Search

You are currently browsing the archive for the Search category.

Brands do not just have one touchpoint anymore. There are a lot of sites with different tools, an established audience, and people creating content about about many things, including companies and brands. From a company Facebook page or group to augmented reality brand hacking or conversations on Twitter, content created by Internet users about brands is more visible and varied than ever.

Why the website

Why the Site

Devoting all content creation and administration resources to single site or community is no longer the best strategy. Internet users seek out different content in different formats for different platforms. What meets their needs on their mobile phones will be different to what they want on their desktop computer, or their netbook, web-enabled TV, or tablet device. After all, social media is just people being people online, and what they use and how is a result of this.

The kind of platform and task they want to complete changes how they search for, evaluate and use content. From asking their social network for advice, to searching for product demonstrations on YouTube or store locations on Google Maps.

There is a need for the ‘Big Website’ and campaign or product specific microsites. While there is a need for control over a hub to facilitate list building, acquire links and generate direct navigation traffic, sites and microsites will be a part of the mix. While Facebook is not likely to suffer the same fate as Blogetery, developing content on external platforms also comes with a certain level of risk.

Being visible across multiple, relevant platforms, sites and communities gives brands the chance to manage the user’s experience of the brand. Providing compelling content and engaging with customers, the brand can develop on its campaigns further, ensure that customer service queries can be responded to and clarify information about their products.

Creating brand touchpoints like fan pages is an “as well as”, not an “instead of” developing microsites and promoting the the brand’s main web presence. They are an opportunity to put content in front of the customer in the place that they already are, and in a format tailored for the situation. A YouTube channel, Second Life store and a Facebook page are not a substitute for the spaces online that the brand controls.

Comic from Why the Site

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

EVE Online (or Spreadsheets in Space as it is also known) is a MMORPG with strong PVP gameplay. There are a large number of other ways to play EVE Online, from the market through to PVE, but it is PVP that stands out in the game. It has been called a ganking game, which is a fair comment, as there is a real risk of loss of gear and skills (comparable to levels in other games). Loss of gear and skills creates behaviours aimed at minimising this risk while maximising rewards. In other MMORPGs with little or no chance of loss, PVP activity tends to be restricted to the market.

Winning at PVP in EVE Online

Winning at PVP in EVE Online

Wining at Spreadsheets in Space

PVP in EVE Online is not fair. In fact the challenge in PVP in EVE Online is in setting up these unfair encounters. In most MMORPGs, the actual act of combat consists of a few mouse clicks and some waiting. EVE Online is no different. It is the risk of losing stuff that makes players focus on everything before the actual combat a lot more. It is taking the right mix of ships, avoiding being out-numbered and cornered by a superior foe and acting before the opponent even knows they are in a fight where player skill starts to make a real difference.

Why SEM is like EVE Online PVP

Search Engine Marketing (SEM) in very similar to PVP. It is a zero-sum environment where operators compete for a resource through actions governed by a set of rules and environmental factors generated through user behaviour. There are a few principles that carry over from EVE Online PVP to SEM.

  • Situational awareness is king
    • Know how the advertising network works
    • Understand competitive activity
    • Understand how the market behaves
  • Observe, act and assess
    • Analysis without an accompanying action is useless
    • Assess the effectiveness of activity & reassess decision making model
    • And repeat…
  • Know where you can compete and where you can’t
    • Don’t waste time & resources competing directly with advertisers intent on outspending you
    • Find alternative ways of reaching potential customers.

Information is the key. Understanding how the query space works, having good situational awareness, and knowing where in the sales funnel certain terms are is valuable. It won’t save you from the SEM equivalent of a gate camp (high margin and ‘branding’ campaigns with large budgets), but it is essential for remaining competitive without burning through your budget.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Google is incorporating more information into their Search Engine Result Pages (SERP) all the time. Video, product information, image previews, maps, reviews and social media content are a few of the things that Google has brought to their search engine over the years. Adwords has not been too far behind, with the inclusion of ads on their maps, and the introduction of Ad Sitelinks for certain campaigns. Ad Sitelinks was first introduced in November 2009 and was only available for qualified campaigns. Their appearance in the organic SERP looked more disruptive than a normal Adwords Ad, and promised to improve on Click Through Rate (CTR).

Google has just announced that Ad Sitelinks are now available for any campaign and the introduction of seller rating extensions. Getting Ad Sitelinks to display is still dependent on the ad meeting certain criteria, most probably relating to the spot on the page the ad displays in as determined by bid, competition and click through.

