The benefits of being niche?
I was reading a blog thread on Ecademy, which is a business networking site, today, and it certainly gave me food for thought.
Ecademy, which I use to promote iStadia, incidentally, is a very big and popular site where mostly small business owners post content and network. One of its main draws has been its strength at building Google rankings. As a highly ranked site itself, with a fast turnover of content it means that content posted can be very quickly crawled and the backlinks created can be very helpful to its members for SEO.
Fine. Indeed, let's be honest here, Ecademy was an important influence on the way we conceptualized iStadia, so I'm not here to beat it up. But recently there have been increasingly negative noises about the direction of the site.
- Increasingly 'spammy' approaches to making connections - for example you can now make a lot of connections without exchanging any meaningful message, and you can accept invitations en masse.
- Perceptions that the 'Google Power' of the site was being devalued by over-posting, over-linking and 'Googlebaiting' - posting material that is clearly only intended for search engines, not people. Elite 'Blackstar' members (which is £140/month), for example, can automate reposting of ads. People, driven by a hunger for links, in the increasingly SEO driven world, have been overdoing it.
This is what today's blog was about.
An argument that was posted suggested that the sheer volume of posts and links, about any subject under the sun, are devaluing the site in Google's eyes. The big problem appears to be relevance. Google loves links that come from content that is relevant to the content that is being linked to. So, a link to a sports marketing consultancy from a blog about the price of cheese is not as relevant as one from a post about sport.
So what was the food for thought?
Well, when we set up iStadia, we did so with a belief that the future of social networking, social media and business networking on the web would be niche. We won't be networking on huge, monolithic sites. We'll be seeking out people like us. We may continue to do that on big sites, because they have built up brand loyalty, but even sites like LinkedIn have had to alter their proposition by creating 'groups'.
A related point is that Google is important to us, too. We want to ensure that our members and their businesses, are easier to find because of iStadia. Being niche, it appears will help us to stay relevant in they eyes of the search engines. They'll know that from a sport and exercise site, links going outward to our members sites are generally going to sport or exercise related sites. That's a good thing.
And finally: I often worry that there isn't new content being added to the site, fast enough. But reading the comments on Ecademy today I take comfort from the fact that our members are selected about the content that they post, and that they aren't posting on "The price of cheese" or "What I had for breakfast"!
What are the implications for members?
- Link from content, but do so judiciously. Add a link to your signature, and maybe drop a relevant link, using anchor text, (putting a link behind a key phrase) into the post itself.
- Keep the quality high. Give each other feedback, either through comments or, if appropriate, through a sitemai.
- Try to post regularly - little and often is better than dropping off a load of existing content on one day.
It also means that we are not going to be able to rely on advertising for our revenue, as sites like Facebook can, which is why we offer additional benefits to paying members.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Get updates on Twitter and friendfeed
Water Polo in Jeopardy for 2012 Olympics
Water polo is one of eight sports yet to have its funding for 2012 decided.UK Sport have said that no sport will be cast adrift -but with current funding levels water polo has already been drowned.
Only sports which are ‘competitive’ will have a place in the Games but how can a team sport achieve the required standard with a budget that does not allow the current improvements in performance to continue?
Water Polo is in a Catch 22 position.
* In response to this virtually all of 2009 planned men’s events have been cancelled.
* Water Polo was invented in Great Britain in 1870 and was the first team event in the Modern Olympics. Britain is after Hungary the second most successful team in Olympic Water Polo history.
* Since the inception of the Modern Games only one host nation (Finland in 1952) has failed to enter a team. It would be very sad if the nation which invented the game failed to provide teams in 2012.
* The Olympic Games has never been a competition but a festival of sport. The final medal table is only one aspect of a successful games.
* As a team sport there are only two sets of medals available - men's and women's. Thus it is not seen to offer "value for money".
This is of course totally contrary to the Olympic Creed which reads:-
“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.
The High Performance Centre in Manchester was achieved with the benefit of UK Sport funding and yet after only 2 years in place its continuance is in jeopardy. The loss of funding affects not only the national squads but water polo as a whole particularly the continuation of ASA sponsored events some of which we understand sit within the high performance budget.
The difficulties that our sport faces at every level are well known. For example, water polo players can only train during unsociable hours when the facilities are not needed by the public often in pools unsuitable for our game. In addition, the cost of hiring pools is often prohibitive. Still our community is growing after a period of decline partly due to recent initiatives helped by UK Sport funding. The increasing success of the men’s and women’s water polo leagues is there for all to see. The progress of Mini Polo, Regional Training Centres and the recently established University Polo League are further evidence of a growing
(Taken from the Friends of Water Polo site)
Sign the petition at
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/WaterPolo2012/
Join the facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54651633956#/group.php?gid=43892163929
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Get updates on Twitter and friendfeed
Mexicans turn to voodoo to help team beat the US
"A Mexican sports daily is pinning its hopes of beating the United States in a World Cup qualifying match on voodoo — with help from a U.S-based electronics chain. An advertisement in the sports daily Record on Tuesday invited fans to clip coupons and redeem them at their local Radio Shack store for a voodoo-doll likeness of a U.S. player. The hope was that a little black magic might help Mexico break a decade of futility on the road versus its northern neighbor."Surely they can't be serious...
...no, of course not. It's a bit of fun, and a lot of marketing.
Here's the full story.
Then again, with Alistair's report of tennis players being told to talk to a tree.....
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Hold the Press: Elite Sport is Tough!
Andy Murray's loss this week in the Australian Open served as a timely reminder of just how tough elite sport is.
I mean, that's obvious, right? Surely by definition, to be the best in the World is a fantastically difficult thing to achieve.
But that's on one level.
Getting into the detail, to win a Grand Slam, you have to put together 7 wins, against increasingly tough competition, over a two week period. You then have to deal with the media, recover, practise and get yourself up for your next match in 1-2 days time.
You simply can't afford to drop your level of performance or you will be beaten. Of course, it doesn't mean always being at 100%, but your lowest level of performance has got to be better than your opponent's level in each match. That might, to put an arbitrary number on it, be 95% of your potential.
That's the one thing that Andy Murray seems to be missing. He just can't quite seem to sustain a level of performance in the biggest tournaments - yet - to get through those 7 matches. For we know that he can, on his day, beat anyone on the tour. Compare that to Nadal or Federer, and you have the biggest difference between them.
A couple of seasons back, the difference was physical. The 2009 model Murray is altogether fitter and stronger, and he can compete physically. He also has a great deal of mental toughness, but this, I think, is an area for development that is mental. it is about sustaining the energy levels when you might feel a little flat. About putting a big win or some mistakes behind you, so that you are completely focused on the next performance.
I'm sure Andy will learn to do that.
Imagine, then, what it was like for Michael Phelps, as he went for his 8 golds at last summer's Olympics. A lot of sceptics pointed to the fact that his 8 golds were just different ways of doing the same thing - swimming. I heard people say that if there were more medals for running backwards, for example, then Usain Bolt would also have won more medals. But those arguments fail to understand the intensity of demands that are placed upon an athlete between events. Phelps, who has announced that he will not go for 8 golds in London, said:
"I'll never swim eight events at a major competition again. When you're swimming so many events, all you do is eat, sleep, swim; eat, sleep, swim."
Actually, he's forgotten about the media conferences, and probably other demands. But you get the point. Phelps' challenge was not being fastest in any 8 events, but sustaining the level of performance required to win 8 golds over a period of time, when none of his rivals were doing the same number of events.
It isn't just Phelps and his 8 golds, though his example is at the extreme end of the scale. It is true, to a varying degree, of the boxer who retains their title over a number of years, the golfer that wins a major, the football team that wins the NFL, the baseball team that wins the World Series, or the soccer team that wins the Premier League. All have to sustain a level of performance over a period of time, against opponents that can be better on their day.
Not relying on "on their day" is what being a truly elite athlete is all about.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Can Andy Murray Win the Australian Open?
The first Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year, the Australian Open, begins tomorrow and the pre-tournament jousting has begun.Andy Murray, having won the "World Championships" (an exhibition tournament in Abu Dhabi) and the Qatar Open already, is the form player on the tour just now, and he has certainly been the centre of attention out in Melbourne, but it would be foolish to rush to conclusions on the evidence of those events.
The BBC's graphic (below) shows, however, that his form doesn't just just extend to a few matches since the turn of the year. Indeed, not only is his win percentage the highest of the 'Big Four' (including Nada, Federer and Djokovic) but he has beaten all three of them in that time.
Nadal has a history of slow starts to the year, but you would be mad to rule him out. Defending champ Djokovic has lost twice already this year, having changed his racquet (surely it's just a racquet :)). Federer, of course, is still very capable of winning Grand Slams, as he showed Murray at the US Open. And Murray, of course, has yet to win any Grand Slam.
