Home            Blog
Showing posts with label mediation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mediation. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

A Non-Negotiator's Guide to Negotiating


For most of my life, I was a terrible negotiator. I accepted lowball offers, I never demanded the raises I deserved, and I overpaid for everything. I knew that you needed to “drive a hard bargain” and “be willing to walk away from the table” if you wanted to get the best possible deal. I just never seemed to be able to do it, ever.
It reached the point that my husband actually forbid me from negotiating the price of a car, a home, or even a used toaster at the flea market. And while I wouldn’t usually take too kindly to being silenced, I had to admit that I saw his point. In a negotiation, I was the weakest link.
Two programs of research helped me to see what I was doing wrong – specifically, how I was thinking about negotiations the wrong way.

Epiphany #1

When people are about to enter a negotiation, they see it as either a threat or a challengeStudies show that people who see negotiation as a threat experience greater stress and make less advantageous deals. They behave more passively, and are less likely to use tough tactics aimed at gaining leverage, compared to the hard-ballers who feel negotiation to be more of a challenge than a threat.
This makes so much sense to me. My husband absolutely sees negotiating as a challenge. He looks forward to a good haggle. I do not. Reading about these studies, I realized that I have always seen negotiations as threatening, and just wanted them over with as quickly as possible, no matter what it cost me. Why prolong a stressful, threatening situation when you can throw in the towel and move on?
But why do I see negotiations as threats, and not challenges? To answer that, I needed…

Epiphany #2

There is more than one way to look at any goal. Some of us think about our goals as achievements or opportunities to advance – having what psychologists call a promotion focus. Others see their goals as opportunities to keep things running smoothly, to avoid loss, to do what you ought to do – this is called aprevention focus.
Promotion and prevention-focused people work differently to reach the same goal. When we are promotion-focused, we are creative, embrace risk, work quickly, and are fueled by optimism. When we are prevention-focused, we are more thorough and deliberate, more analytical, and better fueled by defensive pessimism (i.e., thinking things might go wrong if you don’t do something to prevent it.)
When it comes to negotiating, having a promotion focus will give you the clear upper-hand. The promotion-focused (like my husband) see negotiation as an opportunity to gain something, and studies show that this helps them to stay focused on their (ideal) price or pay targets. The prevention-minded (like myself) see negotiation as an opportunity to lose something – they worry too much about a negotiation failure or impasse, leaving them more susceptible to less advantageous agreements.
When it comes to getting what you want, it pays to focus on what you have to gain, rather than what you might lose, so that you can see it as a challenge (rather than a threat), and be better able keep your eyes on the prize.
Now, when I enter any negotiation, I make a deliberate effort to refocus myself beforehand. I stop and reflect on what I have to gain by getting a great deal, or by fighting for better compensation – the opportunities for happiness and growth they will afford me.
You wouldn’t believe the deal I got on our last toaster.

HEIDI GRANT HALVORSON

more posts →
Dr. Heidi Grant Halvorson, of Columbia’s Motivation Science Center, is an author and speaker.  In Succeed, she revealed surprising science-based strategies we can use to reach goals.  Her new book is Focus:  Using Different Ways of Seeing the World for Success and Influence.

Monday, April 15, 2013

10 Killer SEO Landing Page Tips


10 Killer SEO Landing Page Tips

8 Comments
Text Link Ads is the premiere targeted traffic and link popularity ad firm.
landing-page-engage-beyond-the-click
When we talk landing pages, most online marketers think pay-per-click, where the input of a destination URL into Google's or Bing's paid search offerings allow marketers to drive keyword-targeted traffic to (hopefully) optimized pages.
My previous article extolling the death of keywords talked about developing intent-based topics and building content that connects with those topics – intent to content.
We can now apply that mantra in a "first engagement" scenario, after a user clicks a search result, to ensure SEO landing pages:
  • Connect with intent: Offering a user what they expect.
  • Resolve (initial) user query: Answering their initial query.
  • Engage the user: Sending user signals to search engines.
  • Drive further user engagement (if necessary): Additional signals to both users and search engines.
A searcher intent to site content engagement scenario I call "CRED".
In these scenarios where signed in users, search query modification, Chrome browsers, "cookied" users and toolbar data provide massive datasets of engagement signals to search engines on how users interact on sites, we need to drive optimal engagement scenarios.
Here's a checklist of 10 "killer" tips to ensure you're able to add a bit of CRED to your SEO campaigns, as well as demonstrate campaign success!

