sâmbătă, 9 mai 2015

Seth's Blog : A hierarchy of organizational needs

A hierarchy of organizational needs

Make it properly

Make it on time

Make it efficiently

Make promises

Make it matter

Make connections

Make a difference

Make a ruckus

Make change

It gets more and more compelling (and more difficult) as you move from making it properly to making change. But we need all of it.

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

vineri, 8 mai 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Illinois Supreme Court Rules 2013 Pension Reform Law Unconstitutional; Chicago Teachers "Insulted by 7% Pay Hike Offer"

Posted: 08 May 2015 12:18 PM PDT

Pension news out of Chicago keeps getting worse.

In 2013, the Illinois legislature took a feeble stab at fixing some small aspects of the Illinois pension problem.

The legislation, signed by then Governor Pat Quinn reduced the 3 percent compounded cost-of-living adjustment for retirees established in 1989, raised the retirement age for workers 45 and under, and imposed a limit on pensions for the highest-paid workers.

That was a step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

2013 Pension Reform Unconstitutional

Today we learn the Illinois Supreme Court Finds 2013 Pension Reform Law Unconstitutional.
In a unanimous decision, the seven justices declared the law passed 18 months ago violates the state constitution because it would leave pension promises "diminished or impaired."

"In enacting the provisions, the General Assembly overstepped the scope of its legislative power. This court is therefore obligated to declare those provisions invalid," Justice Lloyd Karmeier said in writing the court's opinion.
Analysis

State rep Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook hits the nail on the head with her analysis. "In its ruling today, the Supreme Court struck down not only the law but the core of that balance. Now our already dire pension problem will get that much worse and our options in striking that balance are limited. Our path forward from here is now much more difficult, and every direction will be more painful than the balance we struck in Senate Bill 1."

Underfunding Just Got Worse

On Tuesday, I noted the dire state of Illinois pensions on CNBC with Rick Santelli. (See Chicago Board of Education to Default on Bonds? Rick Santelli and Mish Discuss on CNBC).

Here's a video clip.




Illinois pension underfunding estimates range from $130 billion to $200 Billion. Those numbers assume two things.

  1. The 2013 Legislation was constitutional
  2. Pension plan assumptions of 7% or more will be met

Assumption number 1 just went out the window. It is my strong belief that assumption number 2 will soon follow.

Expect Negative Returns

I expect returns in stocks and bonds over the next seven years to be negative! For further discussion as to why, please see Valuations: Maybe I am Crazy.

Chicago Teachers 'Highly Insulted' Over Request for 7 Percent Pay Cut

On top of the already mounting fiscal issues, and in spite of the fact the Chicago Board of Education has a $1.5 billion hole, Chicago Teachers 'Highly Insulted' Over Request for 7 Percent Pay Cut.
The Chicago Board of Education wants teachers, social workers and other union members to take a 7 percent pay cut by paying their own pension contributions, according to the Chicago Teachers Union.

CTU President Karen Lewis, who led her members to strike in 2012 for the first time in 25 years, accused CPS of being "broke on purpose" and of retaliating against the union for opposing the mayor in his recent re-election campaign.

"Once again, the board has created a fiscal crisis in order to justify its continued attack on our classrooms and communities. By citing its so-called $1.5 billion deficit, the mayor is proposing a reduction in teaching staff which will result in larger class sizes and the loss of teaching positions," Lewis said in a press release.

"The CTU is highly insulted," said union spokeswoman Stephanie Gadlin, who planned a press conference on Wednesday.
Union Alternate Universe

In what alternate universe is Karen Lewis living to believe this is a manufactured fiscal crisis?

How is a state that has a $9 billion budget deficit hole going to bail out a single school district that is $1.5 billion in the hole?

Give Taxpayers a Chance

Today's ruling more than ever shows the need to pass a bankruptcy law. I have been pushing for that as has Governor Rauner.

A May 5 Chicago Tribune editorial viewpoint said the same thing: Pass a Bankruptcy Law, Give Taxpayers a Chance.
Many people view bankruptcy as a "nuclear option" for local governments in Illinois — a bad choice that will only bring disaster. Actually, if we do it the right way, it may be the best path for averting true financial devastation in communities statewide.

Under federal law, state governments can't file for bankruptcy. Local governments can do so if their states give them permission. A bill now before the Illinois legislature would extend that permission to Illinois municipalities, most of which now can't seek protection under bankruptcy law.

First, it would bring opposing sides to the table to have meaningful discussions about how to save the borrower, in this case the local government, from financial ruin.

Second, the government could ask the bankruptcy court to modify labor contracts and order the parties to renegotiate the terms of collective bargaining agreements. Only a constitutional amendment can get this done right now (unless the Illinois Supreme Court declares otherwise in a pending case). [We saw the answer today]

Finally, a law that puts bondholders first in line to get repaid would be a stroke of fairness that would help Illinois cities, school districts and other local governments avert a short-term solution like Detroit's.

The bottom line is this. Illinois taxpayers deserve a fighting chance. For years elected officials have been avoiding their fiscal responsibility by applying Band-Aids instead of structural solutions. As a consequence, local governments across the state are close to broke, owing billions of dollars in unpaid bills, pensions and retiree health care liabilities.
Per Household Liabilities

Census QuickFacts shows there are 4,772,723 Illinois Households as of 2013. To be generous, let's round that up to 5 million.

Let's also ignore my dire prediction of negative gains for seven years while placing the underfunding level at $200 billion.

To make the funds actuarial sound, Illinois households need to come up with $40,000 each. If instead of assuming 7% returns one assumed 2% returns (yield on the 10-year bond), the hole is closer to $500 billion.

And what if the stock market dives 30-40% over the next two years as I believe likely?

