Building Consumer Awareness: How to Talk to People Who Don’t Know They Need You

Posted by bridget.randolph

As a marketer, if your product is the obvious solution to an obvious problem, your job is relatively straightforward. You simply need to show the customer why your product is the best one out there. Often the easiest way to do this is by demonstrating your USP; sometimes you can also compete on price. Either way, if your customer is already looking for the product or service you offer, and not attached to any particular brand, all you have to do is convince them that your brand does it best.

Image source.

This is where the old saying comes from: “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.”

But the reality is, a lot of us don’t sell products that fill an obvious need. Even if your product or service does fill a genuine need or solve a real problem… do people actually realise that they have that problem? And do they know that a solution exists?

The three stages of consumer awareness

A lot of marketers today are facing this conundrum: “How do I sell the benefits of my brand over those of my competitors when my customer doesn’t even know they need my product?” There’s no point shouting about how you are the best at ‘whatever-it-is’ if people don’t know they need it. The harsh truth is: no one cares.

How do we make them care?

This is where it gets a bit tricky. The immediate response you are likely to get when you ask this question is a fun one: “we need to increase brand awareness!!” After all, marketing blogs are full of posts about how digital marketing is all about brand loyalty, warm fuzzy feelings towards brands, brands as people, and so on. But
for this type of situation, brand awareness actually isn’t the right answer.

When people don’t know they need something, you don’t need increased
brand awareness… you need increased need/want awareness, followed by solution/product awareness, and only then should you be looking to raise brand awareness.

This leads to a 3-stage customer journey:

  1. Creating awareness of the need/problem. At this stage the customer is both product and brand agnostic; they don’t realise they have a problem or need which requires a solution. Your job at this stage is to show them that they have a problem or need. They may not be aware that this is a problem at all; or they may perceive it as an annoyance but not a problem they care enough about fixing. Raising awareness of this need or problem can be done through either an emotive or a logical message but either way the focus should be on the customer, not on you.
  2. Demonstrating the basic solution to that need/problem. At this stage the customer is still brand agnostic; they are now aware of the problem but not yet sure what the solution is. Your job at this stage is to present your solution as the best way to solve their problem or meet their need. However, the first step is simply to show them that this type of product or service is a good solution to their problem or need. Again, at this stage, you are focusing on the customer and his or her need. Don’t try to sell them on “you” just yet.
  3. Selling your solution and your brand as the best version. At this stage, the customer knows they have a problem, and they know their preferred approach to solving the problem is through using the product or service that you provide. Your job now is to show that they should choose to buy that solution from you, and to link that solution with your brand in the customer’s mind. This is the point at which talking about yourself is allowed. 🙂

Take one step at a time

The temptation which a lot of brands face is to try and create brand messaging and content which can do all three of these things at once. This can be due to a fear of inadvertently promoting their competitors, or sometimes a directive from above which dictates that we ‘push the brand’ regardless of the stage of the customer journey you are currently targeting, or any number of other reasons. Sometimes it happens because the marketers themselves are keen brand advocates and love talking about how great the brand is and what they do. But this is a mistake.


Don’t try to make your brand messaging do all the things all the time.
You will not succeed, and you will simply end up diluting the message and failing to speak to anyone’s needs. Instead, focus on one stage of the customer journey only for each piece of content or marketing activity that you do.


But wait. Am I saying we should avoid branded content in the first two stages of this customer journey?

NO.

Please don’t think that shifting the focus away from heavy brand messaging, or focusing on a different type of awareness, means that you have to avoid all branding completely! Of course any advertising, social, and website content which you produce should always incorporate your brand guidelines and include logos, straplines, etc. 
(as appropriate).

What I’m talking about here is simply the
focus of the messaging.

How does this work in practice?

Let’s take an example, Dyson vacuum cleaners, and look at how their product messaging fits into this 3 stage framework:


Dyson has a starting point
– people do know they need vacuum cleaners. But Dyson still needs to identify a problem that they solve that the other vacuum cleaner brands don’t. In this case, their vacuum cleaners have a USP of extra strong suction that doesn’t clog – but the average consumer may not realise that this is a feature that they should care about.

Stage 1: Creating awareness of the need/problem

At this stage the potential customer is happy with their current situation.

With the Dyson example: if the messaging is simply ‘buy Dyson’, that’s not enough to convert Hoover or Oreck customers. Once you’ve chosen a brand for appliance purchases, the easiest thing when you need a new one is to replace the old one with a new version of the same thing. So the average person is happy just going back and buying another Hoover or Oreck.

Instead of shouting about the Dyson brand, your job at this stage is to show them that they have a problem or need which isn’t currently being met. In this example, a problem which a lot of people have is that their vacuum cleaner gets clogged easily and loses suction over time. So our messaging for people at this stage focuses on that problem and how our product is differentiated: “others clog; ours don’t”.


Image source.

(Note that this ad is still branded but the focus is on the potential customers’ problem.)

Stage 2: Demonstrating the basic solution to that need/problem

At this stage the customer is still brand agnostic; they are now aware of the problem (clogged vacuum cleaner –> “I wish I had a vacuum cleaner that didn’t get clogged all the time”) but not yet sure what the solution is.

Your job at this stage is to present your solution (“our vacuum cleaner doesn’t clog because our cleaner has special patented technology which keeps it unclogged and maintain suction over time”) as the best way to solve their problem or meet their need. The messaging in this ad focuses on the technology as a solution to a problem: If you want a vacuum that doesn’t clog or lose suction, you need a vacuum with no bags and this special ‘Cyclone’ technology.

Image source.

Again, at this stage, you are focusing on the customer and his or her need and why your solution is best.

Stage 3: Selling your brand as the best version

In the third stage, the customer knows they have a problem, and they know their preferred approach to solving the problem is through using the product or service that you provide. In the Dyson example, they know that they want a vacuum cleaner with this special technology that keeps it unclogged and maintains suction over time.

Your job now is to show that your brand is synonymous with that solution. For Dyson, this is the type of messaging that ties the brand explicitly to the ‘solution’:

Image source.

Image source

Conclusion

When people don’t already know they need your product, you can’t just sell them on your brand right away, because your brand is meaningless to them. You create meaning and an emotional feeling about your brand by guiding people through these three stages of awareness:
need/want awareness, solution/product awareness, and finally brand awareness.

Each of these stages requires a distinct message for a different audience of people, so you can’t try to make your messaging one size fits all. Instead, tailor the messaging on different sections of your website, your social media and other digital content, and your advertising campaigns to speak to one group of people at a time. It may feel very counter-intuitive to sell your audience on why they need X product rather than why they need to buy from Y company. But you need to allow them to experience the need before selling your brand, they will care about the answer to that need.


And never try to do all the things at once.

…Unless you sell the best mousetraps ever, in which case I guess you can sit back and relax while the world comes to you.


Image source.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Reblogged 3 years ago from feedproxy.google.com

senuke xcr review – a must have for all online marketers

Free 14 Days Trial! HERE: http://topseosoft.com/senuke-xcr/ If you are looking for a quick and easiest way to rank your content in Search Engines, then this …

Reblogged 3 years ago from www.youtube.com

The Coming Integration of PR and SEO

Posted by SamuelScott

Earlier this year, I published a Moz post that aimed to introduce the
basic principles of public relations that SEOs and digital marketers, I argued, need to know. (Specifically, the post was on media relations and story-pitching as a means of getting coverage and “earning” good links.)

Following the positive response to the post, Moz invited me to host a recent Mozinar on the integration of PR and SEO. (
You can listen to it and download the slides here for free!) As a former print journalist who later became a digital marketer, I love to discuss this niche because I am very passionate about the topic.

In summary, the Mozinar discussed:

  • Traditional marketing and communications theory
  • Why both inbound and outbound marketing are needed
  • An overview of the basic PR process
  • How to use PR software
  • Examples of messaging and positioning
  • Where to research demographic data for audience profiles
  • How to integrate SEO into each step of the workflow
  • How SEO and PR teams can help each other
  • Why the best links come as natural results of doing good PR and marketing
  • “Don’t think about how to get links. Think about how to get coverage and publicity.”

At the end of the Mozinar, the community had some intriguing and insightful questions (no surprise there!), and Moz invited me to write a follow-up post to provide more answers and discuss the relationship between SEO and PR further.

Follow-ups to the PR Mozinar

Before I address the questions and ideas at the end of the Mozinar, I just wanted to give some more credit where the credit is certainly due.

People like me, who write for major publications or speak at large conferences, get a lot of attention. But, truth is, we are always helped immensely by so many of our talented colleagues behind the scenes. Since the beginning of my digital marketing career, I have known about SEO, but I have learned more about public relations from observing (albeit from a distance) The Cline Group’s front line PR team in Philadelphia over the years.

So, I just wanted to thank (in alphabetical order)
Kim Cox, Gabrielle Dratch, Caitlin Driscoll, Max Marine, and Ariel Shore as well as our senior PR executives Bill Robinson and DeeDee Rudenstein and CEO Josh Cline. What I hope the Moz community learned from the Mozinar is what I have learned from them.

Now, onto the three Mozinar Q&A questions that had been left unanswered.

  • Why do you use Cision and not Vocus or Meltwater or others?

I do not want to focus on why The Cline Group specifically uses Cision. I would not want my agency (and indirectly Moz) to be seen as endorsing one type of PR software over another. What I can do is encourage people to read these writings from 
RMP Media Analysis, LinkedIn, Alaniz Marketing and Ombud, then do further research into which platform may work best for them and their specific companies and needs.

(Cision and Vocus recently agreed to merge, with the combined company continuing under the Cision brand.)

  • Do you have examples of good PR pitches?

I’ve anonymized and uploaded three successful client pitches to our website. You can download them here: a
mobile-advertising network, a high-end vaporizer for the ingestion of medicinal herbs and a mobile app that helps to protect personal privacy. As you will see, these pitches incorporated the various tactics that I had detailed in the Mozinar.

Important caveat: Do not fall into the trap of relying too much on templates. Every reporter and every outlet you pitch will be different. The ideas in these examples of pitches may help, but please do not use them verbatim. 

  • Are there other websites similar to HARO (Help a Reporter Out) that people can use to find reporters who are looking for stories? Are the other free, simpler tools?

Some commonly mentioned tools are
My Blog U, ProfNet, BuzzStream and My Local Reporter. Raven Tools also has a good-sized list. But I can only vouch for My Blog U because it’s the only one I have used personally. It’s also important to note that using a PR tool is not a magic bullet. You have to know how to use it in the context of the overall public relations process. Creating a media list is just one part of the puzzle.

An infographic of integration

And now, the promised infographic!

I told the Mozinar audience we would provide a detailed infographic as a quick guide to the step-by-step process of PR and SEO integration. Well, here it is:

pr-seo-infographic-final.jpg

A second credit to my awesome colleague
Thomas Kerr, who designs most of The Cline Group’s presentations and graphics while also being our social media and overall digital wizard.

Just a few notes on the infographic:

First, I have segmented the two pillars by “PR and Traditional Marketing” and “SEO & Digital Marketing.” I hate to sound stereotypical, but the use of this differentiation was the easiest way to explain the integration process. The “PR” side deals with
people and content (e.g., messaging, media relations, and materials, etc.), while the “SEO” side focuses on things (e.g., online data, analytics, and research, etc.). See the end of this post for an important prediction.

Second, I have put social media on the online side because that is where the practice seems to sit in most companies and agencies. However, social media is really just a set of PR and communications channels, so it will likely increasingly move to the “traditional marketing” side of things. Again, see the end.

Third, there is a CMO / VP of Marketing / Project Leader (based on the structure of a company and whether the context is an agency or an in-house department) column between SEO and PR. This position should be a person with enough experience in both disciplines to mediate between the two as well as make judgment calls and final decisions in the case of conflicts. “SEO,” for example, may want to use certain keyword-based language in messaging in an attempt to rank highly for certain search terms. “PR” might want to use different terms that may resonate more with media outlets and the public. Someone will need to make a decision.

Fourth, it is important to understand that companies with numerous brands, products or services, and/or a diverse set of target audiences will need to take additional steps:

The marketing work for each brand, product, or service will need its own specific goal and KPI(s) in step one. Separate audience research and persona development will need to be performed for each distinct audience in step two. So, for a larger company, such as the one described above, parts of steps 3-8 below will often need to be done, say, six times, once for each audience of each product.

However, the complexity does not end there.

Online and offline is the same thing

Essentially, as more and more human activity occurs online, we are rapidly approaching a point where the offline and online worlds are merging into the same space. “Traditional” and “online” marketing are all collectively becoming simply “marketing.”

Above is our modern version of traditional communications and marketing theory. A sender decides upon a message; the message is packaged into a piece of content; the content is transmitted via a desired channel; and the channel delivers the content to the receiver. Marketing is essentially sending a message that is packaged into a piece of content to a receiver via a channel. The rest is just details.

As Google becomes smarter and smarter, marketers will need to stop thinking only about SEO and think more like, well, marketers. Mad Men’s Don Draper, the subject of the meme at the top of the page, would best the performance of any link builder today because he understood how to gain mass publicity and coverage, both of which have always been more important than just building links here and there. The best and greatest numbers of links come naturally as a
result of good marketing and not as a result of any direct linkbuilding. In the 2014 Linkbuilding Survey published on Moz, most of the (good) tactics that were described in the post – such as “content plus outreach” – are PR by another name.

At SMX West 2014 (where I gave a talk on SEO and PR strategy), Rand Fishkin took to the main stage to discuss what the future holds for SEO. Starting at 6:30 in the video above, he argued that there will soon be a bias towards brands in organic search. (For an extensive discussion of this issue, I’ll refer you to Bryson Meunier’s essay at Search Engine Land.) I agree that it will soon become crucial to use PR, advertisingand publicity to build a brand, but that action is something the Don Drapers of the world had already known to do long before the Internet had ever existed.

But things are changing

The process that I have outlined above is a little vague on purpose. The lines between SEO and PR are increasingly blurring as online and offline marketing becomes more and more integrated. For example, take this very post: is it me doing SEO or PR for our agency (while
first and foremost aiming to help the readers)? The answer: Yes.

In a Moz post by Jason Acidre on
SEO and brand building, I commented with the following:

Say, 10 years ago, “SEOs” were focused on techie things: keyword research, sitemaps, site hierarchy, site speed, backlinks, and a lot more. Then, as Google became smarter and the industry become more and more mature, “SEOs” woke up one day and realized that online marketers need to think, you know, like marketers. Now, I get the sense that digital marketers are trying to learn all about traditional marketing as much as possible because, in the end, all marketing is about
people — not machines and algorithms. What the f&*# is a positioning statement? What is a pitch? I just wish “SEOs” had done this from the beginning.

Of course, the same thing has been occurring in the inverse in the traditional marketing world. Traditional marketers have usually focused on these types of things: messaging documents, media lists, promotional campaigns, the 4 Ps, and SWOT analyses. Then, as more human activity moved to the Internet, they also woke up one day and saw an anarchic set of communications channels that operate under different sets of rules. Now, on the other end, I get the sense that traditional marketers are trying to learn as much as possible about SEO and digital marketing. 
What the f&^% is a rel=canonical tag? What is Google+ authorship? I just wish traditional marketers had done this from the start.

In fact, such a separation between SEO and PR is quickly dying. Here is a simplified version of the marketing and communications process I outlined at the beginning:

Traditional marketers and communications professionals have used this process for decades, and almost everything that (the umbrella term of) SEO does can fit into one of these boxes. A message can appear in a newspaper article or in a blog post. Content can be a sales brochure or an e-book. A channel can be the television or Facebook. A lot of  technical and on-page SEO is simply good web development. The most-effective type of off-page SEO is just PR and publicity. Public-relations executives, as I
have written elsewhere, can also learn to use analytics as yet another way to gauge results.

It all goes back to this tweet from Rand, which I cite in nearly every offline conversation with the marketing community:

SEO as an entity (sorry for the pun)
unto itself is quickly dying. The more SEO entails, the more the umbrella term becomes useless in any meaningful context. For this reason, it is crucial that digital marketers learn as much as possible about traditional marketing and PR.

So, in the end, how does one integrate public relations and SEO? By simply doing good
marketing.

Want more? Don’t forget to watch the Mozinar — I’d love to get your feedback in the comments below!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Reblogged 3 years ago from feedproxy.google.com

Panda 4.1: The Devil Is in the Aggregate

Posted by russvirante

I wish I didn’t have to say this. I wish I could look in the eyes of every victim of the last Panda 4.1 update and tell them it was something new, something unforeseeable, something out of their control. I wish I could tell them that Google pulled a fast one that no one saw coming. But I can’t.

Like many in the industry, I have been studying Panda closely since its inception. Google gave us a rare glimpse behind the curtain by providing us with the very guidelines they set in place to build their massive machine-learned algorithm which came to be known as Panda. Three and a half years later, Panda is still with us and seems to still catch us off guard.
Enough is enough.

What I intend to show you throughout this piece is that the original Panda questionnaire still remains a powerful predictive tool to wield in defense of what can be a painful organic traffic loss. By analyzing the winner/loser reports of Panda 4.1 using standard Panda surveys, we can determine whether Google’s choices are still in line with their original vision. So let’s dive in.

The process

The first thing we need to do is acquire a winners and losers list. I picked this excellent
one from SearchMetrics although any list would do as long as it is accurate. Second, I proceeded to run a Panda questionnaire with 10 questions on random pages from each of the sites (both the winners and losers). You can run your own Panda survey by following Distilled and Moz’s instructions here or just use PandaRisk like I did. After completing these analyses, we simply compare the scores across the board to determine whether they continue to reflect what we would expect given the original goals of the Panda algorithm.

The aggregate results

I actually want to do this a little bit backwards to drive home a point. Normally we would build to the aggregate results, starting with the details and leaving you with the big picture. But Panda
is a big-picture kind of algorithmic update. It is specially focused on the intersection of myriad features, the sum is greater than the parts. While breaking down these features can give us some insight, at the end of the day we need to stay acutely aware that unless we do well across the board, we are at risk.

Below is a graph of the average cumulative scores across the winners and losers. The top row are winners, the bottom row are losers. The left and right red circles indicate the lowest and highest scores within those categories, and the blue circle represents the average. There is something very important that I want to point out on this graph.
The highest individual average score of all the losers is less than the lowest average score of the winners. This means that in our randomly selected data set, not a single loser averaged as high a score as the worst winner. When we aggregate the data together, even with a crude system of averages rather than the far more sophisticated machine learning techniques employed by Google, there is a clear disparity between the sites that survive Panda and those that do not.

It is also worth pointing out here that there is no
positive Panda algorithm to our knowledge. Sites that perform well on Panda do not see boosts because they are being given ranking preference by Google, rather their competitors have seen rankings loss or their own previous Panda penalties have been lifted. In either scenario, we should remember that performing well on Panda assessments isn’t going to necessarily increase your rankings, but it should help you sustain them.

Now, let’s move on to some of the individual questions. We are going to start with the least correlated questions and move to those which most strongly correlate with performance in Panda 4.1. While all of the questions had positive correlations, a few lacked statistical significance.


Insignificant correlation

The first question which was not statistically significant in its correlation with Panda performance was “This page has visible errors on it”. The scores have been inverted here so that the higher the score, the fewer the number of people who reported that the page has errors. You can see that while more respondents did say that the winners had no visible errors, the difference was very slight. In fact, there was only a 5.35% difference between the two. I will save comment on this until after we discuss the next question.

The second question which was not statistically significant in its correlation with Panda performance was “This page has too many ads”. The scores have once again been inverted here so that the higher the score, the fewer the number of people who reported that the page has too many ads. This was even closer. The winners performed only 2.3% better than the losers in Panda 4.1.

I think there is a clear takeaway from these two questions. Nearly everyone gets the easy stuff right, but that isn’t enough. First, a lot of pages just have no ads whatsoever because that isn’t their business model. Even those that do have ads have caught on for the most part and optimized their pages accordingly, especially given that Google has other layout algorithms in place aside from Panda. Moreover, content inaccuracy is more likely to impact scrapers and content spinners than most sites, so it is unsurprising that few if any reported that the pages were filled with errors. If you score poorly on either of these, you have only begun to scratch the surface, because most websites get these right enough.


Moderate correlation

A number of Panda questions drew statistically significant difference in means but there was still substantial crossover between the winners and losers.
Whenever the average of the losers was greater than the lowest of the winners, I considered it only a moderate correlation. While the difference between means remained strong, there was still a good deal of variance in the scores. 

The first of these to consider was the question as to whether the content was “trustworthy”. You will notice a trend in a lot of these questions that there is a great deal of subjective human opinion. This subjectivity plays itself out quite a bit when the topics of the site might deal with very different categories of knowledge. For example, a celebrity fact site might be very trustworthy (although the site might be ad-laden) and an opinion piece in the New Yorker on the same celebrity might not be seen as trustworthy – even though it is plainly labeled as opinion. The trustworthy question ties back to the “does this page have errors” question quite nicely, drawing attention to the difference between a subjective and objective question and the way it can spread the means out nicely when you ask a respondent to give more of a personal opinion. This might seem unfair, but in the real world your site and Google itself is being judged by that subjective opinion, so it is understandable why Google wants to get at it algorithmically. Nevertheless, there was a strong difference in means between winners and losers of 12.57%, more than double the difference we saw between winners and losers on the question of Errors.

Original content has long been a known requirement of organic search success, so no one was surprised when it made its way into the Panda questionnaire. It still remains an influential piece of the puzzle with a difference in mean of nearly 20%. It was barely ruled out from being a heavily correlated feature due to one loser edging out a loss against the losers’ average mean. Notice though that one of the winners scored a perfect 100% on the survey. This perfect score was received despite hundreds of respondents.
It can be done.

As you can imagine, perception on what is and is not an authority is very subjective. This question is powerful because it pulls in all kinds of assumptions and presuppositions about brand, subject matter, content quality, design, justification, citations, etc. This likely explains why this question is beleaguered by one of the highest variances on the survey. Nevertheless, there was a 13.42% difference in means. And, on the other side of the scale, we did see what it is like to have a site that is clearly not an authority, scoring the worst possible 0% on this question. This is what happens when you include highly irrelevant content on your site just for the purpose of picking up either links or traffic. Be wary.

Everyone hates the credit card question, and luckily there is huge variance in answers. At least one site survived Panda despite scoring 5% on this question. Notice that there is a huge overlap between the lowest winner and the average of the losing sites. Also, if you notice by the placement of the mean (blue circle) in the winners category, the average wasn’t skewed to the right indicating just one outlier. There was strong variance in the responses across the board. The same was true of the losers. However, with a +15% difference in means, there was a clear average differentiation between the performance of winners and losers. Once again, though, we are drawn back to that aggregate score at the top, where we see how Google can use all these questions together to build a much clearer picture of site and content quality. For example, it is possible that Google pays more attention to this question when it is analyzing a site that has other features like the words “shopping cart” or “check out” on the homepage. 

I must admit that the bookmarking question surprised me. I always considered it to be the most subjective of the bunch. It seemed unfair that a site might be judged because it has material that simply doesn’t appeal to the masses. The survey just didn’t bear this out though. There was a clear difference in means, but after comparing the sites that were from similar content categories, there just wasn’t any reason to believe that a bias was created by subject matter. The 14.64% difference seemed to be, editorially speaking, related more to the construction of the page and the quality of the content, not the topic being discussed. Perhaps a better way to think about this question is:
would you be embarrassed if your friends knew THIS was the site you were getting your information from rather than another.

This wraps up the 5 questions that had good correlations but substantial enough variance that it was possible for the highest loser to beat out the average winner. I think one clear takeaway from this section is that these questions, while harder to improve upon than the Low Ads and No Errors questions before, are completely within the webmaster’s grasp. Making your content and site appear original, trustworthy, authoritative, and worthy of bookmarking aren’t terribly difficult. Sure, it takes some time and effort, but these goals, unlike the next, don’t appear that far out of reach.


Heavy correlation

The final three questions that seemed to distinguish the most between the winners and losers of Panda 4.1 all had high difference-in-means and, more importantly, had little to no crossover between the highest loser and lowest winner. In my opinion, these questions are also the hardest for the webmaster to address. They require thoughtful design, high quality content, and real, expert human authors.

The first question that met this classification was “could this content could appear in print”. With a difference in mean of 22.62%, the winners thoroughly trounced the losers in this category. Their sites and content were just better designed and better written. They showed the kind of editorial oversight you would expect in a print publication. The content wasn’t trite and unimportant, it was thorough and timely. 

The next heavily correlated question was whether the page was written by experts. With over a 34% difference in means between the winners and losers, and
literally no overlap at all between the winners’ and losers’ individual averages, it was clearly the strongest question. You can see why Google would want to look into things like authorship when they knew that expertise was such a powerful distinguisher between Panda winners and losers. This really begs the question – who is writing your content and do your readers know it?

Finally, insightful analysis had a huge difference in means of +32% between winners and losers. It is worth noting that the highest loser is an outlier, which is typified by the skewed mean (blue circle) being closer to the bottom that the top. Most of the answers were closer to the lower score than the top. Thus, the overlap is exaggerated a bit. But once again, this just draws us back to the original conclusion – that the devil is not in the details, the devil is in the aggregate. You might be able to score highly on one or two of the questions, but it won’t be enough to carry you through.


The takeaways

OK, so hopefully it is clear that Panda really hasn’t changed all that much. The same questions we looked at for Panda 1.0 still matter. In fact, I would argue that Google is just getting better at algorithmically answering those same questions, not changing them. They are still the right way to judge a site in Google’s eyes. So how should you respond?

The first and most obvious thing is you should run a Panda survey on your (or your clients’) sites. Select a random sample of pages from the site. The easiest way to do this is get an export of all of the pages of your site, perhaps from Open Site Explorer, put them in Excel and shuffle them. Then choose the top 10 that come up.  You can follow the Moz instructions I linked to above, do it at PandaRisk, or just survey your employees, friends, colleagues, etc. While the latter probably will be positively biased, it is still better than nothing. Go ahead and get yourself a benchmark.

The next step is to start pushing those scores up one at a time. I
give some solid examples on the Panda 4.0 release article about improving press release sites, but there is another better resource that just came out as well. Josh Bachynski released an amazing set of known Panda factors over at his website The Moral Concept. It is well worth a thorough read. There is a lot to take in, but there are tons of easy-to-implement improvements that could help you out quite a bit. Once you have knocked out a few for each of your low-scoring questions, run the exact same survey again and see how you improve. Keep iterating this process until you beat out each of the question averages for winners. At that point, you can rest assured that your site is safe from the Panda by beating the devil in the aggregate. 

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Reblogged 4 years ago from feedproxy.google.com