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.
|
Category Archives: Engines
-
Have you tried Google Plus Hangouts yet? If not, I highly recommend you give it a try. From a collaborative meeting point of view, this has been an AMAZING (to coin a phrase from Vito) addition to our communication arsenal internally, and we only see it getting more integral to our continuing growth.
So check it out!
You can have up to 10 participants on a video chat in Google Plus Hangouts, which is pretty substantial, and it provides outstanding opportunity for those telecommuting to work every day.
Whoever is making the most noise (err… I mean the primary speaker of the moment) automatically gets the main video window which makes it very clear who is speaking when. (Kinda like watching TV a little, actually!)
Currently there is a sneak preview of new Hangouts features for a limited time such as:
- Named Hangouts
- Shared notes and sketchpad
- Google Docs integration
- Screen sharing (ALWAYS a helpful tool!)
What a great way to put “Social” back in to social platforms too. Use it for catching up with friends and family face to face, sing-a-longs (yak), or any number of social interactions.
Hey, it’s good enough for President Obama. He logging in on Monday night (January 30, 2012) for the Oval Office’s first virtual “Hangout”.
So, login, create a hangout, check to make sure you look good, and invite some folks from your circles to gab with you face-to-face.
Cheers!
Doug Gebhardt
Posted by: Doug Gebhardt on February 3, 2012 in Engines, Light Reading, Tools/Analytics, Treats
-
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
-
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
-
As a the practise lead for a search marketing agency, there’s often the fear that with strategy, new business pitches and client meetings and calls, what you know can become a little outdated.
Engine certification is one way to keep company principles current but with the myriad changes in organic rankings, algorithm shifts and bad, bad practices in the name of JC Penney (and they’re hardly alone), after 15 years invested in search marketing, you have to wonder if what was true then holds true now.
I’ve always been of the mindset that content is king. Argued it to the point of arguing myself out of working for an agency to becoming an agency because I held that tenet above all others. And with the ascension of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and others, there is no doubt that content is the driving force behind search marketing.
To that end, my New Year’s resolution was to sit down and create a site. I’m not a technical genius. Far from it. So starting from buying a domain (both .com and .ca) and opening notepad, I built a site, created the content, took the pictures, attached the analytics, created the sitelink and then launched. (30 days for a 50 content page site – totaling about 120 pages in total.)
Then we launched it.
To our great surpise, it indexed in Google with 24 hours. It also ranked within the top 20 on 5 key terms. (Admittedly, not huge terms, but big enough.)
Our next test will be PPC across engines, followed by a deeper dive into the metrics.
At the end of the day, we’ve satisfied ourselves that the core fundamentals of search, specifically, content, remain key drivers. It is our hope, our hypothesis, our contention and our next phase of testing that what resonates well from an organic perspective will also function well in PPC.
Relevance.
At the end of the day, we are a marketing company informed by search. But more than just talking the search marketing talk, we walk the walk, creating the proof from the pudding.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on February 17, 2011 in Engines, Light Reading, Marketing, Search
-
So I’m pretty sure I’ve heard this one before.
Except usually there’s a chicken. And a sky. And the sky is falling….
People seem veritably breathless about the purported Google sting operation as detailed in SearchEngineLand.com’s Google: Bing Is Cheating, Copying Our Search Results.
I’ve actually had more than one client ask me for my position on this in the past couple of days. Which I find decidely curious because to my mind it has no real ramifications for their business. Except perhaps that they should take a closer look at Bing in their arsenal, as clearly they’re invested in improving their search results.
But here’s what I really don’t get. All the subterfuge. All the cloak and dagger.
Seriously?
Why sneak in through the back door when the front door’s wide open?
Says Bing: We use click stream optionally provided by consumers in an anonymous fashion as one of 1,000 signals to try and determine whether a site might make sense to be in our index.
It is not unrealistic to suggest that one of those signals may include results garnered from another site. Like say, oh, um, Google. And like, say, oh, um… Their search ads…
Holy call a press conference, Batman! Is the media aware of this? Does Google know? Does Bing know?
Oh, wait a second… Looks like Google might be doing the same thing on Bing!!! What is the search world coming to? Well they can’t possibly be monitoring clicks or impressions or click-through rate? Can they? Speed in the ad to show? You don’t suppose they’d be tracking all the way through to the analytics do you?
It seems so… so… much like a Pepsi rep deigning to try a Coke!
Well for sanity’s sake, no one tell Ask.com… Next thing you know… oh… never mind.
It has hardly inconceivably that once upon a time, when someone was in position number infinitesimal in the market, they took a very close look at the leader (Let’s call them AltaVista) to see how they stacked up against the market presence using signals. And it is also not inconceivable that someone somewhere opened an account with a competitor (Let’s call them Overture.com) to better understand the underpinnings of an auction system.
And it’s not unfathomable that more than one person in one department in one office in Palo Alto has an account (Let’s call it Facebook) with the intention of doing far, far more than reaching out to old high school friends.
And a hushed silence came over the blogosphere.
You can’t trademark the alphabet. You can trademark a series of letters in a seemingly unrandom order. You can’t trademark recipes. You can trademark the process for making bread (if you invent a breadmaker), but you can’t trademark the recipe itself. If you want to trademark the process for roasting a turkey, you have to invent a new oven or rotisserie but you can’t trademark the recipe. Or the turkey.
And search results, you can’t trademark those either because they’re in the public domain and they actually belong to someone else. You can trademark your process.
The truth is, we all look for “signals” in the hope that it will help increase our search performance and metrics. Even those who need not depend on paid search for their organic positioning. And we all do it on the back of Google, with keyword tools and message testing and analytics. And at Google’s encouragement. Let’s not forget, they get to finesse on our backs as they have access in to our “signals” for free because they have the wherewithal and the resources to track the signals we put out into the free marketplace.
Free marketplace.
Free to examine. Not free to build. (That costs us.) And while we might sigh or scream, we learn to live with their changes based on our signals. And, like them, sometimes we even get so frustrated our only recourse is to run to the media screaming things like: Florida update. Or penalization. Or click fraud. But in the hand it just comes out sounding like “Unfair!” and everyone nods understandingly while no one really seems to care.
But it doesn’t change the fact that we do we all “look for signals”. It’s hard not to look at someone’s cards when they’re holding them out towards you.
In the end, I’m not saying Bing is or isn’t copying Google search results. I’m saying, borrowing signals from Shakespeare: It’s much ado about nothing.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on February 3, 2011 in Engines, Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics, Treats, Trends/Insights
-
It’s Sunday, I’m at my computer, catching up on my weekly reading and sundry Sunday tasks.
Today, I invented a search marketing game for myself. And if you’re sitting in front of your computer catching up on sundry Sunday tasks, and you’re a search marketer trying to gain insight into Google Instant Search, you might want to try it too.
Open a notepad or word document. Write down the first 10 words that come to your mind starting with the letter “a”.
Now, open your Google browser. And type in the letter “a”. (I switched to Google.com from Google.ca.)
My Google results were:
My list, and Google’s results are shown here:
In order of search volume – Google and I overlapped exactly twice. Conversely, 80% of the time, results presented were not something I would have thought of.
Google suggestions appear not based on volume alone. Five words on my list exceeded search volumes on their recommended instant search list.
Google’s own recommendations are not presented based on search volume. Amazon, presented first with instant, actually has a search volume less than five other terms, and accordingly if search suggestions are based on suggested search volumes, “Amazon” should have appeared sixth.
Google search suggestions are not alphabetical.
So, at the end of the day, suggestions are neither volume nor alphabetically based.
And in fairness, neither are they strictly commerce based. “Addicting games”? Interestingly, “addicting games” provides results that are a) mostly free and b) barely supported by PPC advertising.
Perhaps not as insightful as I’d like it to be. But interesting, nevertheless.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on November 14, 2010 in Engines, Marketing, Search, Trends/Insights
-
When we launched our marketing agency, Search Tactix in Toronto a couple of years ago (bringing 15 years direct search marketing experience to the industry and to the table), we ranked relatively well on Google for our primary search term: “search marketing agency Toronto”.
Why “search marketing agency” instead of “ppc agency” or “SEO agency”? Search marketing agency was more definitive of who we are as a company. We believe in a holistic view of search, not search in a silo or splintered off. Direct traffic is as informative as organic traffic or PPC traffic. Each functions in an individual and specific way.
Along the way, a few things changed. We changed our web site, and the spirt of the content on our web site. The new site, while conveying our approach and our philosophy, didn’t succeed within Google on a tactical level. And we were rushed and growing so contented ourselves with the “cobblers kids” apology amongst ourselves. Whether we were busy, distracted or (dare I say it) lazy, our rankings, not surprisingly, went away.
Sometimes, in the process of doing our work, we forget about our job. It happens in the smallest of ways: We take what we know too much for granted and begin to rely on what we know has worked before. We fail to challenge ourselves. And in the end, it can cost us. This was a lesson (painful) learned recently in a new client meeting.
This year, the business partnership of Yabing (Yahoo/Bing) has left much of the market a little tentative. And I will be the first to admit that we’ve taken a “wait and see” approach along with most of the market. However tentative, I have been mildly curious and held to the belief that this could be good for them and for the industry, particularly in Canada. Both from a PPC and an SEO perspective.
Well, not only has it been good for them. It’s been good for us as well. Search Tactix ranks number one for “search marketing agency Toronto” and for myriad other search marketing related terms within the Canadian landscape. It’s who we are and nice to be reminded.
 Search Marketing Agency Toronto While we will of course bask in the results, it’s a gentle reminder that on occasion, a return to your roots isn’t only about trusting about what you know, but remembering what you’ve allowed yourself to forget.
Posted by: Shane on October 16, 2010 in Engines, Marketing, Search
-
I am sitting here with a coffee and a powerpoint deck entitled Why Search Is Important.
At this point, I think the deck should be titled Why I Am Giving The Same Presentation To Your Organization For The 10th Time.
It feels a little like Groundhog Day.
I am more than aware that search and explaining search can be a learning curve requiring patience. I am also aware that I have a tendency to speak over people’s heads as I have been both doing and explaining search for more than 14 years now.
In today’s presentation, I will be speaking to three audience segments. Senior management stakeholders who know that search is now a requirement because of competitor market presence. They will not show up.
Then, there will be middle brand managers. Search is maybe 1% of their overall marketing budget so not really enough to warrant undivided attention as they check and recheck incoming emails because they could be missing something important, but they know they have to be there if only to say they attended.
And finally, that one familiar face from the IT department. Of course, search and analytics is not part of your job description and you’re tired of hearing about search.
In short, no one, for the 10th time will be invested in the process.
There’s a simple solve. Invest in one person. One single person within your organization who can become a search ambassador between all three audience segments. One single person who understands the challenges of your myriad flash web sites; or the fact that your secure server which won’t allow for brand presence can be easily solved; or one single person who gets the value and importance of analytics and how they apply not only to your individual sites, but to the aggregate learnings across all of your sites.
One single digital mind who need not be told why search is important because they already know.
If you break it down into ROI metrics, the cost of that person is less than $200 per silo per month.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on November 6, 2009 in Engines, Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tips
-
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
-
SearchEngineLand.com features the Google: Stop Suing Over The Meta Keywords Tag, We Don’t Use It article today, that
The keywords meta tag has no impact whatsoever on how Google’s search engine ranks pages. None. Zilch. Nada.
That may well be true.
And I may well be the lone voice of dissension, but what holds true for Google isn’t always a universal truth. It’s only Google gospel.
For myself, meta keywords tags are as important as title and meta description. Primarily for three reasons:
The first is while they may not necessarily be relevant for Google, they may well be relevant elsewhere. Particularly entities of which we may not be aware. Google isn’t the only game in town. It never has been. Other projects and initiatives may well be nascent, and nascent typically means rudimentary in V1 applications. Much as tags and alt tags matter, to my mind, meta keyword tags may also hold relevance for that which we are not aware. Ergo, use them.
The second reason is thet meta keyword tags help as a reference guide for creating content. I am a firm believer that content is king, and enduring. I am also a firm believer that organic works best when it communicates, effectively a single idea per page.
To wit: A house is not a home. Two separate keywords that should not be used interchangeably and require two separate pages. By identifying the primary keyword (before content is undertaken) everything else, from URL structure to title, description, headers, onpage content, alt tags and internal links falls out naturally.
So why isn’t house the same as home? Do a simple search for each. And on all/each of the primary search engines, you’ll see separate and distinct results for each term. Ergo, a house is not a home.
The third and final reason is because inserting a meta keyword tag is also a gentle reminder that a meta description tag is also an ongoing requirement for every new page. It’s surprising how many times neither are included on a page and both should be.
So, from an indexing perspective, they might in fact not be relevant. From a process POV, they are both necessary and useful.
Just my $.02.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on September 22, 2009 in Engines, 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
-
NEWSFLASH: Something’s afoot at Google.
Last week, SearchEngineLand reported Google Shifts Search Ads Closer To Free Results.
What I found interesting about the change, which has been showing up quite consistently is the way it has been made.
Moving the ads left, closer to the organic results makes perfect sense, as closer proximity should (and I’m guessing this will have been thoroughly tested) result in increased clicks, ergo, increased revenues.
But what struck me most was that while the ads have moved, the page itself has remained the same. (Click below)
 Advertise Here With the page fully expanded, that’s a lot of dead space off to the right. Enough for perhaps an ad? Or maybe a secondary set of listings – perhaps youtube videos which would effectively combine results of the #1 and #2 search engines.
Let’s not forget Google does nothing without reason.
Curious…
Have a good one.
Cheers,
S
Posted by: Shane on August 12, 2009 in Engines, Light Reading, Marketing
-
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
-
I was asked last week by a client to present a POV on a recent search engine launch.
I struggled with my point for longer than I should have because I am a fan of the organization, the people within it and the product. And the “new” product is, I find, better. And that’s where I got stuck. Because the real issue is not one of opinion, but one of use. And in truth, I don’t use the new product nearly as often as I would have thought.
So, why? Or why not?
Both Search Engine A and Search Engine B are free, so there is no perceived switching cost which should make it a no-brainer, particularly if Search Engine B is better.
The question then became not why should I use it, but why wasn’t I.
And there appeared to be 101 different reasons that all boiled down to the same thing. The cost of switching is not free but a combination of a tax on my time and, perhaps even more challenging, a required change in behavior. Behavior modification. And that’s a sticky wicket.
Search Engine A has made not switching the easier proposition. It costs me no time and I don’t have to change my behavior. Adequate has become good enough.
 The real cost of Free Search Engine A has made not switching the easier proposition on a number of levels. As a search marketing agency, we simply have more accounts on Search Engine A than we do on Search Engine B. (Interestingly enough, behavior modification has become a part of our corporate thinking as we look at our options and opportunities on Search Engine B, before we focus on Search Engine A.)
In our daily travels around the web, most search boxes on come courtesy of Search Engine A (easily one of the smartest early moves the company made – put our search box on your site). From a branding perspective, Search Engine A, still owns search as a brand vis-a-vis these search results have been brought to you by Search Engine A.
Finally, on my browser bar, I have a search box courtesy of Search Engine A. And it’s been there since I can remember, as close as the 24 hour supermarket behind our building.
Speaking of, recently a $.05 charge has shown up for every plastic bag required from the store. And I have infinite eco-friendly bags and to date, though the bag tax has been in effect for approximately 45 days I have remembered to bring a bag exactly once. About 30 of those 45 days, I’ve remembered that I need to bring a bag on the way down in the elevator, on my arrival in the lobby, on my way to the store and once in the store.
Not once did I turn around to retrieve the free bags just inside the front door. The simple truth is I’m willing to pay $.05 or $10 or even $.15 over free. And the simple truth is I know that by using the free bag, I’m being enviro-friendly and that’s better.
But better is not enough to modify my behaviour.
Free is free. But switching has an associated cost.
And therein lies the real challenge.
Cheers.
Posted by: Shane on July 14, 2009 in Engines, Marketing, Search
-
Alrighty then. I’ve wanted to say that for a long, long time and I finally have it off my chest.
When it comes right down to it, search engines are like three year olds who must not only contend with, but process so much data and stimuli it would be inconceivable to most of us. A car is good if you’re inside and it’s taking you somewhere but look out for the car if you’re outside.
And fire? BAD! Hot! Except of course for the fact it provides sustaining warmth and the precludes the need for having to eat that fish raw (except until you turn 25 and go to your first sushi restaurant).
 Stove - bad. Food - good. Certainly, search engines have a long, long way to go before they’re out of their toddler years and that’s all good and well and just as developmental phases go.
But why then do we do nothing short of deifying them? How many times do we modify our behavior (searches), ultimately implying that we’ve fallen short in our information quest?
Perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of the Bing launch is the assumption that went into it in the first place:
The Bing ads will try to convince consumers that by using today’s search engines they’re missing out on all the search experience can be. The company has some internal data that indicates that 42 percent of all searches need to be refined after the first query. They also assert that 25 percent of all post-search clicks hit the back button instead of a Website link when looking at a search results page.
Read that again. At the very least, 67% of all searches result in disappointment. (In speaking to Bing marketing people, that number is actually higher.)
And yet, done correctly, search and ppc advertising remain among the most efficient cost measures in driving traffic to a web site.
Which brings us back to the point that search engines, not people, are stupid. Would you ever do anything with a baseline 70% disappointment rate attached to it? Okay, maybe fishing. Cast. Reel. Cast. Reel. Cast. Hope. Sigh. Reel.
Search engines fundamentally work on a one to one basis predicated on relevance. One idea. One thought. One keyword. One through-line.
In the early days, people coded hither and yon, stuffing keywords into metadata, page content, and links in the vague hope that something (relevant) would stick.
And the same applies to PPC.
The reality is it’s about communicating one idea per page. One clear thought. One idea. One word. One page. One result.
Assuming search engines have to process and contend with unimaginable masses of stimuli, like any good parent, the onus is on us to provide focus and guidance and context for their decisions.
In the end it’s about what you communicate and how you communicate it. Search engines, like three year olds, are just tying to figure out what context to respond in.
Cheers.
Posted by: Shane on July 13, 2009 in Engines, Search
-
So what happens when you build a website? Its supposed to attract visitors, right? We think that’s a terribly cool reason to build one. You might be selling product or service, or you might be displaying wonderful creations, or perhaps you are even simply informing the masses, but one thing for sure is that you want people to see it.
Right! Nobody knows about it and you aren’t showing up in the search engines. RATS!!
Paid Search Advertising (or PPC/PPM – pay per click/pay per 1,000 impressions)
- This is one way to get yourself on the map. Very effective too, if you’ve created compelling contextual or display ads
- Most certainly necessary if you are working with brand awareness
- Even more necessary if competitors are showing up in your search space.
Lets face it though, it’s gonna need a budget attached to it, and again, sometimes there is no choice because its absolutely and unequivocally necessary to do it.
Link Building!
- YAY! THAT will drive results up to where you can be found! SWEET! (Oh yeah, that will cost money to maintain too, won’t it – unless of course you are a link builder). Don’t get me wrong. This in itself is an art that requires a great deal of skill, knowledge, patience, tenacity, and coffee, and I tip my hat to all link builders and even more so to exceptionally talented “Link Ninjas” out there who are worth their weight in gold.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
- HA! How many times have I heard “SEO is still necessary, but on it’s own, it won’t do the job”? Well, it just needs to be done the right way.
- It means paying even closer attention to detail, being more attentive to content so that it is tailored for both the search engine robots AND the wonderful readers of your pages, and it has to be done with the proper balance of love and care so that the search engines don’t throw penalties at you for “over doing it” and the visitor is engaged enough to stay and read, or complete an action, or do whatever it is that you hope for them to ultimately do once on your site.
- It means that once your results are showing in a desired position within the SERPs (Search Engine Results pages) due to a well optimized site, the clicks are FREE! Did you hear me? FREE!
And how about that Microsoft and their new Bing Decision Engine? Talk about a speedy indexing ability! Our new and improved SearchTaxtix.com website has been live almost 5 full days and already it’s there! WOOT! (Check it out. Second place organic placement, and not a link build in site sight!)
Nuff Said 
Cheers!
Doug Gebhardt
Posted by: Doug Gebhardt on June 24, 2009 in Engines, Marketing, Search
|
1-800-994-4568 |
