Also according to the Nielsen report, the total mobile viewing audience “grew 51.2 percent year-over-year, surpassing 20 million users for the first time.”

This trend is supported by an eMarketer survey showing mobile content and Internet usage of U.S. mobile phone users. Although video streaming falls close to the bottom of the list in this survey in terms of content usage, it’s estimated to more than double this year from 2007, from 11 percent to 25 percent. And in 2011, that number will grow to 33 percent.

These statistics aren’t too surprising given the proliferation of smartphones and the introduction of other Internet-enabled mobile devices, such as Apple’s iPad. These devices present a great opportunity for reaching your audience in an engaging medium—video. With so many eyeballs on the small screen, the question is does video factor into your current or future marketing plans? If not, why not?

The first thing I noticed as I began reading the book were the long and melodious sentences so full of rich detail that I could envision and smell and taste exactly what Conroy was describing (typical of vintage Conroy). Consider this sentence:

“When I turned left on Tradd Street, I looked like an ambitious acrobat hurling papers to my right and left as I made my way toward the Cooper River and the rising sun that began to finger the morning ties of the harbor, to dance along the spillways of palmetto fronds and water oaks until the street itself burst into the first flame of morning.”

I was struck by how accustomed I’ve become to the short, terse, bulleted prose that Tendo typically develops for clients’ websites. The criteria for one client requires sentences to be generally 20 words or less; paragraphs are fewer than 75 words; and no more than three paragraphs should appear in a row without a visual break. So the Wired article struck a nerve with me.

Carr cites research that concludes:

“When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. Even as the Internet grants us easy access to vast amounts of information, it is turning us into shallower thinkers, literally changing the structure of our brain.”

He also points to a 1990 experiment that claims the mental calisthenics required of hyperlinks—figuring out whether the link is worth a click, clicking on it, adjusting to a different site’s format, evaluating whether the info is of use, clicking back, etc.—causes us to forget what we’ve read. We’re not retaining the content we skim on the Web.

The Wall Street Journal also excerpted Carr’s book in its Weekend Journal but presented a counterpoint from Clay Shirky’s book, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. Shirky argues a different point entirely, one based not on research but on historical analysis: He points to Gutenberg’s press and Bible translations, followed by contemporary literature and the mediocrity that followed, as evidence that all new media has a disruptive influence initially but that history proves the medium worthy. And that the “linking together” of the Web lets us “tap our cognitive surplus, the trillion hours a year of free time the educated population of the planet has to spend doing things they care about.” And that the social Web’s model of participation has enormous positive effects over television’s consumption model .

As of this writing, 64.7 percent of the WSJ  respondents to an online poll agree with Shirky—that the Web makes you smarter. I’m not sure I agree, especially in light of my recent Pat Conroy experience. (For other discussions on this subject, check out GigaOm’s  and Slashdot’s posts.)

An article in Monday’s New York Times, “Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price,” reinforces Carr’s position (and it includes pretty cool interactive tests to gauge your ability to ignore distractions). It focuses not just on the Web but on our growing addiction to gadgets and the multitasking we’re forced to do to consume a fast-growing influx of information and media. “Heavy multitaskers actually have more trouble focusing and shutting out irrelevant information, scientists say, and they experience more stress,” according to the NYT piece. Even after you stop multitasking, “fractured thinking and lack of focus persist.”

I can’t help but wonder if Carr and Shirky are asking the right question when they address whether the Internet makes you smarter or dumber.

• Consider the goal. Could it be that consuming information on the Web is just offering us more of the type of experience we’ve done for years: scanning, researching, applying judgment to whether information tells us what we need to know, etc. Isn’t that type of experience more about reaching a conclusion or making a decision rather than learning and retaining and deep thinking? Is the Web allowing us to make better decisions more quickly?
• Where’s the soul? I would argue that scanning on the Web makes us more soul-less than brain-less. Compared with reading Conroy, scanning the Web involves no sense of taste or smell or emotion. Interacting on the Web might involve that—think of comment threads and the YouTube video of the guys reuniting with the tiger (made me cry) and Facebook posts from old friends. But scanning the Web involves very little emotion.
• Form serves function. What does Carr’s research and argument say about the state of content on the Web? If it’s only meant to help you make a decision, maybe terse, bulleted content that’s easily scanned appropriate. But if it’s intended to teach or instruct, perhaps more complex language is not only appropriate but also called for. And would an instructional piece be formatted for easy (and attractive) printing so you could consume it more easily (as I did with the Wired article)? And if it’s intended to provoke, like a blog post, what’s the best format? A podcast? A video?
• Consuming print vs. online. Another relevant question might be this: How many Web users actually try to read online articles? When I find something of interest on the Web, I either print it out to really absorb it, or I save it somewhere so I can print it out and fully absorb it later. So the question isn’t whether I read content online (vs. scanning it), but whether I print it out to read it (vs. reading it on-screen). And whether reading print material rewires my brain in the same way than does consuming Web content.

What do you think? As a corporate marketer, how are you tailoring your Web content for different purposes? As a Web user, do you agree with most WSJ readers that the Web makes you smarter?