Connecting

1. Are the primary headlines aligned with intent?

The first thing users notice is content structure, headlines, headers, bolded elements, graphics etc. Your 2 seconds of opportunity to grab attention begins with a mental assessment that needs to immediately connect with the original search query and inspire additional engagement via clear communication of what the page is about.
Content should be created with specific intent in mind, with headlines, and/or graphic headers that are obvious, short, surrounded by adequate white space. And the content must be specific enough to inspire a user's attention.

2. Are you matching content type with query intent?

If the target query includes "how to", "best", "top 10", "compare" or other intent refining modifiers, or if the query demands a certain level of text content, are you obviously offering something that visually connects, confirms relevance, displays lists, video or images?
Users won't have time to read, but they will make a quick decision on whether the format they review matches an expectation. For example, a query on top 10 bars should have a list with numbers displayed – or one entry with numbers. Or a query on the history of search should probably have an index and look robust – not just a 200 word paragraph.
Users have short attention spans, and most have a preconceived expectation of what theyshould find, not matching that initial expectation can equate to a quick "back click.".
ask-men-insurance
Query for "best health insurance plans for single men". Ask Men offers a clear header and an image that immediately screams "authority"

Resolving

3. Can users perform a quick scan above the fold to answer who, what, and why?

As noted above, users don't actually read on a first pass, they make a decision based on visual cues and click expectations (what they expect after they click).
Some websites fail in obviously reinforcing the click expectation, missing an opportunity for engagement, underscoring brand recognition, and providing obvious reasons of time-worthy value.
Click through to your site and ask the following:
  1. Is your brand obvious?
  2. Is it obvious what you do?
  3. Is it obvious why they should stick around?
Especially important with homepages, but equally important on other SEO landing pages, is ensuring your brand is obvious. Make sure what you do, or how you plan to address the user's intent, isn't buried. Give users obvious information and/or justification to stick around and/or click around is key to moving people to engage further.
home-depot-obvious
Query for "flat head screw driver". Home Depot offers clear branding, white space to highlight product, and additional information that is clearly visible and offers visual cues that the tabs are clickable.
Remember: for instant user assessment of resolution potential, anything below the fold doesn't exist!

Engaging

As noted with the Home Depot example, key engagement options exist such as an "add to cart" action button, search for intent refinement or modification, other options to dig into additional information and links to similar products that other customers have purchased.
Each of these elements contribute to answering the next question:

4. Is it obvious what they should do next?

For Home Depot, the answer is most probably yes. It's easy to find the "Add to Cart" button, it's placed in an obvious position and there's multiple options to view additional information.
The product page offers multiple ways to engage, with a zoom button (subjectively probably not big enough), and plenty of other user-centric options such as writing reviews, checking inventory, etc.
Occasionally there can be too many options that can confuse users. In the Home Depot example there appears to be duplicated "check inventory" buttons/links, but these may have been tested and justified.

5. Are there on-page modification options? (based on query modification)

home-depot-modification
Home Depot offer a good example of obvious search functionality, related products, and other options that can help modify the user's search query onsite rather than have them click back to the search results to modify.
These kind of onsite modifications do not always need to be driven by site search.
Breadcrumbs, side navigation, filters, related prods, color/size selection are all feasible options to mitigate click backs and improve onsite engagement signals.

Driving

6. Are 'next clicks' consistent?

Part of great site engagement is a consistent user experience for similar queries. By monitoring user interaction on a per query basis, website owners can identify consistencies or deficiencies in matches of search intent to site content.
Duane Forrester of Bing said in January 2013:
"In the long run, the brand names secure rankings through depth of content, trust in brand, and user interaction (searchers clicking a SERP result and staying on their site because the site is trusted and answers the searchers question)"
Providing key "next clicks" – obvious steps from landing pages to conversion or core information – is a better user experience = better potential rankability.

7. Can they share what they've found?

Probably the most obvious of tips, it the provision of social sharing and social connection buttons. If landing pages provide the value users expect, will they be inspired to share, and if they are, can they?
Sharing of a page is different than a click through to your social property (i.e., Facebook page or Twitter stream), and should be a key component on most landing pages, with the caveat of audience vs. social platform.
For pages with images, is there an option to share on Pinterest, Facebook, and Twitter? For business text content, is LinkedIn an option? Social signals are imperative in closing the loop on user intent satisfaction, demonstrating to both users and search engines an endorsement of your content.

