marți, 26 august 2014

Negative SEO: Should You Be Worried? If Attacked, What Should You Do?

Negative SEO: Should You Be Worried? If Attacked, What Should You Do?


Negative SEO: Should You Be Worried? If Attacked, What Should You Do?

Posted: 25 Aug 2014 05:15 PM PDT

Posted by MarieHaynes

There has been a lot of talk lately about negative SEO. Does it really happen? If so, should you be worried? How do you know whether someone is attempting to attack you with negative SEO? And what should you do to protect yourself? The purpose of this article is to shed some light on the subject, and hopefully to reduce some of the fear exists in this area.

What is negative SEO?

Negative SEO occurs when someone makes attempt to lower a site's rankings in the search engines. There are multiple ways that this can be attempted. The most common type of negative SEO that gets discussed is link based negative SEO, but there are many other techniques that unscrupulous people can use to try to reduce your rankings. We'll talk about how to recognize some of these tactics later on in this article .

Does negative SEO really work?

We know that a site can be penalized or can be suppressed by Google algorithms if they have engaged in manipulative link building. The result can be a manual unnatural links penalty or an unnanouced demotion at the hands of the Penguin algorithm. So, if links that I made can hurt me, then intuitively it makes sense that links that someone else made could have the same negative effect. Or can they?

Google is quite adamant that true, effective negative SEO is very rare. In an effort to understand more about Google's stance on negative SEO I decided to research every instance I could find where a Google representative discussed negative SEO. You can read transcriptions of a good number of John Mueller's and Matt Cutt's statements on negative SEO in this article. I'll be quoting from these transcriptions several times in this Moz post as well.

Prior to January of 2003, Google had a page on their site that said the following, "There is nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index. " 

 And then in 2003, they changed the wording to say, "There is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking…."

And really, the change made sense. I don't believe Google was admitting at this point that you could drop a site by pointing links at it. Rather, they were likely conceding that there could be cases where someone could harm your website by, for example, hacking into your server and deleting your site or changing your robots.txt file to tell search engines not to crawl the site any more or other such nefarious things.

But what about links? Can a competitor point bad links at you and reduce your rankings? In 2007, Matt Cutts was quoted in a Forbes article on negative SEO: "Matt Cutts, a senior software engineer for Google, says that piling links onto a competitor's site to reduce its search rank isn't impossible, but it's extremely difficult. "We try to be mindful of when a technique can be abused and make our algorithm robust against it," he says. "I won't go out on a limb and say it's impossible. But Google bowling is much more inviting as an idea than it is in practice."

So, at that point Google is admitting that negative SEO via linkbuiding is a possibility, albeit quite a remote one. Let's jump forward to 2012. In April of 2012 Google released the first version of the Penguin algorithm which was created to reduce and even penalize for the use of unnatural links. This is when the topic of whether or not you could negatively affect a competitor's site by pointing bad links at them became a very common discussion. Take a look at the Google Trends data for searches for "negative SEO":

Shortly after Google refreshed the Penguin algorithm in October of 2012, Matt Cutts announced the creation of a new tool, the disavow tool, which would allow site owners to ask Google not to count links that they felt could damage their site. Matt stated that the vast majority of sites would not need to use the tool and that Google's algorithms were really quite good at making sure that these bad links would not hurt your site. But, he did admit that it could potentially be a concern for people in high money, competitive niches, saying, "For the people who are in maybe super competitive poker, casino, whatever kind of niches and they're worried about, 'OK, what if someone is trying to do some ill will towards my site?' we've just released a new tool called disavow links."

If you read through the transcriptions of things that Matt Cutts and John Mueller have said about negative SEO, here are the points that Google seems to be emphasizing:

  • Google works hard to ensure that a competitor cannot hurt your site by pointing bad links at it.
  • They have things built into their algorithms to help determine whether the links are self made or not. For example, if there has been a pattern of unnatural linking that has been occurring for many years, then it's not likely that a competitor is at fault.
  • If you notice a bunch of bad looking links pointing at your site, most likely they are not going to do any harm to you. But, Google admits that they may not get things 100% correct all of the time and as such, it's not a bad idea to disavow any spammy looking links that you see.
  • If you see a situation where you feel that negative SEO is actually being effective, Google would like you to report it either in the webmaster forums or by contacting John Mueller and they will look into the situation to see if they can improve their algorithms.
  • The vast majority of cases where people report negative SEO attacks to Google end up NOT being negative SEO.

Examples of things that are NOT negative SEO

I can't tell you how many times I have had a client claim that a competitor is attacking them with bad links when in most cases, this probably isn't true. If you start looking at your backlink profile and seeing some odd looking links it's a normal reaction to think, "I didn't make these spammy links! So, if I didn't make them, who did? It must be my competitor!" 

Here are some examples of situations where negative SEO was suspected, but in reality there is another explanation for what is going on:

Example #1: "Weird" links are not necessarily bad links

There are some websites that link out to almost every site on the web. For example, most sites will have links from sites like:

  • askives.com
  • mrwhatis.net
  • m.biz (and hundreds of m.biz clone directories. I don't know where these come from, but although it's probably not necessary, I disavow them just to be safe. In my opinion, they're not likely negative SEO though.)
  • directories that have scraped dmoz.org
  • links from sites that analyze and provide domain info
  • Chinese sites that scrape alexa.com

...and so on.

Example #2: Sitewide links are not all bad links

I've seen site owners get really upset when they look at their "Links to your site" section of Webmaster Tools and see something like this:

The fear is that Google is going to think that you built tens of thousands of links to your site. Now, in the example that I have given, where the site is a well known one like yellowpages.com, it may be a little more clear that this is not an unnatural link. But, what if a site owner in your niche really liked your content and linked to you in their sidebar? And what if they linked to you with a keyword? Underneath "Links to your site" in Webmaster Tools is a section called, "How your data is linked" that contains your most commonly used anchor text. So, if I got a sitewide link from a site with thousands of pages and they linked with a keyword, I'm going to see that Google thinks that the majority of my links are keyword anchored. Oh no! I've had people think that they've been hit by negative SEO because they have seen a single keyword anchored sitewide link. In my opinion, Google is pretty good at figuring out that a sitewide link is really just one vote from a site. A single sitewide link is not a sign of negative SEO even if it causes thousands of links to appear in Webmaster Tools.

