Corporate cash does funny things to people. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) got into office by pledging to fight "special interests," but just a decade or so later, he's running one of the biggest special interest shows in Washington. It's easy to see the appeal. As the fancy funding backing the Tea Party demonstrates, big money buys big things—from elections to populist outrage.
In a piece for Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard details some of DeMint's serious campaign finance flip-floppery. During his first bid for Congress in 1998, DeMint denounced the Political Action Committee (PAC) mechanism as a tool deployed by "special interests" that "corrupts" the electoral process. But today, DeMint is the single most important figure and fundraiser for Senate Tea Party races. He has endorsed and pledged millions of dollars to support fringe right-wingers Senate candidates Christine O'Donnell (Delaware) and Rand Paul (Kentucky). DeMint has funneled this money through his own Political Action Committee (PAC) known as the Senate Conservatives Fund. DeMint even pledged to "fight for reforms that allow only individual contributions to campaigns."
But as I note in a blog for Campaign for America's Future, DeMint isn't the only power player pouring money into the Tea Party. DeMint's 12 Tea Party Senate candidates have reaped over $4.6 million from Wall Street for this election—excluding Wall Street cash that has been funneled through DeMint's PAC. So much for all that grassroots rage against bailed-out elites.
The Tea Party bubble
And Wall Street's new Tea Party investment might just be the next big economic bubble. Joshua Holland at AlterNet surveys the campaign contributions of America's bailout barons. The 23 firms that received at least $1 billion in bailout money from taxpayers spent $1.4 million on campaign contributions—in September alone.
And these are just campaign contributions, which are essentially unaffected by the high court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The real corporate money is running through front-groups that run their own ads—not the official campaigns operated by political candidates. And these front-groups don't have to disclose where their money comes from.
Writing for Campus Progress, Simeon Tally highlights a frightening trend toward secrecy in U.S. elections, fueled by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Back in 2004, 98 percent of outside groups disclosed who their donors were. Today, that number is just 32 percent. We're not just fighting corporate money bombs, we're fighting secret corporate money bombs.
Who really has the advantage?
While there's been much debate over who really comes out on top thanks to the post-Citizens United rules, Jesse Zwick notes for The Washington Independent, these stories are only talking about direct campaign contributions. Some might argue that Democrats have an advantage in disclosed funding, but Republicans have a six-to-one advantage money flowing through outside groups.
But wait, there's more!
- Check out Matthew Reichbach and Trip Jennings' reporting for The New Mexico Independent on the fact that all of this spending from outside groups usually means money from outside the states where candidates are running. Outside expenditures have swelled to $5 million in two New Mexico House races—both in relatively cheap media markets.
- AlterNet has been running loads of stories on crooked corporate cash, covering everything from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's dirty dealings with AIG to the political spending habits of bailed-out banks. Joshua Holland rounds up eight of the articles here for AlterNet.
- Comic artist Matt Bors makes light of America's new "growth industries" at Campus Progress, pointing to makers of anonymous political attack ads.
To support a margin compression theory, the article begins by using institutional selling as proof and presents increasing Android market share as an argument. Let’s take a closer look.
1. Institutional Selling
The two examples provided (one institution selling and another expressing worry) are insufficient to support the conclusion that big money has started to dump Apple. What’s happening in the aggregate? Might other institutions have initiated positions or increased their holdings? Unless this table (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=AAPL&selected=AAPL&FormType=Institutional) is out of date (It does include Capital Growth Management’s sale.), there is no significant net change in the number of shares held by institutions.
Now, one could argue that CGM’s Heebner and FEAM’s Obuchowski are such stellar managers that their opinion warrants special attention. Well, Heebner’s CGM Focus fund is only a two-star Morningstar rated fund (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CGMFX+Profile). Heebner “knows how to count”, as the author writes, I suppose, but he doesn’t know how to outperform; Obuchowski’s FEAM50 (http://www.1empiream.com/FEAM50_Q3%2010.pdf) and APA125 (http://www.1empiream.com/apa.htm) funds have beaten their benchmark. However, he’s expressed concern about holding Apple two years from now. He hasn’t sold yet.
The article hence doesn’t provide either quantitative (as the number of shares held has not changed significantly) or qualitative (as no star manager is cited as selling) evidence of big money starting to dump Apple because of margin compression. For the one under performing manager cited for selling, no reason is provided. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence for net institutional selling of Apple, period.
2. Increased Android Market Share
With a 35% profit share in 2009 (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-pro...), the hardware industry's highest, hasn’t Apple been successful in the personal computer market? I would say so, and yet it had only captured a 7% market share. How has it accomplished this feat? By offering something different that consumers value at a premium.
