Will Google’s Universal Search Kill the SEM campaign?

May 18, 2007 – 9:34 am

Cue the Zarathustra…

I know it’s a stretch but I can’t get that Buggles song out of my head. So what does that have to do with Google and Universal Search? Well, everything.

Google killed the SERP

As you can see above, a search for “Video Killed The Radio Star” (and it did BTW), not only has the the old Google navigation changed but video results are showing up right in the regular results. In fact, if you click that plus sign the video opens up right in the SERP results from YouTube. This is great, if you’re Google and you own Youtube, but what about other video websites who may not get a click through? So far, content from video sites like MetaCafe are showing up as previews but is this fair use? Barry Schwartz has this:

So it appears that Google is kind of acting like a meta video search engine. At this point, it is unclear if Metacafe has an issue with this. We are checking with Google for comment on this. We are also going to ask Google if they can provide a full list of video sites now showing up in Google Video as well as Universal Search with thumbnails. (source)

Also, notice that the “related results” are also served in the middle by default now too. So, this is great for the user right? On its face yes?

The universal search model, currently in its nascent stages, will present search results in a much more integrated manner than before. Depending on what users search for, the results page could feature sections with images, video, links to book content, maps or local business listings. (source)

One stop shopping. How can that not be good? If you do a lot of Googling on similar topics or genres you’ll see that the way Google lays out the results can be vastly different. That is, some searches may have 2 videos at the top and others will have 3 news stories at the top. And users, being users, will assume that the info at the top is the most important. How could it not be? Google says it and it’s so, right? So although it’s universal, it’s still a search engine that can be misinterpreted, misconstrued and misunderstood; not to mentioned - gamed.

In short, Google Universal Search doesn’t yet exhibit its universality in any particularly predictable fashion that I can discern. (source)

So the new Google may or may not be universal, the user experience may or may not be any richer, and there were “7 no 8 people and a pussy cat in that room…”. So what does this mean for the SEM firm?

Well, assuming you have been diligently optimizing all your digital assets, and adding accesibility to your websites and optimizing for verticals, you’re going to enjoy the fruits of your labors with masses of qualified traffic and ROI. If not, well you’ve got some reading to do.

The technology is brand new and I’m sure that ‘GUS’ will have some growing pains so I’m interested to see how it all works out over the coming months. Incidentally, our printer died yesterday and before you could say PC Load Letter, we had this image in all of our in boxes. Thank you Google Universal Search. You are my go-to engine for finding ways to not do work.

Damn it feels good to be a gansta

By Francis | Posted in Google, Search Engines, Search Marketing, Universal Search | Comments (0)

Lee Odden is #1 for “Lee Odden” (Oh wait: that doesn’t matter anymore.)

May 17, 2007 – 3:51 pm

Lee Odden posted on personalization of search results, and how customized search results spelled the end of conventional ranking reports. He then proceeded to blast an unnamed SEO company for mentioning that they use WebPosition to provide ranking reports for their clients:

At a recent conference I attended, a speaker from a very large search engine optimization company reported that one of the primary reporting tools they use for SEO was WebPositionGold. I was really surprised to hear that and even more surprised to hear him say it to a room full of marketers… We don’t use {WebPosition} in our SEO firm, but used to from 1998 - 2003.

If Google starts personalizing search results, then ranking reports will not be able to tell us exactly where our clients are ranked for every single person. True.

But then they “merely” become as important as Nielson TV ratings: they aren’t an absolute measurement anymore, just a useful statistic. A proxy for measuring what most people will see, and a way for competitors to judge their relative strengths in the market. So they’re still far from being obsolete.

Plus, personalization isn’t such a big worry. Marketers tend to fixate on the idea that personalization means that “some people won’t see my page 1 listing”. But personalization is driven by what the user wants to see, based on their prior search activity. If that person no longer sees our promotional listing, chances are they weren’t interested, and weren’t going to click on it anyway.

So, yes: fewer people will see some of our client listings, but the click-through will stay the same, and maybe even improve.

Lastly, from one marketer to another: some SEO consultants have started to sensationalize issues to get attention and stand out from their competition. Heather got an earful of this at a recent conference, something to the effect that “your SEO company is negligent if you’re not in Google Base.”

Yeah, missing that 0.003% market share is really killing our clients.

By Sherwood Stranieri | Posted in Google, Personalized Search, Search Engines | Comments (0)

Search Matters Weekly Search Hotness

May 16, 2007 – 2:32 pm

Normally I just post search links here with the exaggeratedly plain title “Search Matters Weekly Search links”. Well, you know what? We need to add a pinch of SEO spice to this weekly mélange of tasty Search goodness, so I’m going to try out some cinnamony sweet new titles and, in the spirit of freedom and randomness, split test them for click through rate, analyze the search traffic and normalize a curve to display the overall success of each AMAZING!, INFORMATIVE!, COMPELLING! title. Then I’ll Digg/Netscape/Stumble upon it for days.

Of course there have to be limits; being an SEO I wanted to lead with “Weekly Britney Spears Nude with Free Viagra wearing Cheap Rolex’s LINKS!”, but that one didn’t make it past the whiteboard (even though I used 3 different colors. Some people just have no vision). So, here’s the weekly search marketing hotness:

  • Nothing like a little conspiracy theory to get my blood pumping. I’ve seen the grassy knoll at Mountain View, people. Get out your tin foil hats and read about the TOP GOOGLE CONSPIRACIES. (Valleywag)
  • Can you really make money with auction ads? Grab your monocle and top hat and learn about the Southeby’s of ad widgets. (SEOmoz)
  • Is linkbaiting ethical? I guess that’s just dust on my white hat over there. (SER)
  • Somebody’s suing Yahoo for defective ad technology. Maybe they should have thought about that before they wrote crappy creatives? (ClickZ)
  • For Google 2.o, Google plans to index every piece of information ever created in the universe and provide them in one completely confusing SERP. Or something. (SEL)
By Francis | Posted in CPC, Google, Organic Search, SEO, Search Matters, Search News, Yahoo | Comments (1)

Búsqueda hispána: “El que llega primero al rio bebe agua limpia”

May 16, 2007 – 12:14 pm

Como Latina y parte del equipo de Calatyst, me ha llamado mucho la atención el hecho de que muy pocas industrias, hayan tomado ventaja del mercado Hispano que tan rápidamente va aumentando

En 2002 se hizo oficial la estadística que posicionó, a la comunidad Hispana como la mayor minoría en los Estados Unidos, y creanme cuando les digo que la mayoría gastamos más de lo que ganamos.
Entonces me pregunto, por qué cuando voy a Google y busco información en Español acerca un producto determinado termino buscando en Inglés porque no encuentro nada.

Por ejemplo he buscado en Google información acerca de “tratamiento para la conjuntivitis” y “Tratamiento para la presión alta” y no he encontrado ni siquiera un solo resultado con el nombre de un medicamento.

Esto se puede deber a una serie de motivos. Pero el primero que viene a mi mente es el siguiente: El Español es un Idioma muy amplio y las culturas muy variadas, lo cual hace difícil la creación e implementación de campañas estratégicas para penetrar en este mercado, y la inversión podría resultar no tan exitosa.

Por otro lado –más positivo- en mi opinión la audiencia Hispana no está tan saturada de campañas de comercio electrónico como lo está la audiencia de los Estados Unidos lo que hace la competencia menos reñida y por ende más oportinidad de éxito para los pioneros.

Como me decía mi abuela: “El que llega primero al rio bebe agua limpia”.

English version after the jump…
Read More »

By Erica | Posted in Búsqueda hispána, Hispanic Search, Organic Search, Search Engines, Search Marketing | Comments (3)

Microsoft to buy Yahoo: Redux. Ad Nauseam.

May 4, 2007 – 10:43 am

Word on the street is that, in light of their latest loss to Google over Double Click and the new Google Apps (MS Office killer) and a possible Google OS beta to be released soon, Redmond is back in talks with Yahoo about a possible merger; even though the business advantages to this merger appear to be much weaker than at this time last year.

While Microsoft and Yahoo have held informal deal talks over the years, the latest approach signals an urgency on Microsoft’s part that has up until now been lacking, the newspaper said, citing sources.

The approach follows an offer Microsoft made to acquire Yahoo a few months ago, which Yahoo spurned… (source: Forbes)

Although these merger discussions are almost as elusive as el chupacabra, and are in no way confirmed by either party, many in the industry think that Yahoo, who was once very interested, may be getting cold feet [read:Hard to get?].

“They’re getting tired of being left at the altar,” said one banking source who has recently had talks with Microsoft. “They now seem more willing to extend themselves via a transaction to get into the game.” (source: NY Post)

This time however, Microsoft has pulled in some financial heavy weights to broker the reportedly 50 Billion dollar deal. That’s Billion with capital B.

The [NY Post] report values Yahoo! at $50 billion; the interest by Microsoft is said to be serious to the point that world renowned bankers Goldman Sachs are advising Microsoft on the deal.

If the deal comes to fruition, the takeover would be one of the largest corporate takeovers in American corporate history, and likely the largest ever in the Tech sector. (source: TechCrunch)

That last point begs the questions: how will this affect search and how will this impact the user? Google has 65% market share on search and Yahoo is a distant second with Microsoft steadily losing share, so a) how will this benefit Yahoo (aside from wheelbarrows full of cash) and b) if Yahoo is on the blocks, why wouldn’t Google be after them instead?

So is this real? Will there be a MicroHoo or an MS-Yahoo!? (or even a Yahoogle?) Well, the social networking community seems to think so. It’s page one in Digg as of this writing and Tech Crunch reports that Yahoo stock is up 18% as of this morning.

And all this comes on the heels of Yahoo CEO Terry Semel’s comments last year (when it would have made more sense for Yahoo to join Microsoft, before Microsoft developed its own ad program).

“My impartial advice to Microsoft is that you have no chance,” Mr Semel said. “The search business has been formed.” (source: Search Engine Land)

Whatever happens, the search landscape will be different, which is probably a good thing for the user and a bad thing for the SEM’s trying to keep up. What do you think?

By Francis | Posted in Google, Microsoft, Search Engines, Search Matters, Search News, Yahoo | Comments (3)

Weekly Search Marketing News & Links

May 3, 2007 – 8:29 am

Have you been feeling down? Sad all the time? Maybe your problem is that you have a bad case of the Supplemental Results. :(

More on Google’s own plane of hell, trust of pharma distrusters, WoW maps and some Da Vinci code answers in this weeks links:

  •  A new survey shows that blogs that are critical of Pharma are seen as more credible. (PMB)
  • Five reasons not to launch viral content on a mini-site, although the subservient chicken may disagree. (SEOmoz)
  • Google Maps has gone virtual. They now have the map of World of Warcraft fully mapped. Perhaps they’ll get around to Middle Earth next? (SEOBH)
  • Here’s Matt Cutts telling us why it’s really not bad to be in the Google “supplemental results”. I guess some animals are more equal than others. (Matt Cutts)
  • Power to the people. Digg users defy DMCA, Digg Moderators and fascism everywhere by posting (and posting and posting…) an HD DVD crack. (SER)
  • Hey. Guess what? It doesn’t matter if you’re not paying attention, user generated media is killing your brand. (aimClear)
  • Having trouble finding a loyal audience? Pick a fight with somebody. It’s so Machiavellian. Like Tupac! (Copyblogger)
  • Cool link: Rosslyn Chapel code deciphered as a haunting musical score. Heathen rock! (SFE) and video/audio (Youtube)
By Francis | Posted in Blogs, Healthcare, Pharma, Search Engines, Social Media | Comments (2)

Click Fraud: Are Your Campaigns Safe?

May 1, 2007 – 10:25 am

Since the advent of paid search engine marketing, click fraud has been a growing area of concern for search engine marketers. Estimates of the scope of click fraud vary from 10% to 35% of all click activity. If not detected, click fraud can rob your company of both your marketing dollars and your sales. Are your campaigns safe? This article provides some tips on how to detect click fraud in your campaigns and some guidance on what to do if you find it.

Read More »

By Tim Breen | Posted in Adsense, Click Fraud, Google, Newsletter, PPC, SEM, Search Marketing, Search Matters | Comments (0)

Ambivalence for DTC ads: Can search help?

April 27, 2007 – 3:19 pm

Pharmaceutical Executive had a very interesting article on a series of studies conducted for the Pharmaceutical Safety Institute on DTC ads and consumers. The data revealed that despite ads prompting consumers to take action, either by searching online or discussing the product with their doctors, nearly half of respondents find DTC ads uninformative or inaccurate.

As the search marketing manager for several large pharmaceutical brands with largely funded DTC campaigns, I speak with the brand teams regularly about the importance of establishing a comprehensive SEM strategy. An SEM strategy is needed to make sure that not only is the brand ready and highly visible online for those consumers that are prompted by DTC ads to go to the web, BUT also to fill the increasing void as more consumers turn to the web for their healthcare information, because they are becoming less trusting of pharma’s DTC ads. Additionally, it is important to remember that often times, the “language” used within a DTC ad (which can be impacted heavily by trademark or regulatory requirements) can be quite different from how consumers are thinking about or searching for healthcare information online (think “ED vs. impotence“, so you need to be prepared for the unexpected!

By Jennie | Posted in DTC, Healthcare, Pharma, SEM | Comments (0)

Search Matters Weekly Search Links 4/25/2007

April 25, 2007 – 2:19 pm

Blogs, social networks and personalized search are all making headlines this week. All this fancy pants social media and uppity blog talk gets me cranky. I remember a time when you didn’t have to worry about RSS food and XML whatsits and tag storms, or whatever. You just built a static website with a crap interface and impossible navigation, launched it to the web and never touched it again because the IT guy who quit was the only one with the FTP password. Ah, the good ole days.

  • Power to the people. Will Blogs be the death of news? (SEW Blog)
  • J&J to give 120,000 employees personal blogs? I’m sorry I can’t hear you because the hell freezing over is so loud. (Pharma Marketing Blog)
  • MySpace’s new Digg/Netscape/Reddit/American Idol clone is a few telomeres shy of a double helix. (SEOmoz)
  • Google’s web search history in personalized results is ruining the party for everyone. And I thought that my name was #1 in Google because I’m. Just. That. Awesome. Damn. (Gord)
  • Matt Cutts not convincing me one single bit. (Matt Cutts)
  • I think I know your password, dummy. Top 10 most frequently used (and hacked) passwords. Guess what? Password is #1. Damn. (Threadwatch)
By Francis | Posted in Google, MySpace, Personalized Search, Search Matters, Search News, Social Media | Comments (0)

SEM Has Become Mainstream

April 24, 2007 – 4:39 pm

I’m not sure exactly when it happened but it happened.  Search engine marketing has become mainstream.  Businesses of all sizes no longer debate whether or not they need to do search engine marketing, the debate has become: “Do we do it in-house or do we hire an experienced SEM agency.”  

Not long ago, many businesses who were jumping on the SEM band wagon decided the SEO component of SEM required technical expertise that they did not have internally, so it was a fairly easy decision to farm that piece out to an experienced SEO firm.   Conversely, many companies felt they could manage the paid search component in-house since it was a fairly straightforward process in that you could completely control your rankings simply by outbidding your competitors. 

The SEM world is now a very different place.  If you are considering the option of managing your campaign in-house, make sure you know what you are getting into.  Mistakes will cost you in terms of rankings and revenue, and you can quickly burn through your SEM budget.

On the organic side of SEM, gone are the days of doorway pages, invisible text, and other black hat short cuts to success.  Competition for the top spots is stronger than ever and the search engines have strict rules about how you can optimize your site to improve rankings.

Optimizing your paid search engine marketing campaign has also become very sophisticated.   Paid search engine marketers need to have in depth knowledge of the search engine tools and features.   The days of controlling your ranking based solely on your bid are over.  Nowadays, your quality score is at least as important as your bids.   Keyphrase relevancy, click-through rate, ad quality, landing page quality, and site quality are all factors that impact your ranking and the amount you pay per click.   It may not be rocket science but its getting there.   Furthermore each search engine has its own unique algorithm for ranking paid search ads, unique rules for writing ads, different match type options, different methods for handling plurals and mis-spellings, different demographics and psychographics, and well you get the idea.  Its not as easy as it used to be.  And oh yeah, the rules and tools are constantly changing.  

Just remember, at the end of the day it all comes down to your return on investment.  Good search engine marketing not only requires good technical and marketing skills, it requires good business skills.  Do you have what it takes?

By Tim Breen | Posted in PPC, Paid Search, SEM, Search Marketing, Search Matters | Comments (0)