Microsoft launched Bing a few months back to replace MSN. Bing is working very hard to be competitive with Google and they are doing very well. Steadily over the months we are seeing Bing bring more and more organic (unpaid) traffic to our websites. Some locations are seeing very close numbers between the amount of traffic Google and Bing bring in. Prior to Bing, MSN hardly made a dent in our organic traffic numbers.
So we can't help but take this opportunity to ask, "Have you checked on your Bing listings lately to ensure it's optimized to bring traffic to your site?"
Please ensure the website listed is for your new URL, not the old landing pages. Upload updated facility pictures or new services you may offer. Post a new special you are running on your business listing.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Future is Now
Be sure to make your plans, if you have not already made them, to be at the National Convention on October 23rd through the 25th. I have been talking to Felix and they are pulling all stops to make this a convention to remember. The focus is to set the course of the company for future growth.
See you in Greenville.
See you in Greenville.
Friday, September 18, 2009
How the ‘Failure to Success Model’ Should Work
There are three components to the ‘Failure to Success Model’: Fail Frequently, Fail Fast, and Fail Frugally.
1. Fail Frequently. If you are not failing you are not taking enough risk. Complacency is the nectar of permanent and unrecoverable failure. Venture capitalists plan for failure. In order to identify big ideas VCs invest in unproven ideas knowing full well that 8 or 9 investments out of 10 are going to fail. Entrepreneurs that try different things in marketing, operations and personnel without having all the answers will build powerful, efficient and profitable companies.
2. Fail Fast. When you realize something is not working - cut your losses. Too often there is too much emotional investment in a project or a plan, to be able to separate the emotion from what the data reveals. For example, Sony had engineers in the company that realized the digital download of music was the future of the Walkman, a product that Sony had developed into a dominate brand and category leader. Management viewed the development of a new business format for the Walkman as destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of profits. The myopic decision was made to continue with the existing Walkman business model to milk profits, even when the data pointed in a different direction. The result: the iPod and the crippling of a once brand dominant company. Why: Unwillingness to fail fast and to hang on to an emotional investment for Sony not only cost them billions but nearly destroyed the company.
3. Fail Frugally. When experimenting with operations, marketing ideas and processes do not bet the family farm on these new ideas. Do as GE, Google or Apple do. Allow individuals freedom to try new things that are incremental in scope and then reward success and praise failure. This leads to a culture of innovation that can eventually be the birthing of big ideas that can change the course of a company or add significant profits to the bottom line.
Failure is not an option, it is a requirement. Just do it frequently, fast and frugally and big successes are inevitable.
1. Fail Frequently. If you are not failing you are not taking enough risk. Complacency is the nectar of permanent and unrecoverable failure. Venture capitalists plan for failure. In order to identify big ideas VCs invest in unproven ideas knowing full well that 8 or 9 investments out of 10 are going to fail. Entrepreneurs that try different things in marketing, operations and personnel without having all the answers will build powerful, efficient and profitable companies.
2. Fail Fast. When you realize something is not working - cut your losses. Too often there is too much emotional investment in a project or a plan, to be able to separate the emotion from what the data reveals. For example, Sony had engineers in the company that realized the digital download of music was the future of the Walkman, a product that Sony had developed into a dominate brand and category leader. Management viewed the development of a new business format for the Walkman as destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of profits. The myopic decision was made to continue with the existing Walkman business model to milk profits, even when the data pointed in a different direction. The result: the iPod and the crippling of a once brand dominant company. Why: Unwillingness to fail fast and to hang on to an emotional investment for Sony not only cost them billions but nearly destroyed the company.
3. Fail Frugally. When experimenting with operations, marketing ideas and processes do not bet the family farm on these new ideas. Do as GE, Google or Apple do. Allow individuals freedom to try new things that are incremental in scope and then reward success and praise failure. This leads to a culture of innovation that can eventually be the birthing of big ideas that can change the course of a company or add significant profits to the bottom line.
Failure is not an option, it is a requirement. Just do it frequently, fast and frugally and big successes are inevitable.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Bing Pay Per Click Accounts
This month we've started a new PPC Campaign on Bing, the Adcenter Account we are testing out is for Las Vegas. The process was streamlined from our current Google Adwords Campaigns which made creating the account go quickly.
However there is still a learning curve we are adjusting to. It took the folks over at Microsoft nearly 3 weeks to review our campaign and approve it for active ads due to the "Drug Content". The manual review process they currently have is a headache.
We are currently trying to find a happy medium in our bidding as well. We want to ensure we have a good position without under or over bidding. This will take some time. Our campaign for Las Vegas has currently been active for one week now. We will follow up with results in coming weeks.
However there is still a learning curve we are adjusting to. It took the folks over at Microsoft nearly 3 weeks to review our campaign and approve it for active ads due to the "Drug Content". The manual review process they currently have is a headache.
We are currently trying to find a happy medium in our bidding as well. We want to ensure we have a good position without under or over bidding. This will take some time. Our campaign for Las Vegas has currently been active for one week now. We will follow up with results in coming weeks.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Newsletter Issue #2
On Wednesday, September 2nd our second newsletter was sent out to all the customers you have requested it be sent to.
Here’s the link for this most recent issue: http://www.accudiagnostics.com/newsletter/Sept_09/NASCAR_testing_policy.html.
For any past and future issues of the newsletter, you can always view them from the main newsletter site at: http://www.accudiagnostics.com/newsletter/.
Our next issue will go out in November.
Here’s the link for this most recent issue: http://www.accudiagnostics.com/newsletter/Sept_09/NASCAR_testing_policy.html.
For any past and future issues of the newsletter, you can always view them from the main newsletter site at: http://www.accudiagnostics.com/newsletter/.
