Search: How-To
The Value of Persistence
|
Written By Drupad Sil | May 15, 2008 | Share This
|
|
How many times have you seen a seasonal-ad on TV, forgotten about it for a few days (or weeks) and then gone to research it on the Internet only to find that, well, it’s impossible to find? There’s a perception among many marketers that once a campaign’s objectives have been met, it’s time to dial back the presence until they have another benchmark to hit, missing out on a chunk of their potential customers who search for their products during this downtime.
Reprise Media’s own Joshua Stylman, Managing Partner, extols the Value of Persistence in search advertising in this article at MediaPost:
“The solution is maintaining a persistent search presence, sometimes referred to as an evergreen campaign. There’s little risk associated with maintaining this type of campaign: After all, you only pay when a qualified prospect clicks through to your site. It’s efficient and effective, allowing marketers to continually stay top of mind with their potential customers.
Furthermore, search engines reward campaigns for running over a long period of time. Performance history is a key factor in determining an ad’s Quality Score – the algorithm that Google and other engines use to set minimum bids for their keyword auctions. Consistent campaign performance can often lower your bid prices over time, making it even more economical to keep those campaigns active.”
No Search for Coca-Cola?
|
Written By Drupad Sil | May 6, 2008 | Share This
|
|
An interesting quote from Peter Sealey, former Coca-Cola CMO, on paid search as reported by Miguel Helft at the New York Times:
“Search is great, but you can’t advertise Coca-Cola in search.”
Danny Sullivan brought this to our attention over Twitter. Now, while the context of the article is how Google is the winner in this Microsoft-Yahoo standoff (there’s no escaping that story, is there) it’s just difficult to overlook a statement like that. I mean, search connects brands with concepts - is there anything more central to Coca-Cola’s marketing than this? A quick search confirms that Coke’s current management believes this as well - paid search ads for MyCokeRewards.com and the Coca-Cola Store show up on Google when you search for the brand name. Furthermore, the first page of results is dominated by Coke-branded pages including Coca-Cola.com, DietCoke.com, theCoca-ColaCompany.com, and Music.Coca-cola.com. Why does that make a difference? The brand’s presence is so broad that Coke’s presence is pushing potentially inflammatory websites off the first page, such as KillerCoke.org, a website that outlines the torture and killings of union leaders at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia.
No wonder Peter is the former CMO of Coke.
Really, this is just more evidence that CPG companies don’t understand search and online advertising, as we mentioned last week.
A Case of Keyword Myopia
|
Written By Dr. Naveel | January 25, 2008 | Share This
|
|
In 1960, a landmark paper called “Marketing Myopia” was published in the Harvard Business Review. It challenged the way businesses look at themselves and raised the question, “What business are we really in?” For example, should a railroad company focus exclusively on railroad production or is transportation the bigger opportunity? Should an oil company be focused exclusively on oil, or is energy the more appropriate focus? Put another way, is the company focusing on what it is (product focus) or the solutions it provides (customer focus)? In the SEO industry, we come across many clients that engage in what I like to call keyword myopia — when a company focuses on what they offer instead of what the consumer is searching for.
Take, for example, the Wachovia Vehicle Loan webpage. From an internal perspective, this webpage probably makes perfect sense to Wachovia. They offer loans for any type of vehicle: cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. Therefore, they think the webpage should focus on “vehicle loans” because it encompasses loans for many types of transportation. This is clearly communicated to both search engines and customers with prominent placement of “vehicle loans” language throughout the webpage.
But are “vehicle loans” what consumers are searching for? A Google Trends analysis illustrates that this isn’t necessarily the case.
It’s a safe bet that most people are not going to leave a car dealership thinking, “Wow, that vehicle I test-drove today was great! I better start searching for a vehicle loan.” Instead, they’re probably searching for their needs using their own language: “auto loan,” “car loan,” “boat loan,” and so on.
So where does Wachovia rank for auto loan, car loan, boat loan and motorcycle loan searches? Wachovia is not in the top 100 search results of any major search engine for these terms. Clearly, they are missing an opportunity for search engine traffic by focusing on what they offer instead of what their prospective customer is searching for.
In sum, keep keyword myopia at bay by focusing on the bigger picture –by optimizing your website with the consumer in mind, you create a broader opportunity to capture your target audience.