Ad Sitelinks provide alternative points of entry to the site aside from the main landing page, allowing the advertiser to offer alternative offers. Links to areas such as “Store Location”, “Quote Calculator” or “Product Reviews” can appeal to viewers who might not have responded to the main offer.

Search can be a powerful indication of intent, but with more generic terms, the action or information sought by the market can vary between individuals. With branded or descriptive terms the visitor might be seeking further information beyond the noun and a price point. Ad Sitelinks makes it possible to provide this at first glance, and generate traffic where the user may otherwise have continued on to the organic listings.

Using the same visual language of the organic results also makes the ad appear more authoritative and trustworthy. The addition of seller ratings can create the same effect. Creating richer content in a format closer to what the user is trained to look for on a SERP gives the advertiser the opportunity to disrupt their normal search and engage with the ad.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Search as a Portal

Bing has announced some new features in search this week. Explained in the Bing Gets a Fresh Look post, content themed on Auto, Finance and Entertainment information was used to demonstrate “great new decision-making tools in [these] areas”. Similar to the enhanced Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs) served by Google and Bing, these new tools take search closer to portals in their content consumption model.

In many ways SERPs are becoming more like portal content pages. Search goes beyond an ordered directory of URLs and descriptions. Content including maps, scanned books, images, video, news, blogs, product listings, and social media material is indexed and increasingly being presented in the main SERP as a part of an enhanced search result.

Indexing Entertainment Media

The Internet is an important source of entertainment, either supporting content available through other channels or material native to the web. As said by Bing’s Yusuf Mehdi in his “A New Entertainment Experience For Bing” post:

“In the field of entertainment, 76 percent of people use search to help find and navigate their entertainment options online, but only 10 percent say they have a trusted place to go.”

Entertainment information, from song lyrics to game trailers to film reviews, matters to the user, and can take many different forms. The challenge is in organising it in a human friendly way, similar to what has already started to happen with geographic information and maps. The search engine can programmatically add more content in locations under their control in a theoretically infinitely scalable fashion.

Search in the Music Business

Google is also in the entertainment business. Beyond their search properties and YouTube, Google’s acquisition of Simplifymedia during May hints strongly at Google directly entering the music business. It is likely that Google would add their product to the search experience in the same way as Google Commerce feeds (formerly Google Base) are added to the index or through applications in Chrome or Android.

Lady Gaga on Bing

Lady Gaga on Bing

Lady Gaga on Yahoo! Music

Lady Gaga on Yahoo! Music

Search is starting to provide a portal-like experience. As the search experience becomes richer, more personalised and more aware of the location of the user, it gets closer to providing the experience sites like Yahoo! do, but with finer levels of customisation through queries. Pages like Yahoo! Music may soon be eclipsed by pages like Bing Entertainment or the current Bing Lady Gaga SERP. In the end it will be how the consumer prefers to consume and seek out content that will determine this. It is passive consumption versus searching with intent.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Most apparent behaviour on the Internet is a result of people attempting to complete a task using a distributed network of connections and tools. Not all of this takes place on the World Wide Web. There are a lot of different tools that use the Internet to locate, collate and move information, such as Kindle, iTunes, Steam and BitTorrent clients.

Even through the web, the methods used to locate and consume information are diverse. From search to portals to socially generated recommendations, there is a huge range of navigational nodes online that shape the user’s experience. Focusing on what information is consumed and where, rather than on what the user is trying to do, can be very myopic.

Find music with only the Internet

Find music with only the Internet, Click for full size.

For example, what if the user wants to listen to music? With access to a computer and a browser they may go to YouTube, or the site of a band recommended in an email from a friend. With P2P software like a BitTorrent client they may use inbuilt search tools and download it via a peer network. They could also use iTunes to find, choose and purchase a song without touching a browser. Ultimately all these methods use the Internet, but only one is dependent on the World Wide Web.  This does not even start to consider devices other than a traditional computer.

Nodes and Friction

Each mode of content location and acquisition uses a different set of nodes and they can range from invisible to obstructive. Each one is another opportunity for the gatekeeper of the node to create friction and shape experience. Search and social sites have contextual advertising, Internet Explorer treats incorrect URLs as search queries, DNS services can redirect mistyped or incorrect URLs and the iPad does not support Flash.

Nodes such as portal sites, search engines, social networks and applications such as Steam control and direct attention in different ways. Each gives the user different tools to discover content, with different levels of friction placed between the user and what they wish to do.

Some sites use a disruptive model and place ads in front of the user, using available data to tailor their ads. Applications like iTunes and Steam operate as shopfronts and work to minimalise frictions between the user and the buy button. They help the user find, acquire and consume the media with the least effort, and generate sales in the process.

Why attention matters more

The internet is an environment where there is almost limitless content and space to display it in. The scarcity is with attention. The limits on the size of the audience and the amount of time they spend online are far more immediate than potential advertising inventory. Unlike traditional media, the Internet does not have a page limit, nor is it restricted by spectrum or the number of hours in a day. The low cost of storing and moving data, the asynchronous nature of most content and the ability to generate more content automatically or through user activity changes its value. There is no value in just existing; there is no ‘only two papers in town’ or ‘only three TV networks’ online. Online, the value of a node is in how much attention it affects. Each one is an opportunity to distribute attention among the next group of nodes in the chain.

Why the Task Model

How most people use and access the Internet has changed over the last few years. The ubiquity of Internet capable devices is as significant a factor as the prevalence of fast and wireless home connections. While the Internet on a phone in some form is not new, large numbers of people with fast and easy access is. A proliferation of applications designed to give access to content independent of the World Wide Web is significant too.

Social networks, both formalised like forums and Facebook, and ad hoc such as email, will remain a factor, as well as portal sites like Yahoo! and search engines. These tools for content distribution and discovery are not being replaced, they are just being supplemented.

The user’s aims and knowledge determine their actions online. The channels they use do have an impact on the kinds of information they access, how they access it and how they locate new material. As the Internet becomes richer in content and tools, it will also continue to fragment and change. We have gone a long way from the Internet being tied to a desktop computer through just a browser or email client, but the user will always have a want or desire that they wish to meet, and they will use whatever tools are available to do it.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You have just built a great Google Adwords, Yahoo! Search marketing or Microsoft adCenter campaign. Viewed from the web or local interface, the data is skewed towards analysis by keywords entered into the campaign. Assuming they are not set to exact match, this will not show the whole picture. It is important to dig a little bit deeper, and examine the phrases that trigger your ads.

When you look at the phrases that actually trigger your ads, such as in an Adwords Search Query Performance report, you will start to see patterns emerge, the most interesting being terms that are common across phrases that triggered conversions. Taking a closer look at Clusters of Queries like these can reveal a lot. Most SEM campaigns will have a subset of keywords that might not even be set up in the account itself that correlate strongly with sales. There will also be phrases or words that obviously do not fit or inflate the campaign’s CPC by crossing over into another industry with an aggressive SEM space.

Keyword performance will always be influenced by a number of factors. The effect will vary depending on other descriptive and qualifying terms. Some queries will naturally return more on investment, yield more traffic or be genuinely cheaper. Not all of this will be the product of consumer behaviour. Competition within the query space is incredibly important, especially once you start to examine the performance of specific clusters of search terms.

For example, suppose a pet shop called ‘I Like Turtles’ has set up a campaign to sell turtles. The landing page, with a strong call to action and a robust cart has been built, and a campaign built around phrase match on species terms like ‘Box Turtles’ has been launched. The traffic is not performing as well as expected. The CPC is unsustainable and the traffic is not engaging on the landing page at all. A quick look at the searches triggering the ads suggest a long list of additional negatives and reveals that some descriptive terms are performing better than others, while some are not even appearing at all. The same is true for locations. Reported first page bid levels can provide a guide to what is happening in the market, but it won’t reveal the reason.

What ads are triggered

What ads are triggered for a long search phrase?

There are a number of different ways one campaign can compete with others in the same query space by either bidding directly on the same keywords or bidding on other keywords that appear in ad triggering search phrases. There are a few that can create a skewed impression of the query space for any single account. Campaigns targeting specific areas within a larger query space for another coupled with specific geographical regions, devices and time periods can aggressively reduce the larger campaign’s visibility in otherwise profitable spaces.

Either through less wasted coverage leading to a better return or a more aggressive bidding strategy one can lock a more general campaign out of lucrative query groups. These competitors do not even have to be selling the same product to the same people; there can be a lot of overlap in terms used for the SEM campaigns of different businesses.

For ‘I Like Turtles’, their targeted query space may also have a toy store using “Buy Turtles”, travel and accomodation companies targeting the name of their city, a conservation organisation raising awareness on river conservation and a DVD store selling Ninja Turtles movies. These companies do not need to be selling the same product to have an impact on the ‘I Like Turtles’ SEM campaign. Travel companies may bid higher than the pet shop and be less precise with their negatives, and increase the CPC. The DVD store might time their ads to run for the weekend, and periodically bury the pet shop’s ads, and the conservation company and toy store may increase competition on terms that often form a part of a search that would trigger an ad for ‘I Like Turtles’. Each of these actions can increase the effective cost of bidding for the campaign and make it harder to appear for one of the higher converting search strings.

