Online Marketing Strategies – EverEffect

We Owe It to Each Other

Posted in online strategies by Thomas Heed on August 31, 2007

Now – more than ever – it’s time that interactive marketing firms band together to promote the entire industry. Our biggest challenge is not each other, but growing competition from the ignorant seeking to take indecent advantage of companies seeking real solutions in the online space.

Albert Einstein once remarked, “Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.” Individuals and companies alike could achieve much more by striving to embody this idea.

What keeps me up at night?

  • A Digital Agency offering “E-Solutions” to prospects. This same agency – selling advice to others – has not revised its own site in nearly two years, and worse, it is not optimized for organic or paid Search. When this was mentioned to the owner, he responded, “I don’t care.”
  • The CEO of a PR Agency writing about Social Media, including a laundry list of popular sites, and touting MySpace as the place to be even as Facebook is poised to surpass it in use and relevance.
  • A group of web developers pushing Second (I call it After) Life on anyone who will listen, despite the fact that only one percent of marketers list such a tactic as desirable.
  • A video production company insisting that the mere presence of videos on a website enhance visitor engagement, regardless of their content, because “they’re entertaining.”
  • An article by another PR Pro touting blogs as a must do, but failing to explain the critical role they can play in driving website traffic.

The problem is that these people are selling stuff, they are not selling solutions.

The approach of such companies, to paraphrase Billy Crystal’s Fernando, seems to be, “It is much better to look good than be good, and darling, your site looks marvelous.”

This attitude makes it exponentially harder for all of us to help companies in real need.

Last week, one of my partners attended a half-day seminar on online strategies. In attendance, a couple hundred local business people eager for insight. The idea of the event sounded pretty good until the speakers started preaching about topics they had never practiced. Afterwards, my partner felt like searching for Ipecac to purge the poison he had just ingested. (Two hundred + people getting bad advice all at once should sicken us all!).

Making stuff to put on the web, especially if they’re neither aligned with corporate objectives nor tied to measurable goals, is not enough. Contrary to Woody Allen’s famous assertion, 80% of success is (not) just showing up (online). No company (client) benefits in the interactive world (wide web) without the full integration of strategy, content, and analytics.

My company recently passed on a significant opportunity. Could we have handled the project? Sure. But providing the solution would have required a significant investment in development time for us and at great expense for the other company. We knew of another firm that had a solution already in place, and at a much lower price point. We referred the prospect to that company … one of our competitors. Why? We would rather gain a prospect’s trust than lose a potential advocate for the industry as a whole.

Whenever someone manages to sell a half-baked scheme everyone bears the full brunt of its inevitable failure. When someone sells a service for the sake of their own — and not their client’s — success, they devalue our entire industry.

If you don’t know what you’re doing, seek help before you seek someone else’s business. If you do know your business, speak out. Be forceful. Be relentless. Help the uninitiated understand the power of interactive marketing. There’s enough business out there for all of us if we just work in concert. If we strive to elevate the industry as one, we shall all soar together.

Who Killed the Internet?

Posted in Uncategorized by Jim Brown on August 26, 2007

“It has stopped evolving. Your Internet experience today is not much different than it was 5 years ago,” said Billionaire Mark Cuban, author of BlogMaverick.

Stopped Evolving???

Mark, four years ago when I started reading your blog, I had to check your website once a week to see if you had updated it. Today, I open up my RSS reader, and all the information I choose to receive is sitting there waiting for me. That alone is a pretty big change in my Internet experience. For a guy who made his money selling to Yahoo – I’d have thought you’d put a little more brain power into your blogging.

The Internet is not dead, and by no means is it boring. The Internet as a platform is replacing the need for traditional mediums such as TV, Radio, Newspapers, and even Billboards. For a platform that has only been commercially available for 13 years, I’d say that is an astounding accomplishment. The Internet allows for the constant evolution of engagement and interactivity.

When is the last time you actually engaged with your TV? Research companies would love for you to believe that the average American spends roughly 26 hours per week in front of the tube. Get real! The TV is a passive medium. Like the radio of old, it is more than less background noise while you eat dinner, talk on the phone, play with your kids, etc.

The internet is changing the way we live. Artificial intelligence, in the realm of personal preferences allows us to see what we want, when we want it, and most importantly – HOW we want it. The Internet is beginning to understand and remember what we do. Some may think this is “Big Brother-esque,” but ultimately it is simplifying our lives.

