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: Search
-
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
-
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 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 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
-
As a marketer, I’ve never been a fan of claims. You set yourself up because a competitor will see it and put you in their sights and suddenly you have a marketing challenge on two fronts – attracting prospects and staying ahead of the pack based on a baseless claim you’ve set up for yourself.
To the best of my knowledge, Toronto doesn’t have an SEM Agency ranking. I’ve certainly never seen an industry list published. Anywhere. And I’m pretty sure there’s no SEM agency atop the CN tower so to proclaim yourself “Toronto’s Top SEM Agency” or “Toronto’s Top SEM Company” or any like thing, strikes me as relying a little bit too much on the story you’re telling yourself and counting on the fact that nobody will really question the statement. (Hopefully that’s not the way you do all your selling.)
As a prospect, if you make the claim, you should at least back it up with the proof and the credentials of what you speak.
In dealing with myriad CPG brands (45 and counting) we’ve faced endless legal department and regulatory sign-offs (both in English and in French) to ensure we’re onside when we’re making claims on behalf of brands or clients. Specifically, can we prove what we’re commiting to print.
For ourselves, we could make the claim that Search Tactix Inc. principals have been doing search longer than anyone in the country. And we can definitely back that claim up. (Ask us how). In fact, we can take you back to 2000 and demonstrate clients that at that time already included Thomas Cook, Chapters.ca and others.
At that time our focus was on search engine optimization and analytics. (We’ve always been accountable to our results and able to prove them.) And we were already toying with PPC through Overture. A lot has changed since then, but not our focus on search engine optimization, paid search and analytics. And results.
Canada’s most experienced search marketing agency personnel. That certainly has a nice ring to it.
And while we can make the claim. And moreover, we can prove it, while it’s something we would include in a capabilities deck or on a blog, it’s not a claim I would allow to be made in advertising.
At the end of the day claims are nice, but the proof is in the pudding. The proof. The results.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on October 22, 2010 in Light Reading, Marketing, Search
-
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
-
I watched with great fascination the HBO Documentary Schmatta – Rags To Riches To Rags the other night, a telling film about the rise and fall of the garment industry in the US and specifically New York.
There were a number of interesting facts, but chief among them, the fact that during the Kennedy years, 95% of all garments in the US were US made. Today, only 5%. And the industry has all but collapsed. Not only does one struggle to find the union label but the union employee as well.
A cautionary tale, to be sure.
But it’s not just the garment industry that has run the risk of commoditization taking industries with it. For a couple of years, it seemed every day a spam email would come in offering offshore SEO services because they were ultimately cheaper. And by ultimately, what I mean is exponentially.
In the recent AdAge article How EBay Is Winning With Bid to Enhance the Customer Experience author Natalie Zmuda essentially points out that in only a few short years the market has changed so much as to turn the machine that commoditized retail into a commodity itself, one that struggles to compete with the likes of Amazon, Zappos and others who have more capably succeeded chasing the lowest price every day.
A focus on price and price alone is fraught with risk that extends, far, far beyond retail. And in the descent from 95% to 5% share, management teams change and CEOs come and go.
New managers seek to make their mark within their first 100 days. Even US presidents are measured by their first 100 days. In creating impact, we most often seek to create efficiencies but the net result may, in the long-term, prove little more than a commodity.
Just ask ebay. Or the schmatta industry.
In the end, the cost may prove significantly more than the lowest price every day.
As marketers, we need to be aware of that. Not simply for our clients. But for ourselves as well.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on October 21, 2009 in Channel Surfing, Light Reading, Marketing, Search, 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
-
In a client meeting last week, I had a brand manager look me in the eye and ask: So when did you become a marketer?
While it was meant as a compliment, I must confess, I about fell off my chair and took it as a bit of an affront. The comment stayed with me and while my first instinct was to be annoyed with the client’s apparent lack of knowledge, it dawned on me that the comment could only have been borne of my own failure to market our capabilities beyond search marketing to full potential.
If that truly is the case, we’re leaving money on the table and need to think about moving forward as a search marketing agency.
Going over past dialogues and virtual introductions in email history, I’ve noticed that we are, from companies that don’t use us to full potential as the “search agency” or “search guys”. For the longest time, I took great pride in the reference, feeling not unlike Rain Man — a little special and somewhat beyond being understood.
 What Is Search Marketing? So what is search marketing?
Search marketing is a place to start. Web sites are only ever built based on need, or on opportunity and it’s an important distinction. Those built on need typically do not perform as well as those built on opportunity. And it’s hardly any surprise. We need to keep up with the competitor, or we need to keep our job. Myopic at best. Frustrating at worst.
