Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
With the Masters of Marketing awards rapidly approaching us, rumour has it members of the public are able to nominate their favourite brands for the ‘Brand of the Year’ category.
Over the past year or two, sites like Buzzfeed and Upworthy have introduced a new type of content marketing to the masses.
Lovingly referred to as clickbait, it has so thoroughly revolutionised the way content is shared that there are rumours Facebook has tried to ban it.
So why do people have such a love/hate relationship with these entertaining articles? And what can marketeers learn from clickbait marketing?
The practise of blogger or influencer "engagement" is one of the most widely-used tactics in marketing these days, done by almost everyone, from PR agencies to SEOs, social marketers to spammers.
It's also one of the most commonly derided amongst the recipients and much-debated amongst bloggers and professionals - but rarely addressed by marketers themselves.
If you're doing it well, why share the secrets with your competitors? Sadly, a lot of marketers are doing it very badly indeed, and something needs to be done about it...
Yesterday, I had a rather heated debate with a fellow online marketer, on one of the most popular topics within SEO at the moment: Namely, the impact of Google+ (and its +1s) on search rankings - or lack of, to be more precise.
Let me start this post with a couple of caveats. First up, whilst I'm very much on record as not being a fan of Google+ (I *may* have called it 'The King's New Clothes of Social Networking' a few times) my opinion about the topic in question is entirely unrelated to this.
I may not be a fan, but I certainly recognise the impressive offering Google have developed in the fight against Facebook. I have a Google Plus profile, I encourage our clients to use it too and I pop on there at least once a week to see what's what.
In the heady and fast-paced world of online marketing, we're often told that achieving social media awareness is the 'promised land' - we dream of things 'going viral', watching enviously as the likes of Gangnam Style rocket up the YouTube charts and wondering why the stuff we create for our clients don't achieve the same level of awareness.
Achieving that nirvana of mass social awareness can completely revolutionise your fortunes. Fine, you might have optimised your PPC to within an inch of its life, you've got top SEO positions and your affiliate campaign is an award winner.
You might even have a few glossy-looking awards for your expensive TV campaigns on the office mantle piece. But underneath it all, you know that the level of awareness of your product can make or break you.
In the latest high-profile case of Twitter celebrities getting their wrists slapped by the ASA, Keith Chegwin has been sent to the virtual naughty step for not disclosing a promoted tweet he posted some time ago.
The tweet in question, posted at an unspecified time last year (and now deleted), suggested to Chegwin's followers that they might like to visit a certain gambling website which he was the face of.
I won't mention their names here, as I'm sure they're getting plenty of SEO value from the coverage they're already getting.
Either way though, by posting his tweet without using an ASA-approved hashtag such as #ad or #spon, Cheggers broke one of the ASA's golden rules.
When you work with brands using channels like Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis, you become very familiar with some of the pitfalls companies can fall into - and what results they seem to generate.
I've never been one of those people who likes to kick-up a stink when a brand makes a mistake but I like to keep a close eye on what trends seem to annoy customers most, if only to learn from them for the future.
As well as my own experience, I decided to do a bit of amateur research this week. I asked people to reveal what they find most annoying about brand behaviour on social media platforms, with a particular focus on Facebook and Twitter. Below is the culmination of that research.
As somebody who regularly has to deal with a multitude of Twitter accounts, both personal and client-based, I often come across confusion when it comes to the thorny issue of naming your @account.
Aside from the obvious branding issues, one of the biggest stumbling blocks can be the issue of trademark, copyrights and the often-complicated problem of who has a "right" to use any particular name.
In the world of social media marketing there are some great examples of really innovative campaigns - and plenty of lazy copy-cats too. But in our clamour to measure, incentivise and prove that all-important ROI metric, are marketers putting their clients brands at risk by breaking Facebook (or other sites) terms and conditions?
Twitter has become the marketing tool of choice for the discerning charity these days - just think of a well known charity and I can almost guarantee you they'll be on Twitter. This trend has lead to some great case studies in how to use Twitter effectively, as well as a few well publicised clangers too.
What can charities who are just starting out on the long road to Tweetadise learn from these case studies? How can charity supporters do their bit to help out? Hopefully, this blog might give you a few pointers...
As a big fan of location-based applications (I'm currently 'checking in' at various locations on five different apps...!) I have of course been watching the launch and subsequent spread of Facebook Places with great interest.
Now that the first batch of dust has had a chance to settle, I wanted to look in a bit more detail at some of the hurdles 'Places' may face in the coming months, if past experience is to be believed.
Whilst I agree that people need to be clear on exactly which bits of their information is being shared and which is private, I don't think this is worth the furore that it's currently causing. Here's why...