The author writes: “Jobs also (understandably) failed to mention that the “commodity’ Androids materially outperform the iOS products in terms of features and functionality. This is pretty much in direct contravention to the concept of the term “commodity”, isn’t it???? I don’t think many Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X or HTC Evo owners will characterize their devices as “commodities”.”
A product’s characterization as a commodity is not a function of the quality of its features and functionality or user opinions thereof. The Android clones are commodities because there’s fundamentally little difference between them. One might have a bigger screen, another longer battery life, and yet another a thinner form factor, but they all run the same OS and hence offer the same functionality. If an innovative feature proves popular, it can quickly be duplicated. There’s little that sets one phone apart from the other. They are interchangeable. As such, they must compete on price. You might prefer the Galaxy S, but settle for a Droid if its price is sufficiently lower to sway you. Their makers will generate lower profit margins, just like Windows PC makers.
The iPhone, on the other hand, offers something different: superior aesthetics, greater ease of use, no bloatware, superior integration with related products (Mac & iPad), a certain prestige, but mainly a distinct OS. It offers the whole package. Its hardware competitors might best or equal some features, but not the whole. If you value this different product, you can only buy from Apple. By maintaining full control of the iPhone experience, Apple prevents it from becoming a commodity like all the Android clones and, so long as it’s able to produce a superior experience on the whole, ensures premium pricing and high profit margins.
The author also writes: “…its business model may prove unassailable unless Apple makes some drastic changes (ex. allowing cloning)…”
What if Apple did pursue the Google model and licensed its OS? If it allowed iOS clones, it would cannibalize its sales and its margins would be obliterated, as it would lose its main differentiator. Would it be able to keep generating a $238 profit per phone (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-to-view-unit-profitability-vs-volume-in-handsets/)? In light of the fact that Google is giving Android away, it’s highly unlikely.
Android has already won. The battle for market or unit share, that is. Apple will henceforth never sell as many phones. That’s OK because Apple will probably keep generating the lion’s share of profits (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/) by executing a business model proven successful with the Mac.
As it reaches critical mass, Google’s model might indeed become unassailable. No other company will beat Google at its game. Apple has chosen to play a different game that might also be unassailable. They’re two different ways to win. Google will attempt to monetize Android through market share dominance, while Apple will maintain its profit share dominance among hardware makers through innovation and differentiation. Apple’s margins will suffer significantly only if it’s unable to keep offering something different, valued at a premium by consumers.
In short, the article fails to show an institutional dump of Apple shares. It doesn’t even show that the one (marginally competent) institutional manager mentioned for selling did so because of expected margin compression. Moreover, it is misguided in using Android’s unit share dominance to deduce margin compression at Apple. Apple’s profit margin will only suffer significant compression if it fails in the execution of its business model.
To further the analysis, is Google’s licensing model superior to Apple’s integrated model, as many seem to believe? In the personal computer market, Microsoft made money by selling Windows to hardware makers. In the mobile phone market, Google is giving Android away, while planning to monetize market share dominance through services (search and others). The hurdles it faces with this model are not insignificant. Its lack of control over its OS is a liability: witness Verizon’s pre-installation of Bing on some Android phones (http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Bing-Wont-Be-Exclusive-On-All-Android-Phones-110294). Its platform is a customizable OS that hardware makers and wireless carriers can tailor to suit their own ends, which may be to Google’s detriment, and they don’t have to pay for it. Its success is far from assured. Might Google be going back to producing its own branded phone because its current strategy is proving difficult to monetize (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/this-is-the-nexus-s/)?
Apple, on the other hand, is already monetizing the iPhone. As a matter of fact, it made as much money in Q3 2010 as all other phone makers combined (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/), in spite of commanding only 4% market share. Apple won both the unit share and profit share battle in MP3 players with the iPod, as no worthy competitor came forth. This is not the case in smart phones with the emergence of Android. Nonetheless, the Mac, with 35% of PC profit share in spite of only 7% market share, has proven that Apple’s model can thrive even in the face of strong competition.
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
When researching SEO companies, it is tempting to choose any company willing to offer guaranteed SEO services. It is human nature - people love a guarantee. This holds especially true for purchases where the buyer is purchasing something outside of his or her area of comfort. When companies first consider pursuing search engine optimization (SEO) as a potential marketing channel, particularly when there is an ongoing cost involved, they get a sense of comfort from purchasing "guaranteed SEO." Unfortunately, with many SEO companies, this confidence in the guarantee is ill-placed.
A lot of questionable SEO companies offer what I like to refer to as a "leprechaun repellent" guarantee. In other words, it's a guarantee that is easily attainable - if you purchase such services and are not subsequently harassed by a pesky leprechaun, the guarantee has been met. How can you complain?
The truth is that SEO companies do not control the major search engines, and any firm that claims to have a "special relationship" that gives it sway over the natural search engine results is simply counting on your ignorance. Fortunately, this does not mean that guaranteed SEO is impossible, especially when the guarantee has to do with aggregate results and the methods used to achieve them.
What follows is a partial list of some of the more popular types of guaranteed SEO out there - some of them roughly as useful as leprechaun repellent, and some of them actually meaningful.
Questionable Guarantees
The "Leprechaun Repellent" Keyphrases Guarantee
Many SEO companies boast that they will achieve a certain number of top rankings in the organic results of major search engines. This type of guaranteed SEO can be tempting, especially to those who are investigating SEO companies for the first time. After all, high rankings are what it's all about, right? Isn't that the goal?
The answer is an emphatic "No." Quality SEO companies will point out that the real goal is to bring high quality traffic to your site. It's quite simple to guarantee top positions if you choose non-competitive or obscure phrases - for example, "leprechaun repellent." Want proof? Enter "leprechaun repellent into your favorite search engine. You will almost certainly find this article dominating the results (caveat - if you are reading this article immediately after its release, the search engines may not have indexed it yet. Wait a week and try again.).
It is extremely easy for SEO companies to achieve high search engine positions for phrases that nobody uses. Such rankings might impress your friends and neighbors, but they won't send you quality traffic. They likely won't send you any traffic at all. It's important to note that the phrase "leprechaun repellent" is used only for demonstrative purposes. Many unpopular phrases may not sound absurd. There are surely countless phrases out there that sound extremely relevant to your business that are never typed into search engines. Good SEO companies will avoid such phrases. "Leprechaun repellent" practitioners will embrace them - it allows them to attain their worthless guarantees.
There is also another aspect of this type of guaranteed SEO in which SEO companies will guarantee you first place positions on unspecified search engines for more competitive phrases. Unfortunately, this type of guaranteed SEO often involves obscure engines that have very little market share and are not sophisticated enough to quickly eliminate web pages that use spam tactics. In a few documented cases, the guarantees involved search engines that the SEO companies actually owned and operated!
There are really only three major search engines at present - Google, Yahoo, and MSN. There are a handful of minor engines that are also worth mentioning, including Ask Jeeves and AOL Search. Any guaranteed SEO should involve prominent engines, not obscure ones.
The "Company Name" Guarantee
There is also a common guarantee that shady SEO companies will use that guarantees that a company will show up for a search on its company name. This, much like the "leprechaun repellent" flavor of guaranteed SEO, offers no real value. Sure, if your company name is "Acme," it may actually be competitive - but chances are that if your website does not already show up near the top of the search engine results for a search on your company name, there is an easily fixed technical glitch that will resolve the issue. Quality SEO companies will address this area immediately. Moreover, ranking highly for your company name, while obviously desirable, provides only a tiny fraction of the potential value of search engine marketing. The real benefit for most companies is that search engine marketing attracts potential buyers who are not already familiar with the company name. Unless your company is a household name, it is unlikely that having your company name figure prominently in the results is going to have a huge impact on your business.
The Pay-Per-Click Guarantee
Some SEO companies will offer guaranteed SEO services that promise top positions for certain keyphrases on popular engines, but they are counting on dealing with prospects who do not understand the difference between natural search engine results and pay-per-click (PPC) advertising. With PPC, it is very easy to guarantee a number one result, but this result will appear in the "paid" or "sponsored" results of the engine. Say, for example, that your company installs custom swimming pools. While a competitive phrase like "custom pools" might be difficult to achieve in organic results, the SEO company is not concerned with organic results. All it has to do is outbid the current highest bidder (using your money, of course), and your site will show up as number one in the "sponsored" results. Studies have indicated that sponsored results are held in a lower regard than natural results by savvy web searchers who recognize them as advertising. Also, as soon as you stop paying, your ranking disappears.
The "Submit Your Site to 50,000 Search Engines" Guarantee
There are many variations on this offer, primarily involving the number of engines promised. Regardless of the number, this is probably the most pervasive and persistent type of "guaranteed SEO," and it is basically a scam that preys on ignorance.
Companies that believe that they have high quality websites are predisposed to believe that the only thing holding them back from search engine success is that the search engines do not yet know that their sites exist. However, search engines measure quality in a much different way than a website owner does. A properly optimized site does not need to be submitted to search engines at all (I refer to actual "spider-based" search engines such as Yahoo, Google, and MSN, not human-edited directories such as Business.com, the Yahoo Directory, and the Open Directory Project). Engines prefer to find sites on their own.
This "solution" offers no real value, except of course to the SEO companies offering the service. Also, as previously mentioned, there are not 50,000 search engines - or at least 50,000 search engines worth worrying about. Do SEO companies that offer this service meet this guarantee? Certainly - they use automated programs to do the submissions. Is this type of guaranteed SEO worthwhile? Not for search engine positions, but it may keep leprechauns at bay.
Meaningful Guarantees
Given the preponderance of "guaranteed SEO" that is meaningless, the seemingly Wild West nature of the industry, and the reality that SEO companies do not control the results of any major engine, it may seem that guaranteed SEO can never be a worthwhile endeavor. However, this is not the case. If you note the examples above, they are primarily involved in specifics - top positions, a certain number of submissions, a certain number of engines. However, good SEO companies, understanding that they have no control over individual results, should be confident enough in the results of their work in aggregate and in the safety of the methodologies that they use to offer guaranteed SEO that lives up to its promise.
The Custom Guarantee
In very rare cases, certain skilled, experienced SEO companies will be able to develop for you a custom guarantee derived from the analysis of your current traffic data, the competitiveness of your industry, and the status of your site. You will ideally be offered this type of specialized guarantee from the beginning of your dealings with an SEO firm because it ensures that you will be achieving targeted, meaningful results based on your specific situation, rather than on generalities that could apply to any business in any industry. Some SEO companies may tell you that a custom guarantee is not possible because they have no direct control over search engine results. However, SEO companies who have been in business for a while know how to weather the algorithm shifts and understand that there is more than one popular search engine. Such a firm will be confident enough to create and back a custom guarantee for you.
The Targeted Traffic Guarantee
SEO companies dedicated to showing value to their clients will take a baseline reading of current search engine traffic at the outset of a campaign. While, as previously mentioned, SEO companies do not hold sway over search engine results, they should at least be confident enough in their overall skills to promise that their clients will see an increase in targeted search engine traffic based on popular phrases relevant to the business. If the firm offering this type of guaranteed SEO charges on a monthly basis, any month of the engagement where traffic for targeted phrases does not, at a minimum, exceed the baseline should not be charged. After all, you are paying on a monthly basis to protect and improve your positions. While major algorithm shifts that make results on individual results unstable can and do happen, they rarely happen on all engines at once. You should feel confident that the firm you are paying has a very vested interest in making sure it adapts to the changing nature of search engine algorithms, and few things inspire such confidence as knowing that it will not get paid otherwise. If your prospective firm is unwilling to at least guarantee that it will send increased traffic to your website from targeted phrases, every month, it may be time to look elsewhere.
The "White Hat" Guarantee
SEO companies are commonly broken up into two camps - "white hats" (practitioners who remain solidly within the search engine's stated terms of service) and "black hats" (practitioners who work to unravel the latest search engine algorithms and base their optimization techniques largely on technology, regardless of the engine's terms of service). Both approaches are legitimate - after all, there is nothing illegal about exploiting a technical loophole for results. However, black hat SEO companies put their clients at risk of penalization or even outright banishment from the major engines. Getting back in can be a long process, and sometimes it is not possible at all. If you are concerned about potential penalization, get a guarantee from your firm that they adhere to the stated terms of service of all major search engines. If you can (and this is rare), get a guarantee that your site will not be penalized through any action of the SEO firm. This is harder for a company to offer, since the major engines frequently update their terms of service, and techniques that are acceptable today can be deemed unacceptable tomorrow. However, a confident firm that always errs on the side of caution when optimizing client websites will offer this type of guaranteed SEO services, since it will not use techniques that have a potential for penalization in the future.
Abusing the Metaphor (Beating a Dead Leprechaun)
Guarantees have been around for at least as long as leprechauns have been hoarding breakfast cereal and starring in bad horror films. So have guarantees that are essentially meaningless but sound respectable. A good guarantee should not only appeal to the base emotion of a potential purchaser, but it should also afford some real protection that the purchase he or she is making will provide meaningful results. Many of the most popular types of guaranteed SEO do not, and that's a shame. The industry already has a questionable reputation due to "leprechaun repellent" practitioners - make sure you don't go chasing their rainbow. After all, it's your pot of gold they are after.
About the Author Scott Buresh is the CEO of Medium Blue, a search engine optimization company. Scott has contributed content to many publications including Building Your Business with Google For Dummies (Wiley, 2004), MarketingProfs, ZDNet, WebProNews, Lockergnome, DarwinMag, SiteProNews, ISEDB.com, and Search Engine Guide. Medium Blue, which was recently named the number one search engine optimization company in the world by PromotionWorld, serves local and national clients, including Boston Scientific, Cirronet, and DS Waters. Visit MediumBlue.com to request a custom SEO guarantee based on your goals and your data. Article Source: |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment