Blog

Nicola Hanna 12/03/2021 Nicola Hanna 12/03/2021

Tech notes: Youtube video embeds

If you've been using YouTube to host the sales videos embedded on your site, you might remember that you used to be able to prevent the "related videos” from showing up after the video had finished playing but you don't seem to be able to anymore.

YouTube remains the best place to host video content for consumers and businesses alike, but the functionality does change every so often, usually without much of an announcement. If you've been using YouTube to host the sales videos embedded on your site, you might remember that you used to be able to prevent the "related videos” from showing up after the video had finished playing but you don't seem to be able to anymore.

As it turns out, as of September 25th, 2018, the API functionality was changed, and the simple checkbox was removed from the user interface. “An Embed API is the code generated when you use the embed option of the share function on YouTube videos.”

The main changes in that update were to remove the option to prevent related videos from displaying after your video has played, and the option of not to displaying the video name and channel details. (side note: this also happened for videos cast from your mobile device to your TV which I personally find quite irritating.)

The stated reason for these changes is to “Increase standardisation across platforms”. I find that to be a weak reason given the whole point of those options was to allow businesses to have relatively unbranded videos.

While the call to remove name and channel details is entirely gone, (the code won’t work even if you had it before), the call to prevent related videos still does something. Where the value is set to 0, the related videos will only be videos from your own channel. This still isn’t great if you’re using the embed code on a sales page with one purpose (and therefore really don’t want other videos/links/content diluting your message), but I guess it’s better than random videos or user targeted videos showing up.

As noted above you can’t set this value with the user interface anymore either. So, all future embeds will show random related videos unless you specifically change the provided embed code to include the call.

Of course, I can help you with this if you’re not interested in editing code yourself.

If you haven’t heard anything about these changes, that’s not surprising. Technically the changes were publicly announced on their embed API documentation page, but I have to say that’s not quite the same as sending out a media release to relevant news sites, is it? From what I can tell people are mostly noticing when the options that were available before are no longer there. I personally heard about it through the Clickfunnels Facebook group so shout out to them for sharing the news.

This is all pretty disappointing to me as I’m generally a pretty big fan of Google (and by extension YouTube), but there’s no denying that this is a fairly hostile move towards the businesses using the YouTube platform for sales/marketing purposes. If you want to see the revision history of the embed API you can find that here.

I also have a one page guide on how to change the embed code correctly, which you can download below.

Nicola Hanna 28/08/2020 Nicola Hanna 28/08/2020

What’s up with that Open Letter to Australians?

Content Warning: This post contains swear words and slang.

If you are in Australia and use any Google products at all, then I'm sure you've seen the notices they've put literally everywhere about the ACCC's proposed arbitration code between News Publishers and *digital platform services*.

I clicked through pretty quickly because it was odd and I have a habit of reading things that look like error messages. The Open Letter to Australians from Mel Silva, Managing Director of Google Australia is pretty clear in what the impacts of this code would be for average Australians (and average Australian businesses...) but of course various news publications and the ACCC (whose content was also definitely served to me by Google....) are saying that Google is using scare tactics and is generally incorrect about what the code would do.

So I went and found the draft code, and skimmed through the definitions at the front till I got to the meat of it. .... The phrase that comes to mind is pretty rude, so lets tone it down and say that I think the ACCC is on something if they think this is, in any way, a reasonable piece of legislation. It truly seems like they've seen the problem i.e. Australian publishers are struggling to meet the demands of the modern digital business world, and looked for the largest non-publisher businesses to pin the cost on. (I’m not the only one who thinks that)

Now, I'm not particularly sympathetic to large news corporations because many of them have been absolutely raking it in, enjoying full control of the content distributed in this country for more than 50 years in some cases. That they are now making less profit doesn't worry me in the slightest. It does bother me that their response to making less profit is likely to be reducing the quality of journalism by firing and/or cutting pay to journalists, but to be clear that's how they have always done business. So consider me biased against them. That said I'm not exactly biased towards Google either, Google can certainly afford the amounts being asked for to an extent.

So what's my problem with this code??

The way they've written it, whether they realise this or not, will affect EVERYONE. It will definitely privilege content from large news corporations over anyone not registered under the Australian Communications and Media Authority as a "registered news business corporation". Looking at the AMCA website it appears that this will be a new type of registration, given that the licenses/registrations currently available on the site relate specifically to Radio, TV and Telecommunications Carriers.

So if you're a local newspaper you will first need to go get this new registration to be covered by this code, oh and you must already have greater than $150,000 per year in revenue as a corporation, and if you're anyone else, congrats you're shit out of luck.

To be clear, what this means is it won't matter if your content (as a creator or a person or a business) is more relevant to the search query, Google, YouTube and Facebook will be forced to show that news content first, even if it isn't relevant, even if it's behind a paywall AND they want Google and the others to pay for the privilege of showing less relevant content.

It seems like they've misunderstood what Google Search is?

The relationship between Google and news publishers is as the sooty newspaper kid, shouting the headlines in Victorian era movies was to the newspaper printer. The kid didn't pay the printer, the printer paid him. Just because the kid is now a global corporation with it's own independent funding sources doesn't mean the flow of money should be the other way round. To Google's credit, they were in negotiations to pay anyway.

That aside, here are the main points verbatim from the draft code that will screw over everybody:

52M Giving explanations of information

Subsection (2)

(a) a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business) about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service;

(b) a list and explanation of the products and services supplied by the digital platform service that collect data about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service;

(c) a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service currently has a practice of making available to registered news businesses;

(d) an explanation of how the form of the data mentioned in paragraph (c) differs from the form of the data collected by the digital platform service about users of the digital platform service;

(e) information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to the data mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c).

I am deeply unclear how the ACCC doesn't see this as a massive invasion of privacy, but lets break it down. Sub-subsection (a) means that any registered news corporation will be provided a list of the kind data Google has by virtue of you having any engagement with online news. This is followed with sub-subsection (e) that says now we know what data you have, we would like to have and use that data too.

This means that if you use Google Search or literally any Google product that shows news then they will have your usage data, possible including, IP address, physical location at any given time, full name, email address, etc ad nauseum. If you have a Google account or a Facebook account then news businesses feel like they should be able to have and use that information.

Maybe they didn't mean to include full name, email address and physical location at any given time in the list of things they want access to... but it sure doesn't say they are excluded. Maybe the Australian Privacy Act will protect us... but probably not before a bunch of news organisations are given/take this data and a data breach happens.

They can already see aggregated data about who engages with their content through Google Analytics or any other web analytics program, same as the rest of us. Why they feel they deserve access to a higher level of data than we, the users, have authorised is beyond me.

The next section in summary:

We think we should have special knowledge of your algorithm so we can always rank highest and we want 28 days notice of you changing it.

Woops meant to say,

52N Algorithmic ranking of covered news content

(1) Subsection (2) applies if:

(a) changes are planned to be made to an algorithm of the digital platform service; and

(b) the changes are likely to have a significant effect on the ranking of the registered news business’ covered news content made available by the digital platform service.

(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must ensure that:

(a) notice of the change is given to the registered news business corporation for the registered news business; and

(b) the notice is given:

(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—at least 28 days before the change is made; or

(ii) if the change relates to a matter of urgent public interest—no later than 48 hours after the change is made; and

(c) the notice describes the change, and the effect mentioned in paragraph (1)(b), in terms that are readily comprehensible; and

(d) the notice describes how the registered news business can minimise negative effects of the change on the ranking of its covered news content made available by the digital platform service.

There's also special sections for pay-walled content, the way that content is displayed in search etc and advertising of news publishers, but I won't sport with your intelligence by including those sections too. They follow the exact format of the section above.

That's right.. news publishers think it's reasonable that they have advance and detailed knowledge of the search algorithm, including as it relates to pay-walled content, the design of displayed links and even the ad algorithm.

I would LOVE to have access to the exact requirements of the search algorithm, it would make SEO so much easier, but this is a case where it absolutely has to be *everyone* or *no-one*. If only news publishers have that information then they can make sure their content displays first on anything and everything to the exclusion and detriment of all others. Obviously that's not ok, right???

Oh but we wouldn't USE the great and terrible powers, they say, we just want to HAVE them.

Bullshit

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Give one group of economically motivated people a way to make MUCH more money at the cost of harming multitudes of anonymous people and history has shown they will. Every. Single. Time.

Nobody should have access to the algorithms.

Every company who has one is right to protect it, not because "it's a trade secret" or because it earns them money to be the only ones with it (though it does that too), but because the internet is at it's best when everyone has the opportunity to get the highest ranking through hard work and quality of content.

To try and legislate how that works can only have detrimental effects for everybody.

What this all comes down to, is that News Publishers don't have the distribution monopoly they once had and some of them are floundering around in this new world looking for someone to blame. That's nobody's fault but their own and the ACCC's incredibly heavy-handed attempt to help them out is definitely not the right way to go about ensuring Australia continues to have quality news media.

This legislation can harm me, as a person through the handing over of my data and as a business through the disadvantage of not having access to the algorithm. If you are a person in Australia who uses the internet, it can harm you too. If you are business, not covered by the registration definition, then you can be harmed too. I’m not ok about that, and I have sent a version of this post to the ACCC as an “interested party”. You can do so too here, bargainingcode@accc.gov.au, submissions are due by 5pm 28th August 2020

Sources:

Nicola Hanna 17/10/2019 Nicola Hanna 17/10/2019

Why I can’t recommend Keap (formerly InfusionSoft).

Why I don’t recommend Keap for new entrepreneurs and small businesses

There’s many, many, many, many CRM’s/Email Marketing tools available to help you manage your contacts and keep in contact with them. With all the choices available it’s important to check out reviews for potential software purchases beforehand.

So, here’s my review of Keap (formerly InfusionSoft).

Keap is an all-in-one email marketing and sales CRM platform. In terms of functionality and price -point, they’re competing with Salesforce and accordingly I would expect they’re best suited to businesses of roughly 15 people upwards. Less than that and you’re unlikely to use the functionality you’re paying a premium for, which is never a good situation.

The interface is fairly clean and tidy, and the automation tools appear to be pretty powerful, but settings often aren’t in the place you would expect them to be so it’s not as easy to learn and then use the various features as it should be. I say this as a person who can and does learn how to proficiently use at least one piece of software every month for my clients, if I think it’s annoying to use, then you are going to tear your hair out.

The email designer is just ok, it loses out for ease of use to even Mailchimp and you can’t access email templates except through the campaign builder workflow (unlike Mailchimp). Even though there is an email template tab in the account settings. This tab apparently refers to notification type emails and allow you to edit the email test and metadata with no way to change the appearance. Not what I would call a template.

The lead/contact management interface is similarly fine but doesn’t appear to have any clear engagement/lead rating system.

I don’t have experience with other parts of the functionality, so I won’t speak to those, but there’s one final and very important piece of functionality that all online software MUST have, and that’s the ability to export your data and cancel the account with ease.

Here Keap breaks the unspoken but vert strict rule of online software. You can’t cancel your account from the account settings interface. You have to fill out a “contact” form and WAIT for an “account manager” to call you back. This by itself would be reason enough for me to never recommend them to anyone.

However, it gets worse.

A client of mine had signed up for Keap on the recommendation of someone in their network (prior to becoming my client by the way). My client gave the software a good go, taking a course to understand how to use the functionality. They built out templates and automations and other pieces in the software, but even with the course information they didn’t use 90% of the features.

The truth was Keap was more complex than their business needed, which is fine, it happens. So now they needed to move to a cheaper and easier to use software. I exported all the data I could. Got their written confirmation to close the account. And went to do so. Cue red flags and alarm bells!! The cancel account option is a contact form! Surely that isn’t right, I think. So, I google “How to cancel Keap account”. Ah, yep, Keap documentation says this is how you do it…. Ok then. I enter my clients’ information as they’ll have to be the ones taking any calls. I notify my client and hope for the best. Several days later, we have a catch-up call and I ask if the account has been dealt with. She says no, she’s repeatedly tried to get in contact with them, and NOBODY has called or replied or done anything that might constitute contacting her.

Which I think is ridiculously unacceptable. The next step for her was contacting her credit card company to get the charges blocked. The account was cancelled after that, but I feel like one should never have to get to the point of calling your credit card company to cancel an account, and it really shouldn’t be so hard to get in contact with a company.

After this experience, it occurred to me to compare this poor experience with the procedure for cancelling a salesforce account. A little research tells me that with them also you need to contact an account manager to go through the process of cancelling the account. A quick google shows several very dissatisfied former customers who had similar issues. Given this information, I think there is one major difference between Salesforce and Keap. In my prior dealings with salesforce, we had an account manager that we were in regular contact with. We knew who to talk to if we had any problems. On the other hand, my client did NOT have an account manager at Keap, they had no one to contact and no way to get a message to someone who might do something about cancelling the account. They were completely at the mercy of this ridiculous “Contact form”. It should also be noted that both Platforms require contact with a sales rep to OPEN an account.

To conclude, be careful what you sign-up for. If you have to talk to a Sales Rep to open an account with an online software platform, you should also expect to talk to one to close the account. My general advice would be that if your business is smaller than 15 people you most likely don’t need software that requires an account manager. If you DO get a piece of software with this kind of sign up process, make sure you know who your account manager is and/or ALWAYS have a current contact at the company. Finding yourself at the mercy of contact forms and tech support portals when you need specialist help is certain to cause a bad time.

Nicola Hanna 20/06/2019 Nicola Hanna 20/06/2019

The Too Long: Didn’t Read of Pop Ups

This article on Pop Ups by Lauren Minning of ActiveCampaign is worth a read but it is pretty long so here’s a summary with the main points. I encourage you read the full article to find out more but I know we don’t all have the time for that.

TL:DR

Pop Ups are annoying
But Good Pop ups convert really really well compared to other placements
Pop ups need context, they work best when they show after a relevant action
No Pop up should come up as soon as you enter a website, nobody goes to a website to see their pop ups
Good Email sign up forms should be Prominent, Promise useful benefit and provide Proof of benefit.
Entrance and Exit Intent Pop-ups, Overlay/Modal/Lightbox pop ups, Slide-in boxes and sticky forms are all good types of pop ups that can work for you.

Nicola Hanna 04/05/2019 Nicola Hanna 04/05/2019

Does the Google + consumer shut down affect my business?

So, the consumer shut down of google + has started… a month ago. Did anyone notice? Yeah me neither. Still there will presumably be some consequences for businesses eventually so I thought I’d go and check out those FAQs so you don’t have to.
The long and short of it is that consumer gmail accounts will no longer have an associated Google + account. If you’re a paying or academic G-Suite user of any sort then your gmail account will still have an associated Google + account. So far so simple.
There’s not much more to be said about consumer accounts, but for G-Suite accounts, the details are a little more complicated. For example, if you have upgraded your original consumer account to a paying account then any data added to Google + prior to the upgrade may still be deleted. If your business had a Google + Page, that will also be deleted. Circles are being phased out and after April 2nd you can’t create new circles, Add people without a google + account to existing circles or share a post to a circle. Collections are also being phased out and you won’t be able to create new collections, or add content to a collection that is not domain-restricted. There’s a number of other changes but the above looked like the ones that would affect business users the most. Personally I never used any of these features, but that’s kind of the point/problem isn’t it. You can find the rest of the details here https://support.google.com/a/answer/9229693
If these changes do affect you, then the only recourse is to back up the files through takeout.google.com or backing up your Google + Photos to Google Photos. Given the deletion started a month ago, it may already be too late, but they do say that the deletion process was expected to take several months so it might also still be there. In any case here’s the main FAQ for the shut down https://support.google.com/plus/answer/9217723#whatshappening