Example #3: Your old habits are coming back to haunt you

Have you ever in the past purchased a link building package? For example, years ago when I was learning SEO I purchased a citation building package to one of my sites. It was one of those deals where you pay $100 and you get a whole bunch of directory listings. (Yeah...I'm not proud of it, but hey...we all had to start learning somewhere.) I've since cleaned up those links. But, the amazing thing is that they keep replicating. I will often see new links appear that are using the same text that I used when I purchased that package. It would be easy for me to say, "Hey! I haven't built any links in years...and now I'm seeing spammy directory listings appear. This must be a competitor pointing bad links at me!" But really, my own actions were the cause for these unnatural links.

Example #4: A well-meaning employee or friend is building you links

You might laugh at this example, but I've seen it happen. I had a client who contacted me for help with a manual unnatural links penalty. He swore he had never purchased or built a link in his life, but his backlink profile was full of a lot of pretty manipulative stuff. He assumed it had to be a competitor doing this. As we were doing the cleanup for his site we noticed new bad links that were appearing. Agh! We're under attack! Well, it turns out that the site owner's nephew had been doing some reading about SEO. I am not kidding. He thought he was helping his uncle out by SEOing his site for him. Oy vey.

Example #5: A previous SEO made these links

Some people are shocked when they find out that their SEO company has been building them unnatural links.  I have seen many cases where an SEO company promised they were going to give a site "White hat links" or links that were within the Google guidelines, but in reality it looks like they outsourced the job to a cheap linkbuilding company that created spammy bookmarks, blog comments and forum signatures.  If you've got unnatural links and you've ever hired an SEO company, there is a good chance that those bad links were actually made on purpose and that YOU paid for them!  Remember, prior to April of 2012, these links used to work well to rank pages and very few websites would get penalized for using them.

Example #6: You've been hacked

While someone could negative SEO your site by hacking into it, not all cases of hacking are negative SEO. A while back, a friend of mine emailed me and said, "Hey! Did you know that one of your sites is ranking highly for Michael Kors handbags?" His suggestion was that I take advantage of that and throw an affiliate page up on the site. :) I had a look at the backlinks and here's what I saw:

Crap.

This was not a competitor trying to hurt my rankings. In fact, the tens of thousands of spammy links that were pointing at my site were actually helping my rankings at that point. What had happened here is that someone had taken advantage of a vulnerability in a Wordpress plugin that had not been updated. They were able to hack into the site and create a whole bunch of new pages. They then pointed huge numbers of spammy links at these pages and redirected them to their Michael Kors affiliate sites.

If you are looking at your backlink profile and you see odd keyword anchors for things like viagra, cialis, casinos, payday loans, ugg boots, etc, then there is a good chance that you have been hacked. In most cases these links can be removed by finding and removing the pages that the hacker created on your site. However, if you have been hacked, it's a good idea to have someone familiar with cleaning up hacks look at your site to figure out how the hacker got in and how you can close that door.

In this situation, we removed the offending pages, found and fixed the access point, AND I also disavowed all of those links. According to Google, if you get hacked and have bad links pointing to you, you can probably ignore them because their algorithms are good at picking up and just discounting this sort of thing. However, it concerned me that these bad links actually were helping this site. If Google was just discounting them then they should have had no effect. I am 99% sure that I would have been ok to leave them, especially since the pages they pointed to had been removed (which also removes the link pointing to that page), but just to be absolutely sure that something odd didn't affect me with the next Penguin update, I disavowed them all at the domain level.

I now have alerts on Google Alerts and Moz Freshweb Explorer set up to help me determine when someone is hacking my site. To do so for your sites, in each of these tools you can set up alerts for things like:

  • site:yoursite.com "michael kors"
  • site:yoursite.com viagra
  • site:yoursite.com casino
  • site:yoursite.com "payday loans"
  • site:yoursite.com "cialis"

...and so on.

Signs of things that COULD be negative SEO

I said at the start of this article that the vast majority of cases of suspected negative SEO that I see really aren't negative SEO after all. But, there are situations where it does indeed happen. Here is the type of link that you can commonly see when someone is trying to attack you with negative links:

  • Links from foreign forums
  • A huge number of links from sites with TLDs of .ru, .cz, .cn, .pl, .ro, .bg, .biz, .com.ar, .com.br and .info. Not all of those links are going to be unnatural, but if you are suddenly getting an influx of links from russian sites, it could be a sign of an attack.
  • A large number of links from complete nonsense blog posts:

  • Lots of keyword-anchored links from multiple sources. (I'd like to reiterate that receiving one sitewide link from a questionable source is not a sign of negative SEO, even if you are suddenly seeing thousands of links coming from that site.)
  • An influx of links from bad neighbourhoods such as porn sites, gambling sites, payday loan sites, etc.

There are many other tricky techniques that can be used to attack sites with negative SEO, but most sites will not need to worry about these tactics. (I'll explain more about whether or not you need to worry below, so keep reading!)  I'm not about to describe all of the different ways you can do negative SEO, as I don't want to give any evil people any ideas. But, the one tactic that I will mention and that you can keep an eye on is someone redirecting penalized sites to yours. Take a look right now at your site on ahrefs.com. You don't need a membership to see whether you've got redirects pointing to you. Scroll down until you see "backlink types" and then "redirect".

Now, not all redirects are bad. If you have affiliates, they may have pages that redirect to your product pages, These are usually okay, and there are many other valid reasons for a site to redirect to yours. But if today you see that you have three sites redirecting to you and next week you've got 30 or even 300 sites redirecting to you, then this could be a sign of a problem.

Can these redirects hurt you, though? Can an influx of bad links hurt you? Do you need to worry?  Google has given conflicting advice in this regard. In one place, they have said that bad link signals will definitely pass through a 301 redirect, but in another place they have said that attempting to 301 redirect a penalized site to a clean site will not cause a penalty on the clean site.  In my opinion, what Google is saying here is that if you are redirecting one of your own sites to another of your own sites, then they'll pass the bad link signals.  It's just like you building your own unnatural links.  But if you try to 301 to someone else's site then they won't let those links count.  How does Google know the difference?  That's part of the secret sauce.  I do think that they use all sorts of signals to determine whether links are self made or made by a competitor.

Should you worry about negative SEO?

OK, so let's say you see evidence that someone is attacking your site with unnatural links. Does this mean you are going to lose your rankings?

Google really does work hard to algorithmically protect sites from this type of link causing a problem. And, I would say that for the vast majority of you who are reading this post, you DO NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT NEGATIVE SEO

Yes, just shouted there. I really want to emphasize that most sites do not need to worry.