Yet so much of the attention is on Murray now, and so must a great deal of expectation. How will Murray handle that? He has seemed to be on good form in the media build-up (behind his "dour" Scottish exterior there is a good deal of humour in Murray), but us Scots don't have a great history of dealing with expectation (at least when it comes to our true love, football).
Indeed, expectations are a key ingredient of anxiety (according to Reversal Theory), which can be detrimental to performance. In key matches, including some of his latest victories against Federer, Murray has been slow to get going. That could be a sign of anxiety - or not. Unless we read his mind, or have his closest counsel, we can't be sure. What is interesting is that sometimes he seems to become more comfortable and play better when he is down - perhaps when he "shouldn't" win he is more likely to, if that makes any sense?
Anyway, if Murray can keep his sense of humour, keep his mind in the moment, and keep a sense of reality - he is, after all, still the pretender to the throne rather than the King of the court - then he might just do it.
It is more likely that the winner will be decided more by psychology than physical condition. 2007 into 2008 saw Andy Murray drastically improve his physical conditioning so that he could compete with the best. If he continues to add maturity to his game in 2009 as he did in 2008, then this could be the year he breaks into the grand slam winners' club.
Will he win in Melbourne? I don't know, do I?!?
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Where's the leadership in Pieterson vs Moores?
This morning I listened to Garry Richardson (Radio Five Live) interviewing one of the English Cricket Board (ECB) management board about the Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores debacle. I can't remember who - that's not important. Neither is the interviewing style of Richardson, whom I find infuriating. (He clumsily piles in with questions of people that he must know - unless he has been stuck in his journalistic bubble for too long - that they can't answer, and then pushes them for more are more specific details on the same issue. Anyway, I digress.
)Clearly the man from the ECB was maintaining a professional silence on the stickier issues. Was he going to comment on who was behing KP and who was behing Moores? Was he going to reveal the details of private conversations? Of course not. But it was the line of questioning (Richardson's apparent lack of understanding of professionalism and leadership), which was almost childish, which got me thinking about how this whole issue had not been resolved.
Kevin Pietersen is clearly a talented and driven cricketer. Peter Moores arrived in the England job with a good record in county cricket.
So why couldn't they just work things out? Why not sit down and work out the best solution for the England cricket team?
If Pietersen had doubts over Moores coaching methods, couldn't they have discussed them? It strikes me that we have on one hand a professional, modern coach, schooled in the science of the game and taking an analytical approach; and a flair player. I don't know what went on and won't pretend to, but was Moores unable to influence his captain as to the efficacy of his methods? Was KP just too arrogant and proud to listen and give ground? Or did Pietersen have some really valuable insight that was being overlooked?
Like I say, I don't know. But this is yet again a story of failure in English Cricket. Moores and Pietersen have collectively failed to co-exist as leaders, to work together and bring their respectives strengths to bear for the good of the England cricket team.
Personally, I can't help thinking that a large chunk of responsibility lies with Pietersen. In a leadership position you somply cannot declare: "It's him or me", assuming that reports are actually true. At the beginning of the week, the papers were speculating that Moores would be sacrificed, but to me that made Kevin Pietersen's position untenable. The only real defence for Pietersen would be his inexperience - in which case he could have been coached to handle things more appropriately. Maybe Moores' postiion was already untenable, so they both had to go?
But let's not forget that even though they are leaders, both are led. So the failure is also one of leadership in the ECB. Ultimately, Hugh Morris, the MD of England cricket is responsible for his team. It strikes me that this all came to a head very quickly and publicly. We can't blame him for this being leaked to the press, but I think that it is entirely reasonable to question his leadership in this situation.
I'm not going to paint all sports managers with the same brush, but having worked in both sport and coporate business, it seems that an awful lot of sports teams focus their efforts on building their performance on the field - and rightly so - but ultimately organisations do or don't meet their objectives and it is rare for them to excel under poor leadership, no matter how high the investment in systems, processes and people.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Online Social Goal Setting?
You don't need to be a sport psychologist to know that goal setting can be a very powerful tool for building motivation and confidence, and utlimately very helpful in creating results.Research has also suggested that a goal written down and shared with others can be more effective than one privately held.
Well, how about this for an interesting angle: Sharing your goals on a website where other people can view, comment on, and publicly support your goal?
This is what Goalmigo (Goal + Amigo, apparently) does.
Interestingly, the most commonly used tag on the site is 'exercise'.
What do you think? Wouldn't it be interesting to do some research using a tool like this?
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
