Blog
Seems everyone and their dog has a blog these days. It goes without say that a search marketing blog should provide commentary and insight about search engine marketing; practices and principles; heroes and villains. We like to think of ours as a reflection of who we are. And of course, as a platform for putting blog marketing theory into practice.
|
-
The combined impact of search and display advertising initiatives serves, increasingly, to shore up performance metrics from engagement to conversion with accountability through analytics.
Before the this year’s de rigeur Zero Moment of Truth the bulk of search display eyes were on the last click attribution model. For the coming year cocktail and conference conversation will centre around search and display, real-time bidding, DSPs, exchanges and while I want to say “of course” the truth is, finally, a little more accountability to metrics.
Full funnnel attribution is an accessible model, but challenging to explain in four-year-old terms. For that, we defer to a picture easily worth a thousand keywords… Display and text working together. Courtesy of The Exchange Lab:
 Search Display Full Funnel Attribution Real-time bidding is an auction model and the alignment of search to display advertising, remarketing, retargeting or whatever naming convention you choose to give it is a natural and a win/win/win/win/win. For the consumer, advertising will be more closely aligned to search patterns. Which is great if you’re looking for a hotel, not so great if you’re a teenage girl looking for an abortion clinic on the family computer. For publishers, with quality content, content which has always “been king” will now rule and push itself to the fore. For Yahoo/Bing, if they can get it front of it, display (at which they lead) will more closely align to search (at which they don’t lead). For Google, search (at which they lead) will more closely align to display (at which they will lead).
There will also be room for the Facebooks and the LinkedIns of the work, user-generated, self-defining content plays richand robust in keywords that will effortlessy marry more closely to tactical display advertising initiatives more closely aligned to user habituation than brand folly.
And last but not least, brands will benefit as digital aligns itself more closely to search (consumer driven) than to broadcast (brand manager driven). The risk however, is that brand managers will not fully understand search display advertising opporunities and AORs will not properly educate them based on resource and revenue limitations.
Creating Search Display Efficiencies
- Unsilo search and display managers to better work together
- Identify search and display baselines individually
- Test a keyword based remarketing campaign
- Test a display based remarketing campaign
- Deploy a search display based campaign
- Deploy a search display based remarketing campaign
- Measure benchmarks with accountability to conversion and analytics
That’s what we’re here for. 1-800-994-4568
Posted by: Shane on December 18, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Display, Engines, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics
-
Is it time your digital agency started reporting to search marketing? Seriously. Think about it. Trust me, few people have.
Toss about a few of the major Internet names in your head over the past decade. Yahoo (content), ebay (commerce), craigslist (classified), Amazon (commerce), facebook (social), youtube (video content), Google (search). Even for Apple, flash has been panned.
Shouldn’t that tell us something? Commerce is about conversion. Content is about engagement. Both require analysis. And for the most part, the depth of those points of analysis is plumbed by search.
Why then does your search manager report to your digital brand manager? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
The rise of digital was a visual (blinking) experience. Click now. Click now. Click now. Like a neon motel sign. While compelling in labeling the content matter, it did nothing to convey the more often than not seedier side of the contents in general.
 Click here. Click here. Click here. While argument of reach and scale can be posited in digital’s defence, the question must be asked, at what cost if the most compelling metric is either one of time or money, the two things most often in shortest supply? From an acquisition perspective, either of commerce or engagement, search, time and time again proves and provides better insight and efficiencies, well beyond “last click” metrics.
The argument of reach also pales in concert with size. By search standards, impressions (reach) are easily the worst standard of measurement. It’s like calling a classified ad tucked into the back pages of a newspaper an impression. And I would argue the same goes for buttons and banners that are not page dominant or homepage takeovers. An IAB standard banner is not a tv commercial or a full page glossy fashion mag image, it doesn’t take the viewer or their imagination hostage. It, in short, does not make an impression.
And if your digital brand manager is leading with impressions as a driving search metric, move them off the business. Immediately. And yet, from a digital perspective, impressions are thought to be the holy grail. Really? Shouldn’t engagement be the bare minimum requirement? Does the audience engage with your content? Whether content defined as a banner (click) or site content (click-through).
In closing, is it not a little telling that Google, a search company, leads the Internet pack from a stock market POV? Or Apple – sans Flash.
The merger of display and search with accountability to content analysis and metrics is on the near horizon and digital brand managers who continue to allow digital, unexamined and without accountability, to lead the charge, over search, have much to lose when it does.
Have a good one.
Shane Wagg
@searchtactix
Posted by: Shane on June 25, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics, Trends/Insights
-
Over the course of the past few months, we’ve seen a couple of emerging trends that are both intriguing and frustrating specifically around the Yahoo Bing search alliance.
We’ve seen limited growth in organic results, but continuing growth from PPC. We’ve also seen a number of surprising results as we follow the metrics through the buy, from cost efficiencies on a PPC basis, to engagement metrics off the back-end and in some instances considerably better conversion metrics.
Here’s what we haven’t seen. Scale. And if you talk to anyone in search at Yahoo or Bing, they know it. But they don’t seem to know what to do about it. Few planners seem interested in the story, content to content themselves with the easy way out.
But you have to sit back, have a sip of coffee and ask yourself: Is scale always necessary and the only real requirement behind a search marketing plan? (If you answered yes, take a moment to leave now, you’ve found the easy way out.)
At the top end of search media spends, it’s not unusual for us to find ourselves back at the table with our hand out looking not unlike some waif from the cast of a Victor Hugo novel. “Please, sir, a little more would make us less miserable.” And at the lower end of search media spends, we have local marketers in market barely long enough to see if they’re business name is spelled correctly. (Marissa Mayer doth have her work cut out for her.)
In each case, scale does not a thing for them and frankly, more for their competitors who can afford to maintain a sustained market presence. There is no scale to speak of when you’re out of the market by 9 AM. There’s no scale to speak of when you’ve allocated an ANNUAL budget to run from 5 to 5:30 PM but only on Saturdays in June when the streetlight on the corner where you live is red. And while there is more opportunity that you’ve ever fathomed, at the end of the day, (Or frankly, at the beginning…) there’s no market presence to speak of when your ads are simply not in the market.
As a local marketer, I would have to be looking at all search opportunities to assess the best opportunity. But more often than not, I frankly lack the resources, or the knowledge to know what’s spin and what’s real. (Spin is when your rep promises you a local market campaign but doesn’t tell you how competitive your market really is and that you’re $20 per day budget warrants only 3 clicks in your $6 cpc market. And those other two dollars? Well, those are saved for the times when you call to ask how the campaign is going and they show you by getting you to type your own business name. PS…. those clicks $.06.)
Take that same $20 and move it onto another engine where you might pay $4. Still cost prohibitive but your reach is immediately extended by 40% which necessarily increases your conversion likelihood.
Suddenly you look like you’ve struck gold.
Google is trying to mine the small business market in Canada with free websites and strategic business consultation. Canada Post to a degree with their commerce venture, and Yellow Pages with their 360 solution.
Solutions for small business. Perhaps. But it’s not so much the solution that’s required as the budget. Or the proof.
Doing more with less.
Bing! Why that’s exactly the same durn sound an idea makes just before you slap your forehead at the obviousness of it.
Have a good one.
~ Shane Wagg
Posted by: Shane on April 16, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Marketing, Search
-
I am a man of brevity. Really.
As a practice lead, among our chief mission values are results and responsiveness. Miss a deadline and you’ll see steam come out of my ears. We don’t miss deadlines. Simple stuff.
Simple stuff in principle, that is. In reality, teaching a young staff to manage time is probably among the most challenging things to accomplish in a business day for any number of reasons. Some may become paralyzed at the thought of making a mistake. Others may get lost in simple tasks. Some may have a boss who hovers. Or needs to change everything. Or delivers task requests in concert with expectant foot-tapping. In short, things can go off the rails for any number of reasons.
So we’ve tried to establish a 20 minute rule. And by we, I mean me.
Solve in 20 minutes or move on. Truthfully, it’s hardly an original concept. Taking an exam? Plough through the stuff you know and then return to the more challenging stuff. Seeking venture capital? Define your elevator pitch. Brevity.
Google is a 20 minute company. Build. Test. Deploy. Assess. Get caught up in building and you pooch yourself on the testing. Get caught up on deploying and there’s nothing to assess.
Newspaper/blog editors are 20 minute people. Reporters and bloggers? 20 minute people. Twitter aficionados? 20 second people.
I’m not saying everything can be done in 20 minutes. But it can be broken down into 20 minute chunks. Take 20 minutes to think. 20 minutes to sketch. 20 minutes to assess. 20 minutes to build. And so on, and so on.
At the end of the day, put value on your time. Particularly in a billable hours environment.
PS – This blog took 17 minutes.
Have a good one.
~ Shane Wagg
Posted by: Shane on March 3, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Marketing, Search
-
For the first time, we consciously turned down new business and I believe it was one of the best decisions we made this week.
Small companies take as much, if not more, work than large companies because they tend (and I recognize I’m generalizing) to be invested in a “right now” culture. That’s fine, if you understand it going in. If everyone sings from the same songbook, small companies are actually a great challenge as they tend to be more capable of implementing without the constricts of brand managers, lawyers and regulatory commitees. They also tend to be a little less adverse to risk taking. And they help in keeping skills very, very sharp.
That said, they can be a bandwidth and resource drain as the usually comes with educational requirements, a lot of hand-holding and a lot of necessary reassurances. Accordingly, we’re always mindful of how many small companies we keep on our roster. (We’re a relatively small agency ourself, so I’m sure our respective teams at Google, Yahoo and Bing find themselves a little taxed when we show up with our nickel well in hand asking for the world on our client’s behalf.)
The frist reason we declined the business (which went probably as close as possible to the signature point as you can get) was the realization that in very early days, the resource strain was not on the agency, but on the agency leads and that probably wasn’t going to change which in all honesty meant we would be running the account at a loss from the outset based on budget. The second reason was following tacit proposal sign-off, several incidental “asks” crept in beyond scope which threw up red flags throughout the process.
A third reason was client abdication (To wit: I’ll be unavailable for long periods of time so I need you to be very hands on.) A hands-off approach can be all well and good and freeing, but there comes with that the knowledge that if it doesn’t work ALL blame will rest at your feet — for the price of a nickel.
The fourth and final reason in reviewing everything above was the realization that the principals from both companies (us and them) weren’t actually willing to hear each other even in very early days. Given budget, resources and responsibility, it was the overall structure of the conversation that made us walk away.
There were other considerations before leaving the table, things the lost client may not be aware of. The site itself didn’t speak to the billion dollar market they wanted access and would require drastic modifications to succeed on a nominal level. An overdependence on a single channel, as identified through analytics was another red flag.
A last consideration, of all things, was Linkedin. Saying no, we were well aware, would in all likelihood leave the proverbial “bad taste” in their mouth. So before making our final decision, we looked at their LinkedIn profile to assess their “influencer” status. As a company, we pride ourselves on being overly proactive but in this instance, that clearly wouldn’t appear to be the case. And realistically, in their position, we’d probably be left with a bad taste as well. A quick check of LinkedIn informed us that their influencer sphere was limited.
Net net, at the end of the day there is more consideration that goes into “no” than into “yes”. However, being a difficult decision doesn’t make it a bad one.
Have a good one.
~ Shane Wagg
Posted by: Shane on February 25, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Light Reading, Marketing
-
One of the things I love most about search marketing and what we do is nuance. Insight is right up there, but intrigue comes with the simple addition or removal of a single letter that can change the dynamics or impact of a search marketing strategy.
Case in point. We be Canadian. And we be taught to use some Queen’s English when we write. But is that the case anymore? A client asked about search copywriting yesterday and what words should be chosen. Thank you Google insights…
“Color” is employed in Canada more often than “colour” – the Queen’s English.
Another case in point… “Car” is searched far more often than “cars”. And, according to a keyword cost estimator tool, “car” is 2.6 times more expensive than “cars”.
Another interesting nuance: For one client, we don’t use their branded term in PPC unless we’re crafting a very specific promotional message. When we compared the term from an organic versus PPC perspective, we discovered some very interesting findings.
And, PPC converts better. Exactly the same word, different context across different search marketing channels on the same darn page.
For another client, we recently completed an analytics audit where we happened across another interesting nuanced gem. Same words. Different order. (This one happens all the time and always fascinates me.) And what a difference.
From a traffic level, Word 1/Word 2 is the clear driver, but from an engagement/conversion level, Word 2/Word 1 is the winner. One phrasing drives traffic, the other phrasing drives sales. If you were to look at these words with a keyword tool, it would tell you that the performance ratio is the same. Not.
