As part of our Guest Blogger series - Donna Fontenot, aka DazzlinDonna - founder of SEO-Scoop and well respected Internet Marketeer highlights her keys to creating ‘no-fail hot content’.

Would you like your site content to rank well? Would you like your content to draw links like nails to a magnet? There is one strategy you can use to make sure the content you create is almost guaranteed to be a hit - and in the process it gathers backlinks and ranks well. This strategy isn’t some secret ninja tactic that would get your site banned if the search engines found out about it either. In fact, it’s a tactic that the search engines would be happy to recommend to all site owners.
And while the actual creation of the content may take some time and effort, the concept is extremely simple. So what is this awesome strategy?

Give users something they’ve asked for that no one else has provided (or can’t be easily found).

Here’s the process I like to use.

Step One: Monitor your niche. This might mean joining forums and communities within your niche, setting up Google alerts, listening for relevant tweets, or monitoring Q&A sites such as Yahoo Answers to see who is talking about what within your niche.

The Goal of Step One: Discover what people want to know about your niche. What questions are being asked?

Step Two: Search for answers to the questions discovered in Step One. Act like a normal user, and search the search engines and answer sites for content that answers the users’ questions.

The Goal of Step Two: You’ll learn three things. a) Does an answer exist within a reasonable search analysis (first 30 search results)? b) If answers do exist, are they comprehensive? Can they be improved upon? c) What’s missing?

Step Three: Create your new content strategy. After determining which questions need answers, create an outline that groups them into logical sections.

The Goal of Step Three: Having a solid plan to determine what content needs to be created, and how they will be logically grouped together.

Step Four: Create the content that answers the users’ questions.
Some articles will need to be researched. Some will require fancy graphs or charts or other visual aids to make the content stand out as an improvement upon the competitions’ content. Your own research is required to determine what form each piece of content must take.

The Goal of Step Four: Supply UNIQUE content that hasn’t been done before that specifically addresses questions users have had in the past about your niche.

By supplying this unique content, you are almost guaranteed to accomplish the following:

1. Give users exactly what they want, because you are answering the very questions they’ve had.
2. Give search engines UNIQUE content that practically guarantees a good ranking since the competition doesn’t exist.
3. Give other related sites great reasons to link to your site.

Just in case you’ve already forgotten the secret sauce to creating hot content, it was this:

Give users something they’ve asked for that no one else has provided (or can’t be easily found).

About Donna Fontenot:

Donna Fontenot, aka DazzlinDonna, is an Internet Entrepreneur and SEO, who has long utilized search engine optimization and affiliate marketing to create a successful online business. Her goal as an ebusiness coach is to help others make a living online from the comfort of their homes (and in their pajamas). Her motto is “You’ll never shine if you don’t glow.”

Today has seen the launch of a significant development from Google, namely Searchwiki.

Holistic Google SearchWiki snapshot

Searchwiki is described by Google as follows:

a way for you to customize search by re-ranking, deleting, adding, and commenting on search results. With just a single click you can move the results you like to the top or add a new site. You can also write notes attached to a particular site and remove results that you don’t feel belong. These modifications will be shown to you every time you do the same search in the future. SearchWiki is available to signed-in Google users. We store your changes in your Google Account. If you are wondering if you are signed in, you can always check by noting if your username appears in the upper right-hand side of the page.

The changes you make only affect your own searches. But SearchWiki also is a great way to share your insights with other searchers. You can see how the community has collectively edited the search results by clicking on the “See all notes for this SearchWiki” link.

The ability to move results around is indeed quite a nice touch, however I can’t help think the comment facility potentially opens up a completely different can of worms, and one which may POTENTIALLY carry a sinister undertone.

As well as the ability to move results around, SearchWiki also allows user interaction via the addition of a comment button. Such responses can then be seen by others by clicking on the ‘See all notes for this SearchWiki’ option at the bottom of the page.

Now I would suggest further to going any further here, the likelihood of anybody actually exploiting this is minimal and given the delay in publishing any responses (and the fact all Googles responses were strangle positive - which lets be honest is never the case) there must be some form of moderation in place (really can’t help thinking Google won’t have put anything live here without considering potential implications. However as someone who looks after brands online interests I for one would like to understand just what implications this does have from a brand reputation perspective, and what can be done if it is utilised from such a perspective.

Certainly food for thought….

SEO in any ones book, seems to be in a purple patch. Certainly in the UK it appears to have gained traction into many mainstream organisations, and is now part of my FTSE 250 and Fortune 500 organisations marketing strategies. However it unfortunately is still tainted by a dark undercurrent of black hat SEO’s and link spammers which continue to create some negative association with the profession - whether that is justified or not justified is another question.