Increasing bids around peak buying times can place ads in front of people more likely to buy for certain products. Any increase in return on traffic can increase the amount spent per click. The same applies for more efficient landing pages and sites, and effective targeting geographically and by device. The more likely a sale, the more that can be spent per click.

This activity within a more general campaign can have an effect on how effective certain query clusters may seem. It can also reduce a campaign’s visibility for certain terms. A Search Query Performance report does not tell the full story of what is happening with your campaign and the targeted terms, but it can hint at competitive activity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Adwords has just added a new tool for brand advertisers. Advertising inventory on the Content Network is now divided into above the fold and the whole site. Advertisers can now exclude below the fold inventory on sites in the Content Network in Adwords. Google has turned their Content Network into two different products, with different levels of value.

By default, Content Network bids will be on all advertising space on the site, both above and below the fold. To display above the fold, below the fold placements need to be excluded and bids made for placement on the whole site need to be beaten.

On the Adwords blog post explaining this change it was stated that:

Our goal with this release is to give brand advertisers greater control over where their ads appear, and make the Google Content Network an even more powerful, controlled environment for running high performing brand campaigns.

In practice this will increase the perceived value of one form of placement over the other. A direct result of this will be a concentration of market participants, and allocated budget competing for one of the two kinds of placements. The above the fold placements will be seen as the more valuable of the two, and as a result, the average cost per click will rise. Many advertisers will diversify their campaigns and bid at different levels on both above the fold only placements and whole site placements for as long as they see value in doing so.

Content Network Above and Below the Fold

Content Network Above and Below the Fold

There is also a shift towards using online advertising in branding campaigns. With a greater perceived value in search and display advertising for promoting brand building content, the value of certain traffic sources has been inflated. Google Adwords has talked about branding and search marketing a few times already. By selling advertising on branding value and separating the value of an ad from an incremental per sale return increases the amount of money that most organisations can justify internally on paying more for impressions and clicks.

By leveraging different perceptions of value created by these changes to the Content Network, Google Adwords is increasing competition and consequently their margin per click. Separating cost per click from the profit margin on conversion for some markets in the minds of advertisers will also raise the perceived value of impressions and clicks on both search and websites.This trend will increase the actual value of traffic in a market where there is very little competition among suppliers.

Ironically it was Google with their entry into the market that created that first shift towards linking cost of traffic to profit from sale. The introduction of Analytics and Adwords along with using Adsense to grow their inventory were the main drivers in this shift for most marketers new to advertising online.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The big news of the week was that Yahoo! and Microsoft’s search agreement was approved by both the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission. Yahoo! is now closer to replacing their search, and search advertising product with Bing’s.

From what has been said, up to Yahoo!’s latest post on the matter, Yahoo! is going to stop being a search engine and simply focus on providing enriched data. In their words:

1) Providing you with rich results that display the most relevant information from Yahoo!’s rich content properties, as well as other great product, local, entertainment, reference, social and tech sites.

2) Showing specific results from vertical search products, like Yahoo! News.

3) Providing handy tools on the left-side of the page, such as our Search Pad and Search Scan apps, site filters that help you refine and explore the search results more easily, and related search term suggestions to help you refine your search further if the results aren’t quite what you were looking for.

Yahoo! seems to see itself as a portal, and is operating as if a portal can be distinct from a search engine. However, Google and Bing have taken a different approach, and have demonstrated that a search engine can become a portal. The inclusion of many Google properties, such as Maps, Base and so on, onto their Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs) has been discussed at length for years now. Bing has also chosen to follow a similar path, and have developed a suite of additional products of their own. Both Google and Microsoft also have email products that include social functionality in Google Buzz and Windows Live. It is interesting that while a portal site is moving away from search, search is moving towards becoming portals.

Yahoo! SERP for Vancouver

Yahoo! SERP for Vancouver

Google  SERP for Vancouver

Google SERP for Vancouver

Bing SERP for Vancouver

Bing SERP for Vancouver


A lot of what Yahoo! has discussed that they can bring to the Internet as a part of their portal business is already provided as a part of the Google and Bing search experience, or as a part of their additional properties. Where we are with search in terms of the richness of data that can be sorted and surfaced in search, each SERP is essentially a portal site. Depending on the term, photos, news, blogs, social commentary and maps can all be presented on the SERP as an algorithmically generated themed portal page. In getting out of search Yahoo! is limiting itself to competing with Bing and Google purely on content that they have the rights to, their existing user-base and presentation of information.

Is this enough? Both Google and Bing are creating more and more properties. Both Google and Bing have been developing more inventory requiring very little ongoing maintenance and have been rolling them into their main SERPs. With the inclusion of more user generated content such as social media updates and personalised search from Google, and Flickr content in Bing Maps and an apparent focus on travel indicated in their PR, how much value can Yahoo! provide as just a portal?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bing has had a relationship with Facebook since 2008, and it has just become more involved. The latest announcement regarding Bing’s relationship to Facebook appeared on Bing’s blog on the 5th of this month.

Briefly, web search through Facebook will continue to be developed, including the integration of more of Bing’s features, and this will be rolled out both in and outside of the USA. Facebook will provide all display advertising within their site; however, Microsoft will continue to provide the search ads. In the whole post, it is the following paragraphs that I find the most interesting:

Bing will continue to exclusively power the web search results on Facebook. This change will also enable Microsoft to continue its focus on driving strong performing campaigns across our own social media and communications tools, including Windows Live Messenger and Hotmail, and via rich content environments across MSN and Xbox Live.

This is an exciting time for us as we continue to work with Facebook on great new experiences for customers. As you know, Bing has been very focused on helping customers make important decisions. We believe that counsel from family and friends can be a big part of that process. Going deeper in web search experiences with Facebook, in addition to the collaboration we announced last October about bringing public data from Facebook’s API into the search experience, will enable us to do great things together for our customers.

By providing Facebook with its websearch functionality, Bing can get around the strong Google brand, and get its search tools in front of people where they already are, rather than attempting to change existing habits the hard way. Bing’s features are comparable to what Google provides through their search experience, and Bing’s intent to become a decision engine and their integration of Wolfram Alpha has a lot of potential.

When you stop and consider the social networks that Microsoft is already heavily invested in, working with Facebook makes a lot of sense. The quote: “…bringing public data from Facebook’s API into the search experience…” is interesting in what it points to. Google is leveraging their own social data through Gmail, Google Reader, etc, to further enhance their own search results, and to provide a better ad product.

How Bing will use the data is collects from Facebook will be very interesting. As a recommendation engine, Facebook is incredibly effective, and the volume of data that they collect is very cool, or very scary, depending on your views. Data mining how links, information, video and photos are shared, tagged and recommended would be invaluable for Bing. Between these announcements and the development of Google Social, search will be a very different place in five years time, at the latest.

It is very silly to write off Microsoft too quickly. While they did release Vista and they have gone through anti-trust litigation, they still have considerable resources, and large companies can still be creative and agile.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

How someone searches is a result of every single query you have ever done. It is a learnt behaviour shaped by an ongoing conversation between the user and the algorithm.

The results page for each query is feedback on how well the question was articulated. If the results are relevant enough to end your search, that is good. If it was not, then you try a new approach and adopt a new method. For most web literate people, this process is repeated dozens of times everyday.

What appears on the results page is determined by three factors: the query itself, how the search engine interprets the query, and what sites appear to be the most relevant to this query. The user only has control over the query that they put in. However, over time, this will be influenced by the interaction between the search engine, the sites it indexes, and what the user deems relevant enough.

In low competition namespaces where optimisation activity is low to nonexistent, it is only feedback from the search engine that shapes user behaviour. Assuming an effective algorithm, the user may not have to try as many different query structures, refinements or synonyms to find a site that would be relevant enough.

In a more competitive namespace where the optimisation activity keeps pace with or exceeds the search engine’s ability to control what is deemed relevant for a specific query, the user’s behaviour is affected by both the search engine and SEOs who consider that namespace to deliver a good return. Assuming that the optimised sites do deliver an experience that is relevant, then this will have minimal impact on user behaviour. In namespaces where there is more than one potential subject, then optimisation activity for one may force a shift in the search behaviour of the users seeking the other.

A crowded namespace can have another interesting effect on search behaviour: an increased use of a site’s branded terms to locate it by existing customers. Where there is a high level of competition on generic product terms, or the most relevant site for the namespace is outranked by less relevant results, the user can be taught to use branded instead of generic terms.

Search engines are Skinner Boxes. Each time the user conducts a query, they get feedback on how closely it relates to their intent. In response to this feedback, their behaviour changes. The feedback they receive comes from two sources: the search engine itself, and those optimising for it. These in turn influence how the user describes the product online, and can encourage them to hone in on a more focused range of queries.

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries