Central Perk

vineri, 18 iulie 2014

How to Prove ROI Potential of Content Campaigns - Whiteboard Friday

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 05:17 PM PDT

We all know that creating and promoting content can be a ton of work (not to mention expensive). So how do we know whether it'll be worth it? In today's Whiteboard Friday, MozCon 2014 speaker Mike King shows you several ways you can be sure your content has the potential you need before you even start making it.

For reference, here's a still of this week's whiteboard!

Video transcription

Greetings and salutations, Moz fans. My name is Mike King. I'm from an agency called iPullRank, and today here on Whiteboard Friday we're going to talk about how to prove ROI potential of content. Basically, before you launch content, get a sense of will this perform before you go ahead and spend tens of thousands of dollars on promoting that content.

Content components

Surveying your target audience

So let's just hop right into it. One of the things you want to do for your content component aspect of it is survey your target audience. There are a lot of channels that you can do this effectively in. In fact, the ad platforms have gotten even better at letting you hyper target audiences and drive that traffic right away.

One of the things you can do is use StumbleUpon Paid Discovery. I love this platform for content promotion as well. But it's great in this use case because it's only $0.10 a click. Again, you can target based on different audiences, not as granularly as you can with something like Facebook or something to that effect, but you can get audiences around ideas, concepts, and things of that nature.

What you can also use is a tool called UserReport. What this tool does is allows you to do custom surveys on your own site. You put up your content experience. You throw UserReport on there. Once the user gets to a certain point in the page, you can make that survey pop up. You can ask them questions like: Hey, would you like this? Would you share this? What is it that you didn't like about this content? Does this solve a specific need for you?

You can do that with StumbleUpon Paid Discovery. Start collecting data on the users that would visit your content, and then it helps you build a business case saying that these people would be interested in this content.

By the same token, you can also use Facebook ads to do this. Like I said, Facebook ads allow you to really granularly target your audiences. They've gotten increasingly more sophisticated with their ad targeting options. In fact, at this point, the ad targeting very much aligns with standard market research in that you can target based on income, education, and so on and so forth.

If you're going after the B2C clientele, that's probably your best bet, using Facebook. If you're going after the B2B clientele, then LinkedIn ads make the most sense. You can also target very specifically on firmographics rather than just demographics. In both of these cases, you're going to then continue to use UserReport to collect that data via these custom surveys on your site.

Additionally, you can use SurveyMonkey Audience. I love this tool because you can, again, very much target very specific demographics and ask them direct questions. What you can do is host that piece of content in the survey, have them take the time to review it and fill out the questionnaire, and then, boom, you get your results right away.

Competitive analysis

Those are different ways you can do surveying to understand whether your content's going to perform. But, of course, competitive analysis is a really good way to make a case. I worked on a brand called LG back in the day. The best way to get them to do anything was to show them that Samsung was doing it.

By that very same token, you can use a tool like Social Crawlytics. What that tool does is crawls the site and identifies the social shares of every piece of content on that site. You can do that for your site and a competitor's site and see what's working, what isn't, and quickly identify what you can create that is similar to what they've made.

Additionally, you can use BuzzSumo, which kind of takes out the legwork out of that, because they've indexed a lot of content. They've pulled out the semantic relationships from that content, the entities. You can search by keyword for different pieces of content and then see what's the most popular content that fits that keyword. Now their index isn't huge, but they have a lot of content, especially around the SEO space, that you can look at. So you can quickly identify what's working for other people and then make your case that way.

Finally, you can use any of the link indices -- Open Site Explorer, Ahrefs, Majestic. All of these tools, if you go to the top pages reports for the different competitors, you can quickly see what's working and what's not, and then you have those metrics to make that business case.

Pose/review discussions

One of the other tactics that I really love to use to identify content that will work is by using the different discussion sites. Quora is a really good one. You can actually identify questions that people have already asked in the past and then see how many people have responded to that. You can see whether or not it's a popular question that you can then use into your content.

You can actually pose your own questions, see how many people follow the question and how many people answer the question. Then, you can look at those people that are following the question and see what their demographics are and, boom, another solid business case based on actual data.

The finally, Reddit is really good for this as well. People love to get in discussions on Reddit. We've posed questions in the past, and people have given really passionate responses. Then there have been cases where we've posed questions and we got no response. Once you know it's crickets, it's not a good piece of content to launch.