8. Ultimately, can users find the banana?

Seth Godin published a book a few years ago called "The Big Red Fez" – rather than repeat all the key concepts, I can state simply is it's all about bananas – users finding what they need from obvious choices. There's an excellent synopsis here.
helens-bikes
I love Helen's Cycles, great stores and service. But visit their website and you're presented with way too many choices (red) and a certain level of confusion (green). The green element talks about Helmets, Cycling Essentials and Clothing"¦ but offers no way to click or a link to relevant content.
Give your users clear navigation to improve consistent engagement and "banana-discovery."

Measurement

The final two tips cover justification through measurement of metrics that matter.

9. Have you segmented traffic by topics?

Google Analytics offers segmentation by query topics through Analytics filters (beyond the scope of this article but more information can be found here) or by exporting data and consolidating offline in Excel.
Custom segments allow you to monitor performance across keyword query topics, understand topic traffic and conversion trends, and leverage this data to identify the key landing pages for each topic.

10. Are you tracking first click queries for optimized pages?

Although in an ideal scenario the page you optimize will attract the keyword queries you'd expect, custom segments by topic also offer up insights into competing pages (entry pages in your site that compete against each other), highlighting opportunities to consolidate similar pages, mitigating potential thin content issues and improving topic relevance on merged pages.
Utilize custom segments, organic traffic keyword query reports, together with landing page association to provide insights into potentially competing pages.
rock-genre
Music genre site, with custom "rock music' topic filter applied, highlights the anomaly of "type of rock music" query being mapped to an Anime genre page. Worth investigating why?

Summary

Landing pages have historically been the domain of paid search marketers seeking improved conversion rates.
User experience, site usability, and onsite engagement have become more important for major search engines in their assessment of a site's "rankability", so SEO practitioners need to ensure SEO landing pages have CRED as a key to SEO success.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Can Quality Score Be Gamed?


Can Quality Score Be Gamed?

