The social media world and offices across America were joined in laughter last week when a video by Pepsi featuring race car driver Jeff Gordon exploded all over Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

The video showed an unsuspecting salesperson getting put through a harrowing experience during a test drive while being recorded by hidden camera. The only problem was that it was completely fake.

In reality, that wasn’t a problem at all. It’s approaching 30 million YouTube views and has been shared over 2 million times on Facebook. The ad worked even if it was completely staged, even if the car salesperson is an actor, even if a stunt driver took the Camaro up ramps, around poles, and up to speeds that are more NASCAR than test drive level. This is advertising in 2013.

In many ways, it’s not right. The video was so well produced that most disbelief in the validity of the video were suspended just long enough to get small crowds gathered around cubicles while bosses were at lunch. It started millions of conversations on social media and sparked debates. It received the level of attention that should really only be associated with reality and the fact that it was staged takes away from the wonders of the video.

In other ways, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. We are an advanced society that knows there will be real and fake mixed in all across the internet. Part of the fun is determining whether something is real or not. Part of the fun is in deciding whether or not the fake things are clever enough to still admire despite being staged. For example, the Golden Eagle Snatches Kid video that terrified parents and acted as a rallying call for eagle hunters turned out to be a school project, but that didn’t stop it from getting over 40 million YouTube views.

Today, we don’t trust that anything is real on the internet without proof. Images are accused of being Photoshopped. Videos are easier to enhance and produce today than ever before. There are companies that work solely in determining the validity of videos. Is it really that bad that this video promoting Pepsi Max was manufactured?

If one were to break down the video, they’ll see that much of it is absolute perfection if you’re going to stage something like this. From claiming that he drives a minivan to making statements such as, “well, we better buckle up,” Gordon played his role appropriately, but the “salesperson” really nailed it. He responded exactly how one would imagine  when put in that situation, all the way to the amazing look of shock and realization on his face during the reveal.

It’s the reveal, of course, that brings everything together. It anchors the video and turns it from a cruel prank to a happy story. The actor is relieved. People are clapping. He even asks a good sport question, “Want to do it again?”

The reveal makes it almost heart warming that this guy made it through the prank and has something amazing to tell his grandchildren.

Here’s the video. If there’s one complaint, it’s that it didn’t have enough Pepsi in it. In fact, there’s a very good chance that when asked about it afterwards, many people might even refer to it as the “Jeff Gordon Camaro Prank” rather than the “Jeff Gordon Pepsi Max Prank”. Chevrolet doesn’t mind at all. Neither does NASCAR.

Just in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the golden eagle video as well…

I don't believe in coincidences. Everything happens for a reason and there's a particular harmony in this world that cannot be denied if you really look into it.

Last week, I was reviewing a dealer's marketing strategy when I came across their content posting style. They had an offsite blog, an onsite blog, and they posted many of their posts on different automotive websites. All of this is good except that they were posting the same content everywhere without exception.

There are times to take content and syndicate it out and there are times when it's best to give a particular piece of content a single home. There are two factors to consider when making the decision - the content itself and the venues.

For the content, you should decide on the goal(s) of every piece of content you publish. Is it intended to be a direct communication with your customers that is newsworthy and specifically about the dealership such as sales announcements? That can be syndicated. You want as much reach as possible. Other content that is designed to bring value to your readers or that is specifically designed to help with search or social promotions should find an isolated home and become an exclusive piece of content. You don't want your content fighting with itself, particularly if you're posting it on your dealership blog, then posting it on an industry website that will likely get more love from the search engines.

The second component is the venue itself. Every venue that you own should have its own unique content. Some say half, some say more, and some say less, but having two or more blogs with the exact same content is just adding effort. Google has become exceptional at finding when blogs themselves are duplicated completely and they will make a decision about who is the source and who is the scraper. There are plenty of scrapers out there - no need to scrape your own content.

That's not to say that every venue you own should have completely different content. It's okay to syndicate, but you shouldn't syndicate every single piece of content. Every venue needs its own unique content or you risk losing one or more of them altogether in the eyes of the search engines.

I post a ton of content every day. Some I syndicate, some I leave exclusively on the appropriate venue. Finding the right mix depends on how often you post and on which sites you have access. There's no formula that works. It has to be analyzed and a strategy has to be set.

This particular article was one that I intended to write last week after doing the analysis on the dealer's marketing, but something held me back. Now I know why. This morning I logged into driving sales for the first time this week after a whirlwind round of traveling and found that they were separating exclusive content from syndicated posts. This made it a no-brainer about where this particular post would be published.

Everything happens for a reason. Welcome to life.

I don't believe in coincidences. Everything happens for a reason and there's a particular harmony in this world that cannot be denied if you really look into it.

Last week, I was reviewing a dealer's marketing strategy when I came across their content posting style. They had an offsite blog, an onsite blog, and they posted many of their posts on different automotive websites. All of this is good except that they were posting the same content everywhere without exception.

There are times to take content and syndicate it out and there are times when it's best to give a particular piece of content a single home. There are two factors to consider when making the decision - the content itself and the venues.

For the content, you should decide on the goal(s) of every piece of content you publish. Is it intended to be a direct communication with your customers that is newsworthy and specifically about the dealership such as sales announcements? That can be syndicated. You want as much reach as possible. Other content that is designed to bring value to your readers or that is specifically designed to help with search or social promotions should find an isolated home and become an exclusive piece of content. You don't want your content fighting with itself, particularly if you're posting it on your dealership blog, then posting it on an industry website that will likely get more love from the search engines.

The second component is the venue itself. Every venue that you own should have its own unique content. Some say half, some say more, and some say less, but having two or more blogs with the exact same content is just adding effort. Google has become exceptional at finding when blogs themselves are duplicated completely and they will make a decision about who is the source and who is the scraper. There are plenty of scrapers out there - no need to scrape your own content.

That's not to say that every venue you own should have completely different content. It's okay to syndicate, but you shouldn't syndicate every single piece of content. Every venue needs its own unique content or you risk losing one or more of them altogether in the eyes of the search engines.

I post a ton of content every day. Some I syndicate, some I leave exclusively on the appropriate venue. Finding the right mix depends on how often you post and on which sites you have access. There's no formula that works. It has to be analyzed and a strategy has to be set.

This particular article was one that I intended to write last week after doing the analysis on the dealer's marketing, but something held me back. Now I know why. This morning I logged into driving sales for the first time this week after a whirlwind round of traveling and found that they were separating exclusive content from syndicated posts. This made it a no-brainer about where this particular post would be published.

Everything happens for a reason. Welcome to life.

Let’s call it what it really is, shall we? Despite efforts by Bing/Yahoo to stay relevant as well as efforts by Facebook and Twitter to enter the search game, there really is only one. For years, I’ve always had to add the caveat when discussing search marketing that “When I say Google, I mean Bing and Yahoo as well.”

I won’t be saying that any more. If we’re talking search, we’re talking Google.

It’s not that the others don’t exist. They do and they’re still somewhat relevant. Millions still use them on a daily basis so they cannot be ignored completely. However, when it comes to making decisions about search marketing, there’s only one algorithm that needs to be taken into account, one traffic source whose numbers should be used to steer the strategy.

The infographic below asks the question of whether or not Google is a monopoly. In reality, that’s not important, though the infographic points to a glaring fact that Google is the leader not only in market share but also in innovation and others, specifically Bing, are always just chasing the leader from a distance. The important takeaway is this: if you want to craft your strategy for search, particularly organic, mobile, and local search, then Google is the only thing to consider. Again, Bing and the other options are still valid, but if you build your strategy around Google, the others will eventually fall into line.

It’s been like that for a while. Google was the first to look at inbound links as a primary ranking factor and the others followed. Google was the first to truly integrate personalization and the others followed. Google was arguably the first to truly integrate social media into their search algorithm through the use of social signals, though in this case the competition wasn’t far behind. It doesn’t matter. Think Google when you’re thinking about your strategy and the rest will fall in line.

Paid search is a different thing altogether and many have found success with the cheaper clicks through other search engines, but even in that case the only way to truly hit a bulk level is through Google. Facebook is making strides in this arena, but they’re still worlds apart.

The funny part of it all is that Google is extremely vulnerable to manipulation, second only to Twitter when it comes to ease. Both rely more heavily on real-time data than the others, which is both their strength and vulnerability.

