Joey, I’m glad you’re interested. It should be fun and hopefully I’ll present some ideas and techniques you’ve never heard of.

-Jon

:) Great title! I use Google CONSTANTLY and learning to use it better would be great. I don’t think the title is derogatory at all, but maybe that’s just me.

I think your presentation needed an example. I found it entertaining, but I’m afraid I might’ve gotten the wrong idea about some of your strategies.

With the mini review site idea, were you actually advocating the creation of pure astroturf sites to make your brand look better? With the cat food review example, I don’t think you made it clear to the audience that the review site would be tied to your brand somehow. And how could it? Why would users trust reviews on a site owned by a brand with a vested interest?

When you spoke about creating sites like cat-food-nutrition.com, cat-food-health.com, cat-food-keyword-here.com, each with keyword-specific content from your main site with the words “switched around” I actually got angry. These are the very sites that I, as a citizen of the Internet, go out of my way to exclude from my search results. They’re noise. Content pollution. I directly avoid such “keyword domains” because I know they are content-free or are duplicates of sites I’ve already seen. Contrary to your assertion, I’m much, much less likely to click a link with a domain like that. In fact, if I can tie that domain directly to a brand, I’m likely to hold that brand in lower regard.

I figured this was the modus operandi for anyone who’s been surfing for a couple of years. Am I in the minority? Did I horribly misunderstand your presentation? Or is this just part of the war between marketers and consumers?

“Case study” was a strong phrase. I wasn’t suggesting that you provide examples that would risk client privacy. However, I would have liked to see an example of a non-spammy informative mini-brochure site or brand-sponsored mini-review site. Perhaps you could have found an example created for a brand you haven’t handled?

The way the keyword domain and brochure site ideas were presented, especially when followed by the review site idea and the cat food example, left me with a sleazy feeling. I laughed at the cat review—it was entertaining—but I felt the idea of creating a brand-sponsored review site needed more legitimacy. Were you proposing the creation of an actual, full-fledged review site that would be updated over time with slightly biased information? Is this something ongoing that will need a human at the helm?

I agree. Met Life’s retirement advisor tool probably falls in that category.

To what degree do you suggest branding these vertical micro-sites? Do you present them as “Cat Grooming Tips Online”, “Cat Grooming Tips (footer: brought to you by Friskies)”, or “Friskies(TM) Cat Grooming Tips”? I didn’t get a good feel for whether the focus of these sites was on the information or the brand, or how well-linked to the brand’s web site they’d be.

Hi Bobby,

Please send a copy/reference to your your federally registered service mark. I wasn’t able to find it in my USPTO search. It must be there somewhere, since you’re not allowed to use the SM or TM symbol unless it’s been properly registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Also, I don’t believe you’re allowed to include the registered trademark of another company in your service mark. However, I’ll do you the favor of contacting Google’s legal department for you just to make sure. I’m sure they’ll have an opinion on the matter.