This isn’t the first time Radiohead has broken with music industry norms. The band split from its label, EMI, two years ago and released its last album, In Rainbows, directly to fans via the Internet.  Not only that, the band instituted a novel pricing model: Fans could pay what they wanted.  (I meant to pay $10 US, but I botched the Euro conversion and accidentally paid $20.)

The In Rainbows experiment was an obvious response to the digital distribution and Internet file-sharing revolution that’s racked the music industry. Radiohead apparently thought fans would illegally download the album if it chose the traditional marketing approach. But perhaps Radiohead also saw an opportunity to work with their fans rather than against them? The experiment seemed to have worked. Radiohead’s publisher, Warner Chappel, says In Rainbows made more money than the band’s two previous albums.

Radiohead’s reported decision to produce only singles appears to have been made in the same vein. As the New York Times story points out, “According to Nielsen SoundScan, U.S. sales of albums, in physical and digital form, fell 14 percent last year, continuing a multiyear decline. While consumers bought more than a billion individual tracks in the United States, which accounts for a majority of online sales worldwide, they bought only 65 million digital albums in 2008.” If these numbers truly reflect the purchasing patterns of music fans, they, too, have abandoned the full-length album format. (I, for one, haven’t).

If music fans really do prefer singles over albums, Radiohead might be making a smart decision. Why not work with their fans rather than against them?

Radiohead’s strategy is a good lesson for serving your audience, too: Give them what they want, how they want it. For Web content, make it easy to access by minimizing the pages and links customers have to click through. If it’s down-loadable content, make registrations and sharing of contact info optional. Your customers will sign up for a newsletter or follow-up contact if they want it! As for the content itself, frame it around your audience’s needs, not your company’s. Do customers want a detailed explanation of a product’s new features, or would they rather know how it can help their business? If you think it’s the latter, focus on benefits rather than details that you’re internal teams are proud of.

The Internet and the rise of social media provide your customers access to an unprecedented variety of information sources. That means you’re content has a lot of competition. If you want customers to read, watch, or listen to what you produce, it better be in line with what they want.

• Funny
• Tells a story
• Uses images/visuals
• Has personality
• Inspires learning, thought, action, sharing, passion
• Solves a problem
• Teaches
• Is new or offers a unique perspective
• Makes the complex simple
• Easy to digest
• Resonates with reader—connects—personalized
• This acronym for compelling content seems to sum it all up: SUCCESs = simple-unexpected-concrete-credible-emotional-story

Almost universally, compelling content has these effects on readers:

• Makes them come back or subscribe
• Draws people in
• Makes people share or want to share the content
• Compels action
• Makes them read to the end

The comments—especially those defining compelling content as personable, passionate, resonating, something you want to share—made me think about the intersection of social media and more traditional content, and whether/how social media is shifting readers’ expectations of what they want from an article, or a blog post, or the newspaper or anything they read. I took a risk last week by writing about my new dog in a weekly “business” email, but I got more response from that than I usually get when I focus solely on business issues. Was it the photo? Or the subject? Or the fact that it was personal?

How can social media be integrated into your corporate Web articles so that readers respond in ways that social tools are encouraging—e.g., they can comment, they can share the article (via email, Digg, etc.), they can subscribe (RSS), they can be drawn in with visuals or polls or rich media or any element that invites a click so they can experience a different facet of the subject, they can take an action based on what the article has taught them by clicking on something that offers a next step, they can see how many other readers ranked it highly or shared it, etc.

I loved how some of our HP clients worked together this week to make sure blog posts teased the audience about the fiber channel over Ethernet story, and then tweeted about the article once it was launched. And the article’s most visually prominent call to action was an invitation to join the conversation on the blog itself.

I wonder, as Web articles support marketing campaigns that incorporate Facebook pages or Twitter accounts or a video series, how corporate marketers can effectively integrate those elements into the articles. And how the organizations might have to work differently to ensure articles and social media elements are well-coordinated.

Check out the follow-up post to the above, How to Get in Touch with your Readers Needs [and Produce Compelling Content], for the author’s principles (he focuses on blog content, but I think the concepts apply to other types). And let me know what you think!

When you’re optimizing your conversion rate, try giving each page — or better yet, each piece of content (video, podcast, blog) — a numeric monetary value.

For example, in our Breville case study, we showcased how content can increase conversion rates. Let’s say, the price of an espresso machine is $100. If Page A sells 5 espresso machines and Video B sells 20 espresso machines, then Page A is worth $500 and Video B is worth $2000.

This helps you to visualize what is working and will suggest ways to replicate and build on your successes.

“Working your content until it works” is a great call to make sure we’re combining SEO, content & keyword and metrics strategies, because they all work together to boost the effectiveness (and dollar value) of your content.

In 2007 Forrester research showed that 90% of purchasing decisions begin online. In most cases, before a customer personally contacts your company they’re already armed with information about your company, your people, and your products. This is true no matter what they are buying.

What this means for you is opportunity-the chance to educate potential customers about your industry, possible solution choices, best practices, and the right questions to ask. This is how to build a relationship with your customer and make it easier for them to buy your product. That’s what content marketing is all about. In essence, the customer has initiated a conversation with you before you even know they are interested in your products and services.