However it is a couple of posts that have been made that have got me thinking, namely Rand Fishkin’s 8 ways to buy links without ‘buying links’ and Chris Hart’s ‘What if SEO was spelled TSA’

Indeed Rand’s post is indicative of just what a different beast SEO has become. ‘Traditional’ forms of marketing such as Online PR play a far more important role in SEO than ever before - not just from a linkage perspective, but also in terms of branding and standalone traffic acquisition tools - with social media bringing a facet of marketing not previously available to marketeers (either online or offline) to the table.

Just look at metrics for measurment these days. Gone are the days when rankings were the only way to measure SEO success. Blended search has certainly created food for thought here - as well as new channels for savvy marketeers to exploit. ‘SEO’ is far more tactical than ever. Online Brand Reputation for example should have ‘SEO’ at its heart, with brand exposure and coverage more important and high profile than ever.

Surely we (as search marketeers) have evolved from merely optimising for search engine rankings alone. Is search engine optimisation therefore the best term to describe what we do?  The term ’search engine optimisation’ appears to have been around for around 11 years or so now (one of the earliest references I can find is fom David Stoddard from Frontiernet in August 1997) - however Danny Sullivan gives a great breakdown of this on the Search Engine Watch Forums. I would suggest SEO has changed significantly since then - lets face it Google was nowhere near the beast it has become, search marketing industry still in its infancy and social media just a glimmer on the horizon.

In the absence of any suitable replacements, bar ‘digital asset optimisation’ (coined by Lee Odden in 2007) it appears it is still here for a while, however one can’t help thinking whether SEO 3.0 could see a new beginning, and potentially a new name?

[ This post from Peter Young's blog contains only his personal opinions. ]

This is a slightly off kilter conversation following a post I read on the Vertical Leap blog today, regarding ‘SEO for £35 per month????’. . It certainly does remind of earlier SEO ventures, where the likelihood of coming up against said competitors was far higher, however I think it helps to lookat why and where this perception comes from.

Now I may be reading between the lines here (and no offence meant here Gina), however I would suggest the organisation in question here is reasonably small, certainly not FTSE 250. Certainly my experience within the marketplace would suggest awareness and perception of SEO is greatest in startups/smaller organisations and the larger enterprise level organisations, with a middle tier that often garners a mixed response (I would add at this point - and at the time of writing I have absolutely no physical back up for that comment bar personal experience). So why does this perception exist.

Whilst the marketplace is becoming more digital/search savvy there is a lot of ignorance/lack of awareness out there as regards what search and in particular SEO can do and where it fits in. With such a wide range of services available - and lets face it a lack of benchmarks on which to base a decision - it can often be difficult to seperate Joe Bloggs from Enterprise level SEO organisation.

There is also the issue of web development company vs search specialist. Many web development agencies these days offer SEO services as part of their remit. Whilst I think they are personally well placed to do so, I unfortunately also have experiences of a very one sided service, certainly more focussed on search engine friendly design, rather than search engine optimisation, persay - however that is a personal sidenote.

Read a forum or blog, and you are bound to see some reference to shady goings on, or SEO campaigns that haven’t worked. Whilst SEO has come along way from the ’snake oil salesman’ perception it had, it still has some way to go, and I would certainly say this is more the case the further down the enterprise ladder you go.

With larger organisations, it is often the case that terms of business and SLA’s are in place, and rewards are higher both for said organisation and the search agency. Whilst it is not always the case, it is very much a enterprise service with the associated time dedicated to the account. That point alone is bound to get some feedback - however let me caveat that.

How on earth, is a good job meant to be done on a site for £35 a month. On a minium wage that would equate to around 6 hours a month. Now he is going to have to source links (or alternatively outsource -which would take up around half that budget if he outsourced cheaply overseas), so your looking at a minute amount on which to develop a campaign.

I don’t mean to be rude but - How can a proper job be done on that amount of money. And if you do decide to use said vendor, how can you be suprised if it doesn’t deliver the quantifiable results you wanted instead of some obscure 5 word phrase that no man ever has or ever will search for?

In a modern day search landscape where search isn’t just about optimising your meta descriptions and keywords, where rewards are so much greater, and competition so much more fierce - is it really worth taking a chance and basing such a potentially lucrative decision merely on price. In a landscape where link acquisition is far more complicated (who had used nofollow to not pass linkvalue 2 years ago - or didn’t use either directories or paid links as part of their link building strategies), on-page is not a case of meta tags, but a mix of technical and content based optimisation (lets think geotargeting for a start here), SEO is far more complicated, and far more lucrative than ever. Just look at the stats, In April 2008, over 31 million UK adults (15+) searched on the Internet thats:

• 93% of the UK ‘Net population
• 4.1 billion search queries
• 10 searches per usage day
• 30 visits per month
• 5 searches per visit

Thats a huge potential marketplace

I once had a trainer say to me, you will never lose a sale on price. If you do - you just haven’t sold well enough. I would turn that comment round, and say - If you base a purchasing decision solely on price - then you havent considered your options well enough - and you run a far higher risk of that decision not being the right one.