As cities start becoming blanketed with free or public wi-fi, our “always on” culture will become more and more dependent upon the Internet and its ever expanding advancements.

Mark, you recently posted an entry about how you had forgotten how to write. Could it be that you have forgotten how to use the Internet?

It’s Fourth and Long for Big 10 Network

Posted in Uncategorized by Thomas Heed on August 23, 2007

The Big Ten Network is set to kick-off soon, but few fans will be able to receive it. Why? Because no major cable company wants to carry the freshman network, at least not as part of its basic package.

“The cable companies are playing their favorites, and abusing their power,” scream conference officials.

“We are underwhelmed by the prospect of carrying an overpriced niche channel,” a clever cable industry spokesman would say if such a person existed.

As legendary announcer Keith Jackson often exclaimed, “Fum…ble! Whoa Boy!”

My response to all this, is why waste your time with cable, Big Ten Network? Leave cable on the sidelines.

The Big Ten Network coulda been something, Charley. They coulda been a contenda.

The game plan all along should have been to launch as the first major online sports network. All the necessary pieces are in place. The Big Ten Network’s partner is Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also happens to own a minor online player called MySpace. DirecTV, also owned by Murdoch, will carry the network. AT&T’s U-Verse, the internet video provider, is on board as well. Oh, and AT&T just happens to have a little partnership going with Apple and its iPhone.

Satellite, internet, mobile… hmmm.

It’s not too late (okay, maybe it is) to make halftime adjustments. Here then, are my Big 10 (+ Penn State) Reasons the Network should be online:

Number 10 Cable limits exposure to parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. Yawn. Online provides easy access to millions more Big Ten alumni who now live and work all over the world.

Number 09 Most people won’t want to see an increase in their cable bills just to have access to this network, but many fans would probably drop a buck or two a month for an online subscription.

Number 08 An online network creates a dual revenue stream for its partners (Subscriber-based and ad-driven) just as cable would.

Number 07 CBS proved the viability of such a model with its delivery of NCAA March Madness broadcasts via streaming video. Only insufficient server capacity kept this initiative from becoming a true blockbuster.

Number 06 More Bucky Badger and less Brent Musburger!

Number 05 This “niche” network provides advertisers and marketers with an unsurpassed, rich media-powered playground for true interactivity.

Number 04 Online merchandising @ virtual versions of the conference’s campus bookstores, Booster Clubs, Fan Forums, online video games featuring Big 10 sports and teams (Hey, Michigan doesn’t have to lose to Ohio State in football every year anymore if you’re handling the joystick), and other possibilities too numerous to name here.

Number 03 Ability to track viewer behavior gives new meaning to “time out for a measurement,” and accountability means something to more than just coaches with losing records.

Number 02 Every geek can now claim that he had a cheerleader in his room – On Demand!

And the Number One, Big 10 (+ Penn State) Reason that the Network should be online… Imagine the Social Media possibilities. They could launch as!

The Human Factor

Posted in keyword search,Pay Per Click by Thomas Heed on August 16, 2007

I recently attended an Interactive Marketing Blowout; a day-long series of seminars featuring some of the industry’s best and brightest as presenters / speakers. Much of the focus was on technology and how it is transforming the marketing world. There was very little mention of the human factor.

Overheard during a break in the action, “One of my clients wanted a Pay-Per-Click campaign. If you’re using the right software, it’s no big deal. It only took me five minutes to set the whole thing up.”

One small step for the Adman, one giant loss for his client!

True, software programs facilitate building a keyword list, evaluating Advertiser competition, estimating search volume, and predicting Page Ranking while considering Cost-Per-Click. More data is available, but generally, that’s as far as it goes.

Here’s why The Human Factor matters.

In preparation for an upcoming PPC Campaign, my firm spent five days, not five minutes, performing due diligence. We spent the first 60 minutes with the software tools (Google; Yahoo! Search), and the rest conducting our own searches – word-by-word, site-by-site, link-by-link – on the web. We knew that there was keyword competition, but not who those competitors were. If we had stopped after an hour, we would not have discovered the following:

1) The names of our client’s competitors who were using PPC, what words or terms they were buying, and where. Valuable competitive intelligence.

2) An additional 60 high-performing, product-specific keywords being used on the web, which we used to build out our target list.

3) Bids on some of the most desirable, highly-contested Keywords had not been placed by our client’s competitors, but by vertical-specific associations, directories, and so forth. This insight was leveraged to beef up our Link Back Strategy.

4) Six (previously unknown) new competitors and one that had ceased operations.

5) Several online “Malls” offering competitors’ products and not our client’s. Obviously, this creates additional strategic / tactical opportunities.

6)One competitor is using our client’s brand as a Keyword. Very smart, and an actionable insight, which suggests tactical moves to remedy this.

7) Two Vertical Search opportunities – alternative engines with superior Keyword search volumes and no competition – promising in terms of driving traffic at a reduced CPC.

8) Two vertical-specific Forums, each with more than 15,000 active members, which allowed us to present our client with several more options: pursue Link Back; participate as a knowledge leader; advertise; or, all three?

I could go on and on (I usually do). Of course, we gathered a great deal more data, and we’ll use all of it going forward. Bottom line, we would not have such information if we had ignored The Human Factor in a technology-dominated equation.

The Lion and The Fox

Posted in Analytics,Measurable Results by Thomas Heed on August 8, 2007

Once upon a time, there lived a hungry Lion who found it tough to acquire new customers (to eat). Possessed of an entrepreneurial spirit, he decided to advertise. He spent tens of thousands of dollars on a direct mail campaign, sending coupons to his neighbors inviting them to take advantage of a Free Lunch.

A few animals responded to the offer (about one percent), and came to visit the Lion in his den. Upon their arrival, the King of Beasts promptly devoured them.

An observant Fox quickly discovered the Lion’s trick, but kept his distance.

“Come on in for a bite,” said Mr. Lion.

“No thank you,” replied Mr. Fox. “I see a few footprints entering your establishment, but I don’t see any coming out.”

The Fox liked the Lion’s idea, but thought it needed to be fleshed out a little. He hired an Interactive Marketing Agency, and the nice people there helped him develop a strategic approach for lead generation and presented him with some killer creative to make it work.

First, the Fox threw a Jungle Block Party, and used the event to warn other animals about the Lion’s ploy. Once he had the trust of his fellow animals, it was easy for Mr. Fox to amass a huge, permission-based list of Subscribers for his email Nutritional Guide.

Next, Mr. Fox segmented his new list and emailed relevant messages to his Subscribers: Rabbits received an offer for free carrots; Squirrels an offer for free acorns; and, the local Bullfrog population an offer for free flies.

The response was overwhelming, nearly four times the weighted animal industry average! Animals — including a number of cranes lured by an offer of free minnows — flocked to Mr. Fox’s den where they received their free goodies, and were then (post-fattening up) eaten by the sly marketing exec.

Mr. Fox soon had more food than he could handle.

Fortunately, Mr. Fox’s advisors had helped him develop a post-send strategy to monetize the results of his campaign, which included the creation of a Diner’s Club for other Foxes. Membership fees alone more than covered the expense of his email initiative.

And the Lion? Mr. Fox’s warning, and the cost of his Direct Mail campaign, soon left Mr. Lion with no cash and no carrion. Word on the savannahs is that Mr. Lion was forced to accept a gig with an American Zoo to make ends meet.

The moral of our story? It takes a solid strategy to outfox your competition.

Sherlock Holmes: The Case for Web Analytics

Posted in Analytics,Measurable Results by Thomas Heed on August 2, 2007

Virtually everyone has a website these days, but to many, how to maintain a healthy site that generates growing returns remains a mystery. Why? Let’s face it – it’s a crime how many businesses still do not employ analytics to measure program performance, influence website enhancements, or drive profitability.

You may have a cool site, but if you’re failing to turn traffic into conversions, you need to do some real detective work.

Want to improve your website’s ROI? Consider hiring an online detective (web analytics expert). Someone who can uncover the clues behind your lack of conversions; someone who understands how to solve your problems by turning enigmatic information into real solutions. Consider hiring someone like … Sherlock Holmes.

Had Holmes been created today, instead of 1881, he would have been a web analytics guy and not a Deductive Detective. I offer the following quotes as proof positive:

Web Analytics is the Ultimate Brain Game

Holmes: “I cannot live without brain-work. What else is there to live for?”