People components

Business case

These are all the content and metric components of this. But what you really need to focus on, when you're trying to get buy-in for this type of content internally, is the people components. When you're building business cases and you're dealing with a variety of people, your boss in fact, you've got to think about what metric is the one that helps him get to his bonus, and how does the content that you're looking to create help fulfill that metric.

In most cases, those metrics aren't necessarily channel metrics. It's not: Are we going to be number one for this keyword? Are we going to get more visits from organic search or more likes in social media? It goes back to things that affect the business.

In the case of a SaaS company, it can be: Okay, how does this contribute to our cost of acquisition versus our LTV ratio? Does this lower our cost of acquisition because we're going to get a wide range of people that are going to ingest this content and then come back to the site, ending up signing up? Then, is it reaching the right side of our audience that is high value a customer? Is it the one that has the bigger long-term value or lifetime value?

Think about those metrics rather than, oh, we're going to get some more likes and shares, because these metrics are typically the ones that go back to the metrics that help your boss hit his bonus.

Also, is there a conversion rate based on your existing content on your own site? I've talked at length about doing content on that's both qualitatively and quantitatively, in a guest post that I did for Copyblogger, which will be below in the description, about doing content audits where you can identify what is performing and what's not, and then see what types of content you may want to create in the future.

Using that as a framework to work with, you can then look at these content ideas that you've gotten on this side and see, okay, we have content that fits this, and generally the conversion rate is X. So you can make some sort of prediction based on the search volume and the keywords that go with this piece of content, or the amount of traffic you're likely to get from social media to go with this content, and then back that into the conversion rate and then get back to these business level metrics that we talked about before.

Finally, or the last two things rather, how does this map to your brand's story? A lot of the times when you're talking about content, you're talking about the brand messaging architecture, the voice, the tone. What are the brand's goals? What is the brand trying to put out there?

Moz is really good at developing a good brand story. They have Roger that they weave into a lot of things. How does your piece of content go with that brand's story? Again, back to the Moz example, they're about doing better marketing.

My Whiteboard Friday here goes with that idea. So it's really easy for me to make a business case for this piece of content to align with the business. How does your piece of content fit that brand's story?

Then, finally, what phase in the funnel does this piece of content serve?
Because ultimately, at the end of the day, we're always trying to market something. We're marketers. We're trying to move people through the funnel.

So, if you've identified in your content audits that, oh, we're missing a lot of stuff for the decision phase, so this content will specifically speak to that decision phase. Here are all the metrics that go with it. Now, we have a strong business case.

That's all I've got for today. My name's Mike King. I'm happy to help you guys out. In the comments, let me know anytime that you've come against anything where you couldn't get a piece of content pushed through at your business or your agency or what have you, and I'm happy to answer your questions.

Have a great one, and I'll see you guys next time on Whiteboard Friday.

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!

Talking content strategy at the Content Marketing Show

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 09:00 AM PDT

Today I was lucky enough to speak at the Content Marketing Show, a flagship digital marketing event from the lovely folks at Rough Agenda, held at the University of London’s Institute of Education and in front of 1,400 eager content marketers. The topic? The gateway-drug elements of content strategy that you should be using in your content marketing efforts – or to put it another way, how we are using a content-strategy led approach to create successful brand publishing.

Content strategy is becoming an increasingly prevalent facet of the digital marketing industry, but it can seem like an extra layer of complexity when we are busy creating marketable content for our clients/bosses. Indeed, according to the CIM, 88% of online marketers are using content marketing in 2014, but only 42% of those have a content strategy in place.

As we have increasingly read up on content strategy we have come to the realisation that we can take certain elements, and use them during the planning stages of branded content creation. Content strategy is about managing your content as an asset – it's about taking control of your content. It is concerned with the how of your content creation, not the what.

As a result, many of the tools within Halvorson and Rach’s discovery phase of content strategy are perfect for planning great content marketing, because they help us understand what we should be creating.

By utilising these excellent fundamentals, you get a process-led framework that helps you determine the how and why of your next content marketing piece. This is superb at getting you in a position to start generating relevant content ideas, as the groundwork of what you are looking to achieve is in place – we've found that simply following this planing process not only keeps us on track, it actually gets the ideas flowing before we start trying to generate them!