Our next issue will go out in November.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The ‘Failure to Success’ Model
The ‘Failure to Success Model’ is not complicated but it is difficult to implement because there is so much emotional capital invested in failures. It is not uncommon for an entrepreneur to internalize failure and take it personally. When this happens it is difficult to separate failure as a process from failure being a personal short coming. Failure should never be taken personally. Failure should be viewed as an opportunity to learn and then use that knowledge to move closer to success. Tom Edison viewed failure being one step closer to the right solution. One of his all time great quotes is, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
You will fail. Being an entrepreneur guarantees it because you do not have all of the answers. Get use to it. The real question an entrepreneur needs to sort out is, “How am I going to handle failure?”
Next Blog Post: How the Failure Model Should Work
You will fail. Being an entrepreneur guarantees it because you do not have all of the answers. Get use to it. The real question an entrepreneur needs to sort out is, “How am I going to handle failure?”
Next Blog Post: How the Failure Model Should Work
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Culture of Creativity, Brainstorming and Innovation
Why do two companies with the same type of product in the same industry turn out to be so different? Let me share with you an example that recently unfolded before our eyes.
Company #1 started in 1994 and was one of the pioneer companies in their field. They were wildly successful. They were heralded as a new breed of company after only few years in business. They crushed many of the other early entrants in their industry.
Company #2 started in 1998 as a company that was initially funded by a government grant to index books for public libraries. During the library project the founders noted that the most popular books were often frequently referenced in many other books. They designed an algorithm to index the references as well as the books. This allowed them to rank the popularity of the books in the library by how many references a book had in other books. This concept of relevance became a basis for a new technology for ranking all sorts of information. This new concept of ranking based on relevance vs. traditional methods of indexing changed how data could be found by ranking of relevance.
The companies continued to grow on different paths. One company seemed to become intoxicated with their early success and began to morph into more of a traditional company business model after other successful companies in related fields. They even hired a big time CEO from one of these traditional companies.
Company #2 focused on their new technology hiring the brightest people they could find, which was easy to do during the .com bubble popping in 2000-2002. Both companies survived the Internet bust but by taking vastly different paths.
Company #1 continued to grow but at a much slower rate. Company #1 allowed their employees to work one day a week on anything they found interesting. Out of this culture of creativity, brainstorming, originality and innovation comes huge new ideas as well as some real bombs.
Fast forward to 2008-2009.
The headlines read:
August of 2008 Yahoo (Company #1) turns down a $42B offer from Microsoft. Nine months later the founder/CEO is fired and a new CEO is hired to save the company. The stock plummets 80% from the time of the Microsoft offer shedding tens of billions of dollars of value. The new CEO strikes a deal with Microsoft for no money invested (down from $42B) but a partnership to join forces and share revenue in order to compete with Google on search.
Google (Company #2) continues to build market share and innovate and commands nearly 70% market share of the Internet search market. Google ranks as the company that took the shortest time to become a billion dollar company. In fact, in March of 2009 Google’s market capitalization of $108B surpassed GE’s (a 100 yr old company and considered the platinum standard for all blue chip companies).
Same business, different philosophy. It is amazing what the right vision, focus, attitude and bright people can do.
Although your company, or the company that you may build in the future, may not be a Google, you need to consider the lesson of these two companies...be staid and traditional or focus, innovative and create a culture for brainstorming and the expectation that everyone that you hire be optimistic and think outside of the box and then reward that behavior.
Company #1 started in 1994 and was one of the pioneer companies in their field. They were wildly successful. They were heralded as a new breed of company after only few years in business. They crushed many of the other early entrants in their industry.
Company #2 started in 1998 as a company that was initially funded by a government grant to index books for public libraries. During the library project the founders noted that the most popular books were often frequently referenced in many other books. They designed an algorithm to index the references as well as the books. This allowed them to rank the popularity of the books in the library by how many references a book had in other books. This concept of relevance became a basis for a new technology for ranking all sorts of information. This new concept of ranking based on relevance vs. traditional methods of indexing changed how data could be found by ranking of relevance.
The companies continued to grow on different paths. One company seemed to become intoxicated with their early success and began to morph into more of a traditional company business model after other successful companies in related fields. They even hired a big time CEO from one of these traditional companies.
Company #2 focused on their new technology hiring the brightest people they could find, which was easy to do during the .com bubble popping in 2000-2002. Both companies survived the Internet bust but by taking vastly different paths.
Company #1 continued to grow but at a much slower rate. Company #1 allowed their employees to work one day a week on anything they found interesting. Out of this culture of creativity, brainstorming, originality and innovation comes huge new ideas as well as some real bombs.
Fast forward to 2008-2009.
The headlines read:
August of 2008 Yahoo (Company #1) turns down a $42B offer from Microsoft. Nine months later the founder/CEO is fired and a new CEO is hired to save the company. The stock plummets 80% from the time of the Microsoft offer shedding tens of billions of dollars of value. The new CEO strikes a deal with Microsoft for no money invested (down from $42B) but a partnership to join forces and share revenue in order to compete with Google on search.
Google (Company #2) continues to build market share and innovate and commands nearly 70% market share of the Internet search market. Google ranks as the company that took the shortest time to become a billion dollar company. In fact, in March of 2009 Google’s market capitalization of $108B surpassed GE’s (a 100 yr old company and considered the platinum standard for all blue chip companies).
Same business, different philosophy. It is amazing what the right vision, focus, attitude and bright people can do.
Although your company, or the company that you may build in the future, may not be a Google, you need to consider the lesson of these two companies...be staid and traditional or focus, innovative and create a culture for brainstorming and the expectation that everyone that you hire be optimistic and think outside of the box and then reward that behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