The opportunity to move beyond a competitor or introduce a new product is advantaged from the outset. To see and to recognize opportunity necessarily implies that enough research has been done to recognize a market deficit and respond to it.
That’s the first role of the search marketing. To see and recognize market opportunities and more often than not, it’s barely a consideration for brand managers. Search marketing agencies are brought in typically after sites are built and have to work with what they’re given. If, on the other hand, with search as a precept, market analysis, competitive analysis and a digital asset analysis can provide insight to support or strengthen opportunity.
Analysis extends beyond numbers to take into account behavioural analysis. Copy testing can be done through paid search and product on such seemingly trivial matters as product or color order, creating increased opportunity for conversion. In combination with keyword testing, this can be of huge benefit before the cost of a site build is undertaken.
Organic requires patience and as such, both organic and PPC play a role from the outside, with PPC providing satisfying need (I need it now) and organic providing sustained opportunity.
And then there is the issue of copy or content. Both are intertwined as keyword copy is a consideration for ads that should extend to the site content and beyond to press releases and primary content dialogue. If blue widgets are your mainstay and you know the market hungers for blue widgets that should be part of your dialogue from the elevator pitch to the site content to the ads, the press release and the launch party. And again, there is a distinction between blue widgets and widgets. (I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen invented words with no support behind them as blue widget brand managers try to widgetize the world.)
In the end, search marketing is the beginning. All search marketers are first and foremost marketers. (My 12 years search experience is eclipsed by over 20 years of marketing experience.)
So ask your “search guy” for a resume. Chances there’s more than search on it. Chances are it’s a culmination of insight and research that’s afforded opportunity. Search is still young enough that it’s opportunity based, not need based.
Take advantage of that.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on September 29, 2009 in Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics
-
In light of the Yahoo/Bing Search partnership, it intrigues me that no fewer than $200 million is being allocated to branding campaigns this past year.
Bing is spending up to $100 million to announce what is functionally the rebranding of a name change and Yahoo, another $100 million for what is a simple repositioning of an existing brand. $200 that Google feels no need to spend. When you’re number 1 and 2 competitors throw $100 million each into the market and you barely blink, that’s not only confidence, that’s strength. And understandably as Google is now the most recognized global brand, accomplishing that particularly feat with no advertising.
I’m no Carol Bartz (although I too have dropped a few f-bombs along the way) and I’m no Steve Ballmer but if you were to hand me $100 million for a brand campaign, I’d start with search and online.
Really. Think about it….
 What to do?... What to do? No TV. I’ve got too much to say, too much to accomplish to be able to do it with :30 or :60 and a yodel. So no TV.
Besides, the audience I want is an online audience. Why would I look anywhere else?
And perhaps I’m naive. But I don’t think so.
Both companies have insight into search. Insight into CPC and conversion and time spent. Why not capitalize on it.
$100 million at $1/click is 100 million visitors. And let’s remove operating costs. 5 execs, 10 soldiers. Let’s call that $2 million. Build costs, let’s even call that $2 million although in truth it costs much less. So, $4 million.
I’m feeling generous. Let’s toss in $1 million in prize money for a contest. (I understand it’s a brand campaign, but let’s chase conversions as well, $1 million should be a sign up incentive.)
And of course fees and the like. Let’s call that 10% all in. $9.5 million.
That leaves me with $86.5 million at a CPC of $1 or 86.5 million visitors.
Could it be done? I’m naive enough to think it could. In fact, if you want to toss me $100 million, I’d be willing to go head to head with the $100 million in market.
We’re a young, hungry company, we wouldn’t charge $9.5 million. We would provide clicks, conversions and time spent increases.
But alas no one has asked us.
Have a good one.
~ S
Posted by: Shane on September 23, 2009 in 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
-
Having just returned from vacation, I find myself refreshed and reinvigorated… exactly that which a vacation is supposed to provide.
A whirlwind cruise of the Mediterranean provided insight into Rome, Egypt, Mykonos, Pompei, Naples and more, supplemented by a few days in Paris on the tail-end.
My partner and I are not resort vacation types, foregoing and foresaking all-inclusive in favour of something a little more engaging. This was definitely that. And more.
Insight into ancient worlds provides infinite insight into the human condition. It has long been said that those who fail to learn from history or doomed to repeat it but the truth is, those who fail to learn from history are probably, well, already dead.
Things we know and know we know come to life in a perspective so visceral and real it’s staggering. But it’s also the nuance of life which can be staggering. Little things like marveling that a renaissance painting features a wine glass that anyone can happen upon in a restaurant today, some 600 years later. Glass has changed that little. Or the knowledge that the colosseum of Rome held room for 55,000. Much like stadiums today.
 The more things change... Da Vinci envisioned flight. And it was realized. And having conquered flight, we moved a step beyond to conquer flight to the moon and then manned flights to the moon.
Search is not rocket science but in a sense, all things are rocket science. Knowledge, borne of curiousity, applied. And actualized.
In 2004, speaking at Search Engine Strategies Toronto, I stated that the Internet and search hadn’t really changed anything, human behaviour is human behaviour and search was about that with which we are ultimately already familiar. We have a vague sense of value when we go price-hunting. We have a vague sense of how to roast a turkey when we search for holiday recipes, or at the very least, that a turkey will enter into the culinary equation.
Flight brought more of the world seemingly closer to us, but the concept of flight didn’t change in the process. Search does much the same and not to overly-simplify it, but it’s a reapplication of the yellow pages. Applied. And actualized. To borrow from the CPG world, it is all about the need state. And even an informational search is prepositioned on a “need to know”.
So take a flight of fancy. Step outside your world and into the world at large on occasion. Along the way, you might discover some of the things you didn’t know you didn’t know. And a small glass on the table in a Renaissance painting just might help you see the bigger picture.
Have a good one.
Cheers
S
Posted by: Shane on September 17, 2009 in Light Reading, Marketing, Search
-
According to the MediaPost article SEO or PPC, an Engine Ready study has found:
…visitors who arrive at a retailer’s site from paid search ads are 50% more likely to buy than those who come from clicking on a natural search link. The conversion rate from paid search is 2.03% versus 1.26% from organic search….
Buy the numbers?
Aside from the “last click” argument postulated I have to say I find those results believable. Of course, not having done the research, my gut says this would be the case based on what analytics tell us.
Typically, removing branded searches from both PPC and SEO analysis we find PPC results have more pages viewed, more time spent and a lower bounce rate. (Typically. And yes, I am generalizing.) All of that would suggest our conversions would also more salient.
It just makes sense for a couple of reasons:
PPC advertising is dynamic and that ultimately plays to its favor. PPC also allows for very specific (pointed) dialogue points. Price, promotion, etc.
SEO is typically broad based. Widgets. Perhaps blue widgets. But blue widgets on sale today only for $9.99? Unlikely.
PPC can therefore do a better job of qualifying prospects and as such, would lend itself to higher conversion rates.
Secondly, more than one study has reported that search engine users are more likely to click on organic listings than they are on PPC listings. (Some research reporting up to 6 times more likely.) That’s a relevant stat.
How so?
We’re back to that learned behaviour thing again. Though a smaller pool, those clicking on PPC ads believe they work (otherwise they wouldn’t be clicking them). Moreover, the very nature of PPC lends itself to conversion. (Leads, sales, sign-ups.) Because PPC is thought to be more accountable, more is expected of it and because more is expected of it, more is done with it. (Testing can be more immediate with PPC.)
Again, all of these things lend themselves to the argument that better conversions should be an expectation of PPC.
Whether the numbers are true or not, it highlights the need to treat SEO and PPC as separate but equal. Both play a role but each in a different way. (Which is why we do both. Well.)
SEO is the turtle. PPC is the hare.
 Source: S.T. Lewis (Shane Lewis) It all depends on how long the race is.
Have a good one.
S
Posted by: Shane on August 13, 2009 in Marketing, Search, Trends/Insights
-
Not for the first time I’ve run across the “Bing/Porn” story. This time with SearchEngineLand’s “Is Searching For Porn Too Easy With Bing?”
Slow news day? To wit:
…when I searched for a word that was sure to bring up porn, I was first warned that it ‘may return explicit adult content’ and told that ‘to view these videos, turn off safe search.’ One click later, safe search was off and I was looking a page of naughty thumbnails.
Hmmm. Ya think?
Okay, here’s an exercise for you. Go to Google. Turn “safesearch” off. Search for “Babe” in videos. And cover thine eyes. Oh, and I had just finished watching the sweetest little movie about the most adorable little pig and I wanted to see what other work he’s done.
And after that heart-wrenching scene, I desperately wanted to know how that poor dear was managing without his mother? Would he ever learn to skate? The Vancouver Olympics are mere months away, do he and the skunk have a chance? Perhaps someone’s posted practice rehearsal videos on YouTube.