SES NY: Social Media Optimization
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | April 12, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Day Three of Search Engine Strategies New York - the much anticipated panel, “Social Media Optimization”, opened to a mixed audience. Though nearly 3/4ths of the audience indicated that they “engage social media optimization activities for their company or as a service for other companies,” the majority of the audience seemed unfamiliar with the topic. Perhaps it was the candor with which panelists referred to bribes and Digg’s “worthless traffic”, but on several occasions I overheard dubious remarks coming from people around me. More on that later though…
Moderator Rohit Bhargava introduced Rand Fishkin from SEOMoz. Rand presented an overview of the benefits of social media optimization: rule the SERPs, control brands, gain link love, show communities that you’re a participant, get traffic from new sources, and influence traditional media. Fishkin thinks that social media is especially hard for SEOs to break into, because social communities notoriously perceive online marketers as spammers. Though SMO spamming exists, Fishkin believes that SEO helps social media grow more than it “manipulates” its content - and that as such, social media sites will eventually learn to embrace SEO. (As a side note, social media sites based on local content, such as Yelp.com, gained traction within specific cities specifically by building their pages to be search engine friendly). For SEOs, on the other hand, social media can help increase seach visibility by sending traffic and links. But, said Rand, marketers have to proactively manage their social media profiles. Though social media sites rank well, it’s not always positive content that shows up. Rand summed up with SEOMoz’s list of sites to target: Magnolia, Yahoo 360, LinkedIn, Newsvine, Squidoo, wikiHOW, Ning, Frappr, FURL, Wetpaint, Shadows, Shoutwire, 43Things….and more.
Neil Patel, CTO of ACS, discussed the use of Digg and StumbleUpon. Patel opened, “the first thing you need to know is that the Digg and StumbleUpon audiences are little kids” - in other words, they’re fickle and not likely to be interested in your marketing content. But, he said, advertisers can spin anything into something “diggable” with a proper title. A promotional ad for a tax service, for example, becomes “how to screw the government.” Patel ran through the most important factors to think about when submitting to Digg - votes, time, voters, submitters, friends - and gave a little insight into how the top 100 Diggers have such strong influence. Making friends, he emphasized, is extremely important. What Not To Do: Self-promotion (wait, isn’t that what he just told us to do?), add biased information, pay for votes, break community rules, spam. What To Do: Add tons of friends (tip! “instead of your real photo, put up a picture of a hot girl to make more friends!”), participate in the community, use great titles and descriptions, become a top user, and submit at the right time (11 am, PST, M - Th, to be exact).
Andy Hagans, “professional link baiter”, presented next on social media and link generation. Hagans gave us a case study: Network Security Journal, a client with Tech-oriented content, but a dry topic. Hagans reiterated Patel: “its all in the title”. Rule of Thumb: Can you imagine this title on a magazine cover? Furthermore, he said, make sure your content is focused and concise. Well-written content helps avoid the “Digg Bury”. Hagans presented the five sites he usually submits to: Digg, Netscape, StumbleUpon, Reddit, Delicious. Hagans recommended using social media link-baiting with some “old fashioned link begging” - aka sending personalized emails to bloggers. He suggested that all promotional efforts be done within the same 1 - 2 hour block of time.
The panel then launched into Q & A. After questions like, “do the search engines count this in their points?” to “how does the link come back?”, I have to admit I stopped paying attention. One interesting question did come up - “is it better to submit a link that comes back to your site, or is it better to send it back to social media sites?” If you DIgg your own video that’s hosted on YouTube, for example, is it better use that traffic to promote the video on your site or to promote the video on YouTube? Rand’s answer was, “it depends”. The remainder of the session was devoted to the details of who does and doesn’t have nofollow tags on outgoing links.
One thing that struck me about this panel, which I also heard in Chicago, was that everyone seems to have a different approach to the “best practices” of social media optimization. Fishkin likes submitting to a lot of second-tier sites to build aggregate traffic, Patel wants to focus on building the relationship, and Hagans uses SMO to build search visibility through link baiting. Though I can’t disagree with the utility of any of these practices, they’re difficult to scale without engaging in social media “spamming” - something the panelists even seem to admit, as they joked about sending iPods to bloggers in return for “link love”. It’s encouraging to see such a broad audience interested in social media, but I left with the impression that few will adopt SMO as a long-term practice. Until a more “enterprise-friendly” version of SMO develops, it will remain a marketing tactic best suited to organizations with niche offline communities and low budgets.
