At the K8 Summit last week, Sir Michael Moritz, chairman of Sequoia Capital, gave a compelling keynote on what he calls "The Personal Revolution." Essentially, his thesis is that the transformation brought about by the acceleration of bandwidth, storage, and computation over the past 30 years is having a profound impact on an individual's ability to generate income.

Here's a controversial admission for an SEO: I don't believe in link building. In fact, I haven't done any explicit link building for more than five years. One of the key currencies of web authority, inbound hyperlinks can make or break a site's visibility across the search engine results pages (SERPs). But I'm perfectly content with letting the chips fall where they may. I'm happy when you to link to my content, but you won't catch me begging. I say this for two reasons: 1) pre-existing authority; and 2) spam. Let me explain.

"What's 'online'?" asked the elderly gentleman of his son. I was eavesdropping, and at first, I couldn't believe that anyone still alive didn't know what "online" was. Isn't that pretty much equivalent to oxygen or gravity now? But then, because in the big countdown of life, I'm also on the downhill slope, closer to the end than to the beginning, I started thinking about how wrenching technological change has become.

When a consumer searches for your brand name, clicks on your search ad and makes a purchase, who should get the credit for that? Did that purchase happen because of a specific marketing tactic on television? Radio? What about display or social media, or even the search ad itself? These questions cut to the essence of attribution, which is leading to major turf wars within marketing organizations.

Most testing of marketing is disproportionately biased towards the positive. We test to find winners. But in the process, we often cut losers off without a second glance. And this can be dangerously myopic

Google self-driving cars are pretty cool, but until last week's announcement that Google Ventures was putting almost $250M into Uber (a technology-driven limo service), it was unclear to me how Google planned to actually monetize these robot cars. But imagine a driverless car that picks you up (using Google Maps/Waze for navigation, of course). That could be a cheaper and more efficient taxi service than our current human-controlled ones.

Tech stock analyst and blogger Henry Blodget has declared Google Glass dead on arrival. I'm not going to spend any time talking about whether or not I agree with Mr. Blodget (for the record, I do - Google Glass isn't an adoptable product as it sits - and I don't - wearable technology is the next great paradigm shifter) but rather dig into the reason that he feels Google Glasses are stillborn: They make you look stupid.

Though it might sound like something from Animal Planet, Google Panda is just as serious a matter for online marketers now as it was when it first released in 2011. As has been well-documented, Panda is a change to Google's search results algorithm that Google continues to update regularly, with the expressed goal of lowering the rank of low-quality sites with thin content, while placing higher-quality sites near the top of search results. Google expects to roll out about 500 search algorithm improvements this year alone! The effects are wide-reaching, so in addition to webmasters staying alert, we as marketers …

It's a cliched argument that search engine optimization (SEO) is dying), but the truth is that SEO isn't going anywhere anytime soon; it's simply evolving. We don't search the same way we did just a few years ago. Consumers have moved beyond entering one or two keywords into a search engine, to entering four to eight words at a time, often in the form of phrases or questions. This changes the search game. Consumers want more than one-word results, they want answers to their questions, so single keyword correlation isn't enough.

Much has already been written of the merger between advertising goliaths Omnicom and Publicis Groupe. Last month's announcement has been dissected from numerous perspectives: from general coverage, to views that it's largely a defensive move to combat emergent competition, and opinions that the underlying "big data play" may be misguided. It seems everyone has an opinion; I happen to have a few, too.