Holmes: “What is the use of powers, when one has no field upon which to exert them? Crime is commonplace … “

If Holmes considered crime commonplace, no other field today would offer him the continuous challenge afforded by web analytics. Talk about brain-work! And heck, the constant, daily demands of this discipline would even curb his desire for cocaine as an alternative to boredom!

Web Analytics Play a Critical Role in Strategic Planning

Holmes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.”

Holmes: “Data! Data! Data! I can’t make bricks without clay.”

Holmes clearly recognized that real insights in the strategic planning process derive from Analytics. Value is created when the right information gets to the right people at the right time so they can make the right decisions to create the right outcomes.

Some Practice Web Analytics Better Than Others

Holmes: “Watson, you see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. “

Holmes: “There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically.”

In other words, lots of people can run reports, but there are too few analysts who know what to make of the metrics. It takes talent, imagination, and creativity to read between the lines and decipher where the actionable insights lie hidden within the stats. Holmes would be singular; that one in fifty.

You Can Analyze Too Many Things

Holmes: “It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize, out of a number of facts, which are incidental and which vital. Otherwise, your energy and attention must be dissipated instead of being concentrated.”

Web Analytics is difficult: too much data; too many reports; not enough deep knowledge; too few real experts; and, not enough time. True, there are dozens of stats that one can analyze, but Holmes would only consider those metrics of vital, not incidental, importance. The result would be real improvements in ROI for his clients.

Holmes Was a Master Communicator

Holmes: “I have been guilty of several monographs. They are all upon technical subjects. Here, for example, is one ‘Upon the Distinction between the Ashes of the Various Tobaccos’. In it I enumerate a hundred and forty forms of cigar, cigarette, and pipe tobacco, with coloured plates illustrating the difference in the ash.”

A monograph on tobacco would be ill-advised in this day and age, but what if Holmes were to focus on SEO and Pay-Per-Click? Imagine the White Papers he could write or the PowerPoint presentations he could create (all with nifty graphs, charts, and illustrations).

The Big Finish

Being a Web Analyst is like being a detective: it is hard, painstaking work that requires real commitment (recommend daily); those who practice it must be able to look at the same facts as others, but often arrive at different conclusions (insight); and, they must be able to recognize, and focus on, only the most critical, relevant information (what often appears trivial to the uninitiated) in order to provide solutions to problems that often seem impossible to overcome (measurable results; ROI). Sherlock Holmes would have been perfect for the job!

Al Ries is Wrong, Part 2

Posted in Conversion by Thomas Heed on July 25, 2007

In my last post – on a dare to evaluate an Al Ries video – I launched into a rather lengthy rant about why the internet would lead to the eventual obsolescence of traditional TV. Leave it to one of my colleagues (thank you, Justin) to make my point much clearer: “It’s not about the convergence of technologies, but the convergence of mediums.”

The main thrust of the Ries Report video was not really about TV-PC convergence, but used it as an example of convergence hype gone awry. He mainly employed the concept of convergence to predict the failure of Apple’s iPhone. “All hype, all hot air, no sales in the long run.”

Let me explain. No, there’s no time. Let me sum up. Al Ries believes that divergence is good; convergence is bad.

To demonstrate divergence, Mr. Ries uses several examples, including telephones: first there were regular phones, then cordless phones, walkie-talkies, and cell phones. He forgot two cans with string stretched out between them …

Convergence? “Well, with all the hype, everyone in the world is running around trying to put two things together that don’t belong together.”

As examples of the dangers inherent in the urge to converge, Mr. Ries – and this was hilarious – runs down a list of convergence failures: a Refrigerator-TV, Radio-Binoculars, Radio-Toaster, Camera-Printer, a Hamburger Hotel (a personal favorite), and MP3 Sunglasses.

Mr. Ries compares Apple’s iPod (divergence) with the iPhone (convergence). The iPod is a divergence device because it was the first high-capacity MP3 player unlike the original, low-capacity, versions. He implies that the iPhone is just another cell phone, and is thus doomed to fail. And here is where – if we use his own thesis – he is wrong.

With the iPhone, Apple has created an interactive user experience that surpasses other smart (cell) phones. Its large, touch screen user interface and internet browsing feature represents true innovation (divergence). Every iPhone feature is a simple touch away, and its screen does not offer a menu bar or other confusing buttons.

