Press "Enter" to skip to content

Month: August 2006

QotD – Is “Interesting” Interesting?

Today’s Question of the day is a cry for help from One Degree:

Is “Interesting” interesting?

We introduced the Interesting feature a few weeks ago and, while visits to the articles in the series so far have been respectable, I can’t say I’m satisfied with the results. My goal was to present interesting Canadian Internet firms in a simple and consistent way that didn’t take TOO much of my time to manage. But I’m not sure we got it right and I’m asking your help in fixing this concept…

Comments closed

How Do You “Try” Blogging?

I was talking to a colleague at “Tucows”: and we hit on something I’d experienced before, but hadn’t quite formalized into a structured idea.
The issue at hand was “what is the proper way to ‘test’ a new blogging platform – or blogging in general for that matter?”
To me the biggest benefit of having a blog is not “publishing a personal diary” but “sharing thoughts with the world”. The impact of blogging on your ability to share with others only happens if others can in fact share – otherwise you are just talking to yourself.
And therein lies the problem.
If you are “just testing” blogging, or a new platform like “vox”:, you don’t really want to tell people it’s only a test and that you might not keep it going.
In a nutshell, *without committing to blogging it is very hard to get the benefits of blogging.* My guess is the blogosphere is strewn with “hello world”: blog posts that are the first and last post because it is impossible to see the benefit of post number two.


QotD – Is Snakes On A Plane A Viral Success?

Snakes on a Ken

Today’s Question of the Day is:

Will history view “Snakes On A Plane” as an example of successful viral marketing?

Add your thoughts and read those of others after the click…


The Spinbix Effect

There’s an established and long-standing process to developing and choosing names for new products. In fact, this is a business in and of itself, and it’s not unheard of for companies to pay tens of thousands of dollars to come up with the name for a new product.

Based on what my colleagues and I recently uncovered, I’d like to make the case for this money being spent on coming up with truly unique product names. Why do I believe this? It has to do with something that I’ve just named "The Spinbix Effect."

We’ve been working on a large and complex search engine optimization (SEO) project for a client that manufactures and markets lots of consumer widgets. For the purposes of this article, let’s pretend the client is "Acme." Each of Acme’s widgets has its own brand name. Some of the names are more generic and use words found in the dictionary, such as Acme Mosaic and Acme Hunter. Other brand names are completely unique words not found in the dictionary, such as Acme Spinbix and Acme Bunfob.

As part of our SEO project, we’ve been looking at inbound traffic to Acme’s Website from search engines. More particularly, we’ve been analyzing the keywords and phrases that are generating traffic for Acme. One of the most interesting patterns we observed was that products that have unique names (e.g., Acme Spinbix) generate higher search traffic (Website visitors) than products with generic names (e.g., Acme Mosaic).