Over the weekend, I used Google to find some info for an upcoming trip. On the first page of results, I saw a forum site that I had visited before, and the description looked relevant to my search. I clicked on the result, and it took me to a totally different site that tried to install some malware. Apparently the site had been hacked, and the hacker was redirecting the original site’s traffic to their own malicious domain.

This sort of thing is quite common on today’s Internet. Luckily, my computer is up-to-date on patches and security software, so I don’t think I suffered any permanent harm aside from having to restart and run a malware scan. But where was Google in all this? Normally, when they find malicious code on a page, they display a warning that “This site may harm your computer” — but there was no such message during my search. I felt a little bit betrayed.

Logically speaking, I guess the site had been hacked after the last time that Google scanned it. Arguably, they can’t be expected to re-scan every site every day. So I figured I would report the offending site to them. I looked throughout the search results page for a link to report a malware result. Nothing. Just some generic form if you’re dissatisfied with the results, which probably takes days or weeks to get read. Sure, I could locate and fill out a spam report form, but it’s common knowledge that only a small percentage of those are ever acted upon.

If Google is serious about protecting users from malware, they need to do two things. First, perform more frequent scans on those sites that are more vulnerable to hacking. These might include forums or blogs running outdated software that is subject to known vulnerabilities. And second, provide an obvious link on every search results page to let users report malware, fraud, and other dangerous things — and make sure actual humans review these reports on a regular basis.

Until these additional steps are taken, Google will continue to give users a false sense of security. Frankly, if they’re going to display any malware warnings at all, they should invest the extra time and effort to make those warnings as comprehensive and timely as possible.

If you look around your home or office, you’ll probably notice that the power and data jacks are clustered together. In other words, for every Ethernet, phone, or cable TV outlet on the wall, there’s a power outlet no more than a few feet away. This approach makes sense, since virtually everything that uses a data connection will require a power cord as well. (Power-over-Ethernet is a notable exception, but is typically limited to large offices.)

With this in mind, I’ve always been surprised that one of the rooms in my apartment has a cable outlet, but no power outlet anywhere on that wall. You have to cross over a doorway or closet to reach the nearest one. Even stranger, the other side of that wall has a power outlet, so it would have been very cheap to add the outlet during the original construction. Perhaps someone just screwed up.

As a rule of thumb, whether you’re the builder or the resident of a property, always do a reality check on the power and data jacks. For every data jack, including phone and cable, there should be a power outlet nearby. If there isn’t, you’re basically wasting time and money to install the data jack, since the user won’t be able to connect anything there anyway.

It’s human nature to shoot the messenger — we tend to place the full brunt of our anger and blame on the person who delivers a piece of bad news. However, I think people act the same way when it comes to delivering praise. In other words, when someone helps you resolve a problem or complete a complex task, the most visible person is the one who gets all the thanks. Meanwhile, the people laboring behind the scenes often do so without any recognition from the very people they’re helping.

So the next time you find yourself giving out praise, remind the recipient that it extends to their colleagues as well. Sometimes they’ll pass your message along, other times they won’t. But even the small amount of praise that gets past the front lines can make a world of difference in the spirit of that team, and helps ensure that you get the same level of service in the future.

Say you’re writing an article or a blog post about something you heard about elsewhere. Maybe the source was a press release, or an interview, or a book. Years of schooling and common courtesy suggest that you should provide a credit to the original source, which usually means a link. Yet many reputable sites and their authors never do this.

Regardless of the rationale, I’d like to point something out about this behavior. Here’s the question we should all be asking: what sort of site is most likely to write about something without providing credit to the original source? The answer: spam blogs, or “splogs” for short. You’ve probably seen these sites after performing a web search, only to click on the result and be greeted by an ugly page filled with crappy text and lots of ads. These guys make a living by stealing content, mashing it together to look original, and then filling the space with ads.

So whether you’re quoting a third-party source or an in-house researcher, make sure to provide credit when it’s due. Otherwise, you might be acting like a spammer without even realizing it.

A few days ago, I read a story about a new healthcare program that Walgreens introduced for corporate customers. From the story and the original press release, interested companies could apparently sign up for the program and get access to in-store clinics and special prescription pricing to complement traditional health insurance. So I went to the Walgreens website to learn more, but there was nothing on the homepage about it.

Undeterred, I looked through various pages on the site, but couldn’t find any mention of the new program. Next, I tried using their search box, and typed in the exact name of the program from the story. Nothing. Then, I tried a Google search, but all that came up were more copies of the original press release. Apparently, Walgreens had introduced the new product into a vacuum.

If you’re going to invest the money to promote a new product or service via press releases and other outbound channels, think about the results of those efforts. Namely, prospective customers are going to come to your site to learn more. Even if the product doesn’t warrant a prominent blurb on the homepage, at least have the common sense to create a page about the new product. Use the same name and description that appeared in your press release. And give the visitors who reach that page a way to buy the new product, sign up to receive more information when it’s released, or share their discovery with others.