[ This post from Peter Young's blog contains only his personal opinions. ]

No, your eyes do not deceive you.

Google has released its very own guide to SEO, the aptly named ‘Search Engine Optimization
Starter Guide’. Developed by Google’s very own search quality team, it goes into a lot of the on-page SEO considerations such as:

• Title Optimisation
• Page Naming
• Navigation
• Content
• Page Structure
• Image Optimisation
• Robots Management

All in all a decent starting point, however it is interesting to see one major aspect of modern day SEO missing or more precisely hidden and not at all prominent.

Surely some more detailed referencs to linkage, and the role it plays in the optimisation process. The only real references to ‘promotion’ in the document are:

Good practices for promoting your website
• Blog about new content or services - A blog post on your own site letting your visitor base
know that you added something new is a great way to get the word out about new content or
services. Other webmasters who follow your site or RSS feed could pick the story up as well.
• Don’t forget about offline promotion - Putting effort into the offline promotion of your
company or site can also be rewarding. For example, if you have a business site, make sure
its URL is listed on your business cards, letterhead, posters, etc. You could also send out
recurring newsletters to clients through the mail letting them know about new content on the
company’s website.
• Know about social media sites - Sites built around user interaction and sharing have made
it easier to match interested groups of people up with relevant content.
Avoid:
-  attempting to promote each new, small piece of content you create; go for big,
interesting items
-  involving your site in schemes where your content is artificially promoted to the
top of these services
• Add your business to Google’s Local Business Center - If you run a local business,
adding its information to Google’s Local Business Center will help you reach customers on
Google Maps and web search. The Webmaster Help Center has more tips on promoting
your local business.
• Reach out to those in your site’s related community - Chances are, there are a number
of sites that cover topic areas similar to yours. Opening up communication with these sites is
usually beneficial. Hot topics in your niche or community could spark additional ideas for
content or building a good community resource.
Avoid:
-  spamming link requests out to all sites related to your topic area
-  purchasing links

Source: Google Search Engine Starters Guide

Whilst it does refer to a number of methods of acquiring linkage to the site, I can’t help thinking this may provide a slightly lobsided view of the importance of off-page in the SEO process to beginners. Yes on-page is important but lets face it MoneySupermarket would be nothing without the million odd links it has pointing to it, neither would Tesco etc etc, and thus anyone reading this could be forgiven for thinking merely implementing such tactics without any offpage would give them a reasonable chance of competing (which on non-competitive terms/sectors - such as rarest baseball cards - may be the case - but not likely when we are talking casino, car insurance or the like). I guess the real worry here is many DIY-SEO’ers may (continue) to look at SEO as merely an on-page exercise with little consideration to the promotion/off-page aspect of the process.

I will finish with the fact It is a good document, and certainly worth a read (would suggest if you are a intermediate to expert SEO there is very little you will get out of it). Its not really going to tell you anything amazing, however it is good to see Google out there, and at last having more of a say in SEO.

Twitter has become the new bloggers playground, with Andy Murray (Tennis Player) and even Obama twittering on a fairly regular basis (although I would suggest the Obama postings may become slightly less frequent ;)). However it has also become a commercial tool recently with brands like ComScore, Dell and even the likes of Oracle and IBM getting to grips with the Twitter phenomenon.

However, why do so many brands suck at Twitter?

Size

As many of us know, large organisations often have more defined rules and regulations than smaller organisations and individuals. This lack of flexibility often restricts brands from either

• Responding quickly to potential issues
• Corporate guidelines can sometimmes restrict the level/tone of response particularly in larger organisations
• Senior decision makes sometimes don’t have the familiarity with new technologies and can sometimes be wary of new technologies, and thus slow to adopt

Late to the show

As highlighted on the above point, larger organisations in particular are often slow to react to new technologies, and thus often can be beaten to the punch by competitors or just keen admirers. For example @disney is owned by Cherie Thomas from Los Gatos, California - https://twitter.com/Disney

Those that do adopt, come in two guises

1. Those that embrace, brands such as Dell and Comscore are perfect examples of this and…
2. Those that merely sit and do nothing, reserved with little or nothing to say, unsure on how to deal with the new guest to the party - such as Microsoft - twitter.com/microsoft

Intention

Lets face it, nearly all of us hate being preached to. Thats one of the beauties of the web. We invite who we want in, in particular search. Twitter is a very personal channel, if people don’t like you they will just stop following you - and thus your Twitter activity will go unnoticed. This lack of direct business return, can often restrict just what activity occurs - and for those that do go down the direct sales channel, can often end in disappointment unless done correctly (The Dell outlet example being a reasonably good example of this.

