin care, “men’s health” (more like “men with issues”) or your colon . . then run away.

If the “free product” is being offered via dozens or hundreds or even thousands of websites . . then run away.

If the “free product” is somehow associated with the word “affiliate” or “affiliate program” . . then run away.

If the “free product” or “free trial” sounds like a product that was offered to you by an email spammer . . then run away . . screaming . . like someone whose hair is on fire and they can’t find tehir hands or a bucket of water.

Any questions? Still?

RUN! RUN! RUN AWAY!

A good question to ask yourself, when contemplating your website’s “brand name” and whether to choose a “to branded website domain name” versus “the domain name that is the generic name of the product or service you plan to offer” is “What is our budget for building and maintaining the ‘meaning of the branded domain’ TO MAKE IT MEAN what the keyword domain ‘already means’”?

How much do you have to spend or plan to spend to help make the connection, in consumer’s minds, that your branded or catchy domain name – say FizzleBip.tld – is the name of a website where people can get mortgage quotes?

FizzleBip.tld or MortgageQuotes.tld?

When contemplation “our brand” remember that “brand” stands for much more than a name or symbol. The brand-name or brand-symbol are merely references to or associated with the user’s experience OF your product or service. In other words, brand exists in the experience. The brand-name or brand-symbol are merely associates, not executives, so to speak. Experience -> execution, making of the brand experience. Words or symbols -> associations.

People labor about “branded domains” when I think they really should be laboring and focusing on “user experience”. Get the experience of the the product or service or website as an experience right and, if you do, you can use an onion or tomato or potato sack as your “brand image”. Likewise, if you have the money and talent to get image hosting as a service working and you could call your service Flickr and it will work, at least until the money runs out for free image hosting.

When it comes to choosing a brandable domain versus a generic descriptive domain for a website you need to ask “How much money, time and effort will it take to associate the branded domain with the service/goods?” That will be a function of the industry’s competitiveness, amongst other factors. It can be a very large sum/cost. Also, the cost of branding efforts may be perpetual if you are a small to mid-size player.

When you have the industry’s generic name as a website name the costs of “making the association” likely drop significantly. That cost or savings needs to measured against the cost of acquiring the generic, descriptive domain.

Call this a case of “dealing with the demands of having someone else do it”, that is, the demands of outsourcing content creation.

If you haven’t outsourced article writing here’s a few things you need to be aware of.

Unless you are working with highly tuned in writers, ones who can advise YOU what ought to be covered in the next article, you are going to have to spend time researching topics TO cover.

That’s easy, right? No, not quite.

You need to know if there is demand or market for the information contained in the article. If you plan to pay writers for their work then, to earn money from the articles, you need to know if there are advertisers who target people interested in reading about the topic. You might also want to know how much their willing to pay, how many there are competing for interested eyeballs, and whether the topic is evergreen or only of passing interest – in which case you better be pulling in traffic ASAP or your investment will show no ROI.

That’s just the beginning.

Next, you might want to know what’s out there in terms of “source material” and have an idea of how you might avoid redundancy (regurgitation) and add value. IF you have a gifted writer you might not need to ponder these questions. However, when most folks think “outsourcing content creation I suspect they aren’t thinking about paying for writing talent so much as they’re thinking about word count and pennies. So, you best be prepared to spend some time thinking and articulating (explaining to your writers) HOW they might address the topic to make it new, fresh, interesting or worth a reader’s time.

That’s just the beginning of the front end of the writing process, i.e., the process of deciding what to write about and how to approach the subject. There’s more to cover at some later time about the pre-writing phase, but what about the time and effort that has to be invested AFTER a copywriter has submitted an article?

Who is going to proof-read what is being created? You, of course, the person paying for the articles. So you need to read them, but not “just read them” for logic, grammer, typos. You also need to be concerned about “originality” (no plagiarism, no copyright violation) – which takes time to check even minimally. You also need to be concerned about the overall quality (if quality matters to you), reference to authority (for further reading or to support arguments or ideas in the article) and the quality and originality source material.

And more.

You also need to be in charge of managing the work flow. Assigning topics. Picking topics that can be “done justice” in the time allowed for writing. And replenishing the work pipeline. Constantly. With relevant, interesting articles to write.

So, what’s the point of writing about this? The point is that outsourcing content creation is not necessarily a solution without its own inherent problems or demands or limitations. Oursourcing is not a panacea, nor a cake walk.

Outsourcing content creation or article writing, while meant to save time and effort, itself imposes demands on one’s time and creates new demands on ones time. Paying others to write articles for you has costs that go beyond writing checks to your copywriters. You need to assess “all the costs” in order to determine just how well outsourcing writing will work for you and whether or to what degree it will be a profitable endeavor.