At White.net, we've long been searching for ways to help our clients' sites have more effective content, and so have started implementing such a framework for our client work. I thought it was time we shared how useful this was with the industry.

It was a privilege to be able to speak in front of so many content marketing enthusiasts, and I hope some of those there were able to take away a bit of an appreciation of what content strategy can bring to your content marketing. I'm always happy to talk content, in any form, so if you have any questions on the talk, or about using content strategy generally in content marketing or SEO efforts, please leave a comment or ping me a shout on Twitter or Google+.

The post Talking content strategy at the Content Marketing Show appeared first on White.net.

Seth's Blog : "I don't have any good ideas"

"I don't have any good ideas"

That's a common mantra among those that say that they want to leap, but haven't, and aren't, and won't.

What they're actually saying is, "I don't have any ideas that are guaranteed to work, and not only that, are guaranteed to cause no criticism or moments when I'm sure the whole thing is going to fall apart."

And that sentence is probably true.

But no good ideas? C'mon.

Here's a simple hack that takes whatever word you put in the seed box and comes up with a fresh game idea you've never had before. And it can do it over and over and over again. Pretty good ideas are easy. The guts and persistence and talent to create, ship and stick it out are what's hard.

At least you know what's holding you back. The good news is that those skills are available to anyone who cares enough to acquire them.

• Email to a friend •

joi, 17 iulie 2014

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Phantom Liquidity and Perfect Pilfering
Did the Rebels Have a Buk System? How About a Working One? Flight Diverted Over Restricted Space?
Ukrainian Buk Air Defense System Allegedly Deployed Near Donetsk Yesterday; Questions Still Linger
Did Ukraine Shoot Down Passenger Plane? They Did Once Before: SA Flight 1812 Erroneously Downed by Ukraine in 2001
Malaysian BA 777 Passenger Jet Goes Down Over Ukraine, 295 Killed; Ukraine Blames Separatists Who Deny Responsibility

Phantom Liquidity and Perfect Pilfering

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 10:49 PM PDT

A friend of mind asked me to comment on the Nanex article Perfect Pilfering, a detailed exposé on how the market is rigged from a data-centric approach.

We received trade execution reports from an active trader who wanted to know why his large orders almost never completely filled, even when the amount of stock advertised exceeded the number of shares wanted. For example, if 25,000 shares were at the best offer, and he sent in a limit order at the best offer price for 20,000 shares, the trade would, more likely than not, come back partially filled. In some cases, more than half of the amount of stock advertised (quoted) would disappear immediately before his order arrived at the exchange. This was the case, even in deeply liquid stocks such as Ford Motor Co (symbol F, market cap: $70 Billion, NYSE DMM is Barclays). The trader sent us his trade execution reports, and we matched up his trades with our detailed consolidated quote and trade data to discover that the mechanism described in Michael Lewis's "Flash Boys" was alive and well on Wall Street.

The Setting

Let's take a look at what we found from analyzing 5 large trades executed at different times over a 4 minute period in Ford Motor Co. Before each of these trades, the activity in the stock was whisper quiet. Here's a chart showing millisecond by millisecond trade and quote counts in Ford leading up to one of these 5 trades:

You can clearly tell when the trade hits: activity explodes to over 80 quotes in 1 millisecond (this is equivalent to 80K messages/second as far as network/system latency goes). But the point here is that nothing was going on in this stock in the immediate period before this trade hits the market.

In this particular example, there were a total of 24,800 shares advertised for sale at $17.38 (all trades and offered liquidity will be at this same price) from 8 exchanges. The trader wanted 20,000 of these shares. What he got was only 12,133 shares and 600 of these were on a dark pool (which wasn't part of the 24,800 shares of liquidity on the lit exchanges)! Worse, someone ELSE was filled for 1,570 shares during these same milliseconds! Remember, nothing was happening in Ford until this order came into the market. Based on the other 4 examples, we are sure that no trades would have occurred during these few milliseconds of time if it wasn't for this trader's order.

What happened to the 24,800 shares offered and why couldn't he get at least 20,000 of them? How is it that others were able to get shares during this time? This is especially disturbing when you consider these other traders (HFT) only bought shares in reaction to the original trader's order.