One last one. People buy a home, not a house.
The psychology of search marketing. Gotta love it.
Have a good one.
~ Shane Wagg
Posted by: Shane on February 18, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics, Trends/Insights
-
It is the beginning of a new year, copyright messages have been changed on the site and, my birthday was yesterday. (Thanks for the champagne, Douggie!)
What to make of it all?
 Search Marketing 2011 Predictions My predictions for the coming year…
I predict that Google could well start incorporating banner and rich media ads in their search results as they continue to toy with visual elements on search results pages.
I predict YaBing! (sadly) has a long, long way to go before making the necessary inroads in Canada to catch anyone’s attention. Interestingly enough, I predict Google could well open the door to YaBing! with too much focus on non-organic elements that frustrate too many users, particularly as they focus on perceived competitors like Facebook and perceived opportunities like local search and Groupon – pulling their attention away from conversion and revenue.
I predict that smart marketers will look at their analytics and come to realize that only one in two searches is done from a typical browser. And one in ten searches is now done on a mobile device.
And I predict both mobile and commerce have even farther to go than YaBing! in gaining the necessary traction in Canada to cause marketers to move away from search, fbook, et al, as simple branding tools and more as commerce tools.
I predict that Search Tactix will have a bigger 2011 than 2010 and 2010 was a banner year for our agency. That’s due to the unwaivering support of Doug, Greg, Vito, Brad and Jason. Thanks all.
And finally, I predict that marketers will gradually come to realize that search is as much an insight too as it is a marketing channel and its role will become that much more necessary in the marketing/intelligence arsenal.
Have a good year all.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on January 2, 2011 in Canadian, Eh, Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics, Trends/Insights
-
It’s the busiest time of year, with 2010 strategies and the holiday season coming on. In either instance, the hope is that budgets will increase to meet an ever-growing digital market.
But that isn’t always the case.
In a client dialogue over the past few days, we were asked by a client to assess possible budget savings for an already underfunded campaign prior to 2010 strategies. Over the years I’ve finally been trained that the client is always right.
Except when they’re wrong.
In assessing the client strategy, one suggestion tabled was that we should look at day-parting as some clicks were potentially more valuable than others. It is my fervent belief that the client strategy was off-point, however, because we have been unable to introduce analytics, it remains only opinion on either side of the table as the analytics can’t bear it out.
In the end, I was left scratching my head because two years in, the issues and ensuing challenges remain the same.
I am, of course, a stalwart fan of PPC and of search and digital in general. And I struggle with understanding how brand managers don’t understand that every click increases brand awareness, thus doing the same job as TV or print. And in fact, every click does more for brand awareness than traditional media in terms of providing insight and action.
This is not to say that traditional media is dead or dying. Traditional media has always been predicated on reach and frequency propositions. And certainly, in Canada, reach is still best accomplished by TV, Twitter and Facebook aside.
That said, search offers response and engagement and post-click, it does so in a vacuum as competitors have no real estate on your site. So the dialogue is necessarily one of brand awareness. Even a seemingly negative or ambivalent search is an opportunity to construct a dialogue to advantage by mitigating risk through acknowledgement and solution.
Morever, a “broad keyword” search that compells a click is a direct marketshare steal from those of your competitors on the same keyword, again moving the dailogue solely to your online poperty.
Every click provides value, even those with constistently high bounces rate inform and suggest that the promise is not living up to the provision, allowing opportunity for a dialogue more in line with consumer or prospect need state.
 Search Versus Traditional Budgets Though consumers spend more than 30% of their time online, digital and search budgets remain less than 10% so for 2011, perhaps the dialogue shouldn’t be one of cutting budget on a campaign that performs to objective daily, thwarted only by budget, but of culling one single magazine or broadcast insertion and adding it to the search budget.
Ask not what your search marketing can do for you. Ask what you can do for your search marketing.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on October 11, 2009 in Canadian, Eh, Channel Surfing, Engines, Light Reading, Marketing, Search
-
Very interesting article in Adage this morning: Google Lures Local Advertisers by Subverting Its Own Search Policies.
I’m sure everyone will be focused on the “local search” and click-to-call part of the equation but to me there’s something more intriguing in the equation. Flat fee click. Very intriguing indeed.
For the longest time, I’ve been left scratching my head as it seems to me that there’s a whole lot of money being left on the table for a number of relevant searches.
 Money In The Bank Moreover, for larger brands, there is often the issue of ad score quality and relevance primarily because the brand focus of “traditional” advertising is typically solutions (Get a better quality of life) or brand message (You deserve something today) focused. These are not key drivers for search or for relevance.
Flat fee clicks would seem to me to be a way to solve that. Hello Mr. X, you have a product, we have a sizeable amount of search volume that we’d like to talk to you about and we’d like to offer it to you at the low, low rate of X for Y clicks.
Such a proposal would of course involve human interaction. Let’s call it sales, A salesforce.
They’ve already changed the model at the low end, why not apply it to the very high end. Trust me, Google knows where the gaps are in their model. They have to know there’s money left on the table.
This would solve that.
Yahoo… Bing… Are you listening?
Hmmmm.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on October 8, 2009 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Light Reading, Marketing, Search
-
So the other day I was ambling to a client meeting (When the weather’s nice, I sometimes amble.) and I chanced upon a transit shelter that said Search: 2012.
I was intrigued and mentally lauded a marketing effort clearly meant to track offline stimuli to online use.
On arriving home, I did. I searched 2012.
On Bing.
And found myself staring at a Wikipedia entry in the first result.
How odd, thought I. Who wants me to find out that 2012 is a leap year and has been designated Alan Turing Year.
 2012 - Alan Turing Year (That in and of itself is not a bad thing as he is a personal hero but it seemed to me a simple email would have sufficed, a full transit campaign wasn’t really necessary to capture my attention. In fact, I shall email my brilliant programming friend Brian and let him know, or perhaps I should just email him to suggest he walk by innumerable transit shelters until he finds one that captures his specific attention, and he’ll know which one it is.)
I was, of course, corrected and informed that it was for a forthcoming movie: 2012.
Ah, now that makes complete sense to me. There’s a movie about the London Olympics coming out in the next few days. Boy, do I feel like an oaf.
Um, no, idiot, I was chided by a friend, you’re using the wrong search engine.
How so? said I. I always use Bing.
There are a lot of things I like about it, not the least of which include that by tripping over a transit shelter and doing a simple search at their request, I was able to find information I wasn’t previously aware of.
HAPPY FORTHCOMING ALAN TURING YEAR, EVERYONE!!!
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on October 7, 2009 in Canadian, Eh, Channel Surfing, Light Reading, Marketing, Search
-
While often the bane of a search marketer’s existence, a $35/day search budget may well be the lion’s share of a local business marketing budget for the year.
$35 is $1,000 per month or $12,000 per year. Even for a half million dollar a year company, that means 2% of overall revenues on search alone. 2% that must be spent wisely.
Some companies have made a living from $35/day/per customer. But there are two necessary codicils to creating success around that. It has to be $35 per day, and there have to be a lot of customers. Volume. And scale.
Some companies have become billion dollar enterprises based on $35/day. Volume. And scale. So why can’t their competitors?
I was asked by an industry peer what I would do.
Most often, competitors aren’t looking at $35, they’re trying to chase down $10,000. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But what if your biggest competitor has also focused on chasing down $10,000 and they’ve been doing it longer?
That’s opportunity knocking. A veritable goldrush.
 Local Search Marketing Strategies Chances are, they’ve outpriced themselves for the $35/day customer and stealing a $35 customer is easier than stealing a $10,000 customer particularly in these recessionary times.
The how is easy. Identify a cheaper pricepoint. Identify better quality. Identify sustained market presence. All for the same $35.
Suppose your pricepoint is $.60 versus $1. Instead of 35 customers per day, you’re offering 58. Instead of 1000 prospects per month you’re delivering 1500.
Even with less traffic, the number two market player may not only be able to offer more prospects (clicks) but also more impressions. If the local business person is outpriced in the market, they could well be going through their budget too soon.
A perceived “lesser” player in the market may actually be the stronger of the two by delivering better overall SUSTAINED metrics. Down to conversions.
There are 300,000 small business in Canada. At $35 per day….
Have a good one.
S
Posted by: Shane on August 17, 2009 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Light Reading, Marketing
-
Wow – Southern Comfort Pours Entire Media Budget Into Digital. It’s not the first time in recent months I’ve seen a similar headline. That was actually in February when Tourisme Montreal announced they were moving their media budget 100% online.
While two hardly speaks to ubiquity (that old favorite dotcom chestnut), it does warrant some consideration.
In both cases, the move makes sense. Per Southern Comfort:
“As we’ve focused more on 21 to 29, TV becomes less and less effective at reaching that audience,” she said. “It was getting harder and harder to hit our target without so much waste.”
That quote is not so much a denigration of broadcast media as it is an enlightened perspective on their core constituents. And when it comes to marketing, we are all living in an age of enlightenment. (From Wikipedia: The increased consumption of reading materials of all sorts was one of the key features of the “social” Enlightenment. – Google books, anyone?)
 Ubiquity Leads The People More than being impressed, I was intrigued. What does it take to make the leap from 94% non-digital media to 100% digital media inside a year. Certainly a little faith goes a long way. But faith should hardly be the only factor in swaying a dialogue of that magnitude. Curiousity? An absolute. But more than anything, the numbers have to tell the story. Ah yes, the numbers.
Quirky things, those.
In actuality, it’s not the numbers but the process by which the numbers are measured. The business case. KPIs – Key Performance Indicators.
The ability to measure and prove movement, whether up, down or sideways is critical particularly in becoming an agent of change. And measurement is well within reach when it comes to digital, down to a person. And analytics go a long, long way in setting direction down a particular path. However, numbers are only numbers without context and relevance.
Enter interpretation, trust and curiousity.
If your budget is one of millions or hundreds of thousands, get thee an analyst. Someone who can be impartial and objective with the ability to identify trends, issues, and insights worthy of testing.
Without the proof, it’s all guesswork, conjecture and in court parlance, “hearsay”. And we’ve all learned after myriad reruns of Law & Order: SVU, that’s no way to build a case. Particularly a business case.
Have a good one.
S
Posted by: Shane on July 30, 2009 in Canadian, Eh, Light Reading, Marketing, Trends/Insights
-
So the Yahoo/Bing thing: Yahoo to Lead Ad Sales in Microsoft Search Deal is apparently about to break today.
If I understand correctly Microsoft will become the technology side of the deal while Yahoo becomes the sales side, powered by Microsoft.
I like it. I liked it within about 3 flat seconds of looking at my analytics.
I’m no pundit so pontificating on the ramifications in the larger scheme of things will add little to the insight already in the market. I do however, work with the three engines every day and there are parts I like and parts I dislike about each and everyone of them.
I can say we are fortunate enough to have great teams at each. Carla/Jon at Yahoo. Anna/Mike/Julien at MSN. Chantal/Margot at Google. All of them great. And each of them deft at handling the quiet, determined insistence that occassionally comes their way.
 Can we please try it my way? Please?... From a Canadian perspective, the MSN/Bing system is intrinsically easier than Yahoo’s on any number of levels. And Yahoo knows it. And from a Canadian perspective, it’s not necessarily their fault and they have little control over it. But it’s not limited to Yahoo, the other engines also speak of the unique challenges that come with doing business under a behemoth in Canada. We’d like an inferiority complex but head office doesn’t think we’re good enough.
Where it gets really interesting is from an organic perspective. In more than one case, combined Yahoo/Bing traffic will exceed that of Google organically. And in looking at analytics under the microscope, it would appear that Bing is the better engine from a longtail perspective offering far more breadth in the scope of searches. (We’ve all heard examples of business cases being obliterated with a Google algorithm change – this should help mitigate that.)
Clearly the game will change for Yahoo/Bing, but it may also change for Google. We’ve noticed some algorithm changes in recent weeks. Perhaps coincidence, perhaps not. Google reads newspapers as well so they have to be paying attention.
Moreover, owning as much information as they do from an analytics perspective, I would guess the trends come to them as opposed to we mere mortals who must combed through the data in seach of trends, insights and relevancy.
In the end, a unified system, better aggregated traffic and a usually cheaper cost per click. A healthy combination of both ppc and organic upside. There’s a lot to like, even without being a pundit.
Have a good one.
S
PS – Combined Microhoo spin can be found here.
Posted by: Shane on July 29, 2009 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics
|
1-800-994-4568 |
