Paul Fleming - Flemo: Between Sydney, Philadelphia and the World Wide Web

Inspired by a recent post by Philadelphia PR Brendan Shank outlining what not to do and more not what to do’s for a press release, we want to take it one step further and dissect what an SEO will do to a press release once it has done the rounds.

Let me preface this by suggesting that we are not a PR firm. Some folks seem to mistake us for one but honestly we do not do PR. Press Releases on the other hand, we will use and abuse (not really abuse, let’s call it leverage) for our personal gain. So here’s our favored process:

1. PR person puts together press release.
2. PR person distributes press release through their usual channels.
3. PR person gives us press release
4. We research press release contents to determine best keyword strategy (we’ll choose up to 3 targets)
5. We adjust press release (generally pretty slight modifications to include keyword phrase groupings and anchor text) to accommodate keywords.
6. We send back to PR rep (or client) for approval
7. We distribute through our online channels
8. We track and measure online visibility

Sometimes we do it alongside the PR person’s process in order to expedite but it’s important that we still adjust the press release enough to differentiate between our distribution and theirs. It’s not that we don’t care how many people read the press release in fact we encourage it, but this is not our primary objective. We want incoming links. We want controlled anchor text. Increased visibility is merely an added bonus.

Some people consider our role in the process contributes to diluting the power and value of the press release but naturally I am not of that mindset. Let me just borrow Shank’s phrasing here and suggest that

“for the time being, and done well, press releases continue to be a high-ROI way to tell your story to your most important audiences and build credibility and visibility.”

All we’re really doing is extending the life and findability (which I’m pretty sure is not a real word but seems more appropriate than any others I can think of) of content that is already created.

So for us, it’s really about the incoming links. Often the actual quality of incoming links is questionable, but we do see these releases getting picked up and reposted on other websites and blogs, and with it a handful of high quality, relevant incoming links. Very nice thank you. While I kind of skipped over the keyword research stuff, this is actually the most valuable part of the process so do not ignore it. Maybe one day I’ll take you through it.

Can’t get over the stars they were able to gather for this video.

It’s one of those things. Like downloading music, there was once a sense that you could simply get it for free. Of course you still can but it’s become more apparent that now, with an ever-increasing ability to track and protect these items, the risks are great. There are also more services available that give greater weight to artists over record labels and the RIAA (CD Baby for example) that just the thought of getting one over these idiots is well worth the download fee.

Images have suffered a similar fate, maybe to an even greater extent. The fact is that you don’t know if that image you found on Google Images is copyright protected or not. A watermark is an obvious sign but some are embedded in the pixels proving much harder to detect. We’ve seen a spate of clients come under fire from Getty Images who have been tracking down some of their images and asking for proof of purchase and bullying them into paying compensation even after taking them down. It certainly has the feeling of being a scam and most definitely reeks of unsavory business practices so it’s important that you take the necessary steps in getting yourself into a situation with them breathing down your neck.

How about avoiding Getty Images? Obviously not going to their website is easy but they have extended their reach beyond their own walls, especially with the purchase of the very useful istockphoto.com and my previous favorite sxc.hu. I really used to like that site but now they too have succumbed.

Other websites to add to your list:

1. Flickr.com – not only will you find a lot of personal photos here but professionals also share their wares and they set the copyright rules.

2. MorgueFile.com – I recall when these guys first came out their site was pretty basic. It has improved significantly and is a great resource. Again the rules vary but there are a lot available for free and without attribution.

3. Freemediagoo.com is most definitely free it can just be a little difficult finding what you want.

4. Dreamstime.com – if you like istockphoto, these guys are a solid replacement for cheap downloads. They also have a free section.

5. Public-Domain-Image.com – all images are under public domain and as such are free to use for commercial or personal use

As the Internet continues to mature, it’s becoming more and more obvious that we can no longer be so cavalier about our activities online. Whether companies like Getty Images break certain protocols in dealing with illegal activities is beside the point, and like the RIAA the hope is that their reputation and business will suffer as a result. The fact is that we have options, and good ones too, that allow us to choose alternatives which should be encouraged.

Today Google rolled out their Google Instant Search results which, in a nutshell, reveals more search results based on every letter you type into their search box. This realtime stream of results yields a flurry of activity on the page below while you busily type your search term. Users have to be logged in to get this so it’s most likely based on your search history as much as their data. I thought I would hate it but I don’t. In fact I like it enough to switch regularly from using my toolbar to search when appropriate. With significant adoption, it’s going to affect client search data but as a user, it’s a nicer way to search.

What does this mean for searchers? As you type and scan it becomes more and more obvious that you have found what you are looking for, saving 2-5 seconds per search according to Google research. No longer will you have to stop at “Philadelphia Cafe” which gives you results from all over Philly:

but may want to continue on to “Philadelphia Cafe South St” to find a potential destination without having to leave the comfort of your search box.

What does this mean for SEO’s? Essentially the technology remains the same so we’re planning to continue doing what we do. With increased adoption, it does seem like there may be some interesting analytics data to crunch and I’m wondering if this will impact the long-tail rather than the head phrases but I’m leaning towards the latter in this case. There are some that are going in the other direction.

It’s really this sort of innovation that keeps Google forging ahead in their space and something that Yahoo could have utlized when they had the chance (although they never did really improve their poor search relevancy). It certainly won’t kill the SEO and it’s uncertain as to whether or not users will accept it across the board but for those who use search a lot, there’s no doubt that Instant will bring about significant productivity improvements.