The Big Brother aspect

There are a number of brands out there following individuals, some as a direct response to previous follows (Starbucks for example returned in kind a follow for me), however others go out directly and follow indivuals in the hope of getting a follow recipricated. However there are a lot of Twitterers who do not like bing followed by corporate followers, and thus such tactics can fall on deaf ears.

Lack of familiarity with brands

With some brands such as IBM and Oracle, individuals have created so called hybrid profiles, such as RichardATDell. Whilst Dell do actually have a brand persona, there are a number of brands out there where hybrid accounts operate, and where these operate without brand compliment, can potentially mean a disassociation with the brand.

The other potential issue can be job migration. People don’t stay in jobs forever and these hybrid accounts can often become obselete very quickly - OracleJulio being one such example.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound

With big brands it is likely that people will naturally search for that brand, however this isn’t often the case with smaller brands. For this reason, active commercial use of Twitter in these instances can merely result in lots of effort with little or no return.

Lack of buy-in

Whilst brand monitoring is become more popular by the day, there is still a long way to go. Many brands do not follow what is being said about them online, even by simple devices such as Google Alerts. Without knowing what is being said, it is unlikely some brands will have a justifiable reason to operate in the Blogosphere, let alone Twitter.

There is no doubt the effect Twitter has had within search circles, one only has to look at the people using it (most of the UK and US search welebrity circuit (term coined from Ciaran Norris) are on there including Matt Cutts, Jill Whalen, Jason Calacanis, Danny Sullivan, Lee Odden, Will Critchlow and Richard Scoble,

As an individual, are you on Twitter - if not, why not?

If you are a brand - what are you doing on Twitter. Its not for everyone, however if you are going to enter the brave new world, take your time, do your homework and enter it with your eyes wide open

I, like many have been following the recent events in the US election, with the fight for the White House. It was therefore interesting to see the influence online has played in the campaign. Two recent articles have really struck a cord as a result.

Firstly, Sage Lewis highlighted the importance of online (and in particular Search and Social Media) played in Obamas rise to the White House. In his article, Sage mentioned a number of interesting statistics, namely:

• There are nearly 2 million links to Obama’s website, nearly twice as much as those pointing to John McCains website.
• According to statistics released by Rubicon Consulting, “Democrats are more active online than Republicans. Democrats are more likely to participate in online communities, and say they’re more heavily influenced in their voting decisions by information they find online.”
• Obama’s campaign had social media at its heart, not just in terms of the site itself, but also in terms of the personnel involved. The involvement of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, shows the importance of social media within the strategy.

The second article of particular interest to search was Kate Kay on Clickz. In the article, Kate highlighted that Obama’s campaign spent nearly $8 million through October to Google, Yahoo, Facebook, news Web sites, ad networks, and in-game ad firm Massive (which I talked about at the recent Interactive Marketing show in Manchester). In particular it is interesting to see where the money was spent.

• Just over $4 Million on Paid Search - roughly broken down $3.5 Million to Google, with Yahoo accounting for about an eighth of that, with $673000.
• Nearly $8 million spent on online ads.
• Interestingly, the spend on Social Media comes to the fore. Nearly three quarters of the social media budget used in September alone, with Facebook taking the lions share.
• The use of MSN owned Massive Incorporated (well worth a look) was interesting alone. The campaign placed ads pushing an early voting message in EA games, including a racing game called “Burnout Paradise,” targeting them to players in 10 battleground states.
• Ad networks were a particular focus with more than $600,000 was paid to a variety of networks throughout the year, including AOL’s Advertising.com, Collective Media, Undertone Networks, Burst Media, Quigo, DrivePM, Pulse360, Specific Media, and online video networks Broadband Enterprises and Tremor Media.
• Local online media targeting also saw significant spend with around $100000 being spent.

Politics is an area many people have an opinion about, and it is therefore suprising it is often not integral to modern day political campaigns, however it is encouraging to see more and more focus given to Online. In particular key channels such as Search (inc Online PR/Blogging), Display Online Brand Management (and monitoring in particular), should be a fundamental part of any modern day political framework.

Given the noise that has been generated on Twitter by many of my search colleagues with regards to the US Elections, it is suprising that McCains camp didn’t use online as a bigger battleground, and I personally think this is the first of a more digitally focussed policital landscape moving forward, as even we in the UK start using online as part of the political juggernaut.

It has always been one of my goals to start getting more and more on the speaking circuit - something I havent been able to do previously due to the volume of work in previous roles. I was fortunate (some would say unfortunate) to get the opportunity to open my account at the recent Interactive Marketing show held here in Manchester, something Jon Myers was meant to be doing, but was unfortunately not able to do.

Having got the first one out the system, I have to say I have the bug. Watch this space…