SEO and PR - Deciding Who Gets The Exclusive

My colleague Nadja Blagojevic wrote an interesting blog on SEO and PR last week on the Page One PR blog.

We have growing appreciation for metrics-based pr at Page One. It's an exciting time for us as we see more data than ever before about how public relations can impact sales.

As we get more involved with SEO for our clients - some small changes begin to creep into our planning.

One example: we have always been faced with the question of who to give an exclusive to when we are making an announcement. Often times we don't give an exclusive, but in the times that we do, how do we pick the right blogger or reporter?

A number of variables go into this question:
- Personal relationships between our client and the blogger/reporter
- What reporters might be most interested in the announcement?

Now, as we get more involved in SEO, there is a new element to consider: does a reporter's site generally provide links to our client sites? This link is gold for our clients from an SEO perspective - and we are beginning to pay attention to what publications do link back as we consider who to give exclusives to.

For example:
- eWeek includes links back to companies they cover. For example, see this story last week on OpenLogic.
- InformationWeek does too - as evidenced by this article on OpenLogic.

However, there are still some very well known publications in tech arena who only include links in their articles to content on their own web site. They have good business decisions for not funneling traffic off of their own web site.

But the reality is the companies these publications cover are beginning to pay attention to how articles can impact organic search results, and link backs are a key component.

If you are a reporter who thrives on exclusives - you should realize if your publication doesn't link to the companies you cover - your ability to secure exclusives will dwindle.

Does a joke need a punch line?

A quick joke: How long do chickens work?

Would it matter to you if I don't tell you the punch line? Many people tout the number of views of YouTube videos as a metric - but there is currently no way to know how much of your video people watched. If they just watch for a second then stop - is it the same as hearing a joke with no punch line?

Videos are a new tool in PR. As just one example, my former colleague Josh Morgan, who started MorganDorado PR in Sacramento, has a number of videos for his clients on YouTube.

As PR people start to make more videos, we design videos with a punch line. Or if not a punch line, we have content that we want you to see.

But how are video viewers tracked?

As my colleague Craig Oda points out, YouTube Insights can be interesting - you can see viewer's gender and age. In Craig's case, the largest viewer group for his family videos are males 35-44 (my family videos tend to be more popular in the 35-44 female crowd).

My question is: when will we have access to information that provides insight into how long people watch each video?

We've done a handful of video programs for clients at Page One. Some are designed to be viral within specific audiences. These videos fit into a larger strategic campaign - so often our metrics for success are defined through a myriad of stats (sales; number of blogs and articles pointing to the video; number of actions, such as votes, for a campaign, etc). Still, we generally look at the total number of viewers.

But when does a viewer become a a viewer according to YouTube? Should somebody who watches 5 seconds of your video be counted the same as somebody who watches to entire video?

According to TubeMogul, YouTube counts a viewer when the video starts. So if you watch for 2 seconds, you are counted the same as someone who watches for 3 minutes.

Google and YouTube understand the power of metrics. But it will be good when YouTube, and it's underlying technology, can provide insights into how long videos are watched.

Oh, the answer to the joke: Around the cluck.