Google wants to plaster ads on everything, and Google controls the primary search engine of the web. So, eventually, it is inevitable that Google will serve up nothing but ads.

Take a look at what you get when you do a blog search for “shower gel“. Listing after listing is a fake blog about a shower gel products, with links to shower gel product pages of online stores. Plus a few blog posts about ads for shower gel products.

Oh, and look at all the embedded AdSense.

As much as I know I will regret this later, I support Google’s effort to open the wireless spectrum use requirements. Unlike many pro-Google bloggers, I do not think this is a benevolent act by Google. And I don’t believe this is Google working to improve the world. However, the current (and former) telco industry has so screwed the consumer that I fear there is no way anything could be worse than the ad-filled, privacy-threatening GoogleView likely to come out of this.

At least with an Internet-style spectrum allocation, we end-users have some influence over the matters. Did you ever petition your local Board of Public Utilities to  change the way the telco’s operate? Of course you haven’t. The current BigTelco disaster should not be allowed to continue. Google’s $4.6 billion is our money, gathered from AdWords and the like, so putting it into the system in this way is indeed better than paying my monthly Verizon bill, for example (and no, I would never pay for that VCast crap).

So yes, “Go Google” and I bet you could double that $4.6Billion and still make a killing later.  That’s how monopoly momentum works, and that’s why Verizon can charge $45 per month for “unlimited data plan” that is in fact, extremely limited in every way they’ve been able to think of so far (andlikely to be more limited in the future). Until Google requires a social security number of every Internet searcher, Google is less of a threat than Verizon and the other telcos when it comes to spectrum allocation.

This is a reference post about selling photographic images online. The photo world is rapidly changing. You don’t need to be a professional photographer, and you don’t need to give your images away for free, either. These sites sell your images through their online stock photo catalogs, for a commission. They also run stock photography affiliate programs (follow the links to see):

• photos.com
• bigstockphoto.com
• dreamstime.com
• fotolia.com
• stockxpert.com
• shutterstock.com
• 123RF.com
• istockphoto.com

Know any more? Please comment.

A long time ago I learned that if I link to some product website from this blog, it will get investigated.

I was contacted by a small business webmaster who wanted to thank me for the link and introduce himself. We chatted, and of course I asked for information from his log files. Sure enough, the initial traffic spike he got was from whois.sc. People investigating his domain. You are all so predictable.

Anyway last month I linked out to a few websites that I appreciate for products, and wondered about two things: would they be interpreted as promotional outlinks, paid or otherwise, and would they be investigated for whatever reason you people tend to look into web sites that get mentioned? I can’t tell the later because I don’t have log access, and I can’t tel the former because rel=nofollow makes no sense at all.

I initially rel=nofollowed the links because I wanted to send the message that no, these were not my sites or my clients and no, I wasn’t trying to boost them from this blog. If I had to use this blog as a source of page rank for real business, I think I’d be in sad shape as an SEO.

When I looked at the post a few days later and saw the rel=nofollow, I thought “they look like paid links marked with the special Google code for paid links”. So I removed the no follows. WTF. This rel-nofollow makes no sense at all.

So Dear Matt Cutts. If I link out to a site that I recommend, do I nofollow? If I don’t nofollow, does it suggest I am boosting them for profit? If I do nofollow the links, does it suggest they were paid links?  Man, I am starting to understand how tuff it must be to be Google these days.

I’ve seen type-in traffic referred to as “natural” traffic. In search engine optimization, we refer to earned search referral traffic as “organic” traffic. I suppose now all we need to do is define “artificial” traffic, and we’ll be ready for government oversight in the form of a Food and Drug Adminsitration for Internet marketing!

The food analogies go even farther. We already have “local” traffic, just as you have “buy local” initiatives in food and farming. How about GMOs? genetically modified foods…. let’s see, how about sneaky redirects?

I think click-bots can represent artificial. What about preservatives? Hmm… exit traffic might be a good choice. You can build web properties that draw traffic and maintain a constant stream of useless but long-lasting traffic from the exits. The more you know about exit traffic I think the more this analogy makes sense.

Artificial colors? Hmm. that’s harder. Of course exit traffic qualifies, as does redirected and cloaked traffic, but they all get combined when so “artificially colored“. Add in some MFA sites to match the FD&C red controversy that didn’t change anything.