SES NY: Ads in a Quality Score World
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | April 10, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Quality Score, the notorious “black box” of search marketing, is the search engines’ method of assessing the relevancy of paid search ads. Because the engines do not disclose their quality score algorithms beyond a few rudimentary measures, the best practices of quality-based bidding are widely debated.
I attended the session “Ads in a Quality Score World” when it first debuted in Chicago in December 2006. Interestingly, the session in Chicago talked about quality score as a positive, despite the amount of negative criticism it’s usually given. Today’s session in New York carried the same tone - as moderator Gord Hotchkiss began, “this session is about how quality score is a win-win-win situation.”
Reprise Media’s Josh Stylman presented first. Stylman set up the context of quality score,”Quality score is the way that search engines rank ads based on a number of quality factors.” Starting with GoTo.com, Stylman ran through the history of the search auction marketplace - a marketplace fundamentally defined, he said, by Google’s introduction of unique ranking variables beyond CPC. In 2005, for example, Google began including not just CPC and CTR measures of “relevancy, but also landing page and historical data. As a result, Google created a system that would maximize it’s profit while delivering a better user experience. But, as Stylman pointed out, some unintended consequences arose from quality-based rankings. Quality score is still widely criticized for causing artificial CPC inflation, for its contradicting definitions of “quality”, and for penalizing ad testing and optimization.
No less, Google “caught the market by surprise” when they launched their new ad ranking system. Yahoo followed Google’s lead this past February with Panama - that, despite it’s late entry, has given advertisers a chance to study the affect of quality-based bidding on a sophisticated auction market. In one example, Stylman showed how Panama caused a decrease in CPC for branded key terms, but an increase in price for non-branded terms. He also pointed to a case where CTR went up, but on-site conversions went down. His point was that, though quality score is in theory a “win-win-win” situation, in practice it’s not always the best measure of value to the client.
Andrew Goodman, founder and Principal of Page Zero Media, followed Josh. He presented a similar run-down of the history behind quality score and it’s fundamental operation. While Josh pointed out that historical data in quality score sometimes penalizes testing and optimization, Goodman praised historical data for making ads more stable. The tightness of relationship between keyword, ad and landing page, he said, illustrates that search is the least “disruptive” type of advertising.
No less, Goodman admitted that it can be frustrating to assess cause and effect with quality score. For example, he speculated that user behavior might affect ad rankings - if a user abandons a landing page for a competing search engine, for example, it could have a negative effect on the advertiser’s “quality” rating.
John Mendez from Otto Digital spoke next, discussing quality score in terms of user experience. Mendez praised quality score because it simultaneously improves user experience and ad performance. “Ignore the score”, he announced, because advertisers will do better by focusing on overall relevance rather than the incremental contributors. By building ads for relevance, Mendez said, search acts as a bridge between the keyword and the landing page.
Representatives from Google, Yahoo and MSN presented last, leading into the Q & A session. Nick Fox from Google began, “our single goal is to make sure that our sure our users are happy and are getting what they want from our ads.” To no one’s surprise, Yahoo and Microsoft reiterated the importance of user experience. Each of the engines praised the panelists’ presentation of quality score, underscoring their ongoing commitment to “improving relevancy”. At one point, Brian Boland from Microsoft alluded, “look for a quality-based ranking in the next couple of weeks,” but didn’t return to the subject.
In sum, this panel was not much different from it’s first incarnation in Chicago - read my earlier write-up here. Though Fox from Google claimed that “quality score is no longer a ‘black box’,” it’s evident that there’s still a lot of apprehension and confusion surrounding it. Many of the panelists’ statements seemed to contradict each other - Google encouraged ad testing, though Stylman pointed to evidence that testing has challenged some of Reprise Media campaigns. Microsoft praised increasing transparency, while Google claimed that their ‘opaque’ algorithm gives rise to industry expertise.
There was one consensus throughout the group, however, which was best summed up by Stylman - “quality score puts the M back in SEM.”
Note To Politicians: There’s an Internet Beyond YouTube
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | February 14, 2007 | Share This
|
|
2008 is already being called “The YouTube Election” thanks to the scores of viral videos being uploaded by presidential hopefuls to attract popular support. Today Michael Bassik on TechPresident writes about how candidates have used search marketing in their online campaigns. He reports, “To my surprise, only five of the 17 presumed candidates have purchased keywords on search engines,” and furthermore, “no candidate seems to be using search to reach voters searching for information on specific issues.”
Bassik notes, however, that Republicans seem to be doing a better job of leveraging search. Back in October, I wrote about the linguistic mistakes that liberal politicians were already making in SEM,
“A proper…campaign would target buzz words with ‘pain points’ - or, words that trigger an emotional response. These are terms based on metaphors, cliches and commonly-used language. Conservatives have already come up with a dictionary’s worth of viral keywords that isolate Democrats from mainstream America. They use personalized terms to attack specific candidates - for example, John Kerry’s alleged “flip-flopping.” Democrats, on the other hand, are investing in paid search with a list of keywords that don’t trigger an emotional response without prior knowledge of the candidate [such as politicians names]… Of the generic terms that Democrats are bidding on, they’ve chosen to target the very same terms that were invented by conservatives to attack liberal candidates! For example, MyDD.com appears to be bidding on “flip-flop”, to point readers to a story titled “Bush’s Top Ten Flip-Flops.” Not only does this ad place Democrats in a defensive position, it reinforces the validity of ‘flip-flop’ as a neutral term! Instead of coming up with their own politicized “frames”, Democrats are recycling the very terms that put them at a linguistic disadvantage.”
Searchviews ran a three part series about the implications of politicians becoming search savvy, parts of which reverberate what Bassik and others have already attested:
“Search gives politicians a window of access to the public conversation. It puts them in touch with voters that they might not reach through conventional means…Search helps interested citizens find the campaign. Just as the primary goal of a campaign is public outreach, the primary value of SEO and SEM is public visibility.
“For efficiencies sake, “grass roots” marketing no longer means traveling door to door to generate support - it means reaching out to individuals in niche communities, which are no longer defined strictly by geographic location. People gather information and communicate via the internet, so traditional campaign techniques - the stump tours, hand-shaking, distributing fliers, and cold-calling are far less effective than search at reaching the mainstream audience. Think about the last time you physically cut out a newspaper article to give to a friend, as opposed to just emailing her the story (or in my case - blogging about it). In the past two years with the explosion of social media, political conversations are taking place almost exclusively online. Promoting politics through search is not only more efficient, it’s more effective.”
We just finished a huge Scorecard report that pointed out how Super Bowl advertisers leveraged search techniques for their cross-media advertising campaigns. The same criticisms we held against the advertisers (namely that, “few companies put together all the elements necessary to translate interest and buzz into web activity”) apply to political candidates launching multi-million dollar campaigns. If you’re going to promote your candidacy through the internet, start with a proper search strategy.
Related Posts
- Politics and Search: The SEMs Persepective
- Politics and Search: It’s All About the Hamiltons
- Politics and Search: Bidding on Failure
- Video the Vote Brings out the Ugly
- Net Neutrality Debate Heats Up
Super Bowl Ads Missed Big Opportunities
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | February 5, 2007 | Share This
|
|
With another Super Bowl in the books, it’s time to sit back and review the real winners and losers in Sunday’s big game: the advertisers. The interest generated by their commercials translated into millions of searches as viewers around the world “Googled” the products and services they featured. We took a look at how companies used search marketing to turn that buzz into measurable Web activity. In our third annual “Search Marketing Scorecard”, we’ve ranked Super Bowl advertisers based on their ability to use search engines as a link between their TV ads and a web presence.
Based on our evaluation of multiple search marketing best practices, we found that this year’s advertisers are:
- Improved, But Still Underperforming
Super Bowl advertisers did a better job integrating their online and offline efforts this year, but there were still a significant number of missed opportunities. Few companies put together all the elements necessary to translate interest and buzz into web activity. - Lacking Calls to Action
Advertisers continued to overlook the value of having a strong call to action in their commercials. While a majority of companies provided URLs during their ads, less than 20% actually gave viewers a compelling reason to visit their website. - All Buzz, No Substance
Companies like Doritos, Chevrolet, and the NFL featured buzz-worthy consumer-generated ads, inviting user participation and interaction with the brand. However, these commercials did a poor job of directing users to online destinations, failing to capitalize on the opportunity to expand the communities they had built prior to the game.
Some notable trends this year include:
- Use of YouTube
One terrific example of new media marketing came from Pizza Hut. Though its commercial wasn’t consumer-generated, Pizza Hut used paid search to link users to a customized YouTube channel instead of its own corporate site, allowing visitors to continue a dialogue about its ads and products. - Auto Makers Still Missing the Extra Point
Though they purchased a significant number of TV ads, Automotive advertisers were again among the biggest losers in cross-channel integration, with poor visibility across Google, Yahoo and other major search engines.
To see a list of the best and worst advertisers with notable statistics, visit the Reprise Media Scorecard brief, or download the full PDF.
Though I’ll go into greater detail on winners, losers, and trends later this week, I’m generally surprised by how many advertisers did a half-assed job on cross-channel marketing. Integration of on and offline messages is no longer considered cutting edge. Brands capable of Super-Bowl-caliber advertising should at the very least understand how to bring together multiple points of contact online. That means, not just having a website, but using paid search to connect the dots between the TV ad, a compelling call to action, a dynamic landing page, and new media marketing (aka: YouTube).
This brings us to another interesting thought - once the best practices that we measure become ubiquitous, and all advertisers have established dynamic cross-media marketing campaigns with fully integrated search techniques… what’s next? How might our scorecard evaluation change next year, or in five years?
More thoughts to come…
Related Posts
Translating Paid Search to the Multilingual Internet
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | October 26, 2006 | Share This
|
|
In August, David Sifry’s State of the Blogosphere showed that foreign language blogs outnumber english blogs approximately 3:2. Vnunet.com reports that next year China will have the largest Internet audience, while Multilingual Search Blog reports that Google’s turnover outside the US increased by 78% over the past year (compared to their US growth of 65%). As the Internet market abroad matures, home-grown companies are creating tough competition for the American imports. Over the past year, Baidu increased its
Chinese dominance from 38% to 50%, while in Germany, over half of the market is run by local betas. Web 2.0 startups are all over the map– just as Myspace leads in the US, Bebo reigns in the UK, Webwag in France, Orkut in Brazil, Cyworld in Korea, MIXI in Japan, Dada in Italy, and eGrupos in Spain.
For American search marketers, the maturation of international markets allows for more sophisiticated targeting to more complex demographics. But, because each country has to be selected per browser and per language, it also creates huge potential for confusion. What happens, for example, when your campaign is targeting a spanish-speaking audience in an Italian browser? Gordon Hartin,a media manager for Reprise Media, explains one such experience,
“At my previous company, I worked on a campaign that was running in Spain and Italy, in Spanish and Italian, respectively. The client, however, decided that they wanted to reach a Spanish-speaking Italian audience, so we added the country Italy and the Italian browser to our Spanish campaign. After a week, we noticed that our Italian campaign had doubled in cost. It didn’t take us long to realize that the higher bid prices in our Spanish campaign were competiting with our Italian campaign, causing the price hike. Words like ‘cambio’ in spanish were in bidding against words like “cambiar’ in Italian. Cognates and other language similarities were screwing up in broad match and causing us to become our own competition.
To remedy the situation, we continued showing ads in Italy for the Spanish campaign, but designated different browser settings for Spanish and Italian. Separating the browser language limited our audience, but gave us back control of our budget. At the end of the day, avoiding self-competition was more important than maximizing our visibility.”
Gordon’s example is one of many scenarios that can arise due to confusion between running multiple languages across multiple browsers. But, because of the maturation of the intenrational search market, its important for American companies to maintain a competitive online presence. To avoid wire-crossing in mulilingual campaigns, SEMs can keep a few best practices in mind:
- Know Your Market. This sounds obvious, but, it’s really important to know exactly what group you’re after in order to determine the scope of your campaign. Are you targeting an audience that is country specific or global? Is your audience multilingual? Can you run a campaign the English? If so, does it translate to other countries? Which brings us to…
- Know Your Language. If you’re running multiple country and langage-specific campaigns, ads have to be coordinated with landing pages for each of the different languages. French to French, Japanese to Japanese, and so on.
- Start Small Before Going Global. Test your campaign on a country-specific, language-specific, browser-specific level. Then, if applicable, open it up to all browsers, then all languages, and finally, to all countries. The only time you should start on a global level is for select international campaigns that are running in English.