  |  April 5, 2013   |  1 Comment
Like most complex games with many intelligent participants (such as financial markets, chess, and high-stakes poker), your first hunches about how to "get ahead of the pack" in the Google AdWords auction are likely to be trivial, clichéd, or just plain wrong.
This year, as ever, you'll read plenty of articles focusing specifically on Quality Score and "what to do about it." Conference sessions will teach you Quality Score "tips and tricks."
Since this is about rank and CPCs, admittedly we'll always be driven to crack the code in some way.
This dates all the way back to when Overture ran a pure PPC auction. Under those circumstances, would it make sense to write extremely restrictive, "filtering"-style ads to maximize the value of a click to your business, while garnering a lot of free impressions? Of course it would. High CTRs, in that instance, wouldn't be desirable. Overture tried to address that problem with a laborious, cumbersome human editorial process. (Arggh.)
When AdWords finally introduced CTR into the ranking formula, it led to a great leap forward in relevance, and fewer opportunities to game the system. That being said, many of us enjoyed early-era tricks. Fun in a time machine set to 2002: come in guns blazing so you enjoy very high CTRs associated with high ad positions. Then, "lock in" that CTR history by doing this at a reasonable volume, then gradually walk your bids down, holding your position. That worked pretty well then. The system is much more sophisticated today.
People are still routinely coming up with "Why don't I move my queen way over there now and put my opponent in check?" moves for AdWords. Those moves are usually neutralized by a more sophisticated algorithm. Google's spokespeople - not always wanting to say much about the formula beyond the published overviews - have often felt compelled to dispel certain AdWords myths. The "don't get your hopes up" points made by AdWords product developers in recent years have included:
  • AdWords normalizes for match type. You're not going to be penalized for using broad match or rewarded for using exact match.
  • AdWords normalizes for ad position. Aim for the positions that make sense for your business. Lowering ad positions that by definition enjoy a worse CTR does not harm your keyword Quality Score or any account-wide factors.
  • You can't improve Quality Score with negative keywords. (Really?) Well, I've heard that said by a high-ranking Googler, and no, I don't really believe it.
  • While there is an account-wide Quality Score factor (enough bad history across the board can affect your whole account), one of Google's top AdWords architects has denied that there is a specific factor at the ad group level. One badly chosen keyword in an ad group won't "contaminate" others in an ad group.
Current industry consensus is that 50 percent to 75 percent of AdWords keyword Quality Score comes down to CTR, with personalization elements adding complexity. Since Quality Score is reputedly calculated on the fly for each query, the reporting you see in your account is not "the" number, but rather an average. (For Google's ever-changing summary of how Quality Score is calculated, go here.)
"Other relevancy factors" round out the CTR factor. These may involve semantics; display and destination URL (Google can tinker with how much users, and Google, trust your company's main identifying factor); and the vagaries of how many ads Google wishes to show on a page.
"Landing page experience" is another component of Quality Score. It's probably exaggerated by third-party pundits today. Note the word "experience." User experience is best measured by user behavior patterns, not solely based on some arbitrary formula about which keywords match which landing page elements, etc.
Further to the landing page question: recall that Google started out by banning a narrow range of user experience violations, such as pop-ups. Later, it extended the policy to a wide range of trust-eroding practices. It's important to scrutinize both the letter and intent of Google's Landing Page and Site Policies to understand if there is something you're doing wrong. Google is trying to protect users from scams and bad user experiences, and it does so through a combination of automated and editorial means. Hobby horses such as landing page load times enter the mix at various times, sending some advertisers scrambling to overreact to those stats for all the wrong reasons. (Speeding up your site is always a good idea, but you have no idea how much AdWords Quality Score is penalizing you for having a slow one, if at all.)
There are too many moving parts to user experiences for Google to be effective in policing them with human and bot oversight (though a quick read of the guidelines implies that human oversight and manual scoring shouldn't be ruled out as elements of Google's practices). Rather, proxies for bad experiences may be used as Google's models become better and better at confirming bad patterns statistically. (Do horrible bounce rates factor in? Well, they should, but then, why does Google let you keep spending so heavily on pages with horrible bounce rates? Assume nothing.) And it might be easiest for Google to do relatively little on this front unless real humans take a real dislike to your ads or business model. Now, as ever, Google does not like "thin" affiliate sites, click arbitrage, fake comparison sites, banned pharma products, and so on.
Make no mistake: "crappy" pages often have little difficulty being associated with keyword Quality Scores of 10. If the site is good enough to get the job done, and the whole campaign does a good job of matching up users with related commercial intent, then Google isn't going to throw up roadblocks needlessly.
It's not a good idea to obsess over Quality Score. Advertisers are doing a bad enough job settling on the correct metrics to manage campaigns to; testing ads methodically; understanding statistical significance; understanding campaign settings; unraveling attribution puzzles; and so on, that they're likely to fail in attempts to test cause and effect in Quality Score engineering.
That being said, the system isn't bulletproof. We can still prevail over competitors if we follow strong hunches about the vulnerabilities of Quality Score and the effects of the overall formula on rank and CPC. Consider the following tips:
  • In addition to keyword-level calculations, Google may apply an account-wide calculation that impacts your ad positions and CPCs. Many advertisers get paranoid, therefore, about low Quality Score keywords, and race to pause them. But they may be overreacting. Low Quality Score keywords are probably diffuse or wrong in intent, and need to be addressed. But if they're not high volume, they probably don't hurt that much. What is more interesting is the opportunity you might have to lock in a higher overall account Quality Score by continuing to hammer hard at your high volume "10" keywords. Maybe you're bidding a bit higher than you would like on some of these. But more impressions for 10-Quality Score keywords that are working OK for you economically can't hurt your account Quality Score. You're laying down all of this positive history. Maxing that as a proportion of your spend in the account may be a benefit from a Quality Score perspective.
  • Google has kept "Display URL" in the mix as a kind of wild card in Quality Score calculations. I believe it is largely a "rich get richer" shortcut for Google to emphasize trust and quality in the results. Think broadly about your business strategy. Everything about the way you build your brand and conduct your business should be aligned with improving that brand's reputation. "Throwaway domains," generic microsites, and quick shifts in strategy won't be aligned with Quality Score health, long term. This also means that Quality Score benefits recognizable brands and well-liked micro-brands. The Johnny-come-lately with a weak offering and a stop-and-start ad spend is not going to garner the same responses as a business with a consistent marketing strategy.
  • Units like Sitelinks, designations like Trusted Stores, captivating visuals like Seller Ratings Extensions: various ad innovations of these types tend to goose up CTRs, all else being equal.
  • In a Quality Score world, trying to finesse your spend by not buying your brand keywords is a counterproductive strategy. You need to own these and you need most variations of these to become 10s. Combine premium placement in the large ad unit with Sitelinks (for example), and your CTRs may go through the roof. As such, you're laying down statistical evidence that you're significantly more loved and trusted than Google's models would predict (i.e., what your competitors can muster).
  • If you're managing only to CPA and failing to push your ad tests harder to find potential mutant ads that deliver great ROI along with "less bad" CTR, you're not optimizing your account fully. Reconsider the advantages of more clicks on ads.
  • Geo-target if that helps you push up response rates to ads and user engagement on-site.
With these ways to legitimately "trick" Quality Score, you'll have enough on your plate. Meanwhile, many of your competitors will be frantically moving their chess pieces into clichéd or trivial positions, until they finally realize you've been thinking 10 moves ahead. Checkmate.