What about paid traffic? I immediate thought of corruption, but that’s funnier than it is accurate. Correlates to GMO seeds, where you pay for seed to grow your crops but are contractually forbidden from harvesting next year’s seeds. Sort of the opposite of organic SEO, but kind of like leasing a plant to harvest it’s fruit. Too expensive, too many controls, too much profit for the provider. Yup.. all matches pretty well.

How about “nut-free“? I doubt that can be matched in SEO world, LOL.

Lately I’ve been wandering around the SEO/SEM landscape quite a bit. probably has something to do wth my reluctance to maintain a feed reader, and the demise of what was a fairly decent thread watching site. Anyway, last week I noted how ClickZ oops.. I mean SearchEngineWatch was pitching the message of TheAgency, specifically that you probably can’t make a good enough video so it might be best to hire someone who can. Today I checked in an sho’ nuff, TheAgency is at it again. This time, it’s “you’re probably not that creative, but it’s OK!”

Seriously… you’re not talented enough to be the next Will It Blend! Hah. Really. Tell that to the ICanHasCheezburger LOLCat-loving couple, mmmkay?

I love a good conspiracy, but I just don’t see one here. Several people have pointed to this series of events and said “wow” but no matter how hard I try, I can’t see any connection between DaveN getting banned from WebWhatevahWorld and a massive UK-based botnet attack taking down WebWhatevahWorld, just concidentally the same week that competing site (supported by DaveN) launched.

Last week: Sphinn.com launched. DaveN says it’s cool and he’ll be participating. Danny acknowledges it competes with WebMasterWorld.

Last Week: As reported this week by Tabke, WMW was attacked by a massive botnet out of the UK, where DaveN has an ISP.

This week: DaveN notes that it looks like Brett Tabke is cloaking back links to Google in advance of launching another competing SEO/SEM news site.

This week: Brett Tabke’s WebWhatevahWorld bans long-time member and moderator DaveN.

Okay so we have all this circumstantial evidence and the details all line up, and the personalities match the potential for a conspiracy theory, but really is it that strong? Does it really suggest that DaveN (former part-owner of ThreadWatch) had anything to do with a UK-based botnet attacking webmasterworld, which is launching a direct competitor to new site Sphinn after ThreadWatch was burned out back to eliminate any threat to the commercial joint ventures? Nah.

I have ten (10) promotional discount codes “johnon2″ for the Seattle Domainer’s Conference next month. Put that code “johnon2″ into the “promotional code” box when you register, and get $100 off the registration fee. This comes in from the conference organizers.

Two years ago Sedo gave away 3 free tickets (old news), the hotel discount expires Friday, Todd had 5 discounts available last week.

NOTE: If you use this code and sign up, send me an email with your SMS or cell number. I’m eager to buy a round for those who read my blog, but sadly I can’t cover 1200 drinks out of this month’s pocket money, so…. the registration page is here.

Q: Why the promotion of the Seattle Domain Conference at johnon.com?

A: It’s refreshingly simple. Unlike much of the incestuous SEO community these days, I don’t have a “partnership” or “strategic alliance” or “joint venture” with the organizers. I haven’t agreed to free registration in exchange for promotion. I haven’t been invited to “elite dinners” or private parties. At this time I’m not even speaking or sitting on any panels (although I’m liking the idea… I’ve got my eye on the agenda, and look forward to seeing Todd from SEMPdx. Go because you want to, and use the “johnon2” discount code to get $100 off because that’s $100 of beer money back in your pocket. Simple, right?

Update 08/2007: I’ll be speaking at the Domain Roundtable. The above predates my acceptance to speak, and I have no idea how many copuons (if any) remain, but go ahead and try the code. I fit doesn’t work, email me to tell me and I’ll ask for more.
Note to the DomainRountable webmaster: fix this dead link, dude. It’s a pretty good backlink, so 301 redirect it to the agenda. Classic front controller screw up… but easily fixed.

Rand over at SEOMoz announced a cool project - an open landing page optimization contest, verified by third party conversion tracking. This is cool enough to get even me to participate, except for one fatal flaw: a good landing page sells, and to sell, you have to know your product.

The product in this case is Premium Membership. I have no clue what is behind the Premium Membership at SEOMoz So how can I sell it? Oh sure I can make a great landing page anyway, but I shouldn’t be able to compete with the premium members in a conversion contest. If I could beat them without any knowledge of the inside, what would that say about their skillz? What would it say about landing page optimization? That it’s all about page design? Phooey.

A good landing page has to not just sell, but satisfy and convince. Consider yourself the visitor. You came to this page already predisposed with an opinion and an expectation. The job of the landing page is to match those aspects of your beliefs, allay your concerns, and satisfy your hopes. The copy uses information to do that. In the case of a landing page encouraging SEOMoz visitors to sign up for premium membership, many of the common beliefs involved are well known. What is the value expected to come to me in exchange for paying? What will I immediately gain right away that will make my purchase a no brainer? What guarantees do I have that I am not getting scammed, that I have no risk? How sure can I be that if I do get scammed, I am in a safe place and can get out without damage or big hassles? Answer these business questions, and I can design a landing page strategy and guide a designer in building it. Absent this sort of analysis, all you can do is play with page design or hype with promotional copy. That should not be enough to win a landing page optimization competition.

Oddly, the very same things I would need to build Rand a killer landing page and win this contest, are the very same things I have not seen myself while watching SEOMoz in the past. I bet the absence of those details is what has been keeping me and the masses from signing on, separate from any landing page. But to Rand, that is the reason for the contest. See the problem?

Rand, you don’t need a killer landing page to get premium members. You need killer value.

Seriously, absent any obvious problems, the landing page for premium conversion will only work if it clearly demonstrates value on the spot. If the premium membership actually has value like that, we need to present it on the landing page. Identify the 3 most likely incoming demeanors and show them what they seek is inside. Use examples. Use testimonials from inside. Etc etc, and add technology to exploit any available a-priori knowledge (can you spell referrer?). BUT, if there really isn’t such value in a premium membership to SEOMoz, then what is the “killer landing page” trying to accomplish? See the problem?

Let me clarify this: I have complete expectation that there is adequate content within that premium SEOmoz site to enable someone to make a killer landing page that converts. SEOmoz isn’t popular for no reason. However, I can’t see it, and unless you’re a premium subscriber, neither do you. So how could you win this contest? When I went to read the page that has the details for the contest, where I expected to find the guidelines that would enable a strategy for the conversion page (what can be offered, for example) I got hit with a member’s only login screen. Even the contest promotion failed to convert. See the problem?

I don’t believe that Rand views this as merely a page design exercise, because it’s presented in the context of copywriting and accompanied by a report that proposes sales conversion tactics including things like modified pricing structures. You know, strategic issues that drive landing page design. Something is missing.

A free, limited trial would achieve your goal, Rand. Plain and simple. If you’ve got value, show it. Having tasted it, we’d hate to lose it and we’d pony up the monthly fee to secure access. If you can’t do that, then, well, why not? It’s just a hunch, but I bet the answer to that question will tell you much more than Offermatica’s conversion reports.

Conversation in my house last night, after the kids were asleep. I’m on the couch, my BFF is on the computer in the kitchen nook, and I want her to experience LOLCats.

“hey honey, checkout this LOLcat site. No, it’s cats. but with bad grammer. Whatever, just check it out. Go to I have cheeseburgers dot com”

“what? Ihavecheeseburgers.com?”

“Yeah.”

“Doesn’t work. No such domain.”

“Did you do ‘have’ or ‘has’? It’s I HAS cheeseburger.com”

“IHASCHEESEBURGER.COM. Okay I got it. Photography stuff, and travel. Why is this special?

“Look at the cats. They are too funny.”

“What cats?”

“You dont have cats?”

“No cats. Photography links.”

“Try I HAS CHEEZEBURGER.COM, with a Z in cheese.”

“A Z in ‘haz’ too, or just cheeze?”

“Just cheeze. IHASCHEEZEBURGER.COM”

“Okay. IHASCHEEZEBURGER.COM. Got it. Which link do I click, cheeseburger recipes?. Hey, Hawaii is on sale. Can we go?”

“No. Try I CAN HAS CHEESEBURGER.COM. Yeah, I remember now. That’s it. Try it.”

“Okay I got it. Recipes. By the way, did you like the herb burger at Wendy’s barbeque? Wasn’t that good?”

“Huh? Do you see cats?”

“No cats. Did you refill the gril gas tank yet?”

“No. Whatever that is, it’s not the LOLCat site. Make sure you put HAS, not HAVE. It’s bad grammar, but that’s part of the fun.”

“This isn’t fun so far. ICANHASCHEESEBURGER.COM. I’m seeing a link for ‘funny animal pictures’. Is that it?”

“No! Don’t click anything there.”

“Hey I won! I’m the 999,999th visitor! Too bad for the one millionth, eh? What’s my prize?”

“Don’t click - it’s a scam.”

“Too late. Sorry.”

“Try I has cheezeburgers.com, with a Z in cheeze”

“That’s stupid.”

“Just try it.”

“No such site.”

“Try singular.. just one cheeze burger, but still with the Z.”

“Okay, that worked. I got it“

“See the cats? Check out the ‘random’ link in the navigation.”

“What’s AvenueA, and do I want to block it?”

“huh? Did you see cats?”

“No cats, but Bali vacations are on sale, too. I’d rather go to Bali. How hot is it there in August?”

“It’s monsoon season over there. Freaking domainers! Forget it. Just go to Google. Search I can have cheese burgers and tell me what comes up.”

“That was easy. ICANHASCHEEZBURGER.COM… LOLCat site. Bad grammar, with the Z but no E at the end of CHEEZE. Should I click?”

“Yeah.”

“How cute! But I don’t like cats. Is there one for puppies?”

“Whatever.”

SEO vs. Domainers:

I don’t know which is worse… a web publisher choosing a domain like ICANHASCHEEZBURGER.COM or the domainers who bought so many variations of that odd-ball domain name for their usually off-topic link pages. Sure there was opportunity in buying up all those mis-spellings… the publisher failed to own them and the super-popular site should generate tons of type-in typos (for the record, there are many more variations still unregistered.. hint hint). My comment “freakin’ domainers” was aimed at the hassle and confusion associated with the “no, not that version of the site” back and forth. I suppose it wouldn’t have been much different if they were actual registered sites for other things.
But notice how the solution was Google?
Almost two years ago I updated my SEO Sales Pitch to include “you have to vanity SEO your own web site name, because nowadays people are putting their URLs into the browner search box (or toolbar search box) instead of the location bar. If you’re not #1 for your own domain name, you’re losing what is rightfully type-in (direct) traffic. This is especially important for brand names and product names, because people often assume a URL for a popular product or brand, even if it is owned by a parent company. Companies need to rank #1 for their domain names and their brands and their products in addition to the core market search terms.

SEOs know the value of selective domaining around an optimization project. But unlike domaners who are not associated with the onwer of the trademark or brand, the SEO can own the SERP for the variations as well as the original. You can even petition to take them away from others who may have squatted on them. Contrary to much of what appears in the SEO literature on the web, the 301 is not always the best tool for managing related domains like typos. You can make use of them in other, more creative ways specifically because you have a license to do so.
The overlap of SEO and domaining is a natural, but oddly, it has taken until now for someone to recognize just how big an opportunity exists for combining SEO and domain industries in a single conference setting. Domainers seem to be big egos… kinda like SEOs, no? Domainers seem to be opportunists, kinda like SEOs, no? Domainers seek to automate with efficiency and metrics… just-like-seos. And domainers have a potential public relations problem with the advent of significant attention on issues like “if there are so few domains left, why do some people control hundreds of thousands of them?” and “if Verisign couldn’t redirect unregistered typos, why can someone else?”

Aside from the obvious experience the SEO industry has with managing a snake oil reputation, SEOs are also the tacticians to go to for reputation management itself. Even if domainers don’t want to learn from SEOs about managing a bad rep, or how to deter PR attacks from jealous, whiney, possibly inept competitors, domainers can use SEO for reputation management.

Next month’s Seattle Domainers Conference brings SEO and domaining together and it’s a hot topic on the blogs this month. I’m seeing SEO names added to the agenda… including some BigNames… it will be interesting to see if the established SEO clique gains control of the venue (so we see the same-old same-old representing SEO yet again). Personally, I’d love to see some public challenge to the typical “seo talks” we’re getting at SES, SMX, and PubCon. Clearly, I am not the only one seeing the opportunity in this room full of seo and domainer opportunists.

Update: Okay so already Google is sending me crazy traffic on all variations of the ICANHASCHEEZBURGERS theme. But look at this. Google returns no results for ICANHAVECHEESEBURGERS and ICANHAVECHEESEBURGERS.COM. Odd, no?