This is the point in the article where the black hatters start getting upset. I wonder who the first person will be to post a comment saying, "You don't know what you're talking about! Negative SEO works because I've done it on hundreds of sites." Or, "I know negative SEO works because my site got taken down."

Here is my opinion on the types of sites that could possibly be adversely affected by a link based negative SEO attack:

  • Sites in very competitive, high-money niches such as casinos, payday loans, insurance, pharmacy sales, etc. - People who are running negative SEO in these circles have more knowledge of sophisticated methods that just may possibly work. Some of these people spend hours and hours trying to find loopholes in Google's algorithm that will allow them to take down a competitor. When Google adjusts their algorithms to be able to combat those methods then these people spend even more hours trying to beat the system. They also have huge budgets that they can throw into a negative SEO attack. For the average small business owner to pay someone to do a high level intensive SEO attack that has the potential to work, it would likely cost more money than it would cost to implement regular SEO methods on your own site.
  • Sites that have a long standing history of doing their own manipulative linking. If you have received a manual link-based penalty in the past or have been affected negatively by the Penguin algorithm, then in my opinion you really should keep a watch out for additional unnatural links pointing to your site. In a hangout, John Mueller spoke about a situation where Google may not be certain whether to discount bad links that look like negative SEO because the site itself had a lot of signals that indicated that the site owner had been engaging in webspam. He implied that Google may not be able to tell what was self made and what was an attack:

    "It's something where we see these problematic links and we don't really know how we should react to that. It's not that we can just close our eyes and say, 'Oh well... we can recognize these problematic links and ignore them. It's more that we don't know what we should do with all of the other signals that we find attached to your website"

In these cases, if it does appear that negative SEO is being targeted at your website, the best tool you have is to do monthly monitoring of your backlinks.

How can you protect yourself from negative SEO?

If you are in a competitive niche, or if you have a history of being penalized and having to do link cleanup, then you really should be monitoring your backlinks regularly. What we do for our regular link audit clients is a monthly backlink audit. This really should be frequent enough to find and clean up unnatural links. However, if you are under a strong attack where new unnatural links are coming in daily, it may be a good idea to do this cleanup every one-to-two weeks.

It's not a bad idea for other sites that are at low risk of succumbing to a negative SEO attack to do a monthly link audit as well. What we have found is that when you monitor your new links monthly, you can easily see the new, good links that your site is attracting. This can give you a lot of ideas on how to get even more links. If you see, for example, that a few people had recommended a particular product of yours via a link from forum posts, then you may want to create more content surrounding that product and engage on an email outreach campaign to get more people to link to that content.

But wait….why would I recommend doing a regular link audit if Google says that they can catch negative SEO and discount it? The reason is that you're relying on an algorithm and the algorithm is not going to be 100% accurate. Here are some quotes from John Mueller of Google regarding their accuracy on catching and discounting negative SEO:

"It's a tricky situation and not something where I'd say that we can guarantee that we always get it 100% right. But, from the cases I've looked at I think we've done a pretty good job."

"We do work very hard to make sure that third party effects like that don't play a role within the search results. It's something we can't absolutely guarantee that we'll always get it right. So, if you're seeing something like this you're welcome to let us know about that. "

"If you're looking at the links in Webmaster Tools for example I might go ahead and submit a disavow file for those links. In general though, we do recognize these kind of situations and handle them appropriately. "

How to do your backlink audit

There are many different ways to do a backlink audit. Some people will use automated link auditing tools, but if you do choose to do this it is vitally important that you do a manual audit alongside of the automated suggestions. I can't tell you how many failed reconsideration requests I have seen because people have relied solely on these reports. I have also seen these tools recommend disavowing some fantastic natural links as well. In my opinion, you must look at your links manually!

If you are working on a site that does not have a history of unnatural linking, you can probably get away with just using the links that you get from Webmaster Tools. Google has said in the past that Webmaster Tools links are "all you need". However, John Mueller and Matt Cutts have clarified that statement saying that they are all you need in order to pick up your patterns of unnatural linking. This is fine if you are lucky enough to have a complete list of all of the links that have been ever made on your behalf, but if you don't have that then you're likely going to have to go looking to other sources to find all of these links.  We have come across many unnatural links that are indexed in Google and not reported in Webmaster Tools. And, we've even been given some of these as examples on failed reconsideration requests. The links you see in Webmaster Tools are just a sample of your links. As such, we use links from the following sources:

  • Webmaster Tools (Recent)
  • Webmaster Tools (Sample)
  • ahrefs.com (a paid tool)
  • majesticseo.com (a paid tool, but it's free for your own site if you verify your site)
  • opensiteexplorer.org (This is Moz's tool, and for most sites you can get a good number of your links for free provided you register an account with Moz. I would say though that I find that Open Site Explorer tends to pick up more of the good links and doesn't catch as much as the overt spam as Ahrefs and Majestic.

We then sort the links into a more manageable list so that we only analyze one link from each domain. If you are doing monthly audits, you will want to keep track of which domains you have already audited so that you don't waste time assessing that domain again. You can use a VLOOKUP formula in Excel to highlight which domains you have already audited in previous months. You can use a similar VLOOKUP to highlight domains that are already in your disavow file.

It took me a while to understand how VLOOKUP works.  There are many tutorials out there, but here is my simple explanation:

  • Let's assume that your link auditing spreadsheet is "Sheet1" and you have a list of your disavowed domains on "Sheet2".  Let's say that column A of each sheet contains your domains and column B of "Sheet2" contains the words "in disavow".
  • Let's assume that you have 1000 domains on "Sheet2".  Again, this is your list of disavowed domains.
  • On "Sheet1" create a new column and enter this formula:
    =VLOOKUP(A1, Sheet2!$A$1:$B$1000,2,FALSE).
  • Now, copy that formula down the entire column.  You will end up having each row saying either "in disavow" or "N/A".
  • For those domains that are in your disavow, you don't need to re-audit them because you have already disavowed them.

