searchBlog |Search Engine Marketing

When she is ready to listen, do you know what to say?

2008-07-23T15:18:52Z

Seth Godin:
Are they Ready to Listen? (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/07/are-they-ready.html)

A simple and at the same time often missed thought, Seth Godin points out the issue of timing in marketing.

To prove his point, he did some field research (impromptu it appears):

"Every single one a demographically perfect match for my handbook. After 100,000 people had walked by and we'd sold only one book, I lowered the price from around $10 to $1 just to prove my point--that it wasn't the book and it wasn't the price, it was the ability of the audience to listen that mattered."

Here he had what was the perfect product, with the perfect audience and his sales were abysmal. Sometimes the market is just not ready to listen.

Oddly, even in search, where someone raised her hand and says "I'm listening", we can see drastic swings in sales or other end metric. Take a look at time of day conversions, time of week, month, year, geography, etc. Conversion rates can vary greatly.

So, this begs the question: When she is ready to listen, do you know what to say?

When a person searches, does she click on your ad because it has the right message, or because nothing is right and she is just hunting down the list? Even if you're the best in a group that is bad, your ad is still bad. Getting the right ad, in front of the right search at the right time is an iterative process. It is not a case of making your ad different for difference's sake, but for the consumer's sake.

The search term (not the keyword), is the key indicator of what the consumer wants to hear. It is the nuance of the search term that needs to inform the messaging. By vigilantly combing the query data, you can identify new ad groups with more focussed messaging and important negatives that will help you ensure that you direct the searcher to the appropriate campaign / ad group. This can be tedious and manual work. But, failure to do this on a continual basis can create mediocre results from an otherwise stellar product.

Further, if you are familiar enough with your consumer, you may know that the same search term has different meanings based on the time of day, week, or month; same keyword, different message. Early in the month may be the time she is collecting product information, while later, she is looking for a reason to buy from you. If you help her in the beginning, you have a better chance of getting her to listen later. Try too hard to sell her in the beginning and you lose an opportunity for the sale later.

Continual copy and experience testing are key to being sure you are ready when the consumer tells you she is listening. Search is about nuance; what the consumer is telling you and, in turn, what you are saying in response. The only way to know if you heard correctly is to test, continually.

In short, by paying attention to, and understanding where, when and how the consumer tells you she is listening, you have a better chance of telling her what she wants to hear... just like any relationship.

SEM best kept secret is actually an open violation of Google's rules

2008-06-26T09:09:40Z

Secondary Search: Search Marketing's Best Kept Secret By Larry Organ is one of those articles that just makes me wonder how far out of touch some, usually well informed and respected, people are about search. I am all for having an objective view of our search programs. But to suggest that running a second search team, bidding on the same keywords to obtain multiple positions for your site without acknowledging the fundamental problems could make one believe this is a quick and easy path.

"Having a second, walled off team allows organizations to do things that would be impossible under a single roof. For example, the major search engines make it very difficult to lock up multiple paid positions within a single search campaign. But a secondary search team makes this an easy-to-achieve goal. An organization's primary SEM team can concentrate on gaining top placement for primary keywords while a secondary team can focus on lower positions."

On the face of it, this is a direct violation of Google double ad serving policy. Google will link the two accounts that are trying to do this. If you think you can simply create a second site, Google will catch that too and link the URLs. If people spend the time trying to do the right thing, rather than finding ways to mess with the rules, they would get better, longer-term results.

"Testing is another advantage. Any time an organization can see its primary SEM efforts (the control) compared against an entirely separate campaign (the test), great insight can be gained."

My experience is that good testing structure needs good coordination. You can not tell your core SEM team to do nothing while the other team makes changes. You're playing two different positions (assuming you can keep Google in the dark), you are going to get different results. If you are isolating a variable, you do not need two teams to do this. The whole concept ignores some fundamentals of search. Consider that Google has a sliding (though secret) scale for using CTR in the quality score; it is based on ad position. The vary idea is that ads in different positions will get different results. This is not a reflection on the team that holds either spot on the listings. If you want to run a true test, focus on the copy utilized within a position, or the message connected to the landing page, or the point within the funnel to which you deliver the prospect, or a host of any other variables. But to give one team positions 1-3 and another 3-6 or 6-9 and then compare the results is not a test.

If you want to compare the prowess of two agencies, fine. Give them separate assignment, normalize the results and see who comes out on top... then select ONE.

"And, of course, having multiple suppliers for any business process is the best way of keeping vendors honest."

I have never liked this motivation for a business practice. If you believe your vendors, or employees are going to screw you as soon as they get a chance, dump them, now. Don't create a situation that de-motivates honest partners and employees. Structured correctly, a good relationship rewards employees or agencies in proportion to their contribution to your success, thus minimizing the potential for getting complacent. I have always believed in looking for ways to motivate good partners rather than treat everyone like a potentially bad partner. You can not make someone honest. Either they are or they are not. Choose honest partners and accept the risk that sometimes we choose poorly, then move on.

Larry Organ has long and successful career as an entrepreneur and perhaps he has used, or does use this strategy currently. But, for most organizations, this path is not as straight forward as it would appear. Focus on good SEM / SEO. Gaming the system, which is what this strategy is, will only be short lived at best.

Google Base in Google SERPs

2008-06-02T08:53:47Z

I have been doing searches in auto a lot. One hit showed Google Base coming up in the Google SERPs for an auto search.

Repeated search did not have this result. Have you seen this?

Mobile Search - How do you use it?

2008-05-28T12:54:32Z

Mobile is about a $435MM industry. It is expected to grow to $3-4B in the next 5 years or so. I see a lot of talk about the iPhone, but the truth is they do not make up the majority of phones. All this noise brought me to wonder how are people using mobile around the country and the world.

While I was in San Francisco a month ago, I was going the meet some folks at a restaurant. Not knowing it's location, I looked it up on my blackberry. First with Yahoo! Go's oneSearch, then with Google and could not find it. I then used Live Search from MS, and got it. As I use the three mobile search apps, I find my experience in the inverse of what I have on a PC. Since it is all evolving, I am not going to pick just one (yet). But I do find that Live Search does better for me. But this leads to to wonder about things beyond my experience.

How do you use your mobile... what kind of searches, which applications, do you have a preference for apps based on what you are doing, how often?

I would like to hear about how you are using mobile search. No survey (that presumes I actually know what questions to ask you). Just free flowing email to me. If you can grab a screen shot of your app, send that along. When I have a bunch of input, I'll post on it. (I know the audience here is a bit skewed).

This post is being duplicated on the SEMPO Global Blog (www.sempoglobalsearchblog.com) and on my blog (Blog.ThinkAboutSearch.com).

Please email replies to: Steve.Haar@ThinkAboutSearch.com.

Thank you.

2008-05-26T20:59:05Z

Promotions... build them and they will come?

2008-05-03T17:11:45Z

In the early 90's, one of the clients I had was an auto after-market repair chain that was a mix of corporate owned and franchise locations. The corporate client opened a new store not too far from a franchisee. The franchisee was up in arms. He shouted that the corporate location was stealing his customers, and as proof he showed a decreasing sales trend vs the prior year. The client asked us to run some numbers. Since we were 'third' party and both had business with us, the analysis would be accepted by both.

Well, to combat the corporate location, the franchisee began a series of promotions. x% off brake jobs, every x oil change free, free labor on exhaust installation, etc. The promotions worked really well... at lowering his average sale. It turns out, he was just running the promotions in store. There was no out-bound advertising to draw people in (or very little actually). So, while the corporate location did virtually nothing to decrease his customer base, his promotion-focused 'solution' did a lot to decrease the value of that base.

So, this is the lens through which I read the clickz article, "Promotions Could Overtake Display and Search Says Report"

According to the study, search and display will peak, then decline while promotions will overtake them. The study was done by Borrell and Associates ( CEO Gordon Borrell)

According to the study, display advertising is flat at about $12.6B and will decline by 1/2 over the next four years.

"What's driving it is an overall dissatisfaction or nagging feeling on the part of advertisers that their advertising isn't working, or that they're overspending on it," said Borrell. "With the Internet, they can go straight to consumers. If they're having a sale, they can put it up on their Web site and consumers will come to them, and if their Web site is good enough, consumers will keep coming back."

"With the Internet, they can go straight to the consumers." I am not sure how. Decrease the display advertising, decrease the search advertising, and anti spam laws are terrifying companies. How exactly do they go straight to the consumers with the promotions? The answer would appear to be, " put it up on their Web site and the consumers will come to them..". So, they are not attracting as many new customers (if any at all), and for any customer that would come to the site anyway, they will give them a discount - promotion.

Now, contrast Gordon Borrell's perspective with that of Jon Brancheau,(15 minute video) from GM.
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/19186.asp
GM's director of media operations, Jon Brancheau, reveals the truth about the company's digital budget allocations in a frank chat from the 2008 iMedia Driving Interactive Summit. He is bullish on the digital space.

Far from seeing digital as not working, this is a place to push the boundaries.

I cannot see a 50% decline in display advertising. As for it being flat the past 2 years, there has been an inventory influx with social media over that time. This has been high volume, low CPM inventory. Contrary to a retraction, as behavioral targeting improves and the niche value of the individual areas of inventory are identified, I believe this will increase. These low value segments will fine their place in the advertising ecosystem and help it grow.

I am not sure that Gordan Borrell believes in the 'build-it-and-they-will-come' myth that was debunked years ago. But the general sense of the article would lead one to believe that this is nearly so.

If we believe the advertising is not working, then we should fix it before we start leaving money on the table with unadvertised promotions. There really is no reason for any online advertiser to wonder if their efforts are working. We can track minutia. If we are unsure of performance, it is not a lacking of the media, but a lacking of our imaginations. There are many ways to tag metrics to our advertising. And it will probably cost less than running unadvertised promotions.

Google's form filling bot a benefit to some, scares others.

2008-04-22T17:11:04Z

Google's form filling bot a benefit to some, scares others.

Kevin Heisler's article in SEW points out a dilemma that Google faces; in an attempt to homogenize the desires and intents of the masses, they will please some while angering, annoying or frightening others. I am not nearly as bothered by this as Kevin.

As this question popped up in some communications in my company, my response was...

"Google has been inundated with questions as to why pages are not showing up 
in the index, only to explore the issue and find out that the only way to get to 
the pages in question is to submit a form of some type. The most obvious is 
corporate home pages where the user has to select the country / region in a drop 
down (Matt's example). Until this new release, Google couldn't crawl the pages from the home 
page. Other examples include product selection, category information where you 
have to tell the site, via a form, what you want. Web masters and publishers 
have be frustrated by their in ability to get a lot of content indexed because 
managing it requires data driven applications and the use of forms. This is 
Google's attempt to rectify the problem.

For those really worried about this, blocking the bot from sub pages can be 
done."

Matt Cutts has a good post on this.

I think another aspect of blocking the bot is the robot.txt. As Matt
says, "If you’d prefer that Google not crawl urls like this, you can
use
robots.txt to block the urls that would be discovered by crawling
through a form."

These URLs should probably be part of the robot.txt file anyway. But if not, this should not be too arduous a task to add them.

Any way, like so many other "things" Google, this seems bigger at first than it will in hind sight.

Enamored with Technology... the Google - ization of us all.

2008-04-22T17:10:26Z

At AdTech last week, I was going to meet some folks for dinner. I knew the name of the restaurant and the street name, that's it. No address. So, I pulled out my blackberry, went to Google, and wham! nothing. There were some reviews, but not a listing. Next Yahoo! Go!. nothing. Again, some web sites with reviews. Then Live. Bingo. No websites, no links. just Name, Address and Phone number. Then click, a map. Oh, and I was probably just a few feet from a yellow pages directory. But, I wanted to use the technology.

To me, this would seem like an obvious search. A mobile device and a specific restaurant name. Live knew (or guessed) exactly what I wanted. The other two were clueless. But, I wanted it to work. I wanted technology to provide the answer. So, while it took a bit longer than I'd like, 1 of the 3 did work for me. But this got me thinking, 'are we too enamored with technology?' I could have picked up the phone, talked to concierge and had my directions faster. But, I didn't.

I see this take place in the SEM all the time. Bid management tools, algorithms that can tell you (so they say) when someone is ready to buy, or can optimize your media program. I was on a call the other week with an agency that appeared to rely nearly 100% on statistically driven bid management programs. I wish I could say these things worked. But they don't. Sure, they can do what you tell them, adjusting bids based on historical inputs and manage to your parameters. But they can not 'read' the market. Adjusting to the unexpected is too cumbersome, and anticipating the new is impossible. If 'it' is not in the historical data, whatever 'it' is can not be considered by the technology. People, however are very good at this. We know how our competition and consumers respond. We know our clients and their marketing calender. We can anticipate, and adjust and optimize.

We can also take risks. This is where the rewards come from. Try something you've never done and see what happens. Algorithms can't do this.

SEO suffers from the same problem (but I think they get more feisty about it). SEO is a very manual service. No two SEO experts will agree on every 'best' way to do things. Computer programs that analyze your site are useless. A good SEO person will admit and adjust to stumbles. SEO programs will keep blundering along.

In a world where we really want technology to solve problems (and it does have its place among our tools), some times it is hard to accept that the real answer is not a technological one. Its human. Experience, perception, anticipation, risk taking and hard work. These are the hallmarks of a good SEM shop.

Google diverting users to paid search listings

2008-03-25T20:51:20Z

We know that many searchers use the engines as navigational tools. Often, users type the name of the company or site into the search box and go to the the organic result. It is simple and easy. Even if you miss-type the name, the engines have become smart enough to know what you want.

Now, Google is leveraging that habit to increase the paid search exposure. I have no real problem with Google or Yahoo! displaying paid listings against the brand names. I think it is healthy. But the way they are doing it is crossing the line. Google is corralling the users down a path like a live stock. They are taking learned behavior that they cultivated and turning it around to force an unnecessary search purely for the purpose of having a second shot at monetizing the user. Then, offering them an extremely bad experience.

If you type "best buy" in to the search, you get the results:

Notice that there is a 'search bestbuy.com' box just below the organic listing. As a user, this leads me to believe I am going to Best Buy. I am not. Instead, I am diverted to a page of Google paid search listings along with organic listings on Google for the best buy site. Again, one might say that this just gives users more options. Unfortunately, it presents the user with a VERY poor experience related to Best Buy. But, it does however, allow Google to present their paid search results.

Type in "Panasonic tv." Is the best return for this search really the pedestal? How much reading does the user have to do to figure out what they might want?

Once you click to the page,to get to:

You now have to re-enter your search if you want another product.

Best Buy has determined that there are several products that users usually want when they type in 'Panasonic tv'. Along with this, their experience testing provides insight into how best to present this to the users. They have also provided options to the consumer that can help them refine their quest even further. Google simply and arrogantly delivers a link that ends in a less than good experience. To get to something useful, you have to take 2-3 additional steps. This is bad for the consumer, bad for Best Buy and ultimately, will be bad for Google.

Google has often told us that their primary concern is user experience. What is better, a list of algorithmic returns based in general search knowledge gained by Google, or targeted returns with refined presentations based on the very focused experience of a retailer? Despite all their best efforts, Google is not able to delve into our experiences as online retailers. They sit in judgment of our experiences, deeming them poor, when we know as retailers that consumers prefer what we have (otherwise we wouldn't do it...we'd loose money). That is their right. But this hypocritical twist is about monetizing the search that was best served through the organic experience. The user experience is clearly bad.

If this were just some two-bit spammer site, I'd say 'who really cares?' But, this is Google, the champion of consumer experience. They justify their position with quality rankings on the basis of 'user studies'. 'Users' want more information, deeper links and more options. As retailers, we know that consumers get frustrated when they know what they want but can not find it, or have to work too hard to locate it. Based on their queues, we use our experience to delivery what they want, including options. We can provide easy links to options that help the consumer. Google's 'search' circumvents all that. It delivers the user to a poor experience that the retailer had no opportunity to cultivate. It frustrates the consumer and will hurt the retailer.

This is a way to monetize and complicate a consumer experience.

Is this in response to paid search clicks being down? Is it an attempt to please Wall Street? Google is about business, but even with that in mind, this is too hypocritical.

Is that Local Search, or just Geo-targeted?

2008-03-20T20:35:58Z

The way I see it, local search is not just about a technical definition, it is a mindset. I started out in local search and at the time, the technology was not quite what it is today. But as I said, its as much a mind set as it is a technology.

Geo targeting is about what makes areas similar. No...seems counter intuitive? Most companies enter into geo targeting grudgingly. They look for as much commonality as they can between areas, see what is not common and make a decision about the value of changing what they do for each area. For efficiency sake, they hope that they have as few differences as possible and try to cater to the lowest common denominator. Where it makes sense, they will vary what they do. In search, they have the ability to message differently by area, adjust to the area's bid landscape and generally take into account some of the differences between areas. However, what is the up shot? Is the bidding efficiency worth the extra work? Does message management have ROI impact? While the answer is usually yes (at least in our industries) the fact that most marketers constantly strive to minimize the 'break down' of the geographies is very telling about the mindset of Geo targeting. If the could make all areas fit into one, nice big area and still make the same profit, they would do it.

Local search is about what makes an area unique. When you really get into local search, the last thing you want to do is find commonness with other things. There is a bit of pride in the distinctiveness of the business, the people and the town. You look for those things which have a real sense of the area. You can't fake it either. In the Chicago last summer, there was a series of beer commercials on the radio that tried to 'be local'. They got some of the names right, but the way they were said was clearly not 'local'. It was disingenuous; I bet you heard the same voice actor throwing out some lines about your town as well. Out-of-towners can do local marketing in your area (or mine). But they have to have a natural curiosity about the business and, more importantly, about the people. They need to want to know what makes them unique.

I've heard that local search is when you are driving the consumer to a local business. Technically, perhaps, but what is being done differently for each location? In one of our industries, there is a 'leader' with locations throughout a large region of the US. They have the same ad running in all geographic areas. Technically, this is part of a local search program (I presume), but the ads do nothing to speak to the area around the locations. Maybe this works, but our experience is that every location's customer base is distinct, so our search team is managing messaging to the location level. Is there some commonality? Sure. But, we are constantly trying to see what makes one different from the others, and leverage that into an ad and an experience that optimizes the performance.

Is your program technically local? It is if it has a local destination, geo targeted paid search, locally targeted SEO efforts, map listings, iYP, and all the other online 'local' search stuff. But, is it local at heart. Will a person in Albany, NY be treated like the person from Miami, FL? Search in general, and local search in particular, is about the individual searcher. A true local search program is the epitome good SEM.

Yahoo! Search is Opening Up

2008-02-26T16:21:33Z

Yesterday Yahoo posted an announcement about a new enhancement to their search product.
Today, Amit Kumar presented this evolution at SMX West.

The new focus is on completing tasks. Relevant media, task oriented links, Structured data. The ranking in SERPS remains that same, but the results are more focused based on what the site owner believes the user is trying to do. It can provide additional links directly on the SERP, ratings, sending links, products, media etc. Instead of having the engines 'guess', we can use our knowledge of what the user needs.

The features and enhancements are app based. There will be data feeds and information providers give to Yahoo! via the apps to which site owners can gain access, add their listings and create better SERPs for their users. These feeds may be third party ratings, product reviews, media etc. The site owners can turned these feeds on / off. Just how this will be shall be announced over time in the near future.

A question on Yahoo!'s commitment to this came up: What if publishers push forward only to have Yahoo! pull the plug. Amit pointed to the overall commitment to the open platform as an indication of it's seriousness and support.

Question on timing. Since we are a closed group and won't blog about it. But...
App Prototype development can take about 1/2 day. If you put it on your own listing, it can go live quickly. (Sony puts a product app for Sony.com) If it is open to others to add to their site, then the app will be submitted to an approval process (Sony's app used by retailers).

Just some thoughts. Think about Auto manufactures providing review feeds, spec feeds, images, or video. Theses feeds can be provided as a Yahoo! app that dealers can then add to their listings. Any product manufacturer can do this. Menus for restaurant chains? Product reviews from Consumer Reports? This really opens up great information access at very relevant times. These data sets, media, and other information can be used by many sites, and the providers of the information gain exposure and traffic. This is a great tool for the site publishers and for consumers.

If the information is bogus, users will have the ability to report abuses

Microsoft Live and Targeting the Hispanic Marketplace - or not.

2008-02-19T21:07:44Z

I received an email last week from Joe Spector who launched the dating site QuieroLatino.com, targeted to the Hispanic market. He was put off by AdCenter's lack of targeting ability toward one of the fastest growing segments of the US population and wrote about his experience here. I would say that it was not just the lack of targeting ability, but what set Joe off was the refusal to even accept sites that are in Spanish. I understand this in the early parts of development, as the resources to match and understand any Language is daunting. But, to have come this far along and not add it to the basic service is a poor oversight.

The truth is, AdCenter, and Microsoft in general, is really bad at Search. They have made little progress in expanding market share. After targeting French Canadians and English speaking North Americans, they pretty much focused on repackaging their search service (live.com) and integrating into the MS applications. While I understand Joe taking offense at their lack of acknowledgment of the importance of the Hispanic Market, the reality is that MS has just thrown up its arms with search in general. This isn't so much a dis of a particular market as it is a symptom of general ineptitude in the technology and marketing of search. Thus, MS is trying to buy what they can't build.

Taking a step back from Search, SEW has a good perspective from Maria Lopez-Knowles, senior vice president of MRM Worldwide, about Hispanic marketing online. She even recognizes MSN's Hispanic portal as a good example of the way to communicate to a bi-lingual market... the US Hispanic market.

However, it is more than language. There is more than "one" Hispanic market. The Hispanic market is another example of people separated by a common language. Argentinian, Mexican,Puerto Rican , Honduran, etc are distinct cultures that share a common language. Mix this with the impact of Hispanic immigrants and pop-culture-influenced- 1st-generation-bi-lingual Hispanics, and the divisions become more fragmented, even within households. Mid last year, I spoke with Jon Santiago of Media 8 about communicating to the Hispanic Market (His firm specializes in marketing communications in South America and the Hispanic population in the U.S.). While he recognizes that in-language plays a role and markets his clients accordingly, he is quick to point out that in-culture is the key. This is a daunting task for any marketer. It means more than the one variable of language. It means an acknowledgment of many cultures under one label.

MSN's oversight is annoying. However, by focusing on the key cultural drivers of the various segments within the Hispanic Market, it becomes clear that there are many paths to successfully communicating and marketing to this diverse group within the U.S.. The use of an English language landing page, with links to the Spanish language content is not only an acceptable path, but one which may be in-line with the dual language mode of living pointed out by Maria Lopez-Knowles.

Microsoft to Acquire Yahoo!

2008-02-01T11:09:46Z

From the back room to the front page, Microsoft puts in an attractive bid for Yahoo!.
$31 per share, $44.6B total for a 62% premium.

I found this quote somewhat amusing given Microsoft's history of being the only strong player in some categories:

“The combined assets and strong services focus of these two companies
will enable us to achieve scale economics while reaching R&D
critical mass to deliver innovation breakthroughs,” said Kevin Johnson,
president of the Platforms & Services Division of Microsoft. “The
industry will be well served by having more than one strong player,
offering more value and real choice to advertisers, publishers and
consumers.”

More seriously...
With all the recent upheaval in Yahoo!, recently announced layoffs all the way back to the reorganization of the ad sales group, it is hard to tell where people will net out. MS is offering retention packages for high value positions in engineering and other areas. Hopefully there are enough unique opportunities to keep most people on.

"Microsoft has developed a plan and process that will include the
employees of both companies to focus on the integration of the combined
business. Microsoft intends to offer significant retention packages to
Yahoo! engineers, key leaders and employees across all disciplines."

I mostly focus on the numbers when I write about our industry. But the truth is, the numbers are only a reflection of how well people work together. If we work well, the numbers show it. If we don't, the numbers show that too.

We work with good people in both houses. Our success is aided greatly by these folks and my hope is that we will be able to continue those relationships.

Google Share sees slight decline

2008-01-21T13:21:34Z

In November last year, I wrote a piecefor SEMPO Global Search Blog regarding the plateau that I see for Google. Earlier this month, I submitted a piece to Search Engine Watch which included my belief that there will be a reduction in Google share by Q4. I was wrong. It actually happened in December 2007. Google is down slightly to 56.3% in December from 57.7% in November.

Ranked by Searches (U.S.)

Provider	Searches (000)	Share of Searches	Searches per Searcher
Google Search	4,062,536	56.3%	37.9
Yahoo! Search	1,273,688	17.7%	22.4
MSN/Windows Live Search	995,899	13.8%	31.7
AOL Search	339,761	4.7%	10.0
Othere.....

Source: Nielsen Online, MegaView Search

Why does this matter. Well, considering that Google is and will remain the leader in search for the foreseeable future and that search will continue to grow, it doesn't really affect the numbers in any negative way, yet. It does, however, provide an opening. One through which we can see that other options are viable and profitable. As this happens, more opportunities can fall upon Microsoft and Yahoo!.

I believe that the market needs the competition. Even as analysts call (SEW) for Yahoo! to break off search and outsource to Google I think there is a long term benefit even to Yahoo! shareholders in the dedicated Yahoo! effort to search. With more brand dollars being considered for search, and the search product itself expanding to potentially include images and different ways to deliver results, these calls for divesting the core technology are premature. With continued strength in the display / publisher side and the nascent nature of search (relative to the potential applications), Yahoo! is uniquely positioned to package search and display advertising to optimize the ROI for advertisers. Give up the tech side of search, and the synergistic opportunities go way.

The vital non-search part of search

2008-01-15T22:06:23Z

Planning for any marketing campaign is challenging. Most of what we read about starting the program is focused on keywords, campaigns, urls, etc. These all should be. But there is a missing element. In today's dynamic business environment, there is a lot that search marketers need to coordinate along with the campaign itself.

I have read about launched campaigns being rejected or with an inflated min bid because the site was down. Or the product page text was not search engine friendly, or the offers did not match up. So, a quick review of things to proactively get into.

1) Server Maintenance Schedule. Most maintenance does not necessarily take down the sites. However, this is the time when the site is very vulnerable. If something is going to happen, now is the time.

Why care. Don't launch just before or during these times. The engines are going to inundate your servers with bot hits to get content and assess access. Depending on your campaign, this can be significant. While normally not an issue, if something happens with maintenance, these hits can complicate it. It also will be a problem for your campaign's validation and quality score assessment if the server goes down.

2) Production schedule. This is important in two areas. One, like server maintenance, this is vulnerable time. But, it is also a time when hidden problems can happen. Where content or pricing is not what you thought. This is particularly true with dynamic content or product sites. In my view, it is best to closely coordinate this effort and confirm the target page content prior to launching any new campaigns. With existing campaigns, this is a time to double check the landing pages.

3) Marketing campaigns. As we move products and services through the development cycle at an ever increasing pace, the opportunity for the outbound messaging to fall behind the product offering also increases. By not waiting for new offers or product information to be given to you and working your way into the pre-launch discussions, you'll be sure that whatever you're launching is in sync with the products.

4) Site design and development. How many times have you launched a product only to learn that the landing page is generic, or full of images and no or little text relevant to the product? Anyway, long before the launch of any search campaign, you need to involve yourself, at some level, with site design and development.

5) Analytics, reporting and application development. These are related to each other and usually are in place well before the process of creating search campaigns even begins. This is all the more reason why search people need to be well ingrained in the overall business. It is too late to raise your hand as you put your campaigns together and ask for special development, reporting or analytics support. Again, insert yourself in the long range process involved with these areas.

I have said many time that search marketers need to be more than just search marketers. They need to be good marketers and involved in there company's business. Get involved beyond search.

Another KW Search Marketing Lawsuit from 1800Contacts

2008-01-12T08:26:35Z

If I have an auto repair shop named "Auto Repair Service Center" and a competitor has a shop called "Auto Service Shop," who gets to list in the printed white pages business listings?

According to the rationale behind the rash of TM lawsuits, there is a problem here. Because, if someone looks for my shop in the white pages, they will see it. But very close to that, they will see a lot of businesses with similar names. Now, because the names are so close, and we all know consumers (ie, ourselves) are not bright enough to know that these companies are not affiliated in any way, we will be confused. So, who gets to list? Or do we just throw out the concept of white pages?

Obviously, this is a silly example. But it is only silly because white pages have been around for so long that no one is confused by so many like companies. Search is simply an extension of this.

1800Contacts is going to court again claiming the competitors are confusing the public by showing up when a search is done for "1800Contacts".

I wrote about this in prior posts ( Utah and Rescuecom). Companies need to catch up to the masses. When we shop on the Internet, we learn about the competitive landscape. "1800Contacts" is a distinct name from "LensWorld." But, the businesses serve the same need. So, they appear in the same places. Consumers expect this and are not confused by it. I would suggest that the opposite would confuse people. Type in a company name, and see no other listings.

There was a write up in MediaPost:
"The lawsuit against LensWorld joins several other recent Utah lawsuits filed by 1-800-Contacts, which maintains its principal place of business in Draper, Utah. Pratt said some of the other cases already settled. Utah last year passed legislation making it illegal to use other companies' trademarked terms to trigger ads, but that law has yet to take effect.

1-800-Contacts lost a related case in 2005, when a federal appellate court ruled that the retailer's rivals could lawfully serve pop-up ads to consumers who had typed "1800contacts" into their browsers."

These lawsuits are nothing less than an intimidation tactic. If they are being justified on the basis the Utah law that allows it (though not yet in effect), keep in mind a couple of things:
1) the law was passed with virtually no input from the engines or industry experts
2) after the law was passed and gained notice, the legislators were quoted as saying they wish they had the industry input before the legislation was voted. (they even chastise the engines for not coming fourth. The idea of going to the engines apparently did not occur to them.)

The law was hasty and pushed by a few people (1800contacts is based in Utah, and now there is this law following previous failed lawsuits? Yet 1800Contacts wanted the Utah to back off the law after it was passed? Anyone else confused?).

So, what now? Well, hopefully the courts will dispense with this nonsense post-haste (never had a chance to use that term before ) as they have other similar lawsuits.

In the meantime, to satiate 1800contacts, If I were LensWorld, I would do the following:

Create a "we are not 1800contacts landing page"

-State very clearly that there is no association whatsoever. 
-Then, link to articles about the lawsuit letting consumers know that 1800Contacts doesn't want them to know that there are competitors.
-Compare prices. For instance, 1-Day ACUVUE MOIST is $24.99 per 30 lens pack on LensWord, and $26.66 on 1800Contact. And, by the way, on 1800Contact, you have to buy $319 worth to get the price.
-Close the sale with a link to the products.

Screen shots from the two sites:

As For 1800Contacts

Rather than spend all this money on lawsuits and intimidation tactics, 1800Contacts should try lowering prices to be competitive. Boxing out competitors through lawsuits is cowardly at best. It is an abuse of our legal system and a disservice to the consumers they claim to want to protect.

Eric Goldman has a good post on this.

Trends, fads, and stupid things that never should have seen the light of day

2008-01-02T22:21:39Z

I was wondering about things that have popped up over the year, or carried over from the previous year. Some appeared to be really cool (fads), others seemed important (trends) and then there was a bunch of things that someone thought was cool, important or just plain... something; I don't know, but it saw the light of day and should not have.

Universal Search
This area makes sense to me. It is an iteration of user experience; universal search is just a fancy name for it. The reality is that all the elements of Universal Search are available individually at a click. The engines just take the most relevant bits from news, image, video, web etc and put it on one page. I think Ask has done the best job, but there are various executions, with Google's getting the most press. I hope they continue to move forward, be it Universal Search, or some other name. Easier, quicker access to our search objectives is welcomed. Bit more perspective.

Personalized Search
This is cool. Engines that know what I want and deliver it. With the uncanny ability to know that the same keyword phrase I enter has a different meaning than when my neighbor enters it, engines can make my experience better.

I'm not buying it. I think it is a really cool engineering challenge and no doubt very fun to work on. But, I am not convinced that engines will be able to figure out what I want...more opinion.

Paid links coming to a head?
This has always been a 'no no'. In the fourth quarter this year, Google made several changes in an attempt to mitigate paid links. I think this battle will continue in rhetoric more so than in engineering.

Mobile
I am a big fan of mobile search development. Two big guys are taking decidedly different approaches. Yahoo is going the proprietary route with custom content and developing carrier agreements across the globe (16 new carrier deal in Latin America this month was just the latest move) while Google is developing an open source approach to allow indi development. I think Yahoo has the better approach, but then I am just one opinionated SEM guy. Time will tell.

Video search
Though I have read much on this, I have written virtually nothing. At this point, it is very interesting and I believe it has a future (real keen of me, I know). However, I am not clear on how it will play out. I know that many have written their visions, but it is still too nascent for me to have a clear view on how consumers will take it while providing publishers and sites appropriate opportunities to monetize it. Video is just too engaging not to move beyond the 'mass amateur' to the profit seeking professional. I just don't know how.

Consolidation
It will continue. I believe thatinnovation is the realm of the little guy. However, the big guys will gobble them up. As for big fish being gobbled by bigger fish, there is a lot of stink about this. I think we need to be more responsible for how we conduct business to mitigate these issues, I'd really hate to see government get too involved here.

Me too! I do search too!
This is just a general observation, but their appears to be a movement of general agencies and non-SEM online agencies that are holding their hand up saying "we do search too!". As the perception of search's impact on brand increases, and more dollars flow this way, I expect this trend to continue. But, just because there is a lot of new cash going into it, doesn't mean there is any more talent. Companies need to be careful... the "me too'ers" don't necessarily come with the talent that years of SEM work have provided to others.

Trademark issue
This one gets me. From the Utah legislature providing TM protection in the name of consumer protection to companies trying to prevent others from even appearing when their name comes up, this is the kind of stupid stuff that wastes tax payers money, limits our options and would lead anyone with even the slightest lack of confidence to believe they are incapable of traversing the web without a baby sitter. It drives me nuts.

Privacy
This is a big one... I thought. I think Seth Godin's perspective (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/people-dont-tru.html) is more likely. However, that is not going to stop legislators, corporations and online professionals from worrying about it.

Local Search
This has been on the radar for a while. There is a simple approach, which is local, based on business location. But, there is also local search based on market conditions, propensity and geo based lifestyles that make a 'national' advertiser smarter to break things into local buys. As the local businesses become more savvy, this space will grow. The level of knowledge does not need to increase greatly, as companies like AT&T and Verizon are using their local YP sale channels to promote online YP (IYP) and search as well as print products. This will grow a great deal, bringing SMEs with them, and creating price pressure on the SEM market.

The right perspective makes all the difference

2007-12-18T22:14:05Z

This is an easy put:

I have always promoted the idea that search marketers have to step beyond search to see what is really going in with their company or clients. To really add value, you have to know where you fit in, what obstacles you might face and what you might offer beyond the obvious. Sometimes, even often, the obstacles have nothing to do with the game of search.

Take another look at that easy put... from a broader perspective.

Kind of makes you rethink it, doesn't it?

If you are only focusing on your narrow area, are there dangers, threats, or perhaps opportunities that you are missing?

Search is a tactile art.

2007-12-11T21:19:09Z

At heart, I am a data guy. I run numbers, look at trends, see patterns and set direction based on what this all indicates. This is a great habit when dealing with several hundred campaigns' and oodles of money built up from $1 bids. Taking it all in, running it through database queries and custom routines makes fairly quick work of the tasks (hours vs days). However, this weekend I was reminded (again) that large number crunching projects are not the single answer to search's challenges.

You have to get into it. Our campaign managers would probably rather I didn't. But I do. And the truth is, I really enjoy it. It is very 'tactile'. You can almost feel the information as you pour through the campaigns. You get a sense of the relationship between the different campaigns, keywords, kw types, bids, positioning, QS, ad copy and so on. Some of our programs are made up of a dozen campaigns spending hundreds of thousands a month each while others are hundreds of campaigns spending thousands a month each. Both present unique challenges. But to do either kind well, you have to do more than look at reports, change bids and set up bid rules. You have to get dirty.

Most SEM folks have done deep dives into their campaigns. But, do yourself a favor, and without any pretext, just start exploring your campaigns. Look for the little things that won't show up in an exception report, or be uncovered in a problem. Search is about nuances; and nuances, by definition are small and frequently unnoticed. But these are the little things that add up to big things. When we talk about the hard work of SEM, this is the kind of thing we really mean.

And I think this is what makes good SEM folks unique. To put together a really good SEM program, you need to have a broad perspective, understand the objectives and the stategies. Not just of search, but for the whole marketing and advertising 'thing'. I frequently find myself in conversations about this with my teammates; we all have ideas about the direction we should go with the products and service we promote. But, then we are just as eager to jump into the gritty part of the SEM job. It is because we have an understanding of the larger effort that we know, almost instinctively, what nuances to leverage.

So, do yourself and your clients a favor. Get dirty.

Microsoft Vista - SEM done wrong...

2007-12-01T14:00:18Z

Just a short reminder...
There are two things you can do with Search copy:
1) try to entice as many people to click as possible
or
2) try to entice the right people to click

The first makes your CTR look good. The second makes your ROI look good. Which do you prefer?

This reminder comes from my current experience looking up windows vista.

You wouldn't know it from looking at the two top ads, but the first is about Windows Live and Vista together. The Second is about Vista for business.

You have to click on both to find out if either is what you want. In my case, I wanted neither. But I had to click on both to know that. A simple iteration of the copy could have saved Microsoft some money (not that cash is a problem for them)and me from some frustration.

What I wanted was in the organic listing.

As an aside, I am in the market for a new home computer. We are considering if an iMac or a Window Vista PC is more in line with our needs. I could go either way. While I know it is petty, this experience is pushing me toward the Mac.

Mac puts together a nice video that takes me through the key benefits, shows me how to use them and actually lets me learn about the OS. Microsoft makes me hunt through their site to see the benefits, read a lot, and the videos are redundant and about branding - showing people, life style and almost nothing about how you do the things they are showing. If I want to know if the system is user friendly, I see that easily with Apple's approach while Microsoft leaves me wondering...