WebProNews pop quiz – I’d like to charge you $3,000 to submit your website to 100 directories. Your response to this should be:

1. Handing me a check for the full 3 Gs, made out to my design firm, C. Ash

2. A hearty chuckle followed by a brisk run away
3. Several whacks with a tire iron

We can’t advocate violence or other such punishments, richly deserved though they may be. The thoughts you entertain in privacy about such a deal may be as detailed as you like; go wild.

The maxyRO blog said they have seen this level of pricing for directory submission, a service they feel might be worth $50, based on charges for it by manual submission services. Nice work, if you can get someone to pay for it.

MaxyRO also criticized overpriced article writing and submissions ($100), rewriting and resubmitting that article to more sites ($50), and keyword ranking consulting ($300). Plus SEO consulting by phone; “I can imagine a call center with bored teens reading some script,” said the blog.

Naturally, worthy SEO businesses exist. Word of mouth is one way to find a good one. Ask other businesses you trust what they did with SEO, then look for them via their expected niche keywords to see where they rank.

If they rank well in search, top 5 or better, the choice that business made could be the right one for you.

“Gartner has identified seven major trends converging to change software delivery models, reduce dependence on the giant application vendors and force prices down.

These include business process outsourcing; software as a service (SaaS); low-cost development environments, such as China and India, combined with modular architectures and service-oriented architectures; the emergence of third-party software maintenance and support; growing interest in open source; the rise of Chinese software companies; and the expansion of the Brazilian, Chinese and Indian markets.”

Regarding OSS:

“Although Gartner says open source won’t topple the likes of IBM and Microsoft the analyst believes it will put pressure on traditional software margin structures, particularly in areas such as servers, operating systems, development tools and database technologies.”

I’ve seen customers using OSS as a negotiation tool to get lower prices on commercial enterprise software. This will surely continue.

Captain Obvious, over and out.

Comments

"Conversion Optimizer helps you meet your ROI objectives by automatically managing your bids according to a maximum CPA goal. By automating the bidding process, this feature helps you minimize your conversion costs while saving you time.

Here’s how Conversion Optimizer works: simply specify a maximum CPA bid and the Conversion Optimizer does the rest.

It uses historical information about your campaign and automatically generates optimal CPC bids for each auction. You still pay per click, but you no longer have to manually adjust your bids to reach your CPA goals. Since the Conversion Optimizer can choose a new bid for each auction, you’re provided with the additional benefit of spending money only on the search queries and sites where your ads are likely to convert. You can read more about how the Conversion Optimizer can manage your costs here.

In order to accurately predict your conversion rate and optimize your bids, the Conversion Optimizer requires that your campaign currently uses AdWords Conversion Tracking and has at least 300 conversions in the last 30 days. The Conversion Optimizer tries to keep the cost of each conversion below your CPA bid. However, if the actual conversion rate is lower than we predict, your CPA may exceed your CPA bid. "

To get started, visit AdWords Help Center.

Comments

This time around it is disappointingly coming from a BBC article under the title Facebook ‘costs businesses dear’, which right away, of course, has made the headlines in Techmeme, too. And for a good reason.

If you check out some of the different links that I have referenced above, and I am sure there is plenty more out there that would be worth while a read, there is probably very little that I would be able to add into the conversation. However, this time around I thought I would try to point out something that lots of people seem to have forgotten.

Yes, indeed, that particular study (Not sure where the link to it is, actually) argues the amount of money lost by having knowledge workers hanging out in various multiple social networks, supposedly wasting their time instead of doing their jobs. But what about doing a much more interesting and relevant study that would calculate the amount of money lost, the countless hours gone by day in day out from different knowledge workers trying to find the experts to help them get the job done?

Why don’t we carry out studies that show and demonstrate the huge amount of losses for every single business out there just because their knowledge workforce did not know who to contact to get the job done faster, much more responsively and with plenty more quality? Do we have to remind business how much money they have lost over the course of the years just because one department didn’t know how to reach out to another to help out in a customer situation? How much money and time have businesses wasted on reinventing the wheel at the other side of the world, when that same business implemented a similar solution, but for a different customer?