I’ve been trying to use a gift card from one of my favorite restaurants for several weeks now. The problem isn’t finding the time to go there. Rather, it’s been so cold here in Chicago lately that you’d be a little nuts to venture out during dinner hours. With the sun already setting by that time, any trips outside are best restricted to must-have items, and dining out usually isn’t one of them.

Gift card or not, I think every restaurant faces this problem in the winter. During the coldest months, people probably aren’t as willing to go outside at night. Breakfast and lunch, of course, should provide a solid alternative, since it’s warmer during the daytime. But in my case, the restaurant doesn’t serve lunch on weekends.

If you have a restaurant or other local business where sales tend to fall in the winter, a simple experiment is in order. Either modify your hours to be open during the warmer part of the day, or if you already have long hours, try emphasizing them in your marketing. Once people realize that they can stop by without the weather penalty, they might make a habit of showing up more regularly in the winter.

Common sense tells us that a higher quality product will make customers happier, generate more positive buzz, and sell more briskly than a lower quality one. But higher quality products typically cost more than the competition, which limits their reach in the marketplace. So where do you draw the line between quality and selling price?

To answer that question, we need to look at the selling price and customer ratings associated with a hypothetical product. Let’s say your product costs $100 right now, and on a scale of 1 to 10, customers give it a 10. Your main competitor’s product costs $50, but only scores around a 5 on the same scale. At half the cost, though, the competitor is kicking your butt in the marketplace. Now, say you can swap out some of your parts for cheaper ones, which means the product will break more often or will weigh a little more or will scratch more easily. Bad things, for sure. However, the overall quality assessment by customers would still score around an 8 — and you can drop your cost from $100 down to $55. Should you do it?

Many of us would say no, and always insist on the best experience for our customers. But that way of thinking actually hurts those very same customers. Here’s why: anyone who can’t afford your premium product is going to buy the crappy, cheaper one that your competitor sells. As our numbers above show, they would be much better off buying the lower-cost version of your premium product. Even though it’s not as good as your no-compromises model, they’re still happier than if they bought something from the competition.

Putting this another way, you can’t deliver any value or happiness to people if they don’t buy your product in the first place. Those folks are stuck with the crap that your competitors sell, since it’s all they’re willing to pay or can afford. So while it may seem counterintuitive, you can probably make a whole lot more people happy by relaxing your internal standards a bit, and lowering prices accordingly. Whether you do this by making your original product cheaper or just introducing a new lower-cost version, remember that getting your product into the hands of more customers is a good thing for everyone.

In my experience, Chicago’s Midway airport is one of the best airports in the US. It’s big enough to have lots of flights (mainly on Southwest), but small enough that you don’t have to ride some hokey people-mover to get to your gate. And getting back and forth from downtown is a cinch, thanks to the Orange Line service that does the trip in about 30 minutes.

If there’s any downside to Midway, it’s the lack of international flights, or at least direct ones. Even to relatively close destinations in Canada, almost all the flights involve a stopover or plane change. For whatever reason, the much larger and more obnoxious O’Hare airport has the international market cornered.

So, when I learned that a regional airline plans to start direct flights to places like Toronto, I was surprised. I don’t go to Canada very often, but it’s great to know there will soon be direct flights there from Midway. How did I find out about the service? Through some roundabout series of blog articles and recommendations — not exactly a high-volume way to reach target customers.

For a small or regional carrier, the primary challenge is to get the word out there. You need to show potential travelers that your flights are cheaper or more convenient than the other guys. If you’re on a limited budget, the logical place to focus this effort is at the airport itself. The target customers are already there, so take advantage of billboard-style signage in the terminal, sponsorships, and any other ways to get your pitch in front of travelers. When you have the opportunity to address an audience that is pre-qualified for your offer, the interest level and resulting revenues should be quite substantial.

While reading about a new mixed-use development in Chicago, I noticed an interesting statistic. The residential part of the complex was like 90% sold, but the commercial side seemed to only have one tenant. Even in a weak economy, this seems like a strange disconnect. If lots of people are already signed up to live right above those stores, why aren’t more businesses flocking to lease the space?

Obviously, there are other factors at work here. Maybe it’s the poor availability of business loans that prospective tenants need in order to open a new location. Or perhaps the landlord wants absurd rents for the space. Either way, the landlord seems to me missing out on a great way to lure more commercial tenants. Namely, just survey the people who are signed up to live in the adjoining buildings, or who already live very close to the vacant retail space. Ask them which stores, restaurants, and services they would like to have close by. And then use this data to seek out commercial tenants that fit the bill.

This strategy is great for everyone. Consumers get the types of retail businesses that they’ve been asking for, landlords are able to fill up their commercial space, and the new businesses that lease the space get a low-risk way to enter the market — since they’re addressing a documented consumer need. After thinking through the process, I’m amazed that commercial space is marketed any other way.