 Oh deer Oh dear indeed. That’s not the Bambi I was looking for.
Alright, back to work. As a marketer, a search marketer, I’m ultimately curious to see how Microsoft is faring with their $80-$100 million dollar advertising campaign. Surely those new commercials have been posted already. Let’s search “Bing”.
Oh my.
Three innocuous Google searches and nary a single salacious headline story to be found anywhere. So here it is. Here’s your salacious headline: Is Tripping Over Porn Too Easy With Google?
Maybe the NYTimes will pick it up. Or maybe, instead of searching “for a word that was sure to bring up porn” we can all find something better to do with our hands.
Sheesh.
Have a good one.
S
Posted by: Shane on August 6, 2009 in Light Reading, Search
-
I know of few people, myself included, who use their web analytics to full benefit – although admittedly, we’re getting much, much better about it.
By now we’re all familiar with the Google eye-tracking chart courtesy of Enquiro that identifies how users scan a web page.
 Source: Enquiro.com As visual as it is, and seemingly innovative, in reality, the Newspaper Association of America has been doing eye-tracking studies for far longer than any of us on the Internet. (There’s a well researched reason the front page image lives where it generally lives.)
One of the most enlightening features of any analytics packages, whether WebTrends, Omniture or others is the overlay feature. My favorite is Omniture’s just for its visual immediacy.
 Omniture Analytics Overlay Example All of them offer value in understanding how users engage and interact with any given web page. Some of that value comes in understanding what resonates with site users.
While we take the Enquiro graphic as gospel, it is imperative to understand that it is specific to search engines (and primarily one in particular) and not to every web page.
You might be suprised to find out that a specific article, link or content proposition proves the most compelling. For our business site (this one), the two most trafficked features are “about us” and our blog postings (one specifically stands out among all the others).
For our “playpen” site (used for theory testing), we have been pleasantly surprised to see two specific content areas jump out. They differ dramatically from our organic keyword entry points. In fact, they differ enough that we will (delicately) reformat our homepage and test the theory that in moving these two content areas to a stronger position on the page, we will help mitigate our bounce rate.
Of course, we have the luxury of having a “playpen” site. Some marketing managers don’t. Even so, if a site remodification is on the horizon, an overlay, in concert with PPC findings and organic rankings can play an invaluable role in giving users what they want.
Analytics, are fundamentally about your web site. Not merely a tool by which to measure PPC campaign performance. (Quick tip: If your organic analytics information tells you that you’re Top 500 keywords all involve your brand name, it may be time for an organic SEO strategy. Conversely, if your top 500 organic keywords don’t include your brand name, it may be time for a PPC campaign as you have tons of traction but little brand awareness.) They can help define areas of strength to be promoted. By using all the available features within analytics, they can also help identify content deficits.
Take the time to understand the role of analytics and the innumerable tools available within.
Have a good one.
S
Posted by: Shane on July 31, 2009 in Light Reading, Marketing, Search, Tips, Tools/Analytics
-
It’s no secret that to produce well, you have to plan well, and in our world of digital marketing, so much is planned out, voted on, and then produced, but there is a heavy “measure once, cut once” production going into the majority of today’s online and offline media production. As we all know from the world of construction, that can lend itself to some rather embarrassing learnings…
So with the world of PPC so readily available to all of the big brands and giant retailers, why are there so many out there who measure once, cut once, or worse – produce first and measure second?
When done correctly, PPC can be an infinitely long ruler used to pre-measure the success of offline and online media, whether its imagery, verbiage, or overall message. PPC should be looked at as a first step in creating the most effective audio, video, and contextual advertising. It is the least expensive way to find out where the majority of market is and what resonates best with them to create brand awareness and/or conversions (leads, sales, sign-ups, etc).
Just think! Instead of spending the money on television commercials that bomb, start first with PPC to discover what message gets through to the most people. Instead of throwing an ad on that magazine back cover, find out what imagery and/or message your audience will respond to in the best way. Create INFORMED media!
Reputations are at stake, and in this ever increasing world of digital marketing, we have to start making our clients aware of how we can positively influence all of their marketing plans before sending them off to production. Lets show our clients how we can inform traditional media.
Cheers!
Doug Gebhardt
Posted by: Doug Gebhardt on July 29, 2009 in Marketing, Search, Tips, 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 in Canadian, Eh, Engines, Marketing, Search, Tools/Analytics
|
1-800-994-4568 |