Promises, Promises



Image from Sun Times. Jan. 3, 2013 photo, a "Pension Promise" sign is seen as Illinois state union members and supporters rally in support for fair pension reform in the at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield Ill. | AP file

Dishonest Promise

A promise is a promise, not an eternity. Marriage is a promise as well.

And this promise was not even an honest one.

Contracts made under coercion and threats are not even valid. But even valid contracts can be broken. That is precisely why we have bankruptcy law instead of debtor's prisons.

In this case, corrupt politicians made bargains with corrupt union leaders at taxpayer expense. Unions further contributed to the mess with coercion and threats. Any sensible person knew these promises could not be met.

Sue For Divorce

The result of the unholy alliance between corrupt union leaders and corrupt politicians was a shotgun marriage made in hell.

Taxpayers need to sue for divorce. The way to do that is bankruptcy court. I repeat Miracles Not Coming; Bankruptcy the Sensible Option.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Clean Sweep by UK Conservatives Masks Huge Rifts

Posted: 08 May 2015 10:36 AM PDT

The UK results are in. The pollsters could not have been more wrong. The expected result was a close vote and a hung parliament. Instead, Labour and the Liberal Democrats got pounded. Here are the Final Tallies from the Guardian.



In a surge of nationalism that will likely lead to a call for another independence referendum, the Scotland National Party (SNP) won 56 seats of 59 seats.

Nigel Farage did not win his seat, but he will be around. So will UKIP. It appears UKIP did not take votes from the conservatives, but rather its anti-immigration platform took votes from Labour.

Major Outs

  • Ed Milliband - Labor Leader - Resigned
  • Nick Clegg - Liberal Democrat Party Leader and Deputy Prime Minister - Resigned
  • Ed Balls - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Labour - Not Reelected
  • Jim Murphy - Scottish Labour Leader - Not Reelected
  • Douglas Alexander - Labour Campaign Manager - Not Reelected 
  • Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat Business Secretary - Not Reelected
  • Danny Alexander, Liberal Democrat Treasury Chief Secretary - Not Reelected
  • Liberal Democrats - Lost 49 of their 57 Seats

Wow
How could the polls have been so wrong?

Clean Sweep Masks Huge Rifts

The Financial Times reports David Cameron Sweeps to Victory in UK Election.
David Cameron, UK prime minister, has swept back into Downing Street after a dramatic election victory, winning an outright majority for his centre-right Conservative party.

Britain faces an unprecedented strain after triumph for leftwing Scottish nationalists who won all but a handful of Scotland's seats, becoming the third-largest party in Westminster just eight months after losing an independence referendum.

The election result also sets the stage for a bruising fight over Britain's membership of the 28-member EU. Mr Cameron has promised to hold a referendum on continued EU membership and wants to win back more control over some issues from Brussels.

Meanwhile, Mr Miliband told supporters he was stepping down because the Labour party needed an "open and honest debate about the right way forward". The centre-left party won 232 seats in a crushing defeat for Mr Miliband, whose campaign to make Britain more equal failed to capture the nation's imagination.

Mr Clegg, who served as deputy prime minister in the coalition, stepped down as Lib Dem leader after his party suffered devastating losses across the country with the number of seats plunging from 57 to eight.

He said the results were "immeasurably more crushing and unkind than I can ever have feared".

Nigel Farage, the charismatic leader of the UK Independence party, quit after failing to win the South Thanet seat, despite the anti-EU party becoming the third-biggest in terms of national support. It won just one seat under Britain's first-past-the-post voting system.

The Scottish National party won 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, up from six in the last election in 2010, sweeping senior Labour figures from office in the party's traditional heartland and setting the stage for a deeply divided parliament.

"The Scottish lion has roared this morning across the country," said Alex Salmond, the party's former leader, who won the seat he was contesting and said it was "inconceivable" for any Westminster government to ignore the united voice of Scotland.

Despite losing the Scottish independence referendum by 55-45 per cent last year, the SNP surge at this election could lead to further demands for a more federal settlement in the UK and add to pressure for a second referendum.
Milliband Resigns

The Guardian reports Ed Miliband Resigns as Labour Leader
A devastated Ed Miliband has resigned as leader of the Labour party, saying he is truly sorry for the scale of the party's crushing defeat.

In an emotional speech, Miliband said it was time for someone else to take over as leader, but called on the party to keep fighting, rather than give in to despair.

"I take absolute and total responsibility for our defeat. I am so sorry for all of those colleagues who lost their seats," he said on Friday.

Ending on a defiant note, he said: "This party has come back before and will come back again."

Miliband's close staff are said to be deeply upset, struggling with the disappointment made deeper by opinion polls that led them to believe they had blocked Cameron from beating a clear path back to Downing Street. Miliband described the result as very difficult and disappointing, adding that the party in Scotland had been overwhelmed by a surge of nationalism.

Some union leaders will be questioning whether they should break from the party, or at least demand major changes on electoral reform, Europe and immigration. Labour will be concerned over signs that Ukip is establishing a secure foothold in the north of England and Wales.

In many respects Miliband had presented the agenda the unions wanted on issues such as workers' rights, tax and regulation of markets. But some union leaders will argue that the party's problems are deep-seated, dating back to the period of New Labour, when it lost touch with its working-class base, reflected in the surge of support for Ukip.

The former Labour cabinet minister John Reid said: "There is no point changing the captain on the bridge if the ship is heading in the wrong direction." He said elections were not won or lost in a short campaign, but over years, calling for the party to return to issues of wealth creation, as well as wealth distribution.
Goodbye Labour

Any party that campaigns for higher taxes and wealth redistribution deserves to get trounced. And Labour did get trounced. Liberal Democrats all but vanished as UKIP became the third largest party with more votes than SNP. Yet, SNP has 56 seats, Liberal Democrats 8, and UKIP one.

SNP still wants independence. And UKIP still wants out of the EU. The "clean sweep" by the Tories masks those problems. Meanwhile, pollsters have to be wondering "how the hell did we get this so wrong?"

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Establishment +233K Jobs; Household +192K Employment, Part-Time Employment +198K, Labor Force +166K

Posted: 08 May 2015 08:41 AM PDT

Initial Reaction

Today we see a snap back from last month's report on both establishment jobs and household survey employment. Last month the household survey came in at an anemic 34,000. This month it is 192,000.

Part-time employment went up by 198,000 meaning the entire increase in household survey employment was part-time.

Finally, March nonfarm payrolls were revised lower from 126,000 to 85,000.

This snap back is nowhere near as big as it appears at first glance. It will take at least another month to see if weakness in March was the start of something or an outlier.

Interesting Details

The Bloomberg Consensus jobs estimate was for 220,000 jobs, nearly right on target. The estimate range was a wide 180,000 to 335,000. There is lots of optimism from some economists.
Bloomberg: The April employment report is mixed and probably won't be pulling forward expectations for a Fed rate hike. Nonfarm payroll growth came in about as expected, at a soft 223,000. But there is a substantial downward revision to what was already an extremely weak March, from 126,000 to 85,000. The good news is another downtick in the unemployment rate, to 5.4 percent from 5.5 percent and reflecting a favorable mix led by a rise in those finding jobs.

Details of the payroll data show a very large 45,000 rise in what has been a depressed construction sector. This is one of the largest monthly gains of the recovery and may point to springtime acceleration for construction and new housing. Professional business services added a strong 62,000 jobs with temporary services up a solid 16,000 for its best gain of the year.
You cannot play (at least you should not play the gain in construction both ways). If the weakness was weather-related then a snap back in construction should have been expected. Some but not all of the recent weakness was weather related. Construction probably was more affected than services.

Let's take a look at all the key numbers.

BLS Jobs Statistics at a Glance

  • Nonfarm Payroll: +233,000 - Establishment Survey
  • Employment: +192,000 - Household Survey
  • Unemployment: -26,000 - Household Survey
  • Involuntary Part-Time Work: -125,000 - Household Survey
  • Voluntary Part-Time Work: +323,000 - Household Survey
  • Baseline Unemployment Rate: -0.1 at 5.4% - Household Survey
  • U-6 unemployment: -0.1 to 10.8% - Household Survey
  • Civilian Non-institutional Population: +186,000
  • Civilian Labor Force: +166,000 - Household Survey
  • Not in Labor Force: +19,000 - Household Survey
  • Participation Rate: +0.1 at 62.8 - Household Survey

March 2015 Employment Report

Please consider the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Employment Report.

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 223,000 in April, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 5.4 percent. Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, and construction. Mining employment continued to decline.

Click on Any Chart in this Report to See a Sharper Image

Unemployment Rate - Seasonally Adjusted



Nonfarm Employment



Nonfarm Employment Change from Previous Month by Job Type



Hours and Wages

Average weekly hours of all private employees was flat at 34.5 hours. Average weekly hours of all private service-providing employees declined by 0.1 hour to 33.3 hours.

Average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory private workers rose $0.02 at $20.90. Average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory private service-providing employees rose $0.02 at $20.69.

For discussion of income distribution, please see What's "Really" Behind Gross Inequalities In Income Distribution?

Birth Death Model

Starting January 2014, I dropped the Birth/Death Model charts from this report. For those who follow the numbers, I retain this caution: Do not subtract the reported Birth-Death number from the reported headline number. That approach is statistically invalid. Should anything interesting arise in the Birth/Death numbers, I will add the charts back.

Table 15 BLS Alternate Measures of Unemployment



click on chart for sharper image

Table A-15 is where one can find a better approximation of what the unemployment rate really is.

Notice I said "better" approximation not to be confused with "good" approximation.

The official unemployment rate is 5.4%. However, if you start counting all the people who want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is in the last row labeled U-6.

U-6 is much higher at 10.8%. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years.

Some of those dropping out of the labor force retired because they wanted to retire. The rest is disability fraud, forced retirement, discouraged workers, and kids moving back home because they cannot find a job.

For further discussion of a more accurate measure of the unemployment rate, please see Gallup CEO Calls 5.6% Unemployment Rate "The Big Lie": What's a Realistic Unemployment Rate?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Why Google Doesn’t Like to Talk About Updates Graywolf's SEO Blog

Why Google Doesn’t Like to Talk About Updates Graywolf's SEO Blog


Why Google Doesn’t Like to Talk About Updates

Posted: 08 May 2015 09:13 AM PDT

One of the recurring themes I’ve been seeing in the past few months, comes from web publishers trying to confirm when and where Google updates actually happen. This type of thing has been going on for years and it’s not a new topic, what is new is that Google is now confirming that there is a lot of contradictory information ... [Continue reading Why Google Doesn’t Like to Talk About Updates]

The post Why Google Doesn’t Like to Talk About Updates appeared first on Graywolf's SEO Blog.

Should I Rebrand and Redirect My Site? Should I Consolidate Multiple Sites/Brands? - Whiteboard Friday - Moz Blog


Should I Rebrand and Redirect My Site? Should I Consolidate Multiple Sites/Brands? - Whiteboard Friday

Posted on: Friday 08 May 2015 — 02:15

Posted by randfish

Making changes to your brand is a huge step, and while it's sometimes the best path forward, it isn't one to be taken lightly. In today's Whiteboard Friday, Rand offers some guidance to marketers who are wondering whether a rebrand/redirect is right for them, and also those who are considering consolidating multiple sites under a single brand.