- Be Aware of Bidding. It’s imperative for marketers to recognize how multiple campaigns can bid against each other to inflate prices. Cognates and similar language structures, especially between the romance languages, will compete with each other in broad match. One way to around this is to run multilingual campaigns with exact matching.
- Don’t Try to Translate Out of a Dictionary. Have a fluent, preferably native, speaker help with every foreign language campaign. A dictionary can’t pick out the proper abbreviations of words (Sprecken zie deuche? Try fitting “RECHTSSCHUTZVERSICHERUNGSGESELLSCHAFTEN” into an ad), colloquialisms, false cognates, or offensive slang.
Search Marketing for the Sony Battery Recall
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | October 24, 2006 | Share This
|
|
Today Sony issued a public apology for their massive recall of over 9.6 million laptop batteries. As the largest recall in consumer electronics history, it’s expected to cost Sony over $430 million, a full quarter of their yearly profits. None of the laptop companies escaped unscathed — Dell, Apple, HP, Gateway, Vaio, Fujitsu, Toshiba, and Lenovo all face enormous costs for battery replacement, customer support and brand management. Last week, Toshiba became the first company to announce it was investigating the possibility of seeking legal compensation for losses incurred from damages “to product and brand images, and potential loss of sale opportunities.”
Given the recall’s internet-savvy audience, however, there is a huge opportunity for laptop companies to use paid search for brand reputation management. I checked out terms like, “sony battery recall”, “dell battery recall”, “Toshiba recall”, and “dell exploding laptop”, to see what, if anything, the major brands were doing with search. To my surprise, none of them appear to have SERM (search engine reputation management) campaigns underway on any variation of “battery recall”. Rather, paid ad spots were occupied by wholesale companies, laptop accessories, battery info sites, battery replacement and even battery testing services.
Interestingly, with all of the ads for laptop parts and wholesale batteries, the companies that have seen the largest increase in profit are local system builders and service providers. Says one local business man, “The [recalls] are very visible to customers. They prefer something that is configured and serviced by somebody local…We’ve got a number of clients who don’t want to deal with the battery issue at all. We’ve picked up business handling the battery returns [for them].” (via CRN) Furthermore, most local tech companies haven’t run any of their own SEM campaigns, but have merely piggybacked off of larger online vendors to pick up local business.
What should large companies consider when dealing with damage control through search? For starters:
- Run a search marketing campaign on generic, branded AND local keywords. So, “Laptop battery replacement” also becomes “Sony battery replacement”, “sony laptop battery replacement new york”, and so on.
- Hit every first point of information by running contextual ads on industry-specific sites. For the battery recall, that includes tech publishers like CNET as well as generic news sites like Washington Post.com.
- Send ad traffic to landing pages that are specific to the recall. Landing pages should be educational rather than promotional, providing explicit information about the products and their estimated turnaround time for repair.
- Point to local options. The surge in demand for custom-built computers reveals that users are more inclined to get their laptops fixed in person, rather than by sending them away for an indefinite amount of time. By using landing pages to direct people to local technicians that are either partnered with or specific to branded products, large companies like Dell can help customers through the entire process–from first ad to the final battery replacement.
- Provide an immediate point of customer service. Give people a number to call directly from the landing page or within the ad creative itself. At the end of the day, frustrated consumers want to talk to a real human, and will go elsewhere if that’s not provided.
Friday DIY
|
Written By Reprise Media | June 9, 2006 | Share This
|
|
The weekend is upon us and it’s time to get around to all those “round to its” we’ve been putting off for weeks years.
Here’s a few to get you off and running. The nerd crew calls them “life hacks” but we just call them plain old “how-to’s”:
How To…Stop Little Billy From Crying Save yourself a mortgage payment’s worth of quarters with these insider tips on how to win at claw games.
How To…Cuss Your Way to Better Customer Service Did you know that many automated voicemail menus are programmed to recognize filthy words and send you straight through to an operator?
How To…Unblock Writer’s Block “Talk like a monkey” is just one of a whole litany of tips on overcoming an obstinately blank page.
How To…Remember It In The Morning When you’re too lazy to get up and write it down, this simple trick will help you remember that brilliant thought you had at five in the morning.