If Apple’s iPhone fails – as Mr. Ries suggests – it will not be because it is a “convergence device,” but because of flaws in 1-3 of the 4 Ps (no one can argue with how Promotion has been handled):

  1. The Product does not live up to its hype, or it is not substantially different than other Smart Phones.
  2. The Price is too steep (Up to $599 is a little pricey for a unique fixer-upper).
  3. Placement becomes an issue due to the exclusivity deal with AT&T.

Despite all of its recent marketing coups, don’t forget some Apple blunders: the Apple Lisa (1983), or the more relevant point, their refusal to share the Apple operating system with generic (or other) PC manufacturers, which opened the door for Windows and the explosive Microsoft growth that nearly buried them! The AT&T deal could prove to be equally limiting to the product’s success.

In my opinion, the easy to use, interactive experience with fewer features make the iPhone a divergence device not, as Mr. Ries insists, a convergence one. Look for it to be a big hit.

Chief Digital Officer’s – A Whole New World

Posted in Measurable Results,Strategic Planning by Jim Brown on July 19, 2007

The increasing adoption of a new title, Chief Digital Officer, has signaled the dawn of a new day for marketing. No longer will the web be seen as ‘just another marketing channel.’ Companies will now be able to harness the full ability of interactive marketing.

It wasn’t long ago (okay, so it still happens today), when having a website and sending out a templated mass email was the extent of a company’s online campaign. A former colleague of mine coined the phrase, “make me a website clown!” (Thanks Todd) The fact is, having a website is not just a check in the box for a marketing plan. A website is more than an online brochure. A website has the opportunity to be a living, breathing, element, which can engage a user, and allow them to interact with us the way they choose. Say good-bye to one way communication.

As companies increase their knowledge of the web, they will expect more out of the money they are spending. They will expect strategic planning, effective execution, and most importantly – measurable results! Donald Trump once said, “Hope is not a strategy.” He couldn’t have been more right. It’s great to have a beautifully designed, rich media website, but what happens when visitors arrive and don’t do what you expect them to do? Or worse yet, what happens if no one ever finds your website?

Gone are the days of the tech-savvy IT guy in the corner of the office directing the vision and functionality of a website. It requires a broader understanding of all aspects of a company from sales and marketing, to operations and includes IT. It’s time to challenge the old habits of a company and bring together the entities that formerly worked in silos.

Al Ries is Wrong, Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Thomas Heed on July 17, 2007

An industry peer recently insisted that I view an Al Ries video on the subject of Convergence (, and dared me to dispute his contention that high-tech convergence does not work, and never will.

Before I start, let me first go on record stipulating that Al Ries is one of my personal heroes. In the video, his examples and opinions are funny, insightful, provocative, and in many instances – wrong.

“TV / PC convergence will never happen!” I watched Mr. Ries assert with conviction. In a sense, this is true. The PC will not converge with TV, but disinter mediate it. TV, as we know it, eventually disappears, and the PC becomes TV. Think of the computer as the modern day equivalent of the Model T and Broadcast & Cable TV as the horse and buggy. You get the picture.

Broadcast and Cable TV networks are distribution systems, and TV sets are merely receivers. Broadband, when it reaches its true potential, renders both moot, because it combines (converges) content with distribution. The internet becomes the distribution system, and the PC, in whatever iteration – desktop, laptop, wireless, or hand-held – becomes the receiver. What about screen size? Right now, I can plug my computer in to any flat-panel monitor in the house and watch streaming video on a big screen.

So, TV / PC convergence will never happen? It’s already happening. Need proof?

More than a million visitors watched streaming video of March Madness round one b-ball games on their computers during the first two days of this year’s NCAA Division I Tournament, and these numbers would have been far higher with greater delivery capacity.

I can visit AOL’s in2TV and watch episodes of classic favorites like I Spy, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., and Gilligan’s Island, all for FREE, and in Gateway 24″ Widescreen, Digital splendor!
Sony is now offering mini TV episodes on MySpace. The so-called “Minisode Network,” cuts down sitcoms, dramas, and talk shows into 3-5 three-to-five minute chunks (a sad commentary on the state of episodic TV when one can truncate a sixty-minute show into five minutes without viewers missing anything).

Production companies routinely post TV pilots on the web in an effort to generate enough viewer interest to get them placed on network schedules. I ask, “Who needs the networks?
Later, I discovered that TV Guide has a new online video feature, “What to watch on the web,
” and they boast that they have listings for 13,881 shows. After checking it out, I found thousands of shows on the web that I’d love to watch and will never have the time to. Brilliant!

When confronted with these findings, my peer grudgingly admitted that he never watches Sports Center highlights on cable’s ESPN, but watches them religiously at Absolutely loves the videos and hates the pre-roll ads (hasn’t bothered to watch the last 50!). As an aside, and to recap: never watches on TV; never misses online; and, is immune to the push of pre-roll. My peer is not alone. A staggering percentage of internet video viewers either detest pre-roll ads or dismiss them altogether. Anyone in traditional advertising paying attention? Didn’t think so.

In the end, viewers are loyal to shows (content) not networks (distribution). Do I really need TV networks once image quality, image size, and interactive features catch up to my desire for what I want, how I want it, and when I want it via the web? As long as I can find the content, I don’t care how it gets to me.

Here’s how it might work: a production company posts a new webisode on the internet. A fan of the show, I have subscribed to their RSS feed, which alerts me when the new (original) content is available for viewing, and I check it out at my convenience. Interactivity allows me to pause the show at any time to pursue an interest I might have in a featured product. For instance, I could click on the car a character is driving to see a promotional video of the vehicle in action, or browse through a web-based version of the model’s catalog. I might even make an impulse buy, if I have enough dough and need a new car. And then, it’s back to the irregular, unscheduled webcast.

This scenario won’t play out overnight, but it is coming. Once distribution capacity reaches critical mass, the advertising / marketing community figures out a viable business model, and others develop simplified, menu-driven search, TV goes away.

Mr. Ries covers a lot of ground while discussing his 22 Disputable Laws of Convergence and Divergence.* In upcoming blogs, find out why I believe Mr. Ries has confused convergence with synergy and divergence with innovation; and, why he is mistaken about the future of Apple’s iPhone. Hint: one of the iPhone’s key features is an innovation that – by Mr. Ries’ definition – makes it a divergence device and not a convergence device as he insists.

Stay Tuned.

*My apologies … couldn’t resist.

Are You Local?

Posted in SEO by Jim Brown on July 9, 2007

There has been a lot of chatter lately about ‘local search’ in pay per click advertising and search engine optimization. It seems some people are confused about the differences between geographical local targeting and keyword local targeting.

For educational purposes, lets create a company that we will be attempting to market online. Let’s say we have a landscaping company in Wichita, Kansas, called Premier Lawns. Now, how would we start an online marketing campaign for Premier Lawns? Unless they were a franchise with several locations spread out over many cities, chances are they can only provide their service within a 100 mile radius. That being said, it doesn’t make any sense for them to advertise to anyone outside of that area, or does it?

This is where we begin Geographical Local Targeting. Parameters can be set to tell Google (or your preferred search engine) to only display paid ads within a geographical vicinity of Wichita, Kansas. So, if we were bidding for such phrases as ‘Lawn Care,’ ‘Landscaping,’ ‘Lawn Maintenance,’ etc, only searches that were physically located within a 100 mile radius of Wichita would see, and thus, be able to click on our ads.

That concept is pretty handy for paid search advertising with such broad phrases, but what about optimizing their site to be listed organically? If you type in a vast phrase like landscaping (go ahead… try) you will find many articles from,, wikipedia .com, etc, etc etc. This presents the need for Keyword Local Targeting. We have already determined that the people who can actually use the services of Premier Lawns are going to be located near Wichita, so why not put the city in the search queries? ‘Wichita Lawn Care,’ ‘Wichita Landscaping,’ ‘Wichita Lawn Maintenance,’ … you get the point. This brings local relevance to the broad search phrases making the results more desirable.

How else does this concept fit? Let’s assume you live in Austin, Texas, no where close to Wichita. However, who is to say you might not own a second home there or maybe a rental property? You might find yourself needing lawn care while you are away from the home. In that instance, Premier Lawns could be of valuable service to you. If they limited their online campaign to only geographical local targeting, there would be only a slim chance of you ever knowing about them. But, by adding in the city name to the search query, Premier Lawns makes themselves accessible to potential customers outside of their geographical limits.

« Previous PageNext Page »