    Tuesday, March 26, 2013

    Men, Women, and Status in Negotiations


    Men, Women, and Status in Negotiations

    EDITED BY PON_STAFF ON  / BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS
    A growing body of research suggests that status concerns vary depending on the gender of interested parties.
    First, men tend to care more about status than women do. Using a university sponsored fundraising campaign, researchers Bruno S. Frey and Stephan Meier of the University of Zurich examined how social-comparison information affected contribution rates.
    • Male students who learned that a high percentage of students had contributed to the campaign were more likely to make a contribution than were female students who received the same information.
    In the context of negotiation, professors John Rizzo of Stony Brook University and Richard Zeckhauser of Harvard University asked a group of young physicians about their reference groups and salary aspirations.
    • Male physicians compared themselves to reference groups that earned higher salaries than the ones female physicians selected. 
    • In addition, men’s salary reference points were more indicative than women’s of how much they earned later.
    • Finally, women tend to compare themselves to particular individuals whom they know, while men tend to assess themselves according to information about typical behavior.
    For this reason, when negotiating, consider offering different social comparison information to men and women. You might tell a male prospective hire that you’re offering him more than you’ll give others with his qualifications (assuming that is true).
    When negotiating with a female prospect, you might be more specific:
    “We recently interviewed someone similar to you, a Kellogg MBA with several years of consulting experience. To signal how much we want you to work for us, we’re offering you more than we offered her.”

    To Improve Your Negotiation Skills, Learn from a Pro


    To Improve Your Negotiation Skills, Learn from a Pro

    EDITED BY KEITH LUTZ ON  / NEGOTIATION SKILLS
    On February 16, in the midst of the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) All-Star weekend, members of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) unanimously voted to oust Billy Hunter as the union’s executive director.
    “This is our union and we have taken it back,” National Basketball Players Association president Derek Fisher said, as reported by ESPN.com. Fisher said the union had been “divided, misled, [and] misinformed,” by its leader. Hunter hinted in a statement that he might contest his firing in court.
    As the union’s leader since 1996, Hunter negotiated three collective bargaining agreements for NBA players, contributing to raising their average salaries to more than $5 million, the highest in team sports.
    Divided Union
    Conflicts between Fisher and Hunter divided union members during the 2011 NBA lockout. According to ESPN.com, “agents didn’t like [Hunter], questioning his bargaining strategies, and they were frustrated they didn’t have a bigger role in his union.”
    After Hunter was accused of numerous indiscretions, Fisher pushed for a review of him. In its review, an independent law firm criticized Hunter for various conflicts of interests and poor decisions, such as hiring family members and friends and billing the NBPA for questionable travel and gift expenses. The review did not find Hunter guilty of any criminal activity, but three government investigations of Hunter are ongoing.
    After the review was released, the members of the NBPA put Hunter on a leave of absence. About 35 NBA players attended the union committee’s annual meeting in February to discuss Hunter’s future.
    Hunter’s Dismissal
    NBA superstar LeBron James and longtime player Jerry Stackhouse reportedly took the lead in arguing for Hunter’s dismissal, according to the New York Times. James’s involvement was unusual: league superstars rarely get involved in the nitty gritty of labor negotiations and union management.
    James “practically cross-examined the lawyers to prepared the report on Hunter,” the Times reports. And he and Stackhouse demanded explanations from committee members who previously had sided with Hunter rather than Fisher.
    NBA players widely respect James for his business savvy and interpersonal skills. So it was not surprising, given James’s forceful arguments against Hunter, that the committee voted unanimously to release Hunter from his duties.
    The situation speaks to the power of convincing influential parties to lead important negotiations. One well-respected and admired leader may be uniquely posited to wrap up a negotiation that took many behind-the-scenes players to engineer.