Here’s the graphic…

Source: Franchise Gator

Let’s call it what it really is, shall we? Despite efforts by Bing/Yahoo to stay relevant as well as efforts by Facebook and Twitter to enter the search game, there really is only one. For years, I’ve always had to add the caveat when discussing search marketing that “When I say Google, I mean Bing and Yahoo as well.”

I won’t be saying that any more. If we’re talking search, we’re talking Google.

It’s not that the others don’t exist. They do and they’re still somewhat relevant. Millions still use them on a daily basis so they cannot be ignored completely. However, when it comes to making decisions about search marketing, there’s only one algorithm that needs to be taken into account, one traffic source whose numbers should be used to steer the strategy.

The infographic below asks the question of whether or not Google is a monopoly. In reality, that’s not important, though the infographic points to a glaring fact that Google is the leader not only in market share but also in innovation and others, specifically Bing, are always just chasing the leader from a distance. The important takeaway is this: if you want to craft your strategy for search, particularly organic, mobile, and local search, then Google is the only thing to consider. Again, Bing and the other options are still valid, but if you build your strategy around Google, the others will eventually fall into line.

It’s been like that for a while. Google was the first to look at inbound links as a primary ranking factor and the others followed. Google was the first to truly integrate personalization and the others followed. Google was arguably the first to truly integrate social media into their search algorithm through the use of social signals, though in this case the competition wasn’t far behind. It doesn’t matter. Think Google when you’re thinking about your strategy and the rest will fall in line.

Paid search is a different thing altogether and many have found success with the cheaper clicks through other search engines, but even in that case the only way to truly hit a bulk level is through Google. Facebook is making strides in this arena, but they’re still worlds apart.

The funny part of it all is that Google is extremely vulnerable to manipulation, second only to Twitter when it comes to ease. Both rely more heavily on real-time data than the others, which is both their strength and vulnerability.

Here’s the graphic…

Source: Franchise Gator

Pound for pound, SXSW was a little disappointing this year, at least for search professionals. It's not that there wasn't plenty to do, plenty see, and plenty to hear. That's always going to happen when you're at a conference/festival with speakers the likes of former Vice President Al Gore and Tesla co-founder Elon Musk. The disappointing part was that there weren't a whole lot of "holy crap" moments like there were in previous years.

In 2012, we heard Google's Matt Cutts and Bings' Duane Forrester tell the audience that big changes were coming that were going to take out SEO spammers by the bulk. A little over a month later, Google introduced the Penguin update and Bing followed with an unnamed but equally significant algorithm update of their own that attacked low quality links. The results have shaken the SEO world in ways that have never been felt before or since. 2013 didn't have quite as ominous of a moment, but there was a point in the discussion with the dynamic duo and moderator Danny Sullivan that made some in the audience shutter. More changes are coming. No real hints as to what they are, but many are looking towards a further rise in appropriate social signals and another Penguin update in the weeks ahead.

The real moment of clarity for SEOs came during a different portion of SXSW. Google’s senior vice president of search Amit Singhal (Matt's boss) was being interviewed by Guy Kawasaki on the big stage. Most of my team was there, our VP of Internet Marketing most significantly, and there was one huge takeaway. Inbound links are still the most important component of search engine optimization. Period.

They talked mobile, natural language search, and spent an uncomfortably long time on the subject of Singhal's history, but one exchange was also telling.

“Is SEO bulls***?” Kawasaki asked.

“That would be like saying marketing is bulls***,” Singhal replied. The audience chuckled, but it's an important thing to understand. Despite what PPC companies and vendors who aren't very good at SEO will say, Google doesn't hate SEOs. In fact, the love them. They help to make the web more easily understood by Google. What Google hates is blackhat SEO.

Links are considered a part of blackhat SEO by many, and depending on the type of links and the ways that they're acquired, they can definitely be bad. Getting inbound links as a result of quality, value, and interest - that's where the real power of links can be achieved.

As Singhal said, links are still their most valuable indicator amongst 200+ other factors. They are the juice through which Google can understand the authority and popularity of a piece of content and a domain in general. Tied in with social signals, inbound links can be a dealer's best friend when marketing their website. However, when the art of link-building is overdone, acquired through nefarious techniques, or patterned, they can actually be the worst thing you can do to your website.

This isn't new and it's very likely that most dealers have stopped doing the wrong things to get links to their website, but there are also those who are scared of links. Perhaps they've heard rumors. Perhaps they've been bitten by them in the past. Regardless of the reason, it's not prudent to be gunshy about them. Inbound links work. They'll continue to work for a long time. If you do it the right way, they can help to separate you from your competitors.

Pound for pound, SXSW was a little disappointing this year, at least for search professionals. It's not that there wasn't plenty to do, plenty see, and plenty to hear. That's always going to happen when you're at a conference/festival with speakers the likes of former Vice President Al Gore and Tesla co-founder Elon Musk. The disappointing part was that there weren't a whole lot of "holy crap" moments like there were in previous years.

In 2012, we heard Google's Matt Cutts and Bings' Duane Forrester tell the audience that big changes were coming that were going to take out SEO spammers by the bulk. A little over a month later, Google introduced the Penguin update and Bing followed with an unnamed but equally significant algorithm update of their own that attacked low quality links. The results have shaken the SEO world in ways that have never been felt before or since. 2013 didn't have quite as ominous of a moment, but there was a point in the discussion with the dynamic duo and moderator Danny Sullivan that made some in the audience shutter. More changes are coming. No real hints as to what they are, but many are looking towards a further rise in appropriate social signals and another Penguin update in the weeks ahead.

The real moment of clarity for SEOs came during a different portion of SXSW. Google’s senior vice president of search Amit Singhal (Matt's boss) was being interviewed by Guy Kawasaki on the big stage. Most of my team was there, our VP of Internet Marketing most significantly, and there was one huge takeaway. Inbound links are still the most important component of search engine optimization. Period.

They talked mobile, natural language search, and spent an uncomfortably long time on the subject of Singhal's history, but one exchange was also telling.

“Is SEO bulls***?” Kawasaki asked.

“That would be like saying marketing is bulls***,” Singhal replied. The audience chuckled, but it's an important thing to understand. Despite what PPC companies and vendors who aren't very good at SEO will say, Google doesn't hate SEOs. In fact, the love them. They help to make the web more easily understood by Google. What Google hates is blackhat SEO.

Links are considered a part of blackhat SEO by many, and depending on the type of links and the ways that they're acquired, they can definitely be bad. Getting inbound links as a result of quality, value, and interest - that's where the real power of links can be achieved.

As Singhal said, links are still their most valuable indicator amongst 200+ other factors. They are the juice through which Google can understand the authority and popularity of a piece of content and a domain in general. Tied in with social signals, inbound links can be a dealer's best friend when marketing their website. However, when the art of link-building is overdone, acquired through nefarious techniques, or patterned, they can actually be the worst thing you can do to your website.

This isn't new and it's very likely that most dealers have stopped doing the wrong things to get links to their website, but there are also those who are scared of links. Perhaps they've heard rumors. Perhaps they've been bitten by them in the past. Regardless of the reason, it's not prudent to be gunshy about them. Inbound links work. They'll continue to work for a long time. If you do it the right way, they can help to separate you from your competitors.

There’s a saying in online marketing that has been around for a while. “Content is king.”

The truth is this – before the last year, it really wasn’t. Content has always been important, but it wasn’t until recent updates in Google and Facebook that content took a huge leap from being a portion of search and social marketing to become the actual hub through which search and social marketing flow. Today, marketing starts from content and works its way down versus recent years where content was simply a tool in the marketing strategy.

Google, Facebook, Bing, and Twitter are getting smarter every day. They have more brainpower going into figuring out how to stop spammers than the spammers have dedicated into finding new ways to spam. In other words, any tactic that involves practices that aren’t focused on quality can only bring short term benefit and can eventually lead to doing more harm than good. That’s the way that online marketing is heading and that’s a very good thing for both internet surfers as well as honest businesses and marketing agencies.

The old days of automated link-building tactics and paid social media promos (other than advertising) are long gone. Marketers can only achieve a true impact from quality content. Thankfully, this means that, in many ways, we’ve reached the end of the road of major strategy changes. That’s right, the practices that go into proper online marketing today are the type that will last for a long time, perhaps indefinitely.

It’s a bold statement, but if you think about it, that’s exactly where we are. Sure, there will be opportunities to find better channels, new tools, and make adjustment to different styles, but the end game is upon us. Quality content on and off of a website is the cornerstone of search and social marketing today and will continue into the foreseeable future.