Sounds easy enough, right? Wrong. The majority of organizations are set up to sell products and services, not create editorial content that builds relationships with customers. But there are two things you can do right now that will kick start your content marketing efforts.

Number One: Start thinking like a publisher

Doesn’t seem to make sense, right? You’re a marketer, why would you want to think like a publisher? Actually, if you believe the first few paragraphs of this post, marketing today is all about publishing. It’s all about developing information based on the needs of the reader (your customer). That’s what publishers do. Before any decisions are made about what content to publish, you need a clear understanding of your customers’ pain points – to not only fine tune your communication strategy, but to figure out how you talk about your products and services.

Let’s look at an example. The US Postal Service had a problem. Marketers were spending less on direct mail. That’s a BIG problem for the USPS. Well, instead of just blasting out messages that promoted direct mail, they developed a publishing platform, including a quarterly magazine called Deliver, and a robust website that was updated with daily educational content.

In its print and Web editorial content, you never heard how great the USPS was. What the reader saw was engaging, editorial content focused on issues important to marketing professionals, such as ROI, marketing trends, and best practices.

The result: After reading the magazine, almost three quarters of the marketers receiving the publication planned on spending more in direct mail during the next year. In addition, traffic to the USPS website is booming, growing well over 100% over the past year.

Even better, the USPS has invested even more in expert eBooks, white papers, videos, and in-depth online content.

The key: The USPS stopped thinking like a marketer and started thinking like a publisher.

Number two: Stop selling

Selling to customers before building a true relationship is the kiss of death. Consumers can smell a sales pitch a mile away, and today they have the power to block or ignore your sales message altogether. The most successful content doesn’t just don’t sell. Instead, it performs the art of “Lethal Generosity,” as coined by Forrester Research’s social media guru Jeremiah Owyang. For Web content, this means that your goal with every online interaction is to be helpful. So how do you do that? Chris Brogan and David Meerman Scott, two of the foremost marketing thought leaders, recommend giving away helpful content wherever and whenever possible. Sound familiar? It should, because that’s an example of thinking like a publisher.

Being helpful allows you to develop a real relationship with your customers, which leads to good will and more trust in your brand. It makes people want to do business with you.

That’s how it works. You give and give and give…and then you get…more than you would ever anticipate.

By doing these two seemingly small things-thinking like a publisher and putting an end to all the selling-you will transform your company. It’s not easy, but this paradigm shift is necessary for marketing survival today.

Joe Pulizzi, a thought leader, speaker, writer, and evangelist for content marketing, is founder and chief content officer for Junta42, a content marketing/custom publishing community search engine and resource. Pulizzi is the co-author of the book “Get Content. Get Customers.,” which helps teach companies why and how to create their own compelling content to drive their businesses. Pulizzi is also president for Z Squared Media LLC, a content marketing consulting firm for marketers and publishers.

• There are 14 billion internet searches done each month (Comscore, March 09)
• CNN moved their search ranking from #4 to #1 and got 50 million more visits a month on their website
• Spending on on-line marketing is forecasted to increase 11% in 2009; search is expected to increase 14%; 60% of respondents expect to cut traditional marketing (Forrester, April 2009)
• 68% of the population of people who use search only access the first page of Google search results (Jupiter, 2008); of the webinar attendees, 30% visit the first page only and 48% visit the first two pages (but attendees are presumably more advanced search users).
• In 1998, Google indexed 26 million pages; in 2008 that number rose to 1 trillion, which means your competition for search ranking has increased 400 million percent in the last 10 years.
• If your search term delivers 5 to 10 million results, that’s considered a “competitive” term or keyword. “Disaster recovery”, for instance, delivers 19,700,000 results.

Some SEO basics:

1. Make sure your keywords are used in the content of your page. For B2B sites, the webinar speaker recommended that 100 to 500 pages of content are needed to match competitors’ search rankings.
2. Make sure your meta page descriptions are unique for each page
3. Insert your keyword(s) in the URL
4. Target inbound links to increase rankings

The new Google revisions and how they affect your content strategy:

• Go to www.google.com and search on something (try disaster recovery); on the search results page, right under the Google logo, click on Show options.
• Notice the time parameters? Those are new-which lets you sort results by when they published. And that means that fresh, keyword-rich content will become increasingly valuable for your SEO ranking.
• Also, search queries have evolved over time, such that people have increased the number of words they enter into search engines. That means the “long tail” of search becomes more relevant and that a larger number of keywords might optimize your search rankings. Those who are searching on the long tail terms are much more qualified leads than those searching on one- or two-word common terms. The depth of their search means they’re more educated and/or interested in the topic, and more likely to want to find your site and/or buy what you’re selling.
• Now, back to Google. See the Wonder wheel at the bottom of the options navigation? Click on that. It delivers a graphical taxonomy of search terms around your original term. Cool, huh? This might be helpful for your keyword strategy-e.g., use keywords that surround your original term.

The webinar was only an hour, so it just touched the surface of Google’s new functionality. But I learned enough to know that as search technologies evolve, not only should your SEO strategy evolve but also your content strategy. Make sense?