Phantom Liquidity

Nanex goes on to discuss detailed analysis of the trade as well as "phantom liquidity". Recall that "liquidity" is the alleged benefit of HFT.

The article shows that order cancellations happen far faster than trade executions, and that is why the Ford trader wasn't able to get the advertised liquidity - the orders simply disappeared faster than exchanges processed his buy order.

Nanex concludes "If you believe that the industry can fix these problems on their own, then we believe you are no longer fit to regulate, because that is not, and never was, how Wall Street works. Honestly, a free for all, no–holds–barred environment would be better than the current system of complicated rules which are partially enforced, but only against some participants. And make no mistake, what is shown above is as close to automatic pilfering as one can get. It probably results in a few firms showing spectacular, perfect trading records; it definitely results in people believing the market is unfair and corrupt."

I agree with the conclusion, also noting that insider trading is allowed for members of Congress but no one else.

But did Namex really reveal anything? The answer is not really. There were spoof bids and offers in the markets long before the arrival of HFT.

Yet, things are undoubtedly worse today with more spoofs from fewer and fewer places. That is the only way some HFT systems can go for months or longer without reporting a single loss for even a day.

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

Did the Rebels Have a Buk System? How About a Working One? Flight Diverted Over Restricted Space?

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 09:12 PM PDT

People seem to have their minds made up on whether or not the plane was shot down and by whom.

The propaganda du jour is the separatists were responsible. By even discussing alternatives, ridiculous accusations have come in about "Mish" being a Russian name.

The first casualty in war is always the truth. Statements from both sides are suspect.

Here is another update from reader Jacob Dreizin, a US citizen who speaks Russian and reads Ukrainian, regarding whether or not the rebels had a Buk system.

Hi Mish,

I told you the rebels have never claimed a high-altitude air defense capability, and despite that "tweet" (which I believe is genuine), I stand by what I said: The rebels do not have a working Buk system.

Late last month, the Donetsk rebels took over a small military base that housed at least one "Buk" system. Immediately, Kiev announced that the captured equipment was not in working order. And that was the end of it.

The rebels never claimed to have deployed the system. In fact, they have stated many times that they have a modest air defense ceiling, and that Ukrainian planes have been trying to make their attacks from above that ceiling (not always successfully.) And the rebels have never claimed a high-altitude capability.

My guess still remains that the Ukrainians (unwittingly) repeated their Siberian Airlines stunt from 2001.

Questions Du Jour

Is Anyone Telling The Truth?
Were both Ukraine and the Rebels lying about Rebel possession of a working Buk system?

Missile Claims Deepen Escalation Fears

Please consider Missile Claims Deepen Escalation Fears

Little is yet known about who targeted Malaysian airlines jet MH17. But the destruction of an airliner at high altitude by a missile strike, as Kiev suggests, shows the conflict in eastern Ukraine has reached a new level in terms of military hardware and tactics.

To down a commercial plane flying at 10,000m requires a missile system of a sophistication until now regarded as well beyond the capabilities of pro-Russian separatists, raising the question of exactly what such a system might be, and more importantly, where it came from.

For weeks, the militia forces in the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk have been waging a highly successful ground-to-air missile campaign.

At least 10 Ukrainian military aircraft including Mi-24 and Mi-8 "Hind" helicopters, An-30 and An-26 transport planes and, last month, an IL-76 military transport carrying 49 troops have all been shot down this year.

So far, planes in eastern Ukraine have been hit with missiles launched from Manpad – shoulder-launched – systems, with a limited range of around 3,500m.

Around five hours before the crash of MH17 on Thursday, locals near the town of Grabovo, where wreckage of the flight is now scattered, spotted a Buk launcher.

Pinpointing where such a Buk launcher might have come from, is the hard part.

Both the Ukrainian and Russian military possess such systems. Kiev operates 60 Buk 9K37s, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow operates 350, including a large number of more modern Buk 9K317s.

"It's a standard Soviet anti-aircraft system," says Igor Sutyagin, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and an expert in Russian military equipment and tactics. "We know that missile systems have been coming across the Russian border [in recent weeks], but this type of system falling into separatist hands is new."

The best evidence that has emerged so far is that the Buk launcher fell into rebel hands on June 29.

On that day, rebel forces took control of a base in the suburbs of Donetsk at which surface-to-air missile unit A1402 of the Ukrainian army was located.

A picture put up online shortly after the seizure by the rebel forces shows very clearly a Buk launcher in situ armed with four missiles.

It is impossible to directly verify whether the claim is genuine, but the picture – and many other references online from rebel groups to Buk systems being captured – have been removed in recent hours.

So, was the captured system working or not? If it was working, were both sides lying about it?

You-Tube Proof

ZeroHedge had a couple of interesting posts today. Here is the first: Ukraine Releases YouTube Clip "Proving" Rebels Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH-17.

If you read the article you will note that the You-Tube timestamps have been edited and it is not entirely clear who is even having the discussion that Kiev offers as "proof".

In short, there is no proof of anything other than someone is attempting to cover their tracks.

ZeroHedge concludes "The opinion of the world as to who is at fault here is most certainly very much made up by now anyway, and if it isn't, the "unbiased" media will certainly help, even it has nothing but repetitive soundbites and speculation presented as fact, in the coming days."

Also consider the ZeroHedge question Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

My interpretation is a combination of maybe and no. The flight did take a mysterious path for reasons not yet reported or understood.

The Financial Times reports Downed Airliner was Travelling Above No-Fly Zone.

While the plane was not in restricted space, it was just above it, but perhaps on an unusual path. If so, why?

Conspiracy Theories

Clearly there is a cover-up conspiracy by someone. Whoever did it, knows they did it. I am willing to entertain the possibility that it could be either side, my position all along. I am not willing to accept the mainstream media position that the rebels are clearly to blame.

The fact remains that unless Kiev and the rebels are both telling the same lie, there is no reason to believe the Buk system captured by the rebels is in working order.

Finally, Ukraine accidentally shot down a civilian plane once before (see Did Ukraine Shoot Down Passenger Plane? They Did Once Before: SA Flight 1812 Erroneously Downed by Ukraine in 2001)

Ukraine denied it then. Why is it so inconceivable the same thing happened again?

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

Ukrainian Buk Air Defense System Allegedly Deployed Near Donetsk Yesterday; Questions Still Linger

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 01:43 PM PDT

A Russian news website claims Ukrainian Army Buk Missile Likely Downed Malaysian Plane.

A Ukrainian army battalion of Buk air defense systems was deployed near the city of Donetsk a day before the crash of a Malaysian passenger plane on Thursday, making the downing of the aircraft by one of the missiles highly probable, an expert source said.

"According to reconnaissance data, a Ukrainian army battalion of Buk air defense systems was deployed near Donetsk on Wednesday morning," the source said.

The source added that armed militia fighting Kiev-led forces in eastern Ukraine does not have Buk systems, which are capable of shooting down aircraft flying at altitudes up to 25 kilometers (82,000 feet).

Questions Still Linger

Do we know any more than we did hours ago? In spite of various claims and even an alleged admission by Ukraine rebels they did it, the answer is not really.

Foreign Policy Magazine discusses the situation in What We Know So Far About the Passenger Jet Allegedly Shot Down Over Ukraine.

A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington declined to comment on charges that pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine shot down a Malaysian Airlines plane. "Why should we comment on allegations?" the official said. The spokesman did however point to an article published by the Russian news service RIA Novosti suggesting that the Ukrainian military shot down the aircraft, not the rebels.

The source in the article also raises doubts that pro-Russian rebels could've carried out the attack, claiming that the armed militia in eastern Ukraine "does not have Buk systems." Both the Ukrainians and pro-Russian rebels deny shooting down the passenger plane.

Following the plane's crash, the rebels denied having access to the Buk, but in recent weeks, there have been widespread reports of separatists acquiring the weapon, and possibly other surface-to-air missiles, as well. On June 29, the Russian newswire ITAR-TASS reported that rebels in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic had acquired Buk missiles. The group even tweeted about having acquired the weapons.

Crucially, the Ukrainian armed forces also have the Buk missile system, which gives Russia and its proxies a measure of plausible deniability if it is confirmed that a Buk was indeed responsible for downing the Malaysian jet. According to Patrick Megahan, a research associate for military affairs at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Ukrainian military has been operating Buks in the area near the crash-site, raising the possibility that Ukrainian forces made a mistake.