I have prepared hundreds of link audit spreadsheets.  This summer I dedicated a huge amount of time to creating and programming a system that allows me to keep track of my monthly audit clients and create awesome spreadsheets for manual link audits.  The sheet that is produced chooses the best link from each domain to audit, eliminates domains that I have already audited for each client, marks the nofollows, marks which links are keyword anchors, and marks which domains have already been disavowed (and also takes into account subdomains when you have disavowed the full domain.)  It also tells me whether or not each domain is my list of tens of thousands of domains that I call my "disavow blacklist"  and also my whitelist that contains domains that I know contains links not made for SEO purposes such as sites like alexa.com, aboutus.org, known dmoz scrapers and so on.  

This system saves me a huge amount of time, especially for those clients for whom we do regular backlink audits.  I want to thank Moz for allowing me to mention this system.  I am now making it available for others to use (for a fee). You can get more details here.  

The next step, once you have audited your links and determined which ones are ones that were made to manipulate Google, and are therefore unnatural, is to add these sites to your disavow file.  You almost always want to disavow these domains on the domain level.  This means including "domain:example.com" rather than "http://www.example.com/page1.html".

Once this is done, add these domains to your existing disavow file and upload it to the disavow tool.  Don't worry...there is no harm in submitting regular disavows.

Summary

I have covered a lot of info in this post and hopefully I haven't confused too many people. The topic of negative SEO really is a tough one to understand. On one hand Google says, "Don't worry about it." But, on the other hand they tell us that although it shouldn't be a problem, it's not a bad idea to disavow any spam links you find pointing to your site even if you didn't make them.

Here are the takehome points of this article:

  • Not everything that looks like negative SEO is negative SEO. All sites have weird links pointing to them. Don't always assume that every odd looking link is one that a competitor has made.
  • A sudden influx of odd links very well could be an attack.
  • In most cases, if a site does get attacked by a competitor pointing spammy links at them, Google's algorithms will just ignore those links and you won't see a drop in rankings.
  • If you are in a hyper-competitive niche then you are much more likely to fall victim to a sophisticated negative SEO attack. 
  • If you have a history of doing a lot of unnatural linking yourself then you could fall victim as well, as Google may not be able to tell the difference between your unnatural links and the attack links.
  • Sites that are not in a competitive niche and have not been engaging in manipulative linking, most likely do not need to worry about negative SEO.
  • In any case, if you think you are under a negative SEO attack, it is a good idea to audit your links regularly and submit a disavow file.

Negative SEO always brings up interesting discussion. Have you been a victim? Do you do monthly audits? Do you feel that Google is good at preventing negative SEO?  


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!

10 Tips to Take the Moz Tools to the Next Level

Posted: 25 Aug 2014 04:48 AM PDT

Posted by EllieWilkinson

Hey Moz fans! I'm Ellie, and I'm part of the newly formed Customer Success team at Moz. As part of the "S" team, I work to teach customers how to be successful marketers and awesome Moz users.

Whether you're an old pro or a newb, we want to help you achieve your marketing goals. That's why the Success Team and the Help Team at Moz decided to put together some tips and tricks to bring your Moz knowledge to the next level. Think of them as "power-ups" for your Moz boss fights!

We recorded several videos to provide step-by-step guides to the Moz tools for you. Be sure to watch the videos in the bottom right-hand corner for a laugh, and see how many video game references you can find!


1. Find the best time to tweet

Learn how to time your tweets to coincide with your Twitter followers' activity with this  Followerwonk walkthrough, which also shows me in action at my side job as PR specialist at the Death Star.

Tweet this: Find the best time to tweet: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


2. Get the web's best SERP analysis report

Watch Nick's guide to gathering intel on a competitor and exporting a detailed SERP report using the  Keyword Difficulty tool.

Tweet this: Get the web's best SERP analysis report: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


3. Research local categories and keywords

Sam walks you through how to use the  Moz Local category research tool to gather local keyword ideas.

Tweet this: Research local categories and keywords: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


4. See your ranking history

Looking for your keyword rankings history? David gives you a step-by-step guide on where to download and export the report in  Moz Analytics. Also, discover an automated way to get keyword ranking PDF reports sent directly to your inbox.

Tweet this: See your ranking history: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


5. Gather new keywords to track

Rock your keyword list with the keyword opportunities tab in  Moz Analytics - Chiaryn and her sweet puppy Lettie Pickles show you how it's done.

Tweet this: Gather new keywords to track: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


6. Explore your SERPs with MozBar

Abe demonstrates how to use the  MozBar to enhance search results and quickly export reports right from the SERPs.

Tweet this: Explore your SERPs with MozBar: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


7. Discover who to target on Twitter

I explain how to build an outreach campaign and gain followers on Twitter using the "Compare users" tab in  Followerwonk.

Tweet this: Discover who to target on Twitter: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


8. Uncover your site's broken links

From his tiny box in the corner of your screen, Matt shows you how to export and explore a CSV from the Crawl Diagnostics tab in  Moz Analytics.

Tweet this: Uncover your site's broken links: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


9. Find your competitor's most popular content

Analyze your competitor's most successful content to gain ideas for your own strategy using  Open Site Explorer, as Rachael demonstrates.

Tweet this: Find your competitor's most popular content: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


10. Scope out your competitor's fresh links

Roger the Mozbot and I show you how to see fresh links pointing to your competitor but not to you (yet!) using  Fresh Web Explorer.

Tweet this: Scope out your competitor's fresh links: One of 10 video tips to take @Moz tools to the next level


Hopefully these tips and tricks give you some ideas of how to take your Moz game to the next level. Maybe you're even ready to do your speed run through Moz Pro! If you have some Moz protips of your own, share them with us in the comments below!


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!

Top Tips for Measuring & Analysing Your Content

Top Tips for Measuring & Analysing Your Content

Link to White.net

Top Tips for Measuring & Analysing Your Content

Posted: 26 Aug 2014 02:00 AM PDT

Content, content, content – it's all anyone in SEO seems to talk about. We're not just a company, we're a digital publisher! Content is King! Long live content! I'm a content specialist and even I'm getting sick of it.

It's not the principle that irritates me – indeed, the principle is excellent and key to me keeping my job! No, it's the execution. Now that content has been universally agreed upon as the way to gain rankings, the world and his dog are churning it out at a rate of knots with little thought as to quality or whether it's actually doing anyone any good.

So, I'm here to explain to you how you can measure your content, analyse it, and use it to improve what you're producing, which should benefit both you and your audience.

What Should You Measure?

First things first, what do you need to measure to understand how well your content is doing? As with everything in SEO, there is a wide range of opinions on the matter. But we need a list, so here are my key data points that you MUST be checking:

  • Time on page
  • Bounce rate
  • Number of views
  • Conversions
  • Shares

Simple stuff, but people still seem to be churning out content without bothering to do any analysis. So I'm going to walk you through these data points, how to collect them, how to analyse them, and how to improve your content off the back of them.

Time on Page

This one's really basic but still incredibly important. Time on page will let you know at a glance whether people are actually reading your content. If they're only spending a few seconds on the page and then leaving to other areas of your site (or, worse, bouncing back to the SERPs) then your content isn't working.

To see if this is an issue for you, the easiest way to find this data is in good old Google Analytics. Just go to Behaviour→Site Content→All Pages and find the relevant URL.

If the time spent on the page is worryingly low then it's time to do something about it. Have a look at your page. Does the title/header make it clear what the page is about whilst engaging the reader? Is the content laid out in an easy-to-read format, ensuring people aren't put off by huge blocks of impenetrable text? Do you use subheading and images to break things up, making it more aesthetically pleasing and easy to skim?

If not, try making these alterations first. Making your page more user-friendly and engaging should help to get more people to read your content and take in what you're saying.

Bounce Rates

Closely tied to time on page is the bounce rate. If people are reaching your content and then immediately heading back to the SERPs you know you've got something wrong.

To find your bounce rate, follow the same steps as for time on page – it's just a couple of columns over in Google Analytics. If you've got a high bounce rate then you know you need to make some alterations. As a benchmark, anything over 60% is really worth looking at, but if it’s around 40% or lower then feel free to be smug.

As with time on page, ensuring that your content is user-friendly should be your first step. However, if these changes don't help then it may be a case of the wrong page being ranked in the SERPs – i.e. your page doesn't contain the information people are searching for. This can happen for multiple reasons – and isn't necessarily your fault.

However, there are things you can do to improve the situation. First, take a look at the URL, title tag, meta description and H1 tag for the page. Do they all accurately reflect the content that users can expect to find on that page? If they are inaccurate or misleading then you should make changes to them ASAP. We all want to rank well, but there's no point ranking for irrelevant terms or getting lots of traffic that won't convert.

Number of Pageviews

Speaking of traffic, the amount of views your pages get is another great way to evaluate how well your content is doing. We all know Google wants to reward great content by making it rank well so, if you're producing great content it should be ranking and thus getting lots of visits.

Of course, it doesn't always work like that. If your page is getting lots of views (and has good stats for time spent on page and a low bounce rate) then you're doing brilliantly and don't need to be reading this. However, that's rarely the case.

Maybe you're doing well with time on page and have a low bounce rate, but just don't have much traffic coming through (remember to check all of this via Analytics). If this is an issue for you then you need to have a look at your meta data. Are the title tag and meta description exciting and engaging? Would they make you want to click through to the page? If you're not interested or intrigued, then you might want to update it.

Have you also linked well to this page? Is it easy to access on your site? Has it, if it's a blog post or content of that ilk, been well-promoted? Basically – do people know this page exists and can they find it? If not, it's time to make some changes!

Conversions

Obviously, some pages are easier to measure conversions on than others. If the aim of your page is to get people to sign up for a newsletter, buy a product, or make an enquiry, then it's simple to see how well you're doing. You can even set up Goals in Google Analytics to track things for you.

If your page is harder to analyse then it's time to do some thinking. Is the page supposed to guide people through to another section of your site? Is it supposed to encourage people to comment and engage with it? Or is it just there to inform? For the first two cases it's quite easy to assess conversions.

If you're guiding people through to another area then you want to set up a funnel and look at the drop-off rate. If people are moving through your site as desired then the content is doing well. However, if people are failing to continue along your funnel then you'll want to make some alterations. Perhaps you need to make the call to action clearer, or make it more obvious what the next step to take is.

If you're trying to spark conversation then you need to look at how many responses you're getting. Are people liking, commenting or sharing your content? If not, consider whether you're making it easy for them to do so. Are there clear, prominent social sharing buttons? Can they leave a comment without having to undergo a long sign-up or sign-in procedure?

Making things simple for your users is essential. You can even use Google Content Experiments (an option within Analytics) to A/B test changes to pages, such as the wording or placement of your call to action. This can be a great way to determine how to encourage more conversions.

However, it may be that your content just isn't good enough to be shared. In which case it's time to pull your socks up and start creating something worthwhile and not just for the sake of adding something new to your site. Every page on your site should have a defined purpose. If it doesn’t have one, then it shouldn’t exist.

Shares

One of the hardest things to analyse is whether your content is being shared successfully. My two favourite tools for figuring out where your content is getting shares from are Open Site Explorer and Social Crawlytics. Both of these will give you an overall figure for share and then a breakdown of where they're from – be it Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest etc. A quick note – on OSE you'll want to filter to "only external links" to get a clear picture.

I like to use both because they give you slightly different pictures. For example, OSE differentiates between Facebook likes and Facebook shares. Social Crawlytics, on the other hand, allows you to see shares broken down by content type and provides some nice graphic representations of the data.

Using these tools can quickly help you understand how much your content is being shared and on what platforms this is happening. If your content is aimed to get shares but isn't doing so, then you can now focus on promoting it better and ensuring that it is of a high enough quality that people will want to share it with others. If it's doing well, then give yourself a pat on the back.

 

So there you go – those are my key data points to keep an eye on when creating content. Using these stats you should easily be able to figure out what is and what isn't working for you – and fix the areas that are failing. Another bonus – clear figures make it much easier to persuade clients that they need to up their game and invest in their site content – happy days for those of us in SEO. What areas do you analyse? What stats do you find useful? And how do you approach improving website content? I'd love to know your methods, so please get in touch! Either leave a comment here or grab me on Twitter @SamanthaKHall

 

Image from Wikipedia

The post Top Tips for Measuring & Analysing Your Content appeared first on White.net.

Seth's Blog : The best lesson from Fantasy Football's success

 

The best lesson from Fantasy Football's success

When people say, "my team," they mean it.

In the top-down world of industrial marketing, the San Francisco 49ers say, "we built this team, buy a ticket if you want to come."

Then, a few years later, it broadened to, "you should buy a jersey so you can be part of it."

In the sideways, modern world of peer-to-peer connection, people say, "my team has this player, that player and this defense." It belongs to them, because they built it. Everyone has their own team.

In neither case is the fan on the field, getting concussed or making the big decisions. It doesn't matter. What matters is that our feeling of ownership, of us-ness, is shifting. We want celebrities and brands and teams that do more than merely put on a show. In addition to the show, people want to believe that they own part 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.

luni, 25 august 2014

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Burger King Flips Obama the Bird; BK, Warren Buffet, Greg Mankiw, Barry Ritholtz, Mish on Corporate Tax Inversion "Fairness"

Posted: 25 Aug 2014 09:10 PM PDT

Obama Condemns CEOs

President Obama is fed up with corporations no paying their "fair tax".

On August 24, Bloomberg reported Inversion Express Slows to Crawl as Obama Condemns CEOs
On July 24 Obama referred to companies looking to shift their domicile as "corporate deserters" and aides pledged to curtail the practice with or without Congressional approval.

Since then, no companies have announced any of these deals -- known as inversions -- and it's no coincidence, according to lawyers and investment bankers. The presidential rhetoric has caused several companies exploring inversions to put on the brakes to see what emerges from the political debate, people familiar with the preparations said.

Between mid-June and late-July, when Obama ramped up his criticism of the deals by calling companies that strike them "corporate deserters," at least five large American companies announced plans for inversions, including AbbVie Inc. and Medtronic Inc. (MDT) Since the start of 2012, 21 U.S. companies have announced or completed such deals, or almost half the total of 51 such transactions in the last three decades.

After Obama called for "economic patriotism" from business leaders in July, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the agency was examining options for new rules that wouldn't require Congressional sign-off.
Burger King Tax Bonanza

The Bloomberg headline "Inversion Express Slows to Crawl" was good for precisely 1 day.

Today we see this Bloomberg headline: Burger King in Talks to Buy Tim Hortons in Tax-Saving Move
Burger King Worldwide Inc., the second-largest U.S. burger chain, is in talks to buy Tim Hortons Inc. and move its headquarters to Canada, becoming the latest American company seeking to relocate to a lower-tax country.

Burger King would create the world's third-largest fast- food chain by merging with Canada's biggest seller of coffee and doughnuts, the companies said in a statement. The Canadian corporate tax rate is typically 26.5 percent, compared with 40 percent in the U.S., according to auditing and tax firm KPMG.

The deal renews debate over American companies shifting their headquarters internationally in search of lower corporate tax bills. The trend drew criticism last month from President Barack Obama, and his aides vowed that the administration would take action to curtail the practice.

"There's some modest political risk to the deal, but it's difficult to say because we haven't seen the administration move to block one of these yet," said Will Slabaugh, an analyst at Stephens Inc. in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Burger King Dares Obama To Stop It From Fleeing To Canada

The Huffington Post had an Obama-mocking headline: Burger King Dares Obama To Stop It From Fleeing To Canada
Burger King's plan to scurry across the Canadian border to avoid U.S. taxes could be seen as the corporate equivalent of flipping President Barack Obama the bird.

The White House vowed earlier this month to use an executive order to curb tax inversions -- deals in which U.S. companies buy smaller foreign firms in countries with lower taxes, then renounce their U.S. corporate citizenship and re-incorporate in that country.

Still, Burger King said late Sunday night that it was in talks to merge with Tim Hortons, Canada's popular bakery and coffee chain. The new, combined company would be headquartered in Canada.

In a research note, Potomac Research Group political strategist Greg Valliere said Burger King's move challenges regulators at the White House and Treasury to back up threats to crack down on inversions.

"So much for the theory that Treasury could chill future inversion deals by hinting of possible action," Valliere wrote in the note. "We still don't expect regulations to be finalized until early next year, after a deliberative comment period, but we think there's a good chance that Treasury will get a phone call today from the White House, urging quicker action."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Treasury spokesperson and Radina Russell, a Burger King spokeswoman, both declined to comment.
Warren Buffet the Hypocrite?

The Wall Street Journal reports Warren Buffett Enters Tax Fray With Plan to Finance Burger King Deal for Tim Hortons
Investor Warren Buffett is helping finance Burger King's planned takeover of Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons Inc. according to people familiar with the matter, in a surprise twist that thrusts the billionaire into a debate over U.S. taxes.

Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. would invest in the deal in the form of preferred shares, some of the people said. Berkshire is expected to provide about 25% of the deal's financing, one of the people said. The exact structure of Mr. Buffett's participation remains unclear and the discussions are ongoing.

The investment would also thrust Mr. Buffett, known for championing American companies like Coca-Cola Co. and for advocating that wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes, into an uncomfortable position at the center of a spirited debate over U.S. tax policy. The deal is to be structured as a so-called inversion that would move the new company's headquarters to Canada. Such deals, which can help companies sidestep taxes, have drawn stiff opposition in Washington.
Barry Ritholtz, Mish on Corporate Tax Inversion "Fairness"

I commented on corporate taxes many times, most recently on July 14 in Reader Emails and Other Reflections On the "U.S. Corporate Tax Dodge"

Ritholtz proposes 5 measures that would promote "fair taxes".

  1. Kick them out of U.S. stock indexes
  2. Create a one-time tax holiday that allows companies to repatriate off-shore cash at a reduced tax rate of 15 percent.
  3. Require "publicly traded U.S. companies and U.S. subsidiaries of publicly traded foreign companies to disclose two numbers from the tax returns they file with the IRS: their U.S. taxable income for a given year, and how much income tax they owed."
  4. Lower the top tax rate from 35% 25% or 20% but close all the loopholes
  5. Stop single-company legislation: Thanks to K Street's army of lobbyists, tax legislation, loopholes and giveaways are concocted that benefit single industries or companies.

"The U.S. provides an outstanding place for these companies to operate and for their employees and executives to live and work. They should pay their fair share," says Ritholtz.

I replied "Ritholtz wants uniformity and fairness. I agree. Taxation at 0% would not only provide it, businesses would come to the US instead of escape from the US. How bad would that be?"

One Way to Fix the Corporate Tax: Repeal It

I was somewhat shocked that Greg Mankiw, a monetarist who I have blasted on numerous occasions regarding monetary policy came to a near-correct answer on this debate.

Greg Mankiw says One Way to Fix the Corporate Tax: Repeal It.
"Some people are calling these companies 'corporate deserters.' "

That is what President Obama said last month about the recent wave of tax inversions sweeping across corporate America, and he did not disagree with the description. But are our nation's business leaders really so unpatriotic?

Such tax inversions mean less money for the United States Treasury. As a result, the rest of us end up either paying higher taxes to support the government or enjoying fewer government services. So the president has good reason to be concerned.

Yet demonizing the companies and their executives is the wrong response. A corporate chief who arranges a merger that increases the company's after-tax profit is doing his or her job. To forgo that opportunity would be failing to act as a responsible fiduciary for shareholders.

Of course, we all have a responsibility to pay what we owe in taxes. But no one has a responsibility to pay more.

The great 20th-century jurist Learned Hand — who, by the way, has one of the best names in legal history — expressed the principle this way: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

So here's a proposal: Let's repeal the corporate income tax entirely, and scale back the personal income tax as well. We can replace them with a broad-based tax on consumption. The consumption tax could take the form of a value-added tax, which in other countries has proved to be a remarkably efficient way to raise government revenue.

Some may worry that a flat consumption tax is too easy on the rich or too hard on the poor. But there are ways to address these concerns. One possibility is to maintain a personal income tax for those with especially high incomes. Another is to use some revenue from the consumption tax to fund universal fixed rebates — sometimes called demogrants. Of course, the larger the rebate, the higher the tax rate would need to be.
Near-Correct

I do not support a VAT, but as long as we are going to have taxes at all (and we are), then we need to make them as fair as possible. A broad-based consumption tax on everything but food and medicine would do exactly that.

Everyone eats, everyone pays zero% on what they eat. At times we all need medical services, and everyone would pay zero% on that in my plan.

There is no favoritism, everyone pays 0% on everything but those items. Perhaps we should limit food to groceries, not restaurants.

Given that the poor spend a far greater percentage of their income on food and medicine we can eliminate or reduce Mankiw's concern about being "too easy on the rich or too hard on the poor".

Big Fear: Tax Neutrality 

The US really needs to get spending under control. My big fear is the plan would not be tax neutral, and that Washington would take this as a chance to bring in more revenue.

Regardless, this talk about "Economic patriotism" and "Corporate Tax Fairness" is complete nonsense.

Reflections On Patriotic Duty

If there is a patriotic duty, it should be to pay taxes in accordance with the law. Anything beyond that is ridiculous.

Corporations have an even more stringent responsibility to shareholders. Patriotic duty above what is required by law, to the detriment of shareholders, should be (and likely already is) against the law.

The correct approach is exactly as I suggested earlier on numerous occasions and Mankiw stated two days ago: Abolish Corporate Income Taxes.

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

Rebels Claim Liberation of Mariupol Imminent: War Zone Map Update August 13 vs. August 24

Posted: 25 Aug 2014 03:02 PM PDT

A lot has happened since Western media reported on August that rebels in Donetsk were surrounded.

Here is the map of major military operations from my August 13 post Multi-Pronged Attack on Donetsk Rebels Likely Within Days.



click on map for sharper image

Legend


  • Blue jets inside red circles are locations where Ukrainian military planes are confirmed to have crashed after being shot down. (This is only for the period of the map, August 1-10.
  • Blue jets shooting into blue circles are locations of Ukrainian air raids, again just for the period August 1-10.
  • Blue circles with "X" inside them are Ukrainian artillery strikes.
  • Red circles with "X" inside them are rebel artillery strikes.
  • Red lines with arrows are rebel advances
  • Blue lines with arrows are Ukrainian advances
  • Solid red lines (no arrow tips) are rebel defense lines

Current Map of Military Operations



Notice the completely different nature of the map. Seven areas in white show places where Ukrainian  forces are trapped. On August 13, only one such occurrence.

Note the surge in pink on the South end of the map.

Rebels claim Mariupol is about to be liberated by forces under Igor Strelkov (the Donetsk defense minister who "disappeared" a few weeks ago.)

Mariupol in Panic

Colonel Casad reports Mariupol in Panic. Here is a Google translation. If a better translation comes in from Jacob Dreizin I will update this blog.
August 25, Mariupol faced a wave of panic. People hastily leave the port city, which temporarily moved not only many of Donetsk, but also employees of Donetsk Regional State Administration Governor Sergei Taruta.

Among the residents are rumors about that tomorrow units from the DNR [Donetsk People's Republic - aka rebels] will take the city.

"At first we wanted to check in Dnepropetrovsk, but there, they say, the city is already overcrowded refugee housing even money can not you take off. Let his family to go somewhere in the center of the country, where - still do not know. Stations today are simply full of people with trunks all say that tomorrow will be in the DNI "- said,"Vesti "Valery from Donetsk.

Fighting near Novoazovskiy, cutting the track Novoazovsk-Mariupol, fighting under Sedov, all this caused a hysterical reaction and began to flee the active supporters of the junta in Dnepropetrovsk. And at the junta here considering escaped from under Ilovaysk punitive battalion "Azov" can have up to 800-900 armed men, and most likely they seriously outnumber militias operating on the outskirts of Mariupol and Novoazovsk. But the suddenness of the threat against the background of low morale parts junta in this sector, generating strong panic in the media and among the local population, who spreads rumors about the imminent surrender of Mariupol and new bumps DNR. In this regard, the panic on the one hand can stay as episodic panic and lead to more serious consequences if local forces junta will not disband before the real and the fictional threat to assault Mariupol. However, the question itself that can be taken Mariupol DNR, says very clearly about how events have changed in the Donbas in recent days.

This breakthrough in Mariupol may be in addition to the military and political implications. In reaching agreement with Akhmetov, control Mariupol will mean that the new state will remain unrecognized large and untouched by the war industries, and Akhmetov will make any effort to restore the ruined DNR.

And a special update on break through Uspenka south to the Sea of ​​Azov. He certainly looks risky because the flank along the border is subject to shocks from the west and it is fairly easy to cut blow mechanized units. And in other circumstances it would have looked like a blatant bit of a gamble zasovyvanie 3 brigades of the junta to the first southern boiler. But as reserves in the junta is not here, and for transferring them from under Perekopa take time (and in this case they need to fight for Amvrosievka), the militia here are offensive in-vacuum (the enemy simply do not), which brings them to the outskirts of Novoazovsk and approaches to Mariupol. Therefore, proper and panics junta commanders and residents of Mariupol - before them rend serious operational crisis to which they were completely unprepared. And for its localization requires time and that the most important reserves. Do hosts here have a few days of his winning time, which you can try to convert the captured city, trophies, military and political successes.

At the same time, do not underestimate the junta, it there are certain forces for the defense of Mariupol and if the junta decides to defend the city, then take it is not as easy as it is to someone might appear in the wake of recent successes. Naturally delighted with our success, we should not indulge in excessive euphoria, the enemy had not yet broken and panic are not talking about the final defeat, and that he is with bewilderment and confusion from happening.

PS. Our source in Mariupol reports people are in panic at the pump line to get out of town.

Joke of the Day

In Mariupol there is no reason to panic "- said Taruta (Governor Don.obl), sitting in the helicopter.

As reported (to be confirmed) in the city is evacuated administration Gauleiter Taruta - take out then, whether in Dnipropetrovsk, then, whether in Kiev.
Epicenter Shift

Looking for a more credible source for essentially the same information? If so, perhaps the well-established Ukrainian news site Vesti will suffice.

Vesti reports The epicenter of the fighting in the Donbass shifted south of Donetsk region
In the Donetsk region fighting continues, however, according to recent reports, the battle moved to the south of the region. Resources DNR reported that there are fights under Volnovaha and in the battalion "Dnepr" say that the fighting is taking place in the village Markino. 
Vesti also reports Mariupol in panic because of the possible capture of the city by DNR.
August 25, Mariupol faced a wave of panic. People hastily leave the port city, which temporarily moved not only many of Donetsk, but also employees of Donetsk Regional State Administration Governor Sergei Taruta. 
Blame the Messenger

Curiously, people blame me for these reports. They challenge the alleged biased nature of the maps, even though the first map highlighted a possible Ukraine army surge.

My statement from yesterday stands "If these reports are accurate, the Ukrainian forces are in serious trouble."

That is not a pro-Putin statement, a pro-Russia statement or anything of the like. It is a simple statement of fact.

That said, I do find these sources more credible than anything coming from Ukraine, the Financial Times, or Western mainstream media.

March to the Sea

Once again, here is a map of the area around the Sea of Azov (also shown yesterday).



"The Sea of Azov, a northern extension of the Black Sea, is located on the southern coastlines of Russia and Ukraine. Though somewhat difficult to navigate because of its shallowness, significant levels of freight and passenger traffic do flow through the port cities of Berdyans'k, Mariupol, Taganrog and Yeysk."

Escape From Mariupol



I believe the tide in this war has changed in a massive way, and it will change even more if rebels take Mariupol as now appears likely given the scale of recent rebel advances.

Questions of the Day

  • The war was supposed to be over in May, in June, in Jul, and in August. Is it over yet? Is it even close to being over?
  • Are the rebels surrounded or are Ukrainian forces trapped? 
  • When do people stop believing lies from Kiev? 
  • Was the battle against Federalism worth it? 
  • Was the destruction in Donetsk, Lugansk, and other places a "small price" in the name of unity and peace? To whom?

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

French Government Dissolves in Dispute Between PM Valls and Economy Minister Montebourg

Posted: 25 Aug 2014 11:47 AM PDT

Economy minister Arnaud Montebourg stepped over the line last weekend criticizing the policies of president Francois Hollande. Some sources report that prime minister Manuel Valls gave Hollande a "him or me" ultimatum, but Valls disputes that claim.

Regardless, France Thrown Into Political Turmoil After Government Dissolved.
France has entered uncharted political waters after the prime minister, Manuel Valls, presented his government's resignation amid a political crisis triggered by his maverick economy minister who called for an end to austerity policies imposed by Germany.

The prime minister, a social democrat who has been compared to Tony Blair, acted with characteristic swiftness in a bid to reassert his authority. His aides had let it be known on Sunday that the economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, had crossed a "yellow line" for his dual crime of criticising both the president of France and a valued ally.

Montebourg, 51, fired his first broadside in an interview with Le Monde on Saturday and followed up with a speech to a Socialist party rally the following day. In a veiled reference to President François Hollande, he said that conformism was an enemy and "my enemy is governing". "France is a free country which shouldn't be aligning itself with the obsessions of the German right," he said, urging a "just and sane resistance".

He was joined in his criticism by the education minister Benoit Hamon, who on Monday denied that he had been disloyal. A third minister, Aurélie Filipetti, also appeared in danger of losing her job after wishing a "good day" on Twitter to her two dissident colleagues.

Hollande, who is politically weakened with his approval rating at an all-time low of 17%, asked Valls to form a new government "consistent with the direction set for the country", which is expected to be announced on Tuesday. Valls has pledged to stick to a course in which deficits would be cut while the tax burden on businesses would be eased, bringing him into conflict with the left wing of the party represented by Montebourg. The changes have not yet been carried out, unemployment is at nearly 11% and growth in 2014 is forecast to be only 0.5%.

Insurrection Forces François Hollande to Act

The Financial Times reports Insurrection Forces François Hollande to Act.
François Hollande, a politician renowned for his caution, acted with uncharacteristic speed on Monday to shake up his Socialist government after a weekend of provocative insurrection by Arnaud Montebourg, his most voluble leftwing minister.

The Elysée Palace denied French media reports that Manuel Valls, the uncompromising prime minister appointed only five months ago, had delivered a "him or me" ultimatum to the president, forcing Mr Hollande's hand.

But Mr Hollande was left with little choice after Mr Montebourg – the economy minister – denounced government economic policy and threw in a few unsubtle barbs aimed at the "extreme" austerity championed by German chancellor Angela Merkel.

A rumbling rebellion within Socialist ranks now has a new champion in the form of Mr Montebourg for its call for more demand-side measures and relegation of cutting the budget deficit in the list of policy priorities. By contrast, on the mainstream centre-right – and from the EU – there is pressure to go further and faster in implementing structural reforms.

Meanwhile, the far right in the form of the National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, threatens to build on its success in winning the European parliamentary elections in May with its populist calls for both tax cuts and sustained public spending.

Mr Valls' first task when he forms his second new government since April is to win a parliamentary vote of confidence – followed by a vote on the 2015 budget due to be tabled in September that will contain more than €20bn in spending cuts.

The Socialist rebels could put this in jeopardy if they choose to vote against the government. But Mr Hollande and Mr Valls are clearly betting that the dissidents will stay their collective hand faced with the alternative: a dissolution of parliament that would lead to a certain Socialist defeat in new elections and the prospect of a centre-right government ruling in "cohabitation" with Mr Hollande.
Socialists can easily take down parliament in a vote of confidence. Will they?

Hollande is going down in flames at the end of his term regardless. Might the socialists prefer to get some of this out of the way now? That's what it all boils down to.

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