If you don’t monitor the web world and what’s going on in social media, you don’t hear or see the angst every time Google decides to change something in the search algorithm. Think of it the same way radio programmers respond to a PPM or diary methodology change. Remember that stress. Now recognize with Google, they are planning more than 500 separate changes in 2011.
We’re ready to shoot the ARB gods now. Perhaps praising them for not screwing around with the rules every 10 minutes would be better.
Google is really focused on the consumer. Same place we should be both in our on air and on line products. Here’s a list of the infamous Google 23 questions. These, and the follow ups to them, are what’s behind Google’s constantly evolving platform. Looking at the questions, they would be great fodder to consider when you think about your audience too. Change the word “article or page” to “personality, show or station” and you have a textbook way to look at your programming.
- Would you trust the information presented in this article (by this station)?
- Is (station’s content) this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
- Does the site (station) have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
- Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
- Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
- Are the topics driven by genuine interests of (listeners to the station) readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
- Does the article (Do the topics) provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
- Does the page (Does the station) provide substantial value when compared to other (stations) pages in search results?
- How much quality control is done on content?
- Does the article describe both sides of a story?
- Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
- Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
- Was the (content) article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
- For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
- Would you recognize this (station) site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
- Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
- Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
- Is this the sort of (station)page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
- Does this (station) article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
- Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
- Are the articles (content breaks) short, unsubstantial, or otherwise (trivial) lacking in helpful specifics?
- Are the pages (Is the show) produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
- Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
It’s not a perfect match to radio’s needs, but this shows the depth Google goes to satisfy customers. I highlighted the questions that seem to apply to me. Perhaps if we spent more time focused on the listener than the measurement method, our results would be better too.