Tasha Harrison

Yesterday The Guardian released it’s new app for the iPhone. It costs £2.39, is highly personalised and allows you to listen to podcasts and browse images. The Guardian does have a very good mobile site, but I downloaded the app as I wanted to see whether it would be worth £2.39, which is quite a lot for an app. First impressions are that it makes browsing a lot easier and I can organise it into the sections I read the most. It is a definite improvement, but not completely life changing.

The Guardian are leading the way in monetising the news. I don’t have to download the app to read the paper, I could go on reading it from the web browser, but the app makes it a lot easier and the customisation is great. They have added value to their service and I am willing to pay. It’s a lot like upgrading your Spotify so you don’t receive adverts.

The Guardian recognise, more than any other British newspaper, the need to work with their readers to turn around their declining profits. Instead of rushing backwards to an old model of charging people to read the news (ie what Murdoch is proposing) they have accepted that information on the internet is free. The amount of content that is published everyday has reduced the value of news. Before the internet, everyone had to buy a paper or magazine to gather information and opinions. Now it’s free.

I’ve spoken before about the fact that this is a huge problem for newspapers. The Guardian have reacted by adding value to the experience of reading news on their website. They have subscription services, but they don’t charge for the basic news. They also don’t make a big song and dance of it (like Murdoch), they simply offer these services as a way to add value.

It is too soon to know which model will work, a paywall system, where you must subscribe to read beyond a certain point, or an added value service, where you pay for a better experience. I suspect that the latter will be the more successful.

There’s big changes on Google today. The search engine is going to include results from sites such as Twitter and from blogs. This is important, because it means that the search results we receive will be up to date news, as it happens. The explosion of  Twitter, in particular, has been the main catalyst for this change. It gives people the ability to publish news as it is happening. It is important that Google reflects this new real-time news source (Rupert Murdoch should take notice).

The other big change is the increased personalisation of your search. Google records your web history and bases its search results on the sites that you visit. So if you regularly visit a particular news site, it will place that site higher up the search rankings if it is relevant to your search. This is a big game changer for SEO, since it favours more established sites. It also means that when you view your own site on Google you will generally see it ranking differently than most of your potential customers, meaning that you have no idea how well your site is actually ranking.

Most good SEOs will have seen this trend already and will have been aware that personalisation has been increasing over the last couple of years. It provides us with a new challenge and increases the need for different forms of online marketing, like social media and online PR. It also creates a problem for SEO companies who still guarantee positions on Google, as they will find it hard to prove.

From a users point of view I actually think these changes are rather limiting. Surely the point of search engines is that we can find something new. Before the days of social bookmarking sites like StumbleUpon and Digg, we relied on search engines to bring us new sites and information. Now we will increasingly receive the same sites, having to look further through the results to find something new.

Facebook is a lot more difficult than people anticipate for marketing. There seems to be a myth that you can simply create a fan page and people will come. The problem is that often there is no reason to become a fan. The page is never updated and once you’ve become a fan you never hear from them again. Often people don’t have time, but usually they aren’t really sure what to do with their page once it’s set up.

Now Facebook have created new rules regarding competitions. You can’t ask people to interact with you on Facebook in order to enter a competition, they can only interact with a third party application. Gone are the days of getting more fans by encouraging them to join you in return for maybe winning something. Now marketers have to be more imaginative in the ways they get fans to sign up. In fact this may not be a bad thing, because simply building up a large fan base and bribing them to interact with you isn’t going to build up a long term relationship.

A few brands that do this really well are Howies and Staples. Howies communicate with their fans, their entire wall is a constant conversation. The fan pictures are terrific, you can tell that the people have really bought into the Howies’ brand. Staples appear to have a really strong presence and you can really see the enthusiasm people have. They’ve built some excellent third party apps as well – I Shred U enables users to delete embarrassing pictures of themselves.

If you are going to embark on Facebook ensure that there is a strategy or some kind of purpose. Is there the possibility of building up a strong community based around your products or services? Or are you running a marketing campaign that will be strengthened by a presence on Facebook? Most importantly, do you have the time to really make it work for you?