"It's a very capable system, proven under real-world conditions," Andrew Bowen, a columnist for The Interpreter and a researcher at the political risk consultancy Wikistrat, told Foreign Policy. It's also not an easy weapon to fire, and would require some training or prior knowledge to use it. "These systems require a large amount of technical know-how, unlike these MANPANDS, which are basically 'point-and-shoot,'" Bowen said.

Claims and Allegations

Rebel tweets claiming acquisition of a Buk system are not believable for two reasons.

Propaganda: In war all kinds of claims are made so the enemy does not know what to believe.
Was the tweet planted?

Similar questions arise over the assertion rebels claimed responsibility.

Did someone see a crash and take credit, not even knowing what happened?
Did anyone really make the claim or was it planted then removed from a rebel website?

Also see Did Ukraine Shoot Down Passenger Plane? They Did Once Before: SA Flight 1812 Erroneously Downed by Ukraine in 2001.

It is still entirely possible this was just a jet crash. But if the plane was shot down, then all things considered, Kiev seems more likely than rebels.

I am willing to reconsider as evidence comes in.

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

Did Ukraine Shoot Down Passenger Plane? They Did Once Before: SA Flight 1812 Erroneously Downed by Ukraine in 2001

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 10:37 AM PDT

Moments ago a Malaysian BA 777 Passenger Jet Crashed in Ukraine. 280 passengers and 15 crew were killed. The plane was at an altitude of about 33,000 feet.

According to the Financial Times Anatoly Geraschenko, an adviser to Ukraine's interior minister, said in a Facebook posting "Using a zenith-rocket Buk system, the terrorists just downed a passenger airline heading from Kuala-Lampur to Amsterdam".

How likely is that statement?

Reader Jacob Dreizin, a US citizen who speaks Russian and reads Ukrainian, just pinged me with this comment.

The rebels have never claimed to have an air defense system with that kind of altitude capability. Neither have they been known to have shot down any Ukrainian military aircraft flying above 6000 meters. So we are talking some heavy duty weaponry here.

The only other civilian airliner to have been shot down over Ukrainian airspace was the Siberian Airlines flight from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk in 2001. Ultimately that was found to be the handiwork of a poorly-coordinated Ukrainian air defense exercise.

Kiev eventually paid out compensation to the victims' families. So I would not be too surprised if the Ukranians "did it again." But neither would I jump to conclusions.

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Please consider the fate of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 crashed over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk, Russia. The plane, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried an estimated 66 passengers and 12 crew members. No one on board survived. The crash site is some 190 km west-southwest of the Black Sea resort of Sochi and 140 km north of the Turkish coastal town of Fatsa and 350 km east-southeast of Feodosiya, Ukraine.

Ukrainian military officials initially denied that their missile had brought down the plane. However, Ukrainian officials later admitted that it was indeed their military that shot down the airliner.

Did Ukraine Do It Again?

Like Jacob, I would not be surprised, especially given the rebels do not claim ownership of a missile system capable of hitting that altitude.

Repeating my earlier comments before I even heard from Jacob ... "I do not know who is responsible, but it sure seems Ukrainian officials jumped to conclusions, especially since this was the second disaster this year to hit Malaysian Airlines."

A shoulder fired missile cannot reach that altitude, but a Buk Missile System could.

From Wikipedia

The Buk missile system (Russian: "Бук"; beech, /bʊk/ BOOK) is a family of self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air missile systems developed by the former Soviet Union and Russian Federation and designed to engage cruise missiles, smart bombs, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

I am not stating Ukraine did this. I am merely asking a question, while pointing out the possibility, and noting they did it once before.

As of this moment, the rebels deny responsibility and never claimed ownership of medium range weapons capable of reaching that altitude.

Clarification From Jacob

The Ukrainians have previously claimed that one or perhaps two of their planes were shot down by the rebels at 6000 meters. To my knowledge, based on their various statements, the rebels have never admitted to shooting down anything over 2500 to 4000 meters (depending on who you listen to), nor have they boasted of that kind of capability.

Mish Comment: 4,000 meters is 13123.4 feet, a far cry from 33,000 feet altitude of passenger jets.

Update From Jacob

Another wrinkle: The Ukrainians had officially closed the airspace over Donetsk and Lugansk on July 8th. The airplane went down over this area.

