A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AGENCY

As a collective, The Factory Interactive is fueled by a passion for developing enduring messages conceived through a marriage of design and technology. At the core, we are explorers of possibility and architects of memory. We create rich immersive experiences that increase message retention and reward the audience. Our mission: give personality to products, resulting in a stronger, more effective brand.

_{June 1, 2009}
Badda-Bing! _{By Ashley}

I have spent the entire day playing with Microsoft’s new Search Engine Bing (previously Live Search) and reading tons and tons of reviews and opinions on the site. It should be told that I never once used Microsoft Live Search so I can’t really touch on the differences between the old and new versions.

My initial reaction to going to Bing.com was, “Ugh, this is just not Google” (BING = But It’s Not Google??). But I gave it a shot and was pleasantly surprised. I will start with what I loved about Bing. For my “case study” sake, I did a comparative search on both Google and Bing with the search term “cupcakes” (I was hungry at the time).

Image Search – While the  search results themselves were nearly the same, the Bing results page is extremely intuitive and easy to use. The left sidebar produces ‘related search’ terms and the option to search by size, layout, color and people. Google offers similar options at the top of the page but is not as convenient.  In addition, when  you scroll over an image on Bing, it slightly enlarges the picture and gives details of image size and the option to see similar images to that one in particular. Google provides the image information underneath the picture, and when comparing the two side by side, Bing is much more visually pleasing and easy to navigate. Lastly (and the coolest part), there is infinite scrolling, meaning the more you scroll the more images populate the page.

Video Search – It’s pretty neat! On Bing, when you scroll over the image a 30 second preview starts to play.

Maps- Bing automatically populates the map with local bakeries opposed to Google, which starts nationally and requires you to narrow your search down. Other than that there isn’t too much different between the two engines.

Now down to the meat and potatoes, the actual search:

Microsoft calls Bing the “Decision Engine”, even previewing the site on www.decisionengine.com. There has been a lot of criticism in the first few days. Specifically about Bing returning a kind-of biased search result. And if this is true, then the arguement becomes, is Bing making the actual decision for you? And what does this mean for trends? Some go as far to say that using Bing is seeing the Internet through Microsoft’s eyes. While I see the arguement in that to some extent, I do believe it’s a little (ok, maybe VERY) over-the-top. Let’s look at a few of the facts:

• Bing brings the “best match” to the top, not the most popular. (Which in theory, if Bing is making decisions for us, wouldn’t the best and most popular eventually be one and the same?)
• When I watched the demo video,  Home Depot was entered in the search, the alternatives to the left produced Ace Hardware and Walmart. I have read several blogs arguing that since it doesn’t suggest the “Mom and Pop” shop, its going to mean the demise of local shops as we know it. (I couldn’t help but laugh at this since I think this is highly doubtful)
• “Bing’s health results bring together resources from the top medical sources in the world, including the Mayo Clinic,” Microsoft says in the demo. The alternative health suggestions are buried deep down in the world of Bing. In order to find alternative medicine results, you must get very specific with your search term.
• In my cupcake vs cupcake results, not much was different except that the ‘related search’ on Bing is shown on the left side of the page, which personally, I prefer. The results, and order of them, were extremely similiar.
• Search history is shown on Bing, in the almighty left sidebar.

Final thoughts: I actually really like Bing. While I probably won’t use it for basic search, I will, however, continue to use it for image searches and shopping (very well done and I can see high conversion rates because of the way it is presented). I don’t think Bing will be making any decisions for anyone anytime soon. It will provide suggestions, just as Google does, and we will choose what suites our query best.

Michael Arrington,of TechCrunch hits the nail on the head though:

Whether Microsoft ultimately succeeds or not in “winning” the search war, the competition is very good for the rest of the Internet. Google needs to be pushed to try innovating new things (not this). And search marketing competition will ensure that Google doesn’t get too greedy.

If Bing catches on, which I am surprised to hear myself say that I think it will, then Google will be forced to evolve. In the end, that just makes it better for the end-user. For now, Google is Google and will likely remain the powerhouse… but a little competition never hurt anyone!

Filed under: Media News — Tags: bing, Google, live search, microsoft — @ 7:08 pm

_{March 23, 2009}
Newspapers want a bailout plan?? Say what??! _{By Ashley}

Ad Age reported today that the companies on Google’s Publishers Advisory Council — a fraternity that includes The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Inc. and Hearst, among others — are aggressively making the case that their content ought to be more prominently displayed in search results. In a sense, a bail out plan of their own to try to gain some relevance once again.

“You should not have a system,” one content executive said, “where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately.”

The Advisory Council is urging Google to revise their algorithms to add credibility and seniority to news organizations so their websites/reports show up higher in the search results. They claim that the bloggers “parasites” are stealing the news from their sites to begin with. But the publishers also said they’re not asking for a leg up over amateurs and link-happy bloggers. “This would in no way mean that only professional content publishers would get an advantage,” one said. “It really just says that the original source, and the source with real access, should somehow be recognized as the most important in the delivery of results.”

Here is my thought… maybe these big time media organizations need to invest in a better SEO/SEM program (cough cough, shameless plug…like http://seotrackonline.com). It seems to me that The New York times should organically rank higher than any Joe Shmo’s blog… if not, there may be some bigger issues at hand.

Filed under: Media News,SEO — Tags: content, Google, media, newspapers, publishers, Publishers Advisory Council, SEM, SEO, seotrackonline — @ 10:55 pm

_{March 13, 2009}
Today’s Match-Up… Twitter vs. SEO _{By Ashley}

I’ve briefly mentioned it before in posts… how does SEO compare to Twitter? And will Twitter Search and Hashtags replace SEO?

There is ONE huge reason I say absolutely not. Here is the reason and my rationale:

Twitter gives you absolutely no control on whether or not your company name/product will show up on the top of the list. On Twitter, the most recent Tweet (whether it be good or bad) shows up at the top of the list and the reader has an immediate association between your company and the content they read. With SEO, you can work to make sure that when a search is performed, your name or product will show up on the first page, as well as what content shows up.

With Twitter, instead of working on the amount of times, or rankings, on a search results page, it is about maintaining brand continuity. Use Twitter to build relationships and brand loyalty.

The point here is this, make sure your strategy goes beyond “being found” and focuses on brand reputation and search results. When you have a brand that people trust and enjoy, you don’t have to fear real time Twitter searches as the rising trend in online searching. So the answer to the question, “Will Twitter replace SEO?” Absolutely not…You need to implement both strategies to have an effective online campaign.

Although, if Google perhaps buys Twitter some day, we can have this discussion again.

Filed under: Marketing,SEO — Tags: branding, Google, hashtags, loyalty, rankings, SEO, tweets, twitter — @ 11:49 am

_{March 9, 2009}
Facebook vs. Google _{By Ashley}

I read an article today titled, ” Facebook Sending More Traffic Than Google To Some Sites” on AdAge (http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=135112). At first glance, I thought, “WOW that is incredible”… but then I re-read the title and noticed the key word… “some”. What “some” are they talking about? User-generated content sites. It’s a natural progression of social media. It was only a matter of time before the Twitters, Facebooks and other Social Media sites start linking with each other, and with sites created by you or I. It’s viral media at it’s best.

But Google will always be Google. There has been a lot of talk lately about Twitter becoming the next Google, or an article like the above link regarding Facebook, but at the end of the day Google will still remain the number one source for finding sites/information/answers to anything and everything you want to know. The Ad Age article questions whether Search Engine Marketing dollars will be shifted over to Social Media. While (I think) a small portion of budgets will move in that direction (and highly recommend it), Google will remain the Big Dog… and rightfully so.

Filed under: Agency News,Marketing,SEO — Tags: ad spends, content, facebook, Google, media budgets, SEM, SEO, social media, twitter — @ 5:47 pm

_{January 30, 2009}
RumorMill- Google to buy Skype _{By jason}

Gype ?

Google’s rumored acquisition of Skype has the business world buzzing —

According to a post on truemors this morning word is that none other than Google is considering snapping up the  VoIP service.  The explosive growth experienced rapid growth of Skype prompted eBay to acquire itin September 2005 for $2.6 billion. Since then the number of user account  have increased from 171.2 million in the fouth quarter of 2006 to 405 million in Q4 of 2008.  According to  Scott Durchslag, the company’s chief operating officer, as of January 2009, Skype claimed to be adding about 30 million subscribers a quarter.

With Google beefing up its entry into the mobile phone market via the Android platform this aquisition seems likely especially with eBay’s 56% decline in share price compared to a year ago.  This is sure to help the Android platform which in it’s early stages was met with mixed reviews.

So I guess we will all wait to see what really develops here, I’d be interested to know what you think about this story.

Filed under: Media News — Tags: acquisitions, android, business, Google, skype, VoIP — @ 12:36 pm

Subscribe to our feed