Where do you feel that businesses would be at the moment if Knowledge Management would have been in the same status and with the same negative reputation as in the late 90s and early 2000s? How do you think different businesses are going to successfully make the transition into knowledge based companies in the Knowledge Economy of the 21st century, if it weren’t for social networks and social computing?

I am sure that, as you have gotten to read through the last paragraphs, you would be nodding away and perhaps sadly identifying your own business suffering from that very same thing. Why don’t we have studies that try to portrait how much money companies have lost for not empowering knowledge workers to connect with one another, share their knowledge, collaborate and innovate as a a result of embracing and adopting social computing techniques?

Why is it that people keep insisting that a successful business is that one that just focuses on a bunch of processes and tools and nevermind about the people and their connections, when we all know that it is the latter, the people, that glue that makes it all work together.

How much longer would the corporate world have to go further, before realising the true potential of social networking; freeing up knowledge workers to do what they do best: share their knowledge with others and collaboratively innovate.

*That* is what Knowledge Management or Knowledge Management 2.0 is all about! *That* is the main reason why KM is no longer a discipline with plenty of negative reputation. On the contrary, KM is coming back, and big time!, into the spotlight, and the main reason for it is nothing more, nothing less than social computing.

Because whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. It is the perfect complement of a crippled traditional KM system where tools and processes were what ruled and all a sudden there is this balance that knowledge workers are putting together back on to the table realising that the true potential for a successful KM strategy is to actually combine tools, processes and people and all of that through the interactions of social software tools.

So here is an open question to everyone out there … Would you rather prefer to have your knowledge workers wasting their time with their daily social networking interactions in whatever the tool and benefit in the medium, long term from those inter-connections, or would you prefer to have your knowledge workers wasting their time trying to figure where the experts are and how to get their knowledge to help fix that customer problem?

It is up to you. Really. But I tell you something, if I were running a business I know what my option would be. Encourage my knowledge workers to hang out in various social networks, dive into the conversations, use them responsibly and continue building further up on what really matters: connect with people to share their knowledge and collaborate, instead of having to struggle time and time again trying to figure out how to get the job done smarter and not necessarily harder.

Comments

Tag:

They call it "packet shaping," though, which is en route to be one of the hottest topics in the realm. In the States, ISPs argue in favor of packet shaping by saying there is a limited amount of bandwidth, a point others dispute as bandwidth increases exponentially and becomes cheaper by the day.

But also, like the British ISPs appear to be doing, they insinuate that online providers and subscribers are not already paying healthy bandwidth premiums – up to 40 times costs on the consumer side. From the provider side, ISPs are far more blatant, accusing content providers of piggybacking for free, which is patently untrue.

Like I said, I’m not sure how things work in England, but the situation sounds familiar.

Packet shaping is also a key issue in the Net Neutrality debate stateside. ISPs have argued they wouldn’t abuse their power (and assumed right) to prioritize, redirect, slow down, or block content, yet even as they make those assurances, Pearl Jam’s political speech is muted, government spies (NSA) are given carte blanche access, and competing services are degraded.

Packet shaping, like government power then, is a practice ripe for abuse, as those dictating the use of bandwidth, and the tolls placed upon it, assume the right to control content.

I have went shopping with my girlfriend in San Fransisco a few times, and got to thinking about how most of the businesses in the city pay $4,000 to $20,000 per month for rent. In many cases, with a 5 year term.

You can buy a great domain name for that. You can compete in the search results in most markets for that. Monthly rent to buy exposure in one city is recurring. Many online marketing costs and domain costs are not.

In time, online will be much more competitive than it is today, but many markets are still wide open, and likely will remain so for at least a few more years.

As mobile communications and web access move to free, and Google becomes the default homepage for the web, a strong market position on the web will be worth as much or more than any offline real estate.

Comments

If you opt into distribution of your product the way to win is to give extras when people buy direct. As a marketing strategy, it is silly to recommend people avoid your distribution partners. Once you give up distribution you move toward being a commodity unless you add extras or are selling a buying experience.

Even companies like Adobe are canibalizing portions of their business to maintain their market position. When considering opting into other networks or doing things that extend your reach and give you more direct control over the conumer experience it is probably best to stay as close to the consumer as possible.

If you are a product on the shelf you have to pay for shelf space. If you own the shelf space you can sell your own product or sell overpriced ads to others.

Comments

Soon, it’s expected to add word-processing and spreadsheet services to the suite, which includes an online calendar, chat service, and Web page builder. In coming weeks, Google Apps will turn into a real business as Google begins charging corporations a subscription fee amounting to a few dollars per person per month. "We’re dying to use something like this," says Brandeau. He’s "on the cusp" of signing a contract with Google.

I still don’t see companies dumping Microsoft Office for Google’s solution, even if it eventually has email, calendaring, a word processor, spreadsheets and presentations. Google’s solution, at "a few dollars per person per month", (assuming that is anywhere from $3-7 a month) amounts to a cost of $36-84 a year per employee for a product with similar capabilities to Microsoft Office 2007 Standard, which costs $239 to upgrade (and considerably less to businesses who use volume licensing).

Considering that (a) Google’s office products require and internet connection (b) companies don’t like giving up their data, even to Google (c) companies take years to upgrade for one version of Office to the next, I can’t see a company using Google Apps when they can use Microsoft Office, which is going to be positioned as the more powerful and flexible option, for an equal or lower price. Why would you buy less features, when Google’s subscription rate isn’t actually cheaper than Microsoft’s retail price?

(via Ars)

Comments

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

About the Author

Nathan Weinberg writes the popular InsideGoogle blog, offering the latest news and insights about Google and search engines.

Visit the InsideGoogle blog.

Forget about gathering all the staff in one room and telling them how they are money-sucking time wasters. The problem may not be their fault. Spam could be to blame.

The Royal Pingdom blog takes the higher estimate of spam appearing in inboxes – the 94 percent figure cited by Postini – in determining how much spam may be costing employers:

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average hourly salary is $18.21. Based on that, one minute of a worker’s time is worth just over $0.30. This means that for every minute lost for those 86 million workers, $26.1 million goes down the drain. In one year, 260 work days, that amounts to almost $6.8 billion.

However, just one lost minute per day on average is not realistic. Let us assume that the average lost time at work due to spam is five minutes per day. This gives us $130.5 million per day, or $33.9 billion per year.

A lot of management of the spam problem can be done at the gateway of a network. Plenty of companies are out there who will take a firm’s money to help with this.

But that’s a mitigating workaround, not a true solution. If we are going to see a cleanup in spam, we need the US Government to put significant pressure on the countries where a lot of the spammers and bot-herders reside.

These are criminal rings operating in sophisticated ways, not just a couple of guys throwing stuff into a bunch of Usenet groups.

Spam may not be a completely solvable problem, since the financial incentive to spam will exist as long as people are dumb enough to buy and invest based on something that lands in the inbox. But there’s no reason the bigger operations can’t be greeted in the early morning hours by gun-toting authorities wielding arrest warrants.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl Bookmark WebProNews:

Supply chain management (SCM) is one of the key drivers in today’s business world with offshore sourcing, foreign competition and global markets. The responsiveness required to keep the inbound supply chain flowing with materials and products and to keep store shelves filled is demanding. SCM requires reducing costs, increasing inventory velocity and compressing cycle time; and some say these three may not be compatible or consistent.

Doing all this “and doing it well” takes creativity and management skill. However there is a factor that limits the design, development and implementation of such supply chains. That factor is accounting (ie; bean counting), and how it recognizes, and treats, logistics costs.
My view, is accounting is an impediment for logistics, whether for supply chain management, both international and domestic, for lean and for outsourcing. This is a fact, not because of accountants, but because companies simply do not understand how to fiscally account for their supply chain!

Generally accepted accounting principles create the foundation so that every company reports its financial data the same way. Or so they say…
This financial snapshot is consistent then from firm to firm (or it should be). hence, this makes analysis of the data and comparisons possible.

These accounting standards have a long history. They date back to Henry Ford and the Model A. Companies then may have been vertically integrated with a primary focus on domestic sales, sourcing and production. This business model has become nearly extinct, especially for large companies, that source internationally. As a result, accounting rules have not kept up with present business operations and practices.

Some differences with supply chain management and accounting are:

Process versus Transactions

SCM flows across the organization. As a process, it flows across many of the organization’s departments and boundaries. Accounting is transaction-oriented, with its focus on identifying and summarizing vertical sales and make-or-buy activities.

Organization Direction

Supply chain management is horizontal and crosses departments and organizational boundaries. Transactions are vertical and are consistent with organization silos.

Scope

SCM extends into suppliers and logistics service providers to gain inventory velocity and to reduce cycle time. Accounting stays within the company facilities and boundaries and looks inward.

Outward or Inward

Supply chain management looks both inward and outward to deal with suppliers, transport firms, warehouses and other logistics service providers. Collaboration is important when managing the complex, global supply chain. Accounting is traditional and focuses within the corporate boundaries.

Continuous versus Discrete

SCM is ongoing. Product is always flowing. Accounting looks at different summaries which create supply chain disconnects. Logistics costs are organized individually, not recognized at all, or recognized in different places.
For example, freight and warehouses show on the income statement and are recapped monthly.

Inventory appears on the balance sheet and is presented annually.

ARRRGH! I am already driving myself nuts with this post! Just think what its like in a multi-national organization!

So three key logistics elements are dissected and shown in different financial reports!

And nowhere does “actual time,” a vital business driver and the action that creates inventory and service, appear on any financial statement. Add time and to a great extent, this view of logistics costs makes accounting obsolete for supply chain management.

Dynamic versus Static

Supply chain management is constantly changing–as suppliers, customers, plants and warehouses, shipment sizes and order mix and as store locations change. This contrasts with accounting which has the historical perspective of what has already happened.
As a result, accounting does not understand changes in transportation costs, for example, because of changes in the distance inbound and outbound shipments must travel, or in the shipment size or in the mix of commodities being shipped. Or, for the time it takes…

These differences make it difficult to develop meaningful performance metrics for supply chain management that are recognized in the board room and that are aligned with the company strategic plan. Financial metrics, while commonly used, have limited application to supply chain management performance improvement.

For example, inventory velocity, inventory turns and inventory yield maximization (all time related) are important to achieving the best returns on inventory and on the capital that it represents.
Cycle time, from purchase order to sale or time within the total supply chain, are measure of company performance with strong bottom line implications. Yet none of these are part of traditional accounting measures which are rooted in the past. What about the present? What about the future?

Today’s business world is focused on the customer. The perfect customer order is a key performance metric for gaining and maintaining customers and for achieving deeper customer penetration. These are not standard, traditional financial measures!

Similarly developing unique supply chain programs that differentiate by A versus B versus C inventory, or by customer, or by product family segment, or any other delineator are not supported by accounting!

Financial standards do not readily recognize such stratifications.

Sourcing right decisions are also restricted by accounting which has blinders as to the potential impact of the outsourcing decision on the company and transforming its processes, operations and results.

These limitations also impact the success of lean program development and lean success. Waste, non-value added, actions do not conform to traditional accounting. As a result, time and inventory waste identification run counter to how accounting sees these manufacturing and supply chain processes and sub-processes.

Incremental and continuous improvement with its flow and pull are part of adapting to the new business model of faster and better…even less expensive. Unfortunately cost accounting practices are enablers of the old ways, not the new ways of business and business models.

Accounting professionals have recognized the limitations of accounting in today’s business. Activity based costing is one way they try to adjust to the new world. But ABC is not incorporated into income statements and balance sheets, which still reflect an antiquated way of summarizing business financials and performance. Frankly, most of the old boys on the board wouldn’t know how to read or interpret this new fiscal game plan anyway!

At some point, Accounting must step up and stop band-aiding a bad system. It must redefine, reinvent, and reinvigorate itself…so it can be part of the global business world.

Until that happens, companies will continue not to properly measure and improve their performance, operations and results. Their supply chains will be fragmented…just as their outdated financial documents are…

Comments

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Michael Stolarczyk is currently Senior Director, of Business Development for Exel in their Westerville, Ohio General Office for the Americas. He is also on the Board of Advisors for West Virginia Universitys School of Business.

Michael’s Blog: http://blogonlog.blogspot.com