LDS online marketing

[jay santos]

The SEO discussion was buried in the Marlin K Jensen thread. It deserves its own thread.

If you google "Mormon apologetics" the church is buying adwords and directing you to

http://mormon.org/learning?gclid=CMn...FQF6hwodb1GvLg

This campaign is going to be interesting to watch.

[jay santos]

When I search

"emma smith book of mormon translation"

the church has bid on this key word with the landing page...

What is the Book of Mormon?

http://mormon.org/faq/what-is-book-o...FQ2FhwodkC4XZg

[tooblue]

What's going to happen if certain Internet / World Wide Web governing bodies get their way and start allowing large corporations and entities to create their own domains such as:

https://www.apple

or

https://www.support.apple

or

https://www.lds

or

https://www.bookofmormon.lds

[jay santos]

What's going to happen if certain Internet / World Wide Web governing bodies get their way and start allowing large corporations and entities to create their own domains such as:

https://www.apple

or

https://www.support.apple

or

https://www.lds

or

www.bookofmormon.lds

Just curious, what are the ramifications? I have no idea.

[tooblue]

Just curious, what are the ramifications? I have no idea.

On one level it means that large organizations can claim exclusivity to certain content or ideas without making ad or word buys. Instead of having .com, .ca, .gov, .org, etc. which places every entity on the Web, in a sense, on an equal playing field as a commercial, national or organizational entity that entity could become the de facto authority on any particular subject.

In many ways, this is a good thing for consumers. It simplifies search queries, but in many ways it's potentially insidious. What if any time you typed in a query about China you only got Web sites such as:

info.china
toursim.china
politics.china
politicaldessent.china

All owned and developed by the Chinese government?

[jay santos]

On one level it means that large organizations can claim exclusivity to certain content or ideas without making ad or word buys. Instead of having .com, .ca, .gov, .org, etc. which places every entity on the Web, in a sense, on an equal playing field as a commercial, national or organizational entity that entity could become the de facto authority on any particular subject.

In many ways, this is a good thing for consumers. It simplifies search queries, but in many ways it's potentially insidious. What if any time you typed in a query about China you got only Web sites such as:

info.china
toursim.china
politics.china
politicaldessent.china

All owned and developed by the Chinese government?

I think the chances of me ever typing China in google and only getting .china extensions are zero. I don't get what you're saying.

[tooblue]

I think the chances of me ever typing China in google and only getting .china extensions are zero. I don't get what you're saying.

They are not zero. China does this now in a different way in their own sovereign nation and Google signed off on it in order to be able to continue to offer their search services to billions of Chinese consumers.

Let's change the example. You query: Joseph Smith's plural wives and the top ten results are:

eternalmarriage.lds
eternalfamilies.lds
marriage.lds
familylife.lds
jospehsmithhistory.lds

....

instead of a list of blogs or Web sites, both anti and apologetic, that are examining the issue. These links will be relegated to page two or three of the search results if that.

[jay santos]

They are not zero. China does this now in a different way in their own sovereign nation and Google signed off on it in order to be able to continue to offer their search services to billions of Chinese consumers.

Let's change the example. You query: Joseph Smith's plural wives and the top ten results are:

eternalmarriage.lds
eternalfamilies.lds
marriage.lds
familylife.lds
jospehsmithhistory.lds

....

instead of a list of blogs or Web sites, both anti and apologetic, that are examining the issue. These links will be relegated to page two or three of the search results if that.

Why would Google do this? I still don't get it. I understand why China or the church or Apple would do this or want to do this, but I don't understand why the search engines would allow it to happen, when it's clearly not what the consumer/searcher wants.

[TripletDaddy]

How does this scenario differ from standard SEO right now? Currently, is the url extension determinative?

[jay santos]

How does this scenario differ from standard SEO right now? Currently, is the url extension determinative?

As I understand, it has a little bit of impact but not a lot. ie .com is given preference over .biz. .edu might be given different preference in different types of searches. That sort of thing.

[tooblue]

Why would Google do this? I still don't get it. I understand why China or the church or Apple would do this or want to do this, but I don't understand why the search engines would allow it to happen, when it's clearly not what the consumer/searcher wants.

Bottom line, Google exists to make money. If they didn't agree to Chinese government censorship, google would not gain access to billions of chinese consumers. It's an ongoing battle.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/16/china_brin_censorship/

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/03/15/chinese-censorship-of-google-issue-betrays-concerns/

[TripletDaddy]

As I understand, it has a little bit of impact but not a lot. ie .com is given preference over .biz. .edu might be given different preference in different types of searches. That sort of thing.

Correct, but ultimately, your SEO ranking is affected more heavily by other factors...many other factors. We spent a lot of time trying to come up with an SEO plan for our company that made sense and came to the conclusion that SEO wasn't terribly relevant for our industry.

At any rate, if people google "polygamy" and the first hit is lds.org, that will be mostly because the Church is paying for SEO, not because the Church has a .lds url extension.

[tooblue]

How does this scenario differ from standard SEO right now? Currently, is the url extension determinative?

Yes, url extension is determinative, but to what extent is not exactly known and can change from day to day or week to week. SEO is a process and at the moment everyone is at the mercy of Google and their capricious rules. They regularly punish large corporations for gaming the system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bu...pagewanted=all

The dynamic is changing a little due to the explosion of activity on Twitter preceded by Facebook but Google is still God of SEO for all intents and purposes.

[tooblue]

Correct, but ultimately, your SEO ranking is affected more heavily by other factors...many other factors. We spent a lot of time trying to come up with an SEO plan for our company that made sense and came to the conclusion that SEO wasn't terribly relevant for our industry.

At any rate, if people google "polygamy" and the first hit is lds.org, that will be mostly because the Church is paying for SEO, not because the Church has a .lds url extension.

Yes, they can pay for the SEO as of now. But, if the church is permitted to create such domains this will change. Maybe it's a good thing. I personally think it is not a good thing. SEO, search, queries are a funnel. The further down the funnel we get, the more things get filtered and only the really fine material gets through.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes, url extension is determinative, but to what extent is not exactly known and can change from day to day or week to week. SEO is a process and at the moment everyone is at the mercy of Google and their capricious rules. They regularly punish large corporations for gaming the system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bu...pagewanted=all

The dynamic is changing a little due to the explosion of activity on Twitter preceded by Facebook but Google is still God of SEO for all intents and purposes.

I don't disagree that google operates as a going concern and is interested in making lots of money but I am still unclear how that leads into a discussion of customized url extensions being a sleeping bogeyman. Your original post warned of a danger that would result from large entities using customized url extensions WITHOUT having to purchase advertising. How is a .apple or .lds going to be the de facto search result if those companies aren't paying for the privilege?