Mish Comment: This is looking more and more like an "inside job" not the work of rebels or Russia as widely presumed. By "inside job" I mean either Ukraine or Malaysian pilot.

Update Two

Please see Ukrainian Buk Air Defense System Allegedly Deployed Near Donetsk Yesterday; Questions Still Linger

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

Malaysian BA 777 Passenger Jet Goes Down Over Ukraine, 295 Killed; Ukraine Blames Separatists Who Deny Responsibility

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 09:43 AM PDT

A second disaster hit Malaysian Airlines today. Bloomberg reports a Boeing 777 crashed near the town of Torez in eastern Ukraine killing 280 passengers and 15 crew.

A Ukrainian Interior Ministry official was quick to point the finger, stating that pro-Russian separatists shot down the passenger jet. The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic said it did not attack the airplane.

The Financial Times has a few more details.

A Malaysia Airlines passenger jet has crashed in Ukraine 60km from the border with Russia, ITAR-TASS news agency reported on Thursday.

The plane, a Boeing 777 with 295 people on board, was reported by Interfax news agency to be en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it came down before entering Russian airspace. Malaysian Airlines confirmed by Twitter that it had lost contact with flight MH17, the scheduled flight for that route.

The crash is the second disaster to hit the Malaysian carrier. Investigators have still not located the wreckage of MH370, which crashed on March 8 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The crash of MH17 immediately triggered claims that the aircraft had been shot down. The precise location of the crash was unclear.

The crash came hours after local officials accused Russia of downing a second army plane within days, and the stepping up the flow of arms and fresh rebels despite decisions by the US and EU to punish Moscow with a deeper economic sanctions.

Several Ukrainian aircraft have been shot down in the disputed areas of eastern Ukraine near to the border with Russia in recent months, including a Ukrainian Su-25 jet fighter on Thursday which Kiev claimed was downed by a Russian jet.

"Using a zenith-rocket Buk system, the terrorists just downed a passenger airline heading from Kuala-Lampur to Amsterdam," Anatoly Geraschenko, an adviser to Ukraine's interior minister, said in a Facebook posting.

Buk Missile

I do not know who is responsible, but it sure seems Ukrainian officials jumped to conclusions, especially since this was the second disaster this year to hit Malaysian Airlines.

A shoulder fired missile cannot reach that altitude, but a Buk Missile System could.

From Wikipedia

The Buk missile system (Russian: "Бук"; beech, /bʊk/ BOOK) is a family of self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air missile systems developed by the former Soviet Union and Russian Federation and designed to engage cruise missiles, smart bombs, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

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

Damn Cool Pics

Father Asked Strangers To Photoshop A Picture Of His Daughter After She Passed Away

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 12:15 PM PDT

This one is tragic and touching. Nathan Steffel from Ohio asked strangers on Reddit to photoshop a photo of his 6-week-old daughter after she passed away. He wanted her medical tubing to be removed.

"Since she was in the hospital her whole life, we never were able to get a photo without all her tubes."

What Happens When You Drink Coffee [Infographic]

Posted: 17 Jul 2014 11:48 AM PDT

Are you a caffeine fiend who requires a cup of coffee each morning just to function? You're not alone, it's the world's most popular drink after water. Check out this infographic and learn just how that delicious brew is helping you out with its various benefits. And that part about withdrawals lasting between 2 and 9 days? Sounds like all the more reason to never stop drinking coffee!

Click on Image to Enlarge.

vineri, 18 iulie 2014

How to Prove ROI Potential of Content Campaigns - Whiteboard Friday

How to Prove ROI Potential of Content Campaigns - Whiteboard Friday

Video transcription

Content components

Surveying your target audience

Competitive analysis

Pose/review discussions

People components

Business case

Talking content strategy at the Content Marketing Show

Talking content strategy at the Content Marketing Show

Seth's Blog : "I don't have any good ideas"

"I don't have any good ideas"

More Recent Articles

joi, 17 iulie 2014

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Damn Cool Pics

Damn Cool Pics

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

vineri, 18 iulie 2014

Video transcription

Content components

Surveying your target audience

Competitive analysis

Pose/review discussions

People components

Business case

joi, 17 iulie 2014

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

Subscribe to