Whiteboard - Should I Rebrand or Redirect My Site? Should I consolidate Multiple Sites Under One Brand?

For reference, here's a still of this week's whiteboard. Click on it to open a high resolution image in a new tab!

To rebrand, or not to rebrand, that is the question

Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Today we're going to chat a little bit about whether you should rebrand and consider redirecting your existing website or websites and whether you should potentially consolidate multiple websites and brands that you may be running.

So we've talked before about redirection moves best practices. We've also talked about the splitting of link equity and domain authority and those kinds of things. But one of the questions that people have is, "Gosh, you know I have a website today and given the moves that Google has been making, that the social media world has been making, that content marketing has been making, I'm wondering whether I should potentially rebrand my site." Lots of people bought domains back in the day that were exact match domains or partial match domains or that they thought reflected a move of the web toward or away from less brand-centric stuff and toward more keyword matching, topic matching, intent matching kinds of things.

Maybe you're reconsidering those moves and you want to know, "Hey, should I be thinking about making a change now?" That's what I'm here to answer. So this question to rebrand or not to re, it is tough because you know that when you do that rebrand, you will almost certainly take a traffic hit, and SEO is one of the biggest places where people typically take that traffic hit.

Moz previously was at SEOmoz.org and moved to moz.com. We saw a dip in our traffic over about 3 to 4 months before it fully recovered, and I would say that dip was between 15% and 25% of our search traffic, depending on week to week. I'll link to a list of metrics that I put on my personal blog, Moz.com/rand, so that you can check those out if you'd like to see them. But it was a short recovery time for us.

One of the questions that people always have is, "Well wait, did you lose rankings for SEO since SEO used to be in your domain name?" The answer is no. In fact, six months after the move, we were ranking higher for SEO related terms and phrases.

Scenario A: Rebranding or redirecting scifitoysandgames.com

So let's imagine that today you are running SciFiToysAndGames.com, which is right on the borderline. In my opinion, that's right on the borderline of barely tolerable. Like it could be brandable, but it's not great. I don't love the "sci-fi" in here, partially because of how the Syfy channel, the entity that broadcasts stuff on television has chosen to delineate their spelling, sci-fi can be misinterpreted as to how it's spelled. I don't love having to have "and" in a domain name. This is long. All sorts of stuff.

Let's say you also own StarToys.com, but you haven't used it. Previously StarToys.com has been redirecting to SciFiToysAndGames.com, and you're thinking, "Well, man, is it the right time to make this move? Should I make this change now? Should I wait for the future?"

How memorable or amplifiable is your current brand?

Well, these are the questions that I would urge you to consider. How memorable and amplifiable is your current brand? That's something that if you are recognizing like, "Hey I think our brand name, in fact, is holding us back in search results and social media amplification, press, in blog mentions, in journalist links and these kinds of things," well, that's something serious to think about. Word of mouth too.

Will you maintain your current brand name long term?

So if you know that sometime in the next two, three, four, or five years you do want to move to StarToys, I would actually strongly urge you to do that right now, because the longer you wait, the longer it will take to build up the signals around the new domain and the more pain you'll potentially incur by having to keep branding this and working on this old brand name. So I would strongly urge you, if you know you're going to make the move eventually, make it today. Take the pain now, rather than more pain later.

Can or have you tested brand preference with your target audience?

I would urge you to find two different groups, one who are loyal customers today, people who know SciFiToysAndGames.com and have used it, and two, people who are potential customers, but aren't yet familiar with it.

You don't need to do big sample-sizes. If you can get 5, 10, or 15 people either in a room or talk to them in person, you can try some web surveys, you can try using some social media ads like things on Facebook. I've seen some companies do some testing around this. Even buying potential PPC ads and seeing how click-through rates perform and sentiment and those kinds of things, that is a great way to help validate your ideas, especially if you're forced to bring data to a table by executives or other stakeholders.

How much traffic would you need in one year to justify a URL move?

The last thing I think about is imagine, and I want you to either imagine or even model this out, mathematically model it out. If your traffic growth rate -- so let's say you're growing at 10% year-over-year right now -- if that improved 1%, 5%, or 10% annually with a new brand name, would you make the move? So knowing that you might take a short-term hit, but then that your growth rate would be incrementally higher in years to come, how big would that growth rate need to be?

I would say that, in general, if I were thinking about these two domains, granted this is a hard case because you don't know exactly how much more brandable or word-of-mouth-able or amplifiable your new one might be compared to your existing one. Well, gosh, my general thing here is if you think that's going to be a substantive percentage, say 5% plus, almost always it's worth it, because compound growth rate over a number of years will mean that you're winning big time. Remember that that growth rate is different that raw growth. If you can incrementally increase your growth rate, you get tremendously more traffic when you look back two, three, four, or five years later.

Where does your current and future URL live on the domain/brand name spectrum?

I also made this domain name, brand name spectrum, because I wanted to try and visualize crappiness of domain name, brand name to really good domain name, brand name. I wanted to give some examples and then extract out some elements so that maybe you can start to build on these things thematically as you're considering your own domains.

So from awful, we go to tolerable, good, and great. So Science-Fi-Toys.net is obviously terrible. I've taken a contraction of the name and the actual one. It's got a .net. It's using hyphens. It's infinitely unmemorable up to what I think is tolerable -- SciFiToysAndGames.com. It's long. There are some questions about how type-in-able it is, how easy it is to type in. SciFiToys.com, which that's pretty good. SciFiToys, relatively short, concise. It still has the "sci-fi" in there, but it's a .com. We're getting better. All the way up to, I really love the name, StarToys. I think it's very brandable, very memorable. It's concise. It's easy to remember and type in. It has positive associations probably with most science fiction toy buyers who are familiar with at least "Star Wars" or "Star Trek." It's cool. It has some astronomy connotations too. Just a lot of good stuff going on with that domain name.

Then, another one, Region-Data-API.com. That sucks. NeighborhoodInfo.com. Okay, at least I know what it is. Neighborhood is a really hard name to type because it is very hard for many people to spell and remember. It's long. I don't totally love it. I don't love the "info" connotation, which is generic-y.

DistrictData.com has a nice, alliterative ring to it. But maybe we could do even better and actually there is a company, WalkScore.com, which I think is wonderfully brandable and memorable and really describes what it is without being too in your face about the generic brand of we have regional data about places.

What if you're doing mobile apps? BestAndroidApps.com. You might say, "Why is that in awful?" The answer is two things. One, it's the length of the domain name and then the fact that you're actually using someone else's trademark in your name, which can be really risky. Especially if you start blowing up, getting big, Google might go and say, "Oh, do you have Android in your domain name? We'll take that please. Thank you very much."

BestApps.io, in the tech world, it's very popular to use domains like .io or .ly. Unfortunately, I think once you venture outside of the high tech world, it's really tough to get people to remember that that is a domain name. If you put up a billboard that says "BestApps.com," a majority of people will go, "Oh, that's a website." But if you use .io, .ly, or one of the new domain names, .ninja, a lot of people won't even know to connect that up with, "Oh, they mean an Internet website that I can type into my browser or look for."

So we have to remember that we sometimes live in a bubble. Outside of that bubble are a lot of people who, if it's not .com, questionable as to whether they're even going to know what it is. Remember outside of the U.S., country code domain names work equally well -- .co.uk, .ca, .co.za, wherever you are.

InstallThis.com. Now we're getting better. Memorable, clear. Then all the way up to, I really like the name AppCritic.com. I have positive associations with like, "Oh year, restaurant critics, food critics, and movie critics, and this is an app critic. Great, that's very cool."

What are the things that are in here? Well, stuff at this end of the spectrum tends to be generic, forgettable, hard to type in. It's long, brand-infringing, danger, danger, and sketchy sounding. It's hard to quantify what sketchy sounding is, but you know it when you see it. When you're reviewing domain names, you're looking for links, you're looking at things in the SERPs, you're like, "Hmm, I don't know about this one." Having that sixth sense is something that we all develop over time, so sketchy sounding not quite as scientific as I might want for a description, but powerful.

On this end of the spectrum though, domain names and brand names tend to be unique, memorable, short. They use .com. Unfortunately, still the gold standard. Easy to type in, pronounceable. That's a powerful thing too, especially because of word of mouth. We suffered with that for a long time with SEOmoz because many people saw it and thought, "Oh, ShowMoz, COMoz, SeeMoz." It sucked. Have positive associations, like StarToys or WalkScore or AppCritic. They have these positive, pre-built-in associations psychologically that suggest something brandable.

Scenario B: Consolidating two sites

Scenario B, and then we'll get to the end, but scenario B is the question like, "Should I consolidate?" Let's say I'm running both of these today. Or more realistic and many times I see people like this, you're running AppCritic.com and StarToys.com, and you think, "Boy, these are pretty separate." But then you keep finding overlap between them. Your content tends to overlap, the audience tends to overlap. I find this with many, many folks who run multiple domains.

How much audience and content overlap is there?

So we've got to consider a few things. First off, that audience and content overlap. If you've got StarToys and AppCritic and the overlap is very thin, just that little, tiny piece in the middle there. The content doesn't overlap much, the audience doesn't overlap much. It probably doesn't make that much sense.

But what if you're finding like, "Gosh, man, we're writing more and more about apps and tech and mobile and web stuff on StarToys, and we're writing more and more about other kinds of geeky, fun things on AppCritic. Slowly it feels like these audiences are merging." Well, now you might want to consider that consolidation.

Is there potential for separate sales or exits?

Second point of consideration, the potential for separate exits or sales. So if you know that you're going to sell AppCritic.com to someone in the future and you want to make sure that's separate from StarToys, you should keep them separate. If you think to yourself, "Gosh, I'd never sell one without the other. They're really part of the same company, brand, effort," well, I'd really consider that consolidation.

Will you dilute marketing or branding efforts?

Last point of positive consideration is dilution of marketing and branding efforts. Remember that you're going to be working on marketing. You're going to be working on branding. You're going to be working on growing traffic to these. When you split your efforts, unless you have two relatively large, separate teams, this is very, very hard to do at the same rate that it could be done if you combined those efforts. So another big point of consideration. That compound growth rate that we talked about, that's another big consideration with this.

Is the topical focus out of context?

What I don't recommend you consider and what has been unfortunately considered, by a lot of folks in the SEO-centric world in the past, is topical focus of the content. I actually am crossing this out. Not a big consideration. You might say to yourself, "But Rand, we talked about previously on Whiteboard Friday how I can have topical authority around toys and games that are related to science fiction stuff, and I can have topical authority related to mobile apps."

My answer is if the content overlap is strong and the audience overlap is strong, you can do both on one domain. You can see many, many examples of this across the web, Moz being a great example where we talk about startups and technology and sometimes venture capital and team building and broad marketing and paid search marketing and organic search marketing and just a ton of topics, but all serving the same audience and content. Because that overlap is strong, we can be an authority in all of these realms. Same goes for any time you're considering these things.

All right everyone, hope you've enjoyed this edition of Whiteboard Friday. I look forward to some great comments, and we'll see you again next week. take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com


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!


​We Want Your Stories: Accepting MozCon Ignite Pitches

Posted on: Thursday 07 May 2015 — 13:15

Posted by EricaMcGillivray

We're thrilled to announce the addition of a networking and Ignite-style event for attendees on Tuesday night at MozCon. For years, you've asked us for more networking and relaxing times, and this is what we've dreamed up. But we need your help!

