Sometimes we can get overly concerned with the SEO side of things and forget that the most important person visiting a website isn’t Googlebot – it’s the human you developed the site for.

Once in a while you may catch yourself disregarding all other factors while designing and structuring a website just to improve search rank. SEO tunnel-vision creeps in and you forget that the user experience is more important. If you cover basic indexability and content volume, you really can ignore quite a bit of SEO.

Yes there are times when you should be putting SEO forefront, say when actually doing SERP checks and adjusting content. If you’re targetting specific SERP competitors sure your landing pages are not intended for users but if you keep them in mind you’ll lower the bounce rate on those pages and get better logn term traction as opposed to a short term SERP fix.

The best site is the one that serves the needs of its users. Yes you need to follow the basic rules of SEO but they shouldn’t be #1 on your todo list. The basic best practices of SEO should be followed but they should be in the back of mind.

If every user coming from a search leaves your site immediately because you haven’t designed it with them in mind, you’re not going to have much success.  Remember to engage the user, keep the site refreshed for user and bot alike.

Also while unlikely, remember it is possible for a site with no pages in the SERPs to be a success! if your site is useful some good old word of mouth to the right forums and groups can get you more than enough traffic to have success.

We were traveling home from Regina after a weekend trip. While Regina is not exactly a hot tourist destination, we were there for a family visit.

We found the people exceptionally friendly and the town to be nice, as only mid-Canada can be nice.

Then went to the airport to come home. One souvenir gift we were taking back was a small jar of Saskatoonberry Jam. We thought it might be fun thing to bring back and never gave it any thought as contraband.

We were wrong.

On coming upon airport security, we were confronted and told that this particular jar of jam was a security danger. It was more than 100ml.

I had never thought of Saskatchewan as a dangerous place… a stronghold of terrorism, danger and international intrigue.

But I suppose Security officials have been watching the Little Mosque on the Prairie on the national TV network and concluded that Saskatchewan was indeed a hot bed of Muslim fundamentalism.

So a jar of Saskatoonberry jam, in the hands of a terrorist is a potential weapon of mass destruction like those found in Iraq — no wait, they never found any WMDs there – did they?

The same professional paranoid security folks who told us to surrender our freedom based on the now-missing WMDs have a theory that jars of jam can be used in ways assassins never dreamed of. I read a book once that said there were 100 ways to kill using a piece of paper. But no where in the book were Saskatoonberries mentioned… The author knew so little.

Obviously part of the screening process at airports is to prevent problems. We used to regularly get people hijacking planes and trying to get to Cuba. Now we send charters to Cuba on purpose.  Times change.

The authorities concluded from these random incidents of years passed that we were all not to be trusted. They dreamed up every dangerous scenario ever dreamed up by left brained people. Someone even thought – “Better watch out for the Saskatoonberries.”

Imagine someone applying the Saskatoonberry technique to overcome the crew. Spread a little on crackers. Entice the crew out of the cockpit. Sure the crew knows better, but who can resist these lethal berries. We obviously cannot reveal here more of the details of this technique, but it must have been envisaged by those same Security Einsteins. Why else prevent a jar of jam from travelling inside the passenger compartment?

“Well, it is not that Saskatoonberries are inherently dangerous,” said the Security man removing the jar from my possession. “We just can’t take the chance because the regulation says nothing more than 100ml.” Are we all that stupid? Someone dreams up a regulation and in being precise by arbitrarily stating 100ml creates a ridiculous scenario. And we have to stick to the regulation.

One of the screeners was laughing at the confiscation. We all knew it was a charade, yet the security personnel were powerless to accept it as ridiculous. This is a sickness of the post 9/11 society.

The purpose of security no longer seems to be to protect us. They are only reminding us they are there and it is like applying a band-aid to a cancer victim. It shows that the medical attention is there, that someone cares, but it has absolutely no efficacy.

We are constantly reading about skilled security people who waltz through the screening process with the makings for real weapons. These are knowledgeable folks showing the system can be beaten. But these pros obviously never carried Saskatoonberries.

Is there a psychological benefit to the passengers in showing “security” so passengers feel protected?

At a time when the airlines companies are crippled, isn’t it time to make it more convenient for travelers.

Surely no one really expects that some regional flight from Saskatchewan, or Topeka, or Boise will become BIG TROUBLE.

Because even if you used these Saskatoonberries to overcome the crew and take control of the plane — try to find a tall building to fly into in Saskatchewan! Arrrgh.  Tricksy hobbitses.  Foiled again!

Our pseudo security folks should learn when to apply real security and when to let people freely live their lives.  Right now this kind of security is just a negative service for a troubled poor service industry.

I have worked at various sizes of advertising agencies, from Y&R New York, then the largest agency in the world, to smaller agencies and people often ask me, what is the idea size?

Well, first of all, its not the size of the agency, it’s what you do with it.

Large advertisers tend to cluster at large agencies.  The infrastructure of a larger agency matches up with the bureaucracy of these large clients.  The large agency provides the security and thorough review of all risks required.  But that comes with a price, both economically and in speed of decision making.  I would also say that the politics in large agencies can be distracting and stifling.

Smaller agencies carry less overhead and can move faster. The way they can do this is have experienced professionals directly handling the assignments.  Some of the risk from moving swiftly can be offset by their experience.  I have to admit I personally get juiced by the pressure of getting to solutions quickly.  It shortens also the distance between strategy development and execution.

Some professionals enjoy working on communications projects and getting them done well as a matter of pride not politics.  Their closeness to the project is their reward.  They can be blind to some political issues that clients have to live with – the compromises, the accommodations.

Agency people who get frustrated with large agencies and their politics often burn out by their 30s.  If you believe in the notion that one needs at least 10,000 hours to master a profession — that doesn’t leave very much productive time in the agency business.

So what kind of agency should a client look for?  One that can listen.  One that has shown their team can create new opportunities for their clients.  Solve problems effectively in unpredictable ways.  As to size, it is probably best to match up with the agency size relative to the size of the client.

Clients should look for an agency that has experienced professionals who enjoy working hands on. How will you know this is true? Look for stability of the key team members. Clients can get fool by viewing an agency reel.  Is the material on the reel done by the team that will work with them?

After working in a large agency, I am partial to smaller agencies because they can really be nimble when it counts. They survive by being creative in solutions of all kinds, not just one trick like the “get ‘em on television” approach.

The choice of an agency often results in how the client advertises.  Like when you go to a surgeon for a medical opinion, you shouldn’t be surprised that he recommends surgery.

Each client is really important to a smaller, independent agency. Client success may be a matter of the agency’s survival. Plus clients don’t have to worry about decisions made in New York, Chicago or London changing the way their business is managed or the resources at their disposal.

I have worked on key multinational accounts at the head office in New York and on the same accounts in branch offices.  There is a world of difference.  In the resources available.  As well as the goals of the advertising.  Nevertheless, multinational brand assignments are made.  I have won accounts sometimes and lost sometimes.  It doesn’t usually happen based on local merit.

Often the argument is made that larger agencies can buy media more effectively.  They say that their size brings added leverage.  I have never found that to be true.  Large buying groups usually assign the lesser experienced buyers to do the work.  From the media’s point of view, if they give a deal to the large agency, they will find they have given the same deal to all of its clients.  Easier to give a better deal to the small agency, it won’t travel as far.

Large agencies don’t want to take large risks for large returns.  Plus large accounts are bought at reduced commission meaning there is less money to pay for the work.   So the agency wants to buy as efficiently as they can buy to make the maximum profit.  That means the least work they can put into the buy the better it is for them.  To try and prove they have done well, they make a big deal out of small victories.

Smaller agencies often subcontract the media out to buying agencies.  That can also be a problem to clients.

The truth is that buying clout relates more to who is actually working on your business than the size of the media department or the total the agency bills. A smart media negotiator who cares about the job that is done gets measurably more value than a junior buyer. And media is where most of your advertising dollar is.

I have always been surprised that clients want to “cheap out” on the resources applied to the media buy.  Wouldn’t you want maximize leverage where the money is?

So size – well it should match the client size.  Smaller agency means more risky.  Larger agency means more infrastructure and more checked out.

The three things clients should really look for in a marketing communications agency is the ability to listen, the desire to work on the business and an understanding of the issues to be faced.  Once you have that nailed, turn them loose.