We want you to share your stories, passions, and experiences. There are 16—yes, 16—speaking slots. Ignite-style talks are 5 minutes in length and slides auto-advance. That's right, there's no going back, and once it's done, it's done!

In order to encourage relaxation, none of these talks will be about online marketing. Instead, we want to use this opportunity to get to know our fellow community members better. We want to hear about your passion projects, interests, and the things that fascinate you outside marketing. Tell us about how you spend weekends making support banners for your favorite soccer team or why you mentor high school students, for example.

The basic details

  • To submit, just fill out the form below.
  • Please only submit one talk! We want the one you're most excited about.
  • Talks cannot be about online marketing.
  • They are only 5 minutes in length, so plan accordingly.
  • If you are already speaking on the MozCon stage, you cannot pitch for this event.
  • Submissions close on Sunday, May 17 at 5pm PDT.
  • Selection decisions are final and will be made in late May / early June.
  • All presentations must adhere to the MozCon Code of Conduct.
  • You must attend MozCon, July 13-15, and the Tuesday night event in person, in Seattle.

If selected, you will get the following

  • 5 minutes on the Tuesday night stage to share with our audience. The event lasts from 7-10pm and will be at Benaroya Hall (where the Seattle Symphony plays).
  • $300 off a regular priced ticket to MozCon. (If you already purchased yours, we'll issue a $300 refund for regular priced ticket or $100 for an early bird ticket. Discount not available for super early bird special.)
  • We will work with you to hone your talk!
Loading...

As we want to ensure every single speaker feels both comfortable and gives their best talk possible, myself and Matt Roney are here to help you. We'll review your topic, settle on the title, walk through your presentation with you, and give you a tour of the stage earlier in the evening. While you do the great work, we're here to help in anyway possible.

Unfortunately, we cannot provide travel coverage for these MozCon Ignite speaking slots.

What makes a great pitch

  • Focus on the five minute length.
  • Be passionate about what you're speaking about. Tell us what's great about it.
  • For extra credit, include links to videos of you doing public speaking.
  • Follow the guidelines. Yes, the word counts are limited on purpose. Do not submit links to Google Docs, etc. for more information. Tricky and multiple submissions will be disqualified.

We're all super-excited about these talks, and we can't wait to hear what you might talk about. Whether you want to tell us about how Frenchies are really English dogs or which coffee shop is the best in Seattle, this is going to be blast! The amazing Geraldine DeRuiter, known for her travel blogging and witty ways, will be emceeing this event.

If you're still needing inspiration or a little confused about an Ignite talk, watch Geraldine's talk from a few years ago about sharing personal news online:

Like our other speaker selections, we have a small committee at Moz running through these topics to get the best variety and fun possible. While we cannot vet your topic, feel free to ask questions in the comments.

Everyone who submits an Ignite pitch will be informed either way. Best of luck!


Haven't bought your MozCon ticket?

Buy your ticket now


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!

You are subscribed to the newsletter of Moz Blog sent from 1100 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 United States
To stop receiving those e-mails, you can unsubscribe now.
Newsletter powered by FeedPress
FeedPress is a service edited by Beta&Cie, www.betacie.com

Seth's Blog : Do you want our apathy?

Do you want our apathy?

Don't respond to emails.

Be defensive when I offer a suggestion when we meet.

Dumb down the products so they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Treat me like I don't matter more than anyone else.

Put me on hold.

Don't miss me if I'm gone.

Maximize profit, not impact.

If you want me to be an apathetic bystander, it's not that difficult to accomplish.

Whatever.

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

joi, 7 mai 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


UK Election Shocker: Exit Polls Show Cameron's Tories Do Far Better Than Expected, 10 Short of Outright Majority

Posted: 07 May 2015 03:57 PM PDT

An exit poll shocker shows Cameron's Tories Do Far Better Than Expected.



Heading into the election, the Guardian made this projection:

  • Conservatives 273
  • Labour 273
  • SNP 52
  • Liberal Democrats 27
  • Democratic Unionist party 9
  • UKIP 3
  • Paid Cymru 3
  • Greens 1

UKIP

Here's a report in from South Thanet, the constituency that Farage is hoping to take off the Tories, from FT reporter Barney Thompson:

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader, will be hoping dawn brings a similarly bright future as the new MP for South Thanet, where he stood unsuccessfully in 2005. But he is in a skintight race with the Conservative Craig Mackinley (a former Ukip deputy leader, in fact), with Labour breathing down both their necks.

Rumour has it that Mr Farage will not appear at the count for several hours; instead, he will be monitoring Ukip's challenges in other parts of the south east: Clacton (a sure-fire win), Rochester & Strood (where Mark Reckless is trying to cling on) and Thurrock, another constituency that is too close to call.
British Pound Reaction



Coalition

The likely coalition now is Tories plus Liberal Democrats and UKIP if needed. If Tories or Liberal Democrats do as much as one vote worse than exit polls show (assuming the gain is for Labour), the coalition will need UKIP.

This was a rout of Labour and the Liberal Democrats vs. expectations.

UKIP did better than expected.

The FT's Gavin Jackson observes: "Ukip have done quite well in the seats that have declared so far. But these are safe Labour seats, for the overall result how they do in the marginals is more important - and at whose expense".

Better than expected, even far better than expected may not translate into seats, but it does reflect important sentiment, especially when it's at Labour's expense.

The range for UKIP now appears to be 1-4, with 1 a given. The Guardian pre-election poll for UKIP predicted 3, whereas two other polls suggested 1.

The comments on Election live: The battle for Westminster tell the story.

I am relatively happy with this outcome. If Cameron keeps his word there will be an up-down vote on UK exit of EU. A Labour victory would have been an outright disaster.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot

Explaining UK's Dysfunctional Voting System; Where is British Politics Headed? Horse Trading

Posted: 07 May 2015 11:48 AM PDT

Early this morning in UK National Elections Underway: Expected Outcome is Hung Parliament I noted the dysfunctional nature of the election.

To recap, the expected outcome for the Scottish National Party (SNP) is 51 seats on 4-5% of the vote, while the expected outcome for Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party (UKIP) is one seat on as much as 16% of the vote. UKIP could win 25% of the vote and still potentially not win any seats.

I expect UKIP to do a bit better than one seat, but I could easily be wrong. Indeed it is conceivable that not even Farage wins.

This morning I said "What matters is how concentrated the votes are, not how many you get."

Actually both matter, but concentration is the key to winning seats. SNP is likely to win nearly every Scottish seat because SNP dominates Scotland. It will get no votes elsewhere.

Recall the platform of SNP was to break away from the UK. And 51 votes taken away from the Tories (Cameron's party - Conservatives) or Labour (Ed Milliband) is sufficient to result in a hung parliament.

The UK The Labour Party is a full member of the Party of European Socialists and Progressive Alliance. They favor taxation as a means to achieve a "major redistribution of wealth and income". Lovely.

Had Cameron simply granted UKIP the promised up-down vote on the UK remaining in the EU, the Tories would have had a better outcome.

Where is British Politics Headed?

Stratfor has a nice writeup today that explains Where British Politics Is Headed.
For the second election in a row, the Labour Party and the Conservatives (or "Tories"), the two traditional heavyweights, probably will not muster the 323 seats needed to form a majority government. Whereas in 2010 the Tories were able to form a reasonably stable coalition government with the centrist Liberal Democrats, this time the numbers do not seem to support a two-party coalition.

The person most likely to be smiling after the election results are revealed is Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the secessionist Scottish National Party — not just because disorder in Westminster strengthens her party, but also because her party looks set to increase its seat count from six to 53, with pollsters predicting a landslide in Scotland. By contrast, UKIP, another newly influential insurgent party with ambitions to extract the United Kingdom from the European Union, looks set to win just one seat.

The Limitations of First Past the Post

British elections, like those of many of its former colonies such as India and the United States, runs on a first-past-the-post system, in contrast to the more fashionable proportional voting system preferred by many European nations. Under first past the post, politicians compete for individual seats around the country, and at the end of the vote the party that has won the most total seats is judged to have won the election. Under proportional voting, the electorate votes for their favored party, and when the votes are counted the seats are then apportioned to each party based on how many votes they received.

The upshot of the first-past-the-post system is that a niche party is unlikely to win influence in government, since in order to gain sufficient seats it would need to be the dominant party in several constituencies. In a proportional voting system, such a party would find that its presence in government would rise as its popularity increased, even if that support was scattered around the country.

It has also frustrated insurgent parties — a famous example being the Social Democrat Party that, in an alliance with the Liberal Democrats in the 1987 elections, managed to amass 22.6 percent of the vote and win just 3 percent of the seats.

Herein lies the catch with first past the post: It might keep insurgent parties at bay when they are based on ideology, but it struggles to contain a party that is specifically tied to a region with highly concentrated supporters in the manner of the Scottish National Party.

Consequently, the Scottish National Party is positioned to become the third most influential party in the new government with just 4 percent of the overall vote. Meanwhile, UKIP, which is surfing an anti-immigration wave, looks set to find its winnings limited to a handful of seats (at most) off the support of a considerably larger section of the electorate.

In its newfound position of influence within Westminster, the Scottish National Party will no doubt set about doing its best to represent Scotland's interests. These include the support of the Barnett Formula, a controversial temporary convention from the 1970s that has been neither reversed nor made into law. The formula calls for more public money being spent on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales than on the United Kingdom's English citizens.

In 2011, the British public voted against changing the electoral system to alternative vote, in which the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference.

This time, six parties are involved, 34 percent of voters are likely to vote for a party outside the main two, coalition talks probably will last much longer than five days, and any deal is likely to result in a weak and unstable government.

These conditions are likely to change the thinking about the current British electoral system. Electoral reform will be undertaken, shifting the British system to something more closely resembling its European neighbors'. As a result, the Scottish National Party and other regional parties will find their newfound influence on Westminster to be short-lived. But as one door closes, another opens, and a proportional voting system would usher in new opportunities for UKIP and any future parties built upon a similar model to gain a substantial foothold in British politics. Whatever the case, the future looks increasingly bleak for the United Kingdom's establishment parties.
UK's Two Party System is Effectively Over

To rein in SNP, the UK may go to a proportional vote. But to do that, UKIP will gain prominence, and likely far more than it would have otherwise.

Why? Because many people did not want to "waste their vote" on a party that would get few, if any seats.

Then again, if Cameron manages to hold on long enough to grant the promised up-down vote on the UK staying in the EU, and then if that vote is "no" much of the reason for UKIP will go away.

Expect an unstable coalition out of this. Cameron staying in power might even depend on UKIP winning a handful of seats more than expected.

Once again here is the Final Projection from the Financial Times.




Note that Labour could merge with SNP and the Liberal Democrats to get a majority. Indeed it is likely that Labour and SNP merge.

However, Liberal Democrats are a better fit with the Conservatives. Yet, Conservatives plus Liberal Democrats will not throw them over the top.

The Guardian projects ...

  • Conservatives 273
  • Labour 273
  • SNP 52 
  • Liberal Democrats 27 
  • Democratic Unionist party 9 
  • UKIP 3 
  • Paid Cymru 3 
  • Greens 1

Horse Trading

We will have the results of the election soon. But projections suggest that's when the horse trading really begins.

Are there enough horses to go around?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot

Meet Yangyang Another Humanoid Robot

Posted: 07 May 2015 09:57 AM PDT

A female humanoid robot "Yangyang", named and modeled after her creator, has a variety of realistic facial expressions.  "Yangyang" wows visitors at Beijing's Global Mobile Internet Conference.
The robot is modeled on one of the researchers who helped develop the technology. She can blink, smile, shake hands and even hug her human doppelganger. Yangyang is the fourth robot produced by Shanghai Shenqing Industry. The robots are controlled remotely and are made of a special type of silica gel that feels like human skin. Researcher Song Yang saying (Mandarin): "This is the first one inside China. At present this robot has the most features, she has 43 degrees of freedom across her whole body, most of them are concentrated on the face, because of this, her expressions can be very varied." The team behind Yangyang believe future robots like her could be used as sales assistants, or body doubles for celebrities. One of the researchers has already used his body double to deliver lectures on his behalf. But the robot isn't foolproof, it couldn't answer any of the student's questions.
Yangyang



Click on link above to play video.

Also consider "Ham" the Humanoid Robot.

Ham reacts to facial expressions, can engage in conversation and make eye contact.

"Ham" meet "Yangyang". I believe she is your type.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot

UK National Elections Underway: Expected Outcome is Hung Parliament

Posted: 07 May 2015 12:15 AM PDT

I frequently comment on major elections, but here we are with voting for UK prime minister now in progress, and I have not chimed in yet.

Unlike in Greece where I was confident Syriza would poll better than expected (and it did), I have no particular feeling of confidence on what is likely to be a a very important election.

Voting Booths are just now open as of 1:00AM US central where I reside.

Here are the Final Polls.



Note that UKIP is in third place. How do you think that will translate into parliamentary representation?

Here is a Final Projection from the Financial Times.



Note the apparent silliness of it all. What matters is how concentrated the votes are, not how many you get. On a guess the revolt vote is underestimated, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest UKIP will win 7-10 seats.

Hung Parliament

The most likely outcome is there will not be a winner. The Guardian reports General election 2015: Britain heading for hung parliament.
When the Guardian's poll projection, an average of all the polls made public, is updated to take account of the new ICM data, it places both the Conservatives and Labour on 273 seats – neither anywhere near the 326 required for an absolute majority.

But the huge anti-Tory SNP bloc of 52 gives Miliband the stronger position in the battle to negotiate for control of No 10. The cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, is on hand to prepare for talks, but will not press Cameron to leave Downing Streeet, since it will be his right as prime minister to decide whether to test the opinion of the Commons on a Queen's Speech.

ICM pressed voters on the government they would prefer. The single most popular choice – picked by 25% – was a Conservative overall majority, followed by a Labour majority, which 23% preferred.

A Conservative-led administration in which the Tories have to strike deals with others is the choice of 22%, while a Labour-led government that had to strike deals was picked by only 19%, a possible sign of success for the Conservative warnings about a SNP-backed "coalition of chaos" installing Miliband in Downing Street.

The public also envisages the Lib Dems outperforming most polls by achieving 14%, and Ukip underperforming somewhat, with 10%.
Elusive Outcome

If this sounds confusing, it is because it is confusing. Bloomberg highlights the issues in U.K. Votes in Unprecedented Election With Outcome Elusive.
Polls suggest that neither Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron nor his Labour opponent Ed Miliband will come close to getting enough seats in Parliament to govern alone. Instead, they face days or even weeks of talks to try to win over enough smaller parties to command a majority.

The uncertainty attached to the electoral outcome in a Group of Seven nation is beginning to play out in markets, with volatility buffeting the pound and gilts. One reason is the political risks even once a government is formed: If Cameron manages to stay in office, he'll hold a referendum on leaving the European Union. If Miliband gets in, it will be with the support of the Scottish National Party, which will be looking for opportunities to further the cause of independence.

While the Labour and Tory campaigns have failed to inspire the electorate -- the polls have stubbornly refused to budge since the beginning of the year -- other parties have engaged voters who have been sidelined for decades. The SNP looks set to win at least six times as many seats as it took in 2010. At the other end of the country, the anti-EU U.K. Independence Party may win seats for the first time at a general election.

Rich First

Miliband has returned repeatedly to the future of the state-funded National Health Service as a campaign theme, arguing that the Tories are bent on its privatization. He's accused Cameron of pursuing policies that only favor the rich.

"I'm not simply asking you to reject the Conservatives but to reject their plan to put the rich and powerful first," Miliband told a rally in northwest England on Wednesday. "I'm asking you to reject a plan to double the cuts next year and devastate our NHS. I'm asking you to reject a plan for a recovery that only reaches the City of London."

Red Lines

Clegg has set out six "red lines" that he'll demand as the price of joining a new coalition, including higher education and health spending and pay increases for public-sector workers. Cameron has made it clear that the holding of an EU referendum represents his own red line. Clegg has not ruled out accepting that demand.

Arithmetic suggests Labour and the SNP may have enough seats together for a majority. While Miliband said last week he'd rather not be prime minister than do a deal with SNP leader Sturgeon, he doesn't need to. If the numbers add up, Miliband could form a minority government, safe in the knowledge that the SNP has pledged to support it in any confidence vote and oppose a Tory-led administration. He also has the option to do a deal with the Liberal Democrats
Still Confused?

I thought so. This is one of the most complicated elections ever.

I have no love of David Cameron. Yet I am rooting for him because of his promised up-down vote on the UK remaining in the EU. Although there is no reason to believe Cameron will keep his word, there will not be a vote for certain if Labour wins.

Such is the sorry state of